From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 01:29:52 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:29:52 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcihp2+8j3j@...>
Message-ID: <dcjtug+5d8l@...>

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

Kneasy in message 2691

>Oh - an aside. There are suggestions that there's a cup in the 
>Trophy Room that is the Hufflepuff job cunningly disguised. Um.
>This would require that Tom stole the Huffs Cup, Hiccupsed it and 
>then sneaked it into Hogwarts when no-one was looking. Doubtful IMO.


Talisman, who actually doesn't enjoy the re-chew/redux circuit:

Loathe as I am to pit my poor slipping mental powers against your 
razor sharp acumen, I suppose I must champion my little theory.

You find it doubtful that the TR Trophy Cup is the Hufflepuff Cup Hx 
in disguise?

And your reasoning is thus:

Kneasy reason 1. "This would require that Tom stole the Huffs 
Cup..." 

Talisman: But of course DD's evidence, both explanatory and 
Pensievision, are meant to show that Riddle obtained both the locket 
and the cup after poisoning Hepzibah.  Surely, therefore, the act 
having been shown to be accomplished, a need for theft is no 
impediment.

Kneasy reason 2. "This would require that Tom...Hiccupsed it..."

Talisman: That would be the only reason TR had any interest at all 
in the Hufflepuff gear: his fixation with Hogwarts / its founders 
and the need for suitable Hx items.  

Surely you don't doubt that he followed his "7 is the most magical 
number" plan and made the requisite Hxes.  Why then do you doubt, or 
find it improbable, that he made the cup--which he killed for and 
clearly possessed--into such an item?  

It seems to me you'd be feeling those sand-filled socks beating 
about your head again.

Kneasy reason 3. "This would require that Tom...sneaked it into 
Hogwarts when no-one was looking."

Talisman: We've seen that TR did indeed visit Hogwarts after the 
time he had gained control of the Hufflepuff Cup.  We don't know if 
this was the only visit, but certainly  a fair few years elapsed 
between the Smith episode and the point where LV was in all out 
warfare with DD.

Riddle tried to obtain a teaching position at Hogwarts when he was 
18  (HBP 432) and thereafter turned up working for Borgin & Burkes.  

It's not clear how long Riddle worked for the firm before Hepzebah 
showed him her treasures, but he is described as a "young man" not 
much different in appearance than the school-aged Riddle with whose 
appearance Harry was familiar. (434)

So give it a couple of years.  He's ~20.

Hepzebah was dead within two days of showing the goods--and Riddle 
had both the cup and the locket. (438) 

Hxes ensued.

DD shows Harry an occasion wherein TR visited the School.  At that 
time, DD was Headmaster.  This means it was sometime after the time 
when Lupin had become a werewolf.  

We don't know at what age Lupin was bitten, but we do know his 
parents tried to find cures and worried that he would not be able to 
attend Hogwarts.  Rowling can do what she likes, but the text leaves 
me with the impression that he was at least within spitting distance 
of starting school before DD was made HM and smoothed out all the 
trouble.

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to be overly fastidious with these 
sorts of numbers, there being no evidence that Rowling is, but:

LV was 66 in Book 2

Post GoF Rowling indicated that Snape [and therefore Lupin et al] 
was 35-6.  Concomittantly, LV would be about 68 at this time. 

That means Lupin was born when LV was about 32.

If Riddle obtained the cup a few years after joining Borgin and 
Burkes, when he was around 20, he'd have had 12 years to make it 
into a HX and replace his trophy cup with it.

Add 5-10 years, because Lupin was not bitten at birth, and you've 
got somewhere between 17 and 22 years in which the switch could have 
been made.

Years in which LV was not in open warfare with DD or the established 
Wizarding community.  Years in which, for the most part, DD was not 
even  Headmaster.

Again, we've been shown that TR visited Hogwarts at least twice 
after graduating.  Once before he had the cup, and once after. 

We've been told that his bid for the DADA job was really a bid to 
get close to other "founders" objects. (505)  Clearly he was 
visiting with Hxes on the mind.  

We have no reason to believe we have been given an accounting of 
every visit he made, rather we have been given a precedent for 
believing that he was, indeed, free to visit.

I personally don't find it hard to believe, at all, that a prize 
winning student would visit the school trophy room to see the old 
hardware.  Happens all the time in the RW.  Nothing the least bit 
suspicious.

Nor do I find it hard to believe that TR/LV was capable of switching 
one cup for the other. Again, a Muggle could do it, let alone an 
accomplished wizard.


The WW was not at war; we have neither reason to think that there 
was any unusual security in place, nor that TR would even have been 
escorted, had he chosen to saunter down to the trophy room.  

Your doubts are your own affair, but methinks, sir, they are 
unsupported.

Talisman, who also thinks the current topics have become exhausted 
and redundant and will let it all swirl around until something 
engaging kicks in.

PS
To Carolyn: DD's fierce concern with Hxes IS rather interesting, 
isn't it. He's been thinking about them from way back.  He's also 
been worrying about TR's needs since he met him. Kinda starts 
knitting some of my old ideas back together.  With small amendments.

Moreover, I don't buy the--lie--that he told Harry regarding Harry's 
need to get the Hx memory from Slughorn.  That information was 
surely not necessary for Hx-hating DD--who had already seen TR 
asking Sluggy about them, had already inspected the Diary, had 
already both searched out and destroyed the ring Hx, and was already 
looking for the locket Hx, etc.

This little number was just what his lies usually are, a 
manipulative tool.  Anyone could have gotten Slughorn drunk.  Even 
DD could have played the Lily card: "You don't want her to have died 
in vain, Harry's The Chosen One, we must help him, etc."

No, what DD wanted was for Harry, himself, to assert that he is The 
Chosen One, for Harry to accept the mantle.  That's what that little 
task was all about. That's the only thing that no one else but Harry 
could do.

Pull those strings DD.





From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 02:22:05 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:22:05 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dchpr0+35hq@...>
Message-ID: <dck10d+91av@...>






Snow:
>
> JKR's website offers a bit of an information about the Diary-
Horcrux:
>
> "In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died
> and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
> I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it
> would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably."
>
> Interesting that Diary!Tom would have strengthened the present-day
> Voldy, but how? Wouldn't they, like you said Kim, be two separate
> persons? Maybe the Horcrux reincarnation portion of Voldy seeks out
> its creator and rejoins him.

Lyn now:
You might find it interesting to review Kneasy's post "Credit where 
credit is
due" of my
email to him on my pre-HBP thoughts on this. Yes, I think it possible 
that LV
can re-
incorporate his HXs to renew his powers.


Snow:

I was able to locate that post
it was quite insightful thinking. Keep 
up the good work and you can possibly force the dear lady to release 
book seven before you have figured out all but the cover details. :)

Snip (me) previously>
>
> The Horcrux!Nagini fed Vapormort transforming him into the snakelike
> babymort. Voldy was able to use Nagini to become something more than
> vapor but didn't have to physically join with the snake.


Lyn now:
Yes LV actually relates pretty much the story of this in the 
graveyard in GOF:
"a spell or
two of my own invention...a little help from my dear Nagini." "a 
potion
concocted from
unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided...I was soon 
returned to an
almost
human form...."

Snow:

I was thinking more from the aspect that he was being fed his soul 
back to him through Nagini's venom
the added touch of unicorn blood 
was to keep him protected from the effects of the venom itself until 
he could retrieve the soul hidden inside Nagini. 

<snip (me) previously>
>
> I thought that the Horcrux was created as an immortality measure 
that
> simply prohibits the mother source of Voldy's soul to truly die
but
> it appears that these bits of soulcrux'es can be used to strengthen
> the creator as well if they are introduced to a human source (or
> soul) for rejuvenation. Ginny would have been the sacrificial soul
> that allowed the Horcrux of the Diary to become a living soul once
> more.
>

Lyn now:
Exactly what I speculated in that email to Kneasy. I think the guide 
in all of
this is another
statement from LV in the graveyard: "But I was willing to embrace 
mortal life
again, before
chasing immortality. I set my sights lower...I would settle for my 
old body back
again, and
my old strength."

My guess is that every time LV split his soul to form a HX he also 
divided some
of his
power. He didn't really give it up, by he compartmentalized it 
outside of
himself, still
available for return if so needed. At the height of his powers, he 
had power to
spare,
sufficient to exchange a portion for immortality. The events at GH 
changed that.
He now
needs to regain that power, at least temporarily.

Snow:

Everything, to me, leads back to Godric's Hollow. When Voldemort was 
snatched from his body and became vapor, did his soul remain with him 
or was he in need of a piece from one of his hidden Horcrux's? If, 
when Voldemort was vanquished from his body he lost his soul and his 
powers to Harry as an unintentional Horcrux, how was Voldy able to 
find his remaining Horcrux's? The only power Voldy was left with was 
the power of possession. 
If Voldemort did not lose his soul to Harry at Godric's Hollow, how 
is it that Harry could even be an unintentional Horcrux? I guess it 
could be that Voldy killing both James and Lily separated his soul 
again at the very last but that doesn't explain why Voldy lost all 
his powers (except that of possession) unless, as you suggest Lyn, 
that Voldy had already hidden some of his powers with his remaining 
Horcrux's.   



Lyn:


I suspect, again back to that email to Kneasy, that LV has been 
cautiously
seeking out
some of his HXs to re-establish his powers. The reintegration is not 
easy, and
likely
requires some contribution of the life force of another to effect the
reintegration. It may
well be that the bone of the father in GOF was one of the HX's and 
the other
components
were necessary to effect that reincorporation. Indeed, I strongly 
suspect that
is what took
place in the graveyard.

Snow:

Do you really believe that Voldy made his dad or his tombstone, 
whatever into a Horcrux? First off, when Tom found out the truth 
about his parents, especially his father, do you really think that he 
would hold him in highest regard to be a protector of any part of his 
soul? Secondly, it took more than the bone of his father to 
inactivate the ancient magic to restore himself to a human form. I 
highly doubt this one, sorry. 
 
Lyn:

What this means, if true, is that destruction of the remaining HXs 
will not
escape LVs
attention, and that such destruction is urgent not just so as to kill 
LV, but to
prevent him
from regaining even greater powers.

Also, if the bone of the father was indeed a HX, then it adds to the
plausibility that LV was
indeed intending to use an eventually dead infant Harry as his next 
HX. Aligning

Possession Theory with HX. Possession first to learn of whatever 
powers/threat
resided
within the infant and to remove them, transfer of a portion of the 
soul next
achieved by
the necessary death of James (and why Lily's death was unnecessary), 
death of
Harry to
seal the soul fragment within him and form the HX. Then the ironical 
knowledge
that the
"threat" now served as a secret stepping stone towards his 
immortality.

Snow:

I have not frayed from original thoughts on this subject, which is 
that Voldy came to Godric's Hollow in search of the `power' that this 
child (according to the part of the prophecy that he heard) appears 
to have. Voldy, after killing off both the infants parents, with no 
threat to himself at this point (with all the time in the world), 
attempts legilemency to see if the infant shows any latent tendency 
to a power of which Voldy has not yet acquired and it becomes a scene 
from Snape and Harry's Occlumency lessons with a touch of Lily's 
ancient sacrifice taboot
and I do mean boot. Voldy got a kick that 
was way worse than what Snape had experienced which left Snape dazed 
and a bit confused. 


Lyn:

Finally, if one re-reads the graveyard scene, one will find more than 
one
statement by LV
that the DeathEaters knew of his steps towards immortality (and thus 
why they
should
have known he was not dead). That may or may not mean than many of 
the Death
Eaters
know about HXs, but perhaps lack the capability (right now) to 
generate their
own. Perhaps
one of the ways he obtains their allegience is the promise to 
eventually show
them how to
make one for themselves. ["Not now little Death Eater, right how you 
need all
of your
powers, but stick with me and your powers will expand, and eventually 
I'll be
able to teach
you how to make a HX of your own."]

Snow:

I had a bit of enlightenment myself about the deatheaters but more so 
about their scars or dark marks pre-HBP. It you care to read the 
ramblings they can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124573


Lyn:

Anyway, just some thoughts for fun.

Snow:

I wouldn't be here if it wasn't just for fun!

Thanks for the reply and the enlightenment

Best to you

Snow






From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 03:50:45 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:50:45 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcjtug+5d8l@...>
Message-ID: <dck66l+25ko@...>






Talisman:


<very, very big snip>

I personally don't find it hard to believe, at all, that a prize
winning student would visit the school trophy room to see the old
hardware. Happens all the time in the RW. Nothing the least bit
suspicious.

Snow:

Not at all a prize winning student
 Ron Weasley had to clean that 
particular trophy, as I recall, about 14 times as punishment 
implemented by Filch. I believe it was in the second book for driving 
the car into the Whomping Willow. 

Like you say, "Nothing the least bit suspicious" is very suspicious 
if we are considering the trophy as a Horcrux unless either (a) Ron 
couldn't activate the Horcrux or (b) it wasn't activated properly by 
immense polishing. (With JKR, little tidbits of information are the 
most valuable, so I think you are right on Talisman) Why are we told 
that Ron had to polish that particular item x amount of times (I had 
truthfully wondered about that from the time it was mentioned) unless 
it was a throwaway or a clue? 

To me this is the clincher that the cup must somehow hold value if 
not a bit of Voldy-soul. 

Snow






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 04:48:57 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 04:48:57 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dck66l+25ko@...>
Message-ID: <dck9jp+8hf9@...>

> Snow:
> Like you say, "Nothing the least bit suspicious" is very suspicious
> if we are considering the trophy as a Horcrux unless either (a) Ron 
> couldn't activate the Horcrux or (b) it wasn't activated properly by 
> immense polishing. 

Jen: Ron polished the plaque in COS, the special services plaque. As 
far as I can tell, the TR cup is only found on JKR's website. We do 
consider everything else there to be canon, including birthday 
greetings, so I guess the cups and plaques on the Fansite page are 
seen as canon, too. It makes me a little uncomfortable given JKR's 
track record with Oop's, though. 

Snow:
> Why are we told that Ron had to polish that particular item x amount
> of times (I had truthfully wondered about that from the time it was
> mentioned) unless it was a throwaway or a clue? 

Jen: Well, it was a clue in COS already, led Ron to remember Riddle's 
name when Harry found the diary. But again, it was the plaque and not 
the cup that reminded Ron he had heard the name Tom Riddle before.
 
Jen, who may be missing book canon but can't find mention of a Tom 
Riddle cup anywhere but the website.





From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 06:13:35 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:13:35 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dck9jp+8hf9@...>
Message-ID: <dckeif+d0us@...>

> Jen: Ron polished the plaque in COS, the special services plaque. As 
> far as I can tell, the TR cup is only found on JKR's website. We do 
> consider everything else there to be canon, including birthday 
> greetings, so I guess the cups and plaques on the Fansite page are 
> seen as canon, too. It makes me a little uncomfortable given JKR's 
> track record with Oop's, though. 

Ginger:
Just a guess, but there are several cups on that page.  Head boys, for 
instance?  We know TR was a HB, so maybe there is a cup and a plaque 
in that room with his name on them, and only the plaque is mentioned 
in CoS.  The cup on the site may be a clue, or she may just have given 
him a HB cup to fill space.  

Ginger, thanking Pippin for passing along the news of Snape's trial 
(he got off, he got off, he got...sorry) and hoping that all went well 
there with everything else.


The scenery is here, wish you were beautiful.





From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 07:49:05 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:49:05 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcjtug+5d8l@...>
Message-ID: <dckk5h+oq6u@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> 
wrote:
<snipping naughty whipping of Kneasy, which he will no doubt enjoy>
 

> 
> PS
> To Carolyn: DD's fierce concern with Hxes IS rather interesting, 
> isn't it. He's been thinking about them from way back.  He's also 
> been worrying about TR's needs since he met him. Kinda starts 
> knitting some of my old ideas back together.  With small amendments.
> 
> Moreover, I don't buy the--lie--that he told Harry regarding 
Harry's need to get the Hx memory from Slughorn.  

<snip>

> No, what DD wanted was for Harry, himself, to assert that he is The 
> Chosen One, for Harry to accept the mantle.  That's what that 
little task was all about. That's the only thing that no one else but 
Harry could do.
> 
> Pull those strings DD.

Carolyn:
Actually, I think that's what the whole cave episode is about as 
well. I can't believe he didn't see it was a false locket from the 
moment he first peered in.

I think he took the decision to drink the stuff there and then, 
deciding it was his signal to exit stage left, Harry's final lesson 
from him. There was absolutely no need to have put himself at such 
risk otherwise. That, or hubris that he was stronger than the Dark 
Lord and/or could get to Snape in time for an antidote. 

Carolyn
Wondering why the whole WW has not been issued with bezoars. A useful 
precaution, a bit like carrying gas masks, you'd've thought.







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 10:32:44 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:32:44 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcjtug+5d8l@...>
Message-ID: <dcktoc+dc3k@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Talisman, who actually doesn't enjoy the re-chew/redux circuit:
> 
> Loathe as I am to pit my poor slipping mental powers against your 
> razor sharp acumen, I suppose I must champion my little theory.
> 
> You find it doubtful that the TR Trophy Cup is the Hufflepuff Cup Hx 
> in disguise?
>
Kneasy:
In a previous post I mentioned that some fans are suggesting the 
possibility of the TR Cup being an object of suspicion but I didn't actually
mention the'TR Cup' myself - for the very good reason that there
isn't one, not in the books. On Jo's site - yes, but even there we can't
really tell if it matches the one in HBP (small, with finely wrought handles). 
Plus - and, this may be Jo using colloqialisms, the Trophy Room contents
are referred to as 'silverware', the Huff Cup is gold.

Additionally, Voldy doesn't seem particularly interested in disguising his
Haircuts - the Diary still looks like a vintage diary, the ring looks the
same, I'll bet the Slytherin locket still looks like the Slytherin locket,
and for a damn good reason - how else is Harry going to find them, 
if he can't recognise the damn things when he falls over them? 

If Tom did sneak the Huff Cup into the Trophy Room the odds are
that it'll still look like the original, but my guess is that he didn't;
it's somewhere else. A Gringotts vault, a DE mantlepiece, the Chamber,
might even be clues to its whereabouts at GH - that pilgrimage is
going to be more than just a sentimenal journey, you can bet your 
boots on that.

Kneasy
  








From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 10:40:53 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:40:53 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dckeif+d0us@...>
Message-ID: <dcku7l+l6ru@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
snip snip 
> 
> Ginger, thanking Pippin for passing along the news of Snape's 
trial 
> (he got off, he got off, he got...sorry) and hoping that all went 
well 
> there with everything else.
> 
> 
> The scenery is here, wish you were beautiful.

Which brings me to the suggestion that it doesn't necessarily matter 
if Harry/Neville is a Tomcruise only that another character (oh all 
right Snape) thinks he is. SemiGood!Snape could feel justified in 
offing Casket!Harry/Neville for the greater good don't you think?

I am beautiful, wish you were scenery.

Regards
Jo





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 12:44:42 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 07:44:42 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
References: <dckk5h+oq6u@...>
Message-ID: <028901c59696$c9ce04b0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Carolyn:
Actually, I think that's what the whole cave episode is about as 
well. I can't believe he didn't see it was a false locket from the 
moment he first peered in.

I think he took the decision to drink the stuff there and then, 
deciding it was his signal to exit stage left, Harry's final lesson 
from him. There was absolutely no need to have put himself at such 
risk otherwise. That, or hubris that he was stronger than the Dark 
Lord and/or could get to Snape in time for an antidote. 


SSSusan:
Hmmm.  I'm not sure about the first option, that DD decided it was time to go.  It would seem a drastic measure on DD's part, to kill himself off *purposely* at this point, by way of offering up a final lesson to Harry.  ALLOWING himself to die when he is dying is one thing; deciding to actually MAKE himself die is another proposition, I think.

I'm still working on my first re-read, so my take could be quite "off."  That said, however, I felt that DD knew drinking the stuff was dangerous -- life-threatening -- but that when he got to Hogsmeade, he was convinced Snape could still prevent his death.  IMO, it was only after he elected to leave Hogsmeade, to take that broom trip on to Hogwarts to investigate what was happening beneath the Dark Mark, the he used up enough more energy & life that his fate was sealed.  As he slipped down the wall further & further, as he weakened more & more, DD was then ready to let go, but I don't think he made a conscious decision in the cave to die that night.

Carolyn
Wondering why the whole WW has not been issued with bezoars. A useful 
precaution, a bit like carrying gas masks, you'd've thought.

SSSusan:
Good idea.  Perhaps Aberforth was working on a mechanism for harvesting bezoars more effectively and efficiently, but the Ministry did not approve....

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 13:07:06 2005
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:07:06 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All? (very LONG)
Message-ID: <dcl6pq+olkh@...>

Dear masterminds,

I have the audacity of offering up an essay in defence of a theory 
(my own, *ahem*) that I haven't encountered anywhere else yet - that 
Snape was loyal, but not entirely truthful. Features lots of canon in 
support. By all means tear it apart.


A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Hogwarts
_____________________________________________

I was amazed at the first two chapters of Half-Blood Prince: they 
must have a very special meaning if JKR felt it necessary to include 
no less than TWO chapters that are not from Harry's point of view. 
She has done this only once before, in Goblet of Fire, where her 
integrity as a storyteller required her to reveal to her readers that 
Voldemort, whose present-day self we had last seen in his vaporous 
form in Philosopher's Stone, was no longer a vapour. She could not 
spring the graveyard scene on us without warning and have Foetus!Mort 
appear out of the blue with Wormtail. There was vital information she 
had to impart to us, but to which Harry was not privy. It is 
therefore worth taking an extra close look at what is to my mind one 
of the most fascinating parts of the whole book: the beginning.

"The Other Minister" feels, to me at least, like the introduction to 
the entirety of books Six and Seven (? two books which, as JKR has 
announced, are really the halves of one mammoth-sized tome). The 
situation with Voldemort has now become so serious that even the 
Muggles cannot ignore it, and the end of a period of relative 
innocence is symbolised by the replacement of the slightly ridiculous 
figure of Cornelius Fudge, the man in the lime-green bowler hat, by 
the hard-liner Rufus Scrimgeour, whom Harry significantly compares 
with Barty Crouch Sr. The second chapter, then, is the real beginning 
of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and includes revelations of 
the kind we had in GoF's Frank Bryce chapter. It is here that the 
clues to the book's plot will be found.

"Spinner's End" shows us Snape in his natural surroundings, in an 
ancestral home far removed from the one fandom has often liked to 
allot to him. But it fits perfectly. It is also the clue to much of 
what is to come.

***

Part the First: Sevvie and Cissy
________________________________

Severus Snape, Death Eater and Order member, Slytherin and half-
blood, receives a visit from Narcissa Malfoy, wife of one and mother 
of another Death Eater. She is accompanied by her sister Bellatrix, 
who considers herself the Dark Lord's most faithful minion. Narcissa ?
 so beautiful, so blonde and so alone ? is desperate. Her husband 
Lucius is in prison and her sixteen-year-old son Draco, the apple of 
her eye, has been assigned a most dangerous task which she does not 
think he can possibly carry out: killing Albus Dumbledore, the only 
wizard whose magical power equals Lord Voldemort's. The Dark Lord, 
she guesses, doesn't believe in Draco's success either but has given 
him the job with the almost sole purpose of killing the boy when he 
fails to deliver. What is Narcissa to do? Lucius is in prison and out 
of favour; he cannot protect their son with his own hands and his 
name does not mean much anymore. But another Death Eater has taken 
his place in the Dark Lord's good graces ? another Death Eater with 
whom Narcissa is also on first name terms: the slippery Severus 
Snape. Snape is a member of Dumbledore's staff and a wizard of some 
talent; he would be perfect both to watch over Draco and, if 
necessary, carry out the dirty deed himself. In order to save her 
son, Narcissa will have to plead with Snape ? he really is the only 
one who can help her.

Severus Snape is a very cautious man. He has to be, if he values his 
own life. Both Albus Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort believe to have 
him on their side as a spy so that, in order to keep his balance 
between the two of them and maintain credibility, Snape has to watch 
his words and actions at all times and keep both satisfied. When 
Narcissa arrives in Spinner's End, Snape's position as a servant of 
two masters is the following: he has Albus Dumbledore's complete 
trust; and the Dark Lord has welcomed him back into the fold. 
Voldemort, however, had referred to him in GoF's Graveyard Scene 
as "the one who has left me forever; he will be killed, of course" 
(confirmed by JKR in an interview as referring to Snape) ? which 
makes you wonder just how welcoming the Dark Lord really was when 
Snape turned up on his doorstep; it was probably not nearly as cosy 
as Snape makes it out to be in front of Bellatrix. Voldemort, we 
know, isn't quite as nice to his employees as Dumbledore, and it is 
highly likely that Snape is still skating on thin ice with him. He 
has, after all, only risen in rank because Lucius Malfoy's last 
enterprise was a complete and utter fiasco and several of his trusted 
men have been rounded up as a result as well. If Voldemort really 
feels he can rely on Snape, would he send Peter Pettigrew, the Rat 
Who Listens At Doors, to Spinner's End? Snape may well say Wormtail 
is there to assist him; the truth is that he is being watched in his 
own house.  

Snape, Bellatrix is eager to point out, has a reputation for public 
non-committal. We have seen that in the Order; apparently he does the 
same among the Death Eaters. It is, frankly, the sensible way to act 
for a spy; but it does mean that others find it difficult to trust 
him. When Narcissa comes to appeal to him for her son's protection, 
Snape tries to slither out of the deep by his stock answer: "I will 
try." It is, as Bellatrix says, an empty promise, and Narcissa wants 
more. If Snape really means to help, will he not consent to making an 
Unbreakable Vow?

The Unbreakable Vow is the kind of narrative device that alerts the 
reader of fairy tales to impending doom. Remember Beauty and the 
Beast, Rumpelstiltkin and many other stories, in which a man or woman 
is saved from a disaster in return for an indefinite reward along the 
lines of, "Give me the first thing you see when you come home." Those 
people always expect the `first thing' to be their dog or something 
other they are prepared to part with, but it invariably turns out to 
be their own child or someone/something so precious that they would 
gladly have forsaken the offered help in the first place rather than 
giving this precious thing or person up as payment. (King Arthur, to 
name another example, has the uncanny habit of promising 
helpers "anything you ask", expecting everybody to ask for money. 
Duh.)

The Unbreakable Vow Narcissa asks Snape to make is a spell that kills 
the `bondee' when they break their promise. A clever and cautious man 
like Snape should (and, one expects, *does*) realise the finality and 
great danger of such a move. The sensible answer to Narcissa's 
request would be "no". 
But Snape says yes.

To agree to anything like an Unbreakable Vow seems incredibly na?ve ? 
there is bound to be a Nagini-sized snake in the grass. And hey 
presto, there certainly is. Narcissa cleverly forces a third clause 
on Snape: to carry out the mission in case Draco fails. And let's be 
honest: if she hadn't included that, what would have been the 
ultimate good of the protection Snape promised? Failure of the 
mission means death for Draco in any case.

I have to admit that it is perhaps a bit unfair calling Snape na?ve. 
I don't think he is. It is just that he has allowed himself to be 
seduced by the admittedly formidable combined forces of the Black 
sisters, which wouldn't have worked with *me* - I'm impervious to 
female charm :o).

Snape and Bellatrix obviously dislike each other, and yet there is a 
seduction going on: she coaxes him into making a mistake. Bella 
doesn't trust Snape, and they both know that his claims on the Dark 
Lord's trust are in part poker-faced bluff. Bellatrix may have lost 
some of her former standing after the Department of Mysteries 
debacle, but one imagines that her (fanatically loyal) voice still 
counts for something with Voldemort, and as an adversary she is not 
to be underestimated. Convincing her of his loyalty is not a simple 
luxury for Snape. Making a solemn magical vow to help bring Draco's 
murder mission to a successful end will certainly do much to quell 
her doubts and is a serious argument in favour of the ritual.

However, the most compelling pressure issues not from Bella, but from 
her sister, whose tears flow freely, who clutches at Snape's robes, 
holds his hands and throws herself at his feet. She strokes his 
ego: "you could do it," she says, "you are the Dark Lord's 
favourite", "you are Draco's favourite teacher", "/you/ would 
succeed". All pretty transparent to this sceptical observer ? but 
Narcissa has touched a nerve. Consider who she is, where she is and 
with whom she is pleading. Narcissa Black Malfoy, an elegant, 
beautiful and upper-class pure-blood has alighted on a "Muggle 
dunghill" to humbly beg the help of the ugly, frustrated and 
unpopular son of a spinner ? a half-blood wizard who craves 
recognition, whose only pathetic claim to nobility lies in the sound 
of his mother's name, who has painstakingly eradicated any sign of 
his origins in his diction and dress but somehow never found the 
acceptance and admiration he considers his due. If Narcissa is used 
to calling him Severus, it is probably because she has never needed 
to accord him the privilege of being addressed as Mr Snape. No doubt 
a portion of his brain tells him that he finds himself in a danger 
zone (mark his unease at the sight of her tears); but his vanity and 
pride send signals that are too strong for so weak a man to resist. 
Snape is deeply enjoying his power over Pretty Cissy. He says yes, 
not out of the goodness of his heart, but because it is his moment of 
triumph over all he has wanted to be but has not been able to reach. 
He has finally come to the point where he can bow down to pick up a 
pure-blooded aristocratic beauty from where she is grovelling in the 
dust. 
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The trap closes, and Narcissa has him where 
she wants him: on his knees and firmly bound by a powerful spell. 
When she slips in her third clause it is too late for Snape to do 
anything else than twitch and endure. He is forced to condemn himself 
three times.

Here endeth the story's setup. 

***

Part the Second: Black Wizard, White Wizard ? or, Dumbledore's Fatal 
Mistake
____________________________________________________________________

As soon as Narcissa has removed herself, her tears, her perfume and 
her breeding from Snape's hovel, there probably ensues a scene which 
we have not had the doubtful pleasure of witnessing ? one in which 
Snape might or might not have displayed his old knack for stringing 
together those remarkable obscenities which JKR's editors had already 
deleted from the Worst Memory. He has been tricked and he knows it. 
Although he had not originally agreed to it, he has magically pledged 
himself to kill Albus Dumbledore. Dear dear, he is in deep ? you know.

There is no way he can extricate himself from this mess. From now on, 
it is either his life or Dumbledore's. This is the point at which my 
conjectures differ from those I have read so far. The Snape 
apologists whose theories I have read assume that after the 
catastrophic Vow he hastens to Dumbledore in order to inform him of 
what happened. I don't. I think Snape did not tell Dumbledore the 
whole truth of what happened that night ? because he doesn't dare to. 
He is ashamed of having been tricked like a novice. He has made an 
elementary mistake; and where in canon have we ever caught Snape 
admitting a mistake? Dumbledore, yes. Sirius, yes. Remus, yes. Snape? 
No way. He makes errors and he is aware of them, but he does not 
admit them. He tries to solve his problems on his own, in silence. So 
he does what he is good at: the telling of partial truths. He informs 
Dumbledore of the assassination plot and of the fact that he has made 
a Vow to protect Draco, but he never mentions the full pledge. Only 
he, Narcissa and Bellatrix (and Peter?) know of that.

What Harry overhears is Snape telling Draco he took an Unbreakable 
Vow to *protect* him (Bb ed. 302). This is what Harry repeats to 
Dumbledore, who has already heard it from Snape and is thus not 
concerned. When he says he understands better than Harry, he is 
referring to the fact that he is aware of Draco's purpose as well as 
of Snape's collaboration (Bb ed. 336-7); but he does not, and neither 
does Harry, know of Snape's real predicament.

The argument overheard by Hagrid (Bb ed. 379-80) is, in my opinion, 
the result of the incredible pressure Snape is under and which he, in 
his vanity, cannot relieve through owning up. The reluctance he is 
heard to display is not what Harry interprets it to be, namely, a 
sign of allegiance to Voldemort, because that would be too stupid 
when coming from a man on the point of defection; but neither, I am 
sorry to say, do I believe it to be caused by any request of 
Dumbledore's to kill him if necessary. Snape has been driven into a 
corner by his own frailty and is as a result beginning to behave in 
an unruly manner. Hagrid reports him as saying that Dumbledore is 
taking too much for granted ? and indeed Dumbledore is. It is not 
Snape's loyalty that should be questioned, but his strength. 

The argument takes place after Ron has been poisoned. Snape is called 
to task: Draco's desperate murder attempts are not only endangering 
random students; they may well result in Hogwarts being closed. 
Hagrid hears Dumbledore order Snape to keep Slytherin House ? 
actually meaning Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle ? under closer surveillance 
and as such to put a stop to these loose canons. But Snape cannot 
stop Draco's attempts. Rather, he is sworn to support them. The best 
he has been able to do, without endangering his own life, is to put 
Crabbe and Goyle in detention. If Dumbledore knew the full terms of 
the Vow, would he ask the impossible of Snape? I don't think he has 
any idea about the extent to which Snape is bound.

Dumbledore, as JKR has pointed out in her last interview, has no 
equals, no confidantes. No one is up to his standard. But 
Dumbledore's greatest mistake is that he does not realise so. Because 
he can forgive and forget, he assumes that Snape and Harry can, too. 
Because he is not afraid to die, he thinks other people shouldn't be 
either. Because he sees the good in others, he thinks it is a natural 
thing and evident to everyone. Because he is willing to sacrifice 
himself, he thinks that Snape must be, too. But Snape is, unlike 
Dumbledore, not "a great man". He is not hero material. He is brainy, 
yes; but in terms of personality he is small and petty and weak. 
Snape is all too human, and I suspect he knows it; but he cannot 
explain this to Dumbledore because the grand old man simply would not 
understand, and Snape hates to disappoint. This is the tragedy of 
Snape and Dumbledore's relationship. Snape's mind is destined for 
greatness, but the rest of him isn't, and Dumbledore is constantly 
demanding everything, kindly for starters, and firmly if kindness 
does not yield the desired result. Look at how he ? admittedly very 
politely and without raising his voice ? pesters Harry about his 
failure to retrieve Slughorn's memory in "Lord Voldemort's Request". 
It is Harry's first experience of what it is like to work under 
Dumbledore's orders; Snape has been under this kind of pressure ever 
since Voldemort's resurrection.

There are things Snape can do really well, such as analysing, working 
and battling Dark Arts. He is also a good healer ? if he knows 
poisons, he also masters their antidotes. He can be relied on to lend 
an expert's help in things he is good at. When Dumbledore returns 
from his first Horcrux hunt, suffering under the curse of Marvolo's 
ring and too weak to heal himself, Snape saves his life (Bb ed. 470-
1). Dumbledore trusts Snape to repeat this action as often as may 
prove necessary. I do not believe in some pre-arranged plan to stage, 
or otherwise effect, Dumbledore's death, if only because I cannot see 
what the use of that would be. Of course it may turn out in Book 7 to 
trigger an enchantment of some kind, but I find it hard to believe 
that Dumbledore should *order* anyone at all to cast an Unforgivable 
Curse, seeing how he knows it damages the caster's soul.

The implications of my assumptions suggest this scenario for the 
fateful night:

Dumbledore goes Horcrux-hunting with Harry, fully expecting to incur 
damage just like the first time with the ring; but he counts on being 
healed in time by his Dark Arts expert, who also saved him the first 
time. He will send Harry for Snape when he arrives back at Hogwarts.

However: when he gets back to Hogwarts, poisoned, weakened and 
unwell, a few unexpected things have happened. Draco Malfoy, 
suspecting that his teacher (now rival) wants to steal his glory, has 
on his own initiative and unbeknownst to Snape smuggled Death Eaters 
into the school and a battle is raging. Dumbledore freezes Harry to 
keep him from harm at the hands of Malfoy and the adult Death Eaters; 
but this also means that precious time is lost for himself, because 
who will be alarming Snape now? McGonagall sends Flitwick, who 
doesn't know about Dumbledore's return and only mentions the Death 
Eaters, leaving Snape to figure out where Dumbledore is ? because he 
isn't there to fight with the others; his task is to assist the 
Headmaster. By the time Snape reaches Dumbledore, the old man is one 
inch away from death and surrounded by Death Eaters to boot. To make 
things worse, Draco Malfoy is there too, so the scene is fully set 
for the accomplishment of Dumbledore's murder. Snape is trapped.

What is Snape to do? He didn't know about the Death Eaters, who now 
make four very unwanted witnesses. There is neither the time nor the 
occasion to heal Dumbledore, and there is that infernal nuisance, the 
Unbreakable Vow. Snape does some quick thinking and sees that there 
are two options. 

1) He openly declares his allegiance to Dumbledore. This means that 
he has to put up a fight against four skilled Death Eaters plus 
Draco. Assuming that he can defeat them, 
- Draco's mission fails and the brat is killed by the Dark Lord in 
punishment.
- Snape himself dies too, because he has failed to honour his 
Unbreakable Vow.
- There is no chance of saving Dumbledore, who is too far gone to 
begin with, and who is going to heal him if Snape is dead?

Result: the Order is one leader and one spy short and a young life is 
destroyed in a pointless battle. But at least Harry will be convinced 
that Snape, God rest his soul, was on the side of the angels after 
all.

2) He kills Dumbledore. This means that
- He saves Draco's life, because the mission has been successful even 
if not carried out by Draco and the Dark Lord cannot be all that 
displeased. On top of that, Draco isn't a murderer at sixteen.
- He saves his own life because he honours his Vow.
- He extremely convincingly maintains his cover as a spy.

Result: By sacrificing the already lost life of a dying 150-year-old 
wizard, he saves a sixteen-year-old (buying him time to think things 
over), himself, and safeguards one of the Order's most significant 
pawns in the coming confrontation with the Dark Lord. Drawback is 
that nobody trusts him anymore; but judging by people's reactions, 
nobody except Dumbledore and Hagrid did trust him to begin with.

Snape is a Slytherin who'll save his own neck first. His predicament 
is so bad that he cannot escape from it without a loss of some kind. 
Snape, who is calculating and rational rather than heroic, chooses 
the way which, though hardly a win-win situation, is in his opinion 
the least of two evils. It is an amoral decision which, however 
terrible, had to be taken and, I daresay, may prove of best advantage 
to Harry and the Order in Book 7.

The look Snape and Dumbledore exchange on the battlement is to me the 
most chilling moment of Half-Blood Prince. If my assumption is 
correct and Snape has kept the third clause of the Unbreakable Vow 
from Dumbledore, then when Dumbledore whispers "Severus 
 please 
" 
he is not pleading for his life, because he is not afraid to die; 
neither is he asking Snape to kill him as arranged, because there was 
no such arrangement. What he means is, "please don't tell me I was 
wrong about you all the time ? that I have confided in you when you 
were not worthy of my faith ? that I have defended you against others 
when they were right in their suspicions." Snape's revulsion is the 
result of his hurt pride, as he realises even Dumbledore doubts his 
allegiance at that moment. No doubt it helped him perform a 
convincing Killing Curse.

Dumbledore's death is the lamentable outcome of a number of 
circumstances ? Draco's efforts certainly helped cause it, but 
Snape's foolishly accepted Unbreakable Vow is at least equally 
important. There was, for once, no malicious intent on Snape's side, 
and yet he has, one could say, committed what is possibly his worst 
crime. Both he and Dumbledore have become victims of his human 
weakness, of character flaws combined with the vulnerabilities 
connected to his social and intellectual background, childhood events 
and poor choices made in the past. Dumbledore's trust has been 
justified, but he has overestimated Snape's capacities.


Yours severely,

Sigune





From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 13:26:14 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:26:14 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcktoc+dc3k@...>
Message-ID: <dcl7tm+o4bv@...>

--- Jen in message 2702: 
>Ron polished the plaque in COS, the special services plaque. As
>far as I can tell, the TR cup is only found on JKR's website. We do
>consider everything else there to be canon, including birthday
>greetings, so I guess the cups and plaques on the Fansite page are
>seen as canon, too. It makes me a little uncomfortable given JKR's
>track record with Oop's, though.

Talisman:
Ah, you're right.  I'm suffering from site contamination. In CoS 
it's a bloody "shield."

"Riddle's burnished gold shield was tucked away in a corner 
cabinet." (CoS 234) 

 Well, there's another bad ending to a lovely little theory.

Although we're supposed to scan the site for clues, I don't feel 
nearly as strong about relying on the site cup, alone.

We'll just wrap this up and stick it in the cooler with The Chain.

Rowling's loss, really.  I think it would be more to her credit if 
some of the early books actually factored in to the ending.


Kneasy in message 2705:
>In a previous post I mentioned that some fans are suggesting the
>possibility of the TR Cup being an object of suspicion but I didn't 
>actually mention the'TR Cup' myself - for the very good reason 
>that there isn't one, not in the books. 

Talisman: 
Nuh-uh. Unless you can point me to a post where you previously 
said "there is no trophy cup," I'm calling that a day late and a 
dollar short.  It's Jen's point, so mind your grubby paws.  Your 
points from 2691 still don't hold water, or gin for that matter. : P

 
Kneasy cont.:
>Plus - and, this may be Jo using colloqialisms, the Trophy Room 
>contents are referred to as 'silverware', the Huff Cup is gold.

Talisman: 
Well, the Riddle trophy shield is gold in my book, moot as that 
point may be.

Kneasy cont.:
>Additionally, Voldy doesn't seem particularly interested in 
>disguising his Haircuts - the Diary still looks like a vintage 
>diary, the ring looks the same, I'll bet the Slytherin locket 
>still looks like the Slytherin locket, and for a damn good reason - 
>how else is Harry going to find them, if he can't recognise the 
>damn things when he falls over them? If Tom did sneak the Huff Cup 
>into the Trophy Room the odds are
>that it'll still look like the original...

Talisman:
Oh, agreed.  If you start making the Hxes look like something else 
altogether there's no point to identifying the original items and no 
way to determine when you've actually found one--short of working 
your way through the scenery bashing up everything in sight.  

That's why *Jen's point* is the critical one.  If I'd bothered to 
check CoS, I wouldn't have enjoyed the cup romp.

Kneasy, cont.:
>...but my guess is that he didn't;
>it's somewhere else. A Gringotts vault, a DE mantlepiece, the 
>Chamber,

Talisman:
And that, in my opinion, is such a bore.  It's not you fault, it's 
Rowling's.  But as I mentioned to you elsewhere, even though I 
enjoyed the surface story, HBP really lowered my opinion of Rowling 
as a writer. 

One of the reasons is the now oft-lamented Agatha Christie syndrome. 
She demonstrated it in HBP, and it's clear that she's holding back a 
great deal of information in order to have it pop out fully formed 
in Book 7, supported by hitherto undisclosed explanations, which is 
just, well...too bad. 


Kneasy, cont.:
>...might even be clues to its whereabouts at GH - that pilgrimage is
>going to be more than just a sentimenal journey, you can bet your
>boots on that.

Talisman:
Not sure what's actually left at GH.  Muggle authorities have no 
doubt long since dealt with the rubble. But I think we'll all agree 
that any background information we finally get (Pensieve, etc.) is 
bound to be pivotal.  

12GP is still the best Hx bet. The locket was definitely spotted 
there, and I still think that interrogating Kreature will make for 
an entertaining and informative afternoon pastime.

Carolyn has recently reminded me of a number of worthwhile interview 
nuggets, including the fact that Rowling felt obliged to "move Harry 
around" to some *new* places in OoP, to be "fair" ::cough right:: 
about things that will happen in book 7.  12GP is one of those 
places.

The DoM is another, though surely not as a Hx storage spot. 

Maybe the big ending is that LV will have to do a "time out" in the 
locked "Room of Love."  

Talisman, saying: Fear not bangsters, at that point I will 
personally murder Harry.








From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 14:02:56 2005
From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 00:02:56 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] What If He Didn't Tell All? (very LONG)
In-Reply-To: <dcl6pq+olkh@...>
References: <dcl6pq+olkh@...>
Message-ID: <20050801140256.GC5343@...>

On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:07:06PM -0000, severelysigune wrote:
> Dear masterminds,
> 
> I have the audacity of offering up an essay in defence of a theory 
> (my own, *ahem*) that I haven't encountered anywhere else yet - that 
> Snape was loyal, but not entirely truthful. Features lots of canon in 
> support. By all means tear it apart.

<snip excellent setup, and much of part 2 which I mostly agree with>

> There is no way he can extricate himself from this mess. From now on, 
> it is either his life or Dumbledore's. This is the point at which my 
> conjectures differ from those I have read so far. The Snape 
> apologists whose theories I have read assume that after the 
> catastrophic Vow he hastens to Dumbledore in order to inform him of 
> what happened. I don't. I think Snape did not tell Dumbledore the 
> whole truth of what happened that night  because he doesn't dare to. 
> He is ashamed of having been tricked like a novice. He has made an 
> elementary mistake; and where in canon have we ever caught Snape 
> admitting a mistake? Dumbledore, yes. Sirius, yes. Remus, yes. Snape? 
> No way. He makes errors and he is aware of them, but he does not 
> admit them. He tries to solve his problems on his own, in silence. So 
> he does what he is good at: the telling of partial truths. He informs 
> Dumbledore of the assassination plot and of the fact that he has made 
> a Vow to protect Draco, but he never mentions the full pledge. Only 
> he, Narcissa and Bellatrix (and Peter?) know of that.

One question I would ask here, although I can't see how it can be
substantiated from current canon, is whether Dumbledore is a better Legilimens
than Snape's Occulumens. It is doubtful that Snape would be unaware of such an
attempt (even Draco's training affords him that ability, and isn't it
interesting that Bella trained him?), but it is an outside possibility. JKR
has made much of DD's trust (and therefore the likelihood of DD not making an
attempt at Legilimency), but I cannot think that Snape could entirely fool
him, whether he wanted to believe Snape's story or not. He would not have to
guess too hard about a Snape particularly stressed and protective of his
thoughts, for example. I think rather that DD's fault is assuming that others
come to similar conclusions as he does, and explainations are unnecessary.

> What is Snape to do? He didn't know about the Death Eaters, who now 
> make four very unwanted witnesses. There is neither the time nor the 
> occasion to heal Dumbledore, and there is that infernal nuisance, the 
> Unbreakable Vow. Snape does some quick thinking and sees that there 
> are two options. 

If we accept that DD has guessed Snape's real predicament your analysis is
still correct, if even more tragic. Note that Harry sees it all and knows that
the Vow is in effect, and knows that Dumbledore knows it also. But Snape does
_not_ know what Harry and Dumbledore know. Dumbledore is effectively teaching
Harry the burden of a wider POV than his peers (as if that lesson hasn't been
obvious from book one), and the caution of judgement on Snape.

> Dumbledore's death is the lamentable outcome of a number of 
> circumstances  Draco's efforts certainly helped cause it, but 
> Snape's foolishly accepted Unbreakable Vow is at least equally 
> important. There was, for once, no malicious intent on Snape's side, 
> and yet he has, one could say, committed what is possibly his worst 
> crime. Both he and Dumbledore have become victims of his human 
> weakness, of character flaws combined with the vulnerabilities 
> connected to his social and intellectual background, childhood events 
> and poor choices made in the past. Dumbledore's trust has been 
> justified, but he has overestimated Snape's capacities.

But if DD knew, then he has created a Weapon!Snape. Because trust is a
double-edged sword, it can force the trusted one into a corner, and you are
usually not the only victim of the fallout. Dumbledore has been forcing people
into making decisions all the way through canon and despite his apparent blind
spots in Harry and Snape, the effects have generally been what he desired. And
there's still too much that DD knew that we are not yet privy to, far too much
to judge at this point that if he was wrong, _how_ wrong he was. And there's
my knut or so.

ewe2 the naughty penguin having a wonderful, wish you were her.

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 19:21:09 2005
From: adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid (Adan)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:21:09 -0000
Subject: Felix Felicis Fortuitous or Fraudulant?
Message-ID: <dclsn5+rjso@...>

Quickly put:

If "Felix Felicis" is so wonderful WHY isn't it utilized more often?

We have a potion that, if the taker listens to their amplified inner 
voice, makes everything turn out well.  Circuitous schemes unfold 
before them, jinxes and curses miraculously miss, love-lives realign 
to their liking... who wouldn't take this stuff?

Sure, sure, it's a really tricky potion.  It takes six months to 
brew.  Whatever.  Like apothecary shops and Wiz-Mart (Wizard Walmart, 
natch) wouldn't be all over that.  Surely they could brew it 
correctly often enough that it would be commonplace.

And yet, it's not.  A somewhat smarmy wizard that tends towards 
rapacity and avarice and is proficient at its production has used it 
only twice in his life.  Both days were "perfect".  Its only 
drawback, according to the same man:

"If taken in excess, it causes giddiness, recklessness and dangerous 
overconfidence," said Slughorn.  "Too much of a good thing, you 
know... highly toxic in large quantities, but taken sparingly, and 
very occasionally..." (p.187)

So why only twice?  That's not occasionally.  That's extreme rarity, 
especially given what supposed good it can do a person.  Seems to be 
the perfect once-a-year birthday treat.  So what 
haven't we been told about Felix?  

Does he pack one heck of a hangover that we have yet to see?  Do the 
ramifications of turning everything "right" during that 24-hour 
period somehow turn disastrous?  Or at least somewhat poorly?  Is it 
an issue of karma coming back to bite you in the buttocks?

This little thing is one that is causing a fair amount of 
consternation for me.  Because nothing is that perfect, and Herself 
is usually very good at pointing that out sooner or later.

Adan, who wants to know what the heck happened when Slughorn took 
Felix... though the queasiness tell her maybe it's best she doesn't.





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 19:28:45 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:28:45 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All? (very LONG)
In-Reply-To: <dcl6pq+olkh@...>
Message-ID: <dclt5d+c9op@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" <severelysigune at y...> wrote:
> Dear masterminds,
> 
> I have the audacity of offering up an essay in defence of a theory 
> (my own, *ahem*) that I haven't encountered anywhere else yet - that 
> Snape was loyal, but not entirely truthful. Features lots of canon in 
> support. By all means tear it apart.
> 
> 

Very good post.
But since you're inviting comments......

I'm playing with possible background as well as considering your post, 
so please excuse the ramblings. The difficulty is that definitive canon is
scarce; in reaching a conclusion it's down to opinions, gut feelings and 
interpretations of who said what and why did so-and-so do that? At
base, how one regards Sevvy will have a big influence on which way
one jumps - and that's not limited to ESE! or Goody!Snape either.

A nice wrinkle in chap. 2 is that Draino's objective is never mentioned,
which sets up doubts in the readers minds - deliberately so, I'm sure. 
On first reading my reaction was "It'll be to do with that Potter kid." 
Bet others thought so too.

Has Voldy actually told Sevvy what he wants Draino to do? Or is Snape
pretending to know more than he actually does and is he assuming that
the target is Harry? If so this would make the DD-icide even bangier. He's
trapped by his own promise into doing something he never envisaged.
This could lead us into an horrendous swamp, very similar to the 'magical
contracts are unbreakable' impasse from GoF - if you didn't agree to 
enter into the contract in the first place, how can it possibly be binding? 
Leading this time to: if an Unbreakable Vow is made but the vowers think 
it refers to different things, what happens? The 'promiser' can be considered
to have fulfilled what he *believed* to have been the vow, can't he? Because
if he doesn't do what he thinks he's promised, he's broken the vow based
on what he thought he was committing himself to.  
Hm. Difficult.

But I think he does know who the target is.
Sevvy gazes into Cissy's tear-filled baby blue eyes - and he's an ace at 
Legilimancy. He knows. He might even see that Cissy means to bind him 
with a UV. 

A mention of timelines.

We've been waiting for two years for HBP, but internally in HP from the 
MoM fight to Cissy and Snape at Spinner's End is probably no more than 
about 3 weeks. Just a few weeks since DD told Voldy 
"Merely taking your life would never satisfy me, I admit -" 
So what would? Total extirpation, body and soul(s).
Did Voldy read the same meaning in it? Oh, yes.

I've moaned before that Voldy has confused goals, he's never really
concentrated on a single objective. First the Stone, then Harry, then the
Prophecy - and now DD. But this time he might have good reason.

In those few weeks DD has been searching for Horseclucks, has found
one and destroyed it. If Voldy knows (probably via Snape; or can Voldy 
'sense' when a fragment of his soul gurgles its last? Seems like a sensible 
arrangement to make, though the Diary is a bit of a problem. He didn't 
notice that one SFAICR. Mind you, he wasn't himself at the time, spending
his days inhabiting rats. That might have something to do with it.) then 
DD is a more immediate danger to his plans and safety than Harry is.
Voldy can't afford to have DD wandering around knocking off bits of his 
soul.

DD is blocking his escape routes, so that when the final showdown 
comes it really is gonna be final.  This would piss him off royally. His well-
thought-out little immortality plan in danger of falling apart around his 
ears. Voldy being Voldy, he'd want something done about it. One good 
thing, DD is injured - yes, I think he knows about this, otherwise Snape 
would never have mentioned it to Bella, and certainly not that the injury 
was received *since* the MoM. This adds a bit of support to the idea that
Snape told Voldy that the ring had been found and destroyed. As soon as
word reached him, Voldy would ask 'how was he injured?' - and he'd never
believe it was by something trivial. Can't be hidden either - DD is walking
around with a withered, blackened hand and Voldy knows what spells he 
put on his little preciouses. 

Just how weakened is DD? send in a volunteer, a disposable volunteer, to
find out. Sevvy may even exaggerated the debilitating effects of the injury 
- just as he denigrates Harry's magical abilities. 

"That's all very well," you'll say, "but stop whittering and say if you think 
Sevvy told DD that he'd promised to do the dirty deed if Draco didn't."

Yes. I think he did.
I think he told him everything.
And DD made his plans accordingly.

Draco is nasty but inept. He has delusions of adequacy. Bet DD thinks so  
too, though he might not use the same words. Draco will fail; DD knows it,
Snape knows it and so does Cissy. DD can't offer Draino help until the little
creep actually tries and fails, and through sheer force of personality DD 
ensures that young Malfoy doesn't even try to pot a sitting duck.

There's Malfoy with a helpless DD at his mercy and he chickens out. Snape
arrives. Now the S. Snape we all know and love - what would be his reaction,
all other things being equal. He'd bully Malfoy. He'd more or less force him 
to cast the AK.  "Fulfill your master's wishes, you horrible little scrote!" That 
way the Unbreakable Vow never gets invoked, Snape is free and clear, Draino
doesn't get special attention from Voldy, DD is dead and all the DEs cheer.  
But that's not what happens; Sevvy ignores Malfoy, except to push him out of
the way; he regards DD. For what? Assessing his physical state? Is DD likely 
to survive that Potion? Then comes revulsion, hatred  and an AK.

Revulsion and hatred for what? For DD or for what has happened to him and 
for he who was responsible for it? I like to think it's the latter. And I also like 
to think that there was a previous agreement between the two - "If I get 
something  terminally nasty - DO IT!" He survives the hand through Snape's 
efforts - even so it can't be cured. What else might he run into? Nothing 
pleasant, that's for sure. ('Course, if the Potion is curable, then we're into
a different ball-game entirely.)    

Right at that moment who will be more use to Harry in the future? 
A dying/dead DD or a strong Snape behind enemy lines? No contest.  
Everyone is expendable - except Harry.

One thing you can say about DD - he plans ahead.
And that plan might include a little extra.
The absence of Fawkes is a sign, IMO. DD attacked and no guardian 
dicky-bird? How likely is that? Not very. Unless it was arranged.
He *chose* to die. No struggle, no avoidance.
Last time somebody did that it put a spoke in Voldy's wheel.
Something to look out for in book 7?

Kneasy







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 20:34:29 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:34:29 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What If He Didn't Tell All? (very LONG)
References: <dclt5d+c9op@...>
Message-ID: <002d01c596d8$6b04b4a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Kneasy:
>>>Revulsion and hatred for what? For DD or for what has happened to him and 
for he who was responsible for it? I like to think it's the latter.<<<

SSSusan:
Kneasy, are you referring to *Harry* here?  To Voldy?  Just who are you saying is responsible for what's happened to DD?


Kneasy:
>>>And I also like to think that there was a previous agreement between the two - "If I get 
something  terminally nasty - DO IT!" <<<

SSSusan:
Totally agree.  This has been my take from the get-go.  NOT that DD's death *that* particular night, in *that* particular way, was planned out, but just that Snape & DD had talked about the possibility and about what Snape was to do should he find DD with "something terminally nasty."

   
Kneasy:
>>>Right at that moment who will be more use to Harry in the future? 
A dying/dead DD or a strong Snape behind enemy lines? No contest.  
Everyone is expendable - except Harry.<<<

SSSusan:
I agree that a strong Snape will be more useful than a dying DD *but*... DOES Snape know that everyone but Harry is expendable?  

I have been pissed at Snape for years, for his unwillingness to do something -- anything! -- to see that Harry learns, *really* learns.  (This is old news to you, Kneasy; you've read my bitching about Snape & his teaching methods where they concern Harry in particular, his unwillingness to CHANGE anything in order to try to get Harry to learn more fully.)  But then someone pointed out that I was going upon the assumption that Snape *knew* the full contents of the prophecy, that Snape *knew* that Harry was It -- the WW's Only Hope of getting rid of Voldy -- and that that assumption might just be wrong.  

According to DD in HBP, that assumption indeed was wrong, for he stated that only DD & Harry knew the full contents of the prophecy.

It's true that DD might still have told Snape that Harry was It, without ever having told him the contents of the prophecy nor how he knew this to be true, but is it possible that DD never did so?  That DD's focus on Harry and insistence about Harry's importance has always been something Snape never fully understood or agreed with?  If so, then does Snape believe in Harry's "unexpendability"?

I'd like to think that by now Snape does know & believe this... but I'm just not sure it's true.

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 21:07:42 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:07:42 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All? (very LONG)
In-Reply-To: <002d01c596d8$6b04b4a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <dcm2uu+i80p@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" <susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> Kneasy:
> >>>Revulsion and hatred for what? For DD or for what has happened to him and 
> for he who was responsible for it? I like to think it's the latter.<<<
> 
> SSSusan:
> Kneasy, are you referring to *Harry* here?  To Voldy?  Just who are you saying is 
responsible for what's happened to DD?
> 
>

Kneasy:
Voldy.
He's the one booby-trapping the Hercrotches.
Snape is very attached to DD, I  think. Probably more so than to anyone 
else he's known - excepting his theoretical wife and sprog. Hatred for the
one who reduced DD to this would be fitting.
 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Totally agree.  This has been my take from the get-go.  NOT that DD's death *that* 
particular night, in *that* particular way, was planned out, but just that Snape & DD had 
talked about the possibility and about what Snape was to do should he find DD with 
"something terminally nasty."
> 
>  

Kneasy:
Yeah.
Be almost impossible to plan in detail every possible scenario, though general
outlines would be agreed between them. Snape would be expected to use
his judgement - and initiative. And to be brave. No coward, is Sevvy.
  
> 
> SSSusan:
> I agree that a strong Snape will be more useful than a dying DD *but*... DOES Snape 
know that everyone but Harry is expendable?  
> 
> I have been pissed at Snape for years, for his unwillingness to do something -- 
anything! -- to see that Harry learns, *really* learns.  (This is old news to you, Kneasy; 
you've read my bitching about Snape & his teaching methods where they concern Harry in 
particular, his unwillingness to CHANGE anything in order to try to get Harry to learn more 
fully.)  But then someone pointed out that I was going upon the assumption that Snape 
*knew* the full contents of the prophecy, that Snape *knew* that Harry was It -- the WW's 
Only Hope of getting rid of Voldy -- and that that assumption might just be wrong.  
> 
> According to DD in HBP, that assumption indeed was wrong, for he stated that only DD 
& Harry knew the full contents of the prophecy.
> 
> It's true that DD might still have told Snape that Harry was It, without ever having told 
him the contents of the prophecy nor how he knew this to be true, but is it possible that 
DD never did so?  That DD's focus on Harry and insistence about Harry's importance has 
always been something Snape never fully understood or agreed with?  If so, then does 
Snape believe in Harry's "unexpendability"?
> 
> I'd like to think that by now Snape does know & believe this... but I'm just not sure it's 
true.
>

Kneasy:
IMO he does know, or at least if he hasn't been told he's guessed.
But he's the type that doesn't believe in wrapping Harry in cotton wool.
He's teaching Harry a lot by being as obnoxious as hell.
Harry saw the WW as a refuge from the Dursley unpleasantness. Snape's
behaviour is a deliberate warning that the WW can be even worse; not only
can people be unkind - they're out to get you. How would Harry have got
to *really* appreciate this before it was too late without Snape as an object
lesson? 

And as you know, I've long believed that Snape is looking for revenge on
Voldy. He can't do it himself, but he sees Harry as the best instrument for his
vengence. He *needs* Harry.  But a soft Harry will lose.
 






From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  1 22:47:30 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:47:30 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcifo5+prp3@...>
Message-ID: <dcm8q2+kskq@...>

> Kneasy:
> You stopped before coming to the punch-line.
> Bella killed Reggy.
> With Sirius fitted up for the Potter murders, languishing away in 
> durance vile, plus having been disinherited, who then gets the 
loot?
> Bella. Darling Bella.
> >
> 
> Carolyn:
> This makes a very rational sub-plot, since it is clear from Ch 2 
that 
> the DEs know all about the Fidelius charm that is preventing Snape 
> from telling them the OOP HQ location. But you do have this odd 
> situation that Bella knows she is due to inherit 12 GP, and can 
> remember and know about that address and possibly even visit it, 
> without being aware of it being OOP HQ. So, presumably she could 
have 
> gone straight there after the death of Sirius and had a rummage 
about 
> looking for the locket, which presumably would not necessarily 
have 
> been protected by the Fidelius?

Hang on. Regulus died the year Harry was born (1980), Sirius was 
banged up November 1981, and Bella was caught being horrid some time 
after that. And Sirius's mother was (old and mad but) still alive.

If I've understood this correctly, Voldy set up all those 
enchantments in his special cave, his blood-thirsty walls of rock, 
legions of inferi, magic golden boat and all, so that Bella could 
let Regulus think he'd got one over on the Dark One.

Then what? Bella gives Regulus a chance to stash the locket in 12GP, 
and then kills him on Voldy's orders. So the locket is waiting where 
Voldy wants it to be picked up by some passing wizard so it can 
possess him and ... do something. 

Voldy falls and Sirius is captured ten months to a year and 10 
months later, and Bella soon after.

15 years later the Dark Lord comes back, frees Bella from Azkaban, 
and (what?) decides it was a rubbish plan all along and now he wants 
the locket back? Or has Bella decided she wants it for some other 
reason?

Bella decides the easiest way to do it (now that Ma Black has 
snuffed it) is to bump off Sirius and inherit the house (despite the 
fact that the entire DoM plan hinges on the close relationship 
between Sirius and Harry, and that she knows full well how much 
Sirius hates her and the rest of the Blacks).

But Sirius isn't allowed out to play by DD, so she doesn't get her 
chance until the DoM fiasco, when she takes it. Now she's either 
screamingly cross that Harry's got 12GP, or she's managed to sneak 
back and get the locket just after the Order cleared out pronto.

If that's right, questions arising: 

Why go to so much trouble to let Regulus think he was clever? If 
he's being hunted by Voldy because he tried to back out of the DEs, 
why doesn't Voldy capture him, force-feed him something nasty, 
and watch and laugh while he takes three months to die? Why the 
elaborate hoax?

Why go to such circuitous (I'm going to run out of synonyms, I know 
it) lengths to get the locket into an ordinary wizarding family's 
home? Even Malfoy came up with a better scheme than that. Imperio 
someone, make them plant it, then memory charm them.

Why has Voldy changed his mind about where he wants the locket to 
be? Or, if it's Bella acting on her own, what does she want it for?

Jen wrote:
> I just realized it doesn't fit the timeline of the story to say 
> Regulus or any of the younger generation DE's were involved in 
> hiding the locket. 

<snipping nice summary of evidence>

Dungrollin:
I think you're absolutely right. But I'm also convinced R.A.B. is 
Regulus, and I'm suspicious of Regulus finding the cave and getting 
the locket out by his own and on his self. I think he had help from 
a senior DE (who tricked Regulus into thinking it was his idea, 
showed him where the cave was, made him drink the potion and then 
either saved him with an antidote and then handed him over to Voldy 
to be eliminated, or got him out of the cave, but left him to die of 
the effects of the potion at 12GP while ostensibly going for help
? someone not nice was using him, in other words). The question
is, who was it?

I'm looking for a DE who was ticked off with Voldy, but who didn't 
necessarily want him to know that they were (hence the "No, Regulus, 
I'm just helping you out, this is *your* revenge, you sign the note, 
go on, don't you worry about me..."). Someone within the DEs then, 
but not someone who has had any contact with DD since (at least not 
in an information-sharing sense). Perhaps someone who knew what 
Voldy was like with DEs that didn't live up to his expectations, and 
thought they might need a bit of leverage later on.

Obviously, it can't have been Snape, because if he were Good, and 
out to destroy Voldy's hipkitches from such an early time, he would 
have told DD all about it yonks ago, and DD would never have 
bothered going to the cave to get a fake. If he were ESE (as if!), 
why would he have helped Regulus pinch one of his master's trinkets? 
Perhaps someone with a penchant for ESE!Snape could think this one 
through, (I'm afraid my doublethink abilities are too limited).

Bella (nice as the "I'll bump off both my cousins so I can inherit" 
ideas go) doesn't seem to fit - she hasn't got enough against Voldy, 
she's a mite too devoted. Could all be an act, of course, with the 
best years of her life sacrificed to Azkaban (was she round the 
twist beforehand?) but don't think it fits with the timeline.

Barty Crouch Junior? 12 OWLs and certainly thought he was a Voldy in 
the making. Must have been fresh out of Hogwarts, though, or even 
still there ? same year as Regulus, possibly. Unfortunately, we
saw nothing but loyalty to Voldy from him in GoF, so I'm not sure 
that's a fruitful line of enquiry. 
(Ooh, but I've just had a thought - what happens if you make someone 
who's been dementor-snogged into a Hedgecrampon? Will we be seeing 
Barty Crouch Junior (v.2) with the help of a bit of Voldy's soul?)

Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov, Lestrange (presumably Rodolphus, 
Rabastan or their father) and Avery were the earliest DEs, mentioned 
either in Slughorn's memory, or by DD when Voldy came to ask for a 
job circa 1960. But we know almost nothing about them.

Yaxley and the Carrows interest me greatly (HBP:ch2, p32 UK ed), yet 
they are simply names for now.

Crabbe and Goyle are portrayed as far too thick, like their sons.

How about Karkaroff? Did he do more than just blab some names at his 
trial? Pity he's dead too, that could have been fun.

Basically, I can't decide between ESE!Aberforth and 
MoreResentfulThanHeSeems!Lucius, for the moment. 

If Voldy was really as secretive about his Hedgecrumpets as DD 
thought, Lucius was the only DE with any opportunity to find out 
about them, having been given the diary. We don't know exactly when, 
but it was 'shortly' before Voldy fell. How short is 'shortly'? A 
month? A few months? Actually, let's rephrase that: how short 
is 'shortly' when you're 150 years old? We only need 'shortly' to 
mean 'just under a year' for the timeline to be plausible.

It would mean that (assuming Lucius supposed the locket had been 
destroyed by Regulus) he really wasn't expecting Voldy back after 
GH. Or he didn't know how it was meant to work, and assumed that it 
hadn't, that the diary now contained only memories, and no soul.

Lucius has had a year in Azkaban to reflect on just how pleased he 
is that Voldy *did* come back. He's now *really* ticked off with his 
boss (or will be when he finds out what his son's been put through), 
and has good incentives to defect. Is he the helping hand that Harry 
and co will need?

Aberforth... Oh, well, I'll leave that for another post, I've had 
too much beer tonight already.

Dungrollin

BTW, over in the maelstrom that is HPfGU, there was an intermittent 
thread about favourite scenes, but nobody seems to have nominated 
Snape doing his I-have-the-patience-of-a-saint bit from chapter 24 
(UK ed/ p493). Am I alone in having found this the funniest bit of 
the whole book?

"This is your copy of Advanced Potion-Making, is it, Potter?"
"Yes," said Harry, still breathing hard.
"You're quite sure of that, are you, Potter?"
"Yes," said Harry, with a touch more defiance.
"This is the copy of Advanced Potion-Making that you purchased from 
Flourish and Blotts?"
"Yes," said Harry firmly.
"Then why," asked Snape, "does it have the name 'Roonil Wazlib' 
written inside the front cover?"
Harry's heart missed a beat.
"That's my nickname," he said.
"Your nickname," repeated Snape.
"Yeah ... that's what my friends call me," said Harry.
"I understand what a nickname is," said Snape.

Also note the very low adverb:verb ratio.






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 02:42:34 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:42:34 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
Message-ID: <dcmmiq+2o6k@...>

Thanks to Kneasy for making that observation about the four tarot
symbols: the Jewel, the Cup, the Sword and the Wand. Both Slytherin
Hxs, the ring and the locket, are jewels, Dumbledore believes that the
Hufflepuff Hx is Helga's cup, and he says the last relic of Gryffindor
is his sword. So as Kneasy mentioned, this leaves us with Rowena
Ravenclaw's wand.

And where can Rowena Ravenclaw's wand be found? Obviously, in the
possession of the best wandmaker in the British Isles: 

**************************************************************
SS/PS, Ch. 5, p. 82 US ed :
 
"The last shop was narrow and shabby. Peeling gold letters over the
door read Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC. A single
wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window"  
**************************************************************


A *single* wand in the shop's window. Naturally, it will be the
greatest wand the Ollivanders have ever made. And if the Ollivanders
have been in business since 382 BC, they could have easily
manufactured the wand of Rowena Ravenclaw, who lived a mere one
thousand years ago. And after her demise her wand wouldn't fit any
other wizard, so why not return it to the makers, who would of course
treasure it and pass it from generation to generation. 

And remember, little Tom refused Dumbledore's offer of assistance and
went to Diagon Ally alone to buy his school things. Here he is, going
to Ollivander to buy his wand, and he sees a single wand on a cushion
in the window. What's the bet he'd want *that* one?

"Shut up, lad. I've just told you, it's the wand that chooses the wizard".

"So how do you know that wand in the window won't choose me?"

"What?! You've got some nerve, lad! You think the wand of the great
Rowena Ravenclaw... Oops, shouldn't have said that. Would you mind
keep your mouth shut about that, lad? The heritage of that wand is
known to very few. Now, why don't you be a nice little lad and try
*this* one. Thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew and phoenix feather."


Of course, Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort would never be completely
satisfied with a wand out of the same pile with everybody's else
wands. He'd want the best wand in the world. He'd realize that he
would never get good results with the RR wand that doesn't fit him,
but why not make it his Hx? Old Ollivander doesn't have to be the
wiser. He'd guard that wand as a most sacred heirloom, so the security
of the Hx is already guaranteed.

But in the beginning of HBP, Ollivander mysteriously disappears: 

******************************************************
HBP, Ch.6, p. 106 US ed:

"Did you hear about Florean Fortescue, Remus?" asked Bill, who was
being plied with wine by Fleur. "The man who ran ?" 
"? the ice-cream place in Diagon Alley?" Harry interrupted, with an
unpleasant, hollow sensation in the pit of his stomach. "He used to
give me free ice creams. What's happened to him?" 
"Dragged off, by the look of his place." 
"Why?" asked Ron, while Mrs. Weasley pointedly glared at Bill. 
"Who knows? He must've upset them somehow. He was a good man, Florean." 
"Talking of Diagon Alley," said Mr. Weasley, "looks like Ollivander's
gone too." 
"The wandmaker?" said Ginny, looking startled. 
"That's the one. Shop's empty. No sign of a struggle. No one knows
whether he left voluntarily or was kidnapped." 
"But wands ? what'll people do for wands?" 
"They'll make do with other makers," said Lupin. "But Ollivander was
the best, and if the other side have got him it's not so good for us."  
******************************************************

Hmm. Did Voldy decide that it would now be safer to have his Hx in his
possession? Did he kidnap old Ollie together with the wand, so he
won't be able to tell anything to anybody, and kidnapped Fortescue too
so it won't look as if he was interested in Ollivander specifically?
However, there were signs of struggle in Fortescue's shop, but not in
Ollivander's. So did old Ollie get a whiff that Voldy is after him and
went underground with the precious wand? 

More clues needed.


Neri







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 08:26:47 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:26:47 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcm8q2+kskq@...>
Message-ID: <dcnao7+42a1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:

> Kneasy:
> You stopped before coming to the punch-line.
> Bella killed Reggy.

> Carolyn:
> This makes a very rational sub-plot,  

Dot:
Hang on. <snip>

If I've understood this correctly, Voldy set up all those
enchantments in his special cave, his blood-thirsty walls of rock,
legions of inferi, magic golden boat and all, so that Bella could
let Regulus think he'd got one over on the Dark One.

Then what? Bella gives Regulus a chance to stash the locket in 12GP,
and then kills him on Voldy's orders. So the locket is waiting where
Voldy wants it to be picked up by some passing wizard so it can
possess him and ... do something.
<snip>

15 years later the Dark Lord comes back, frees Bella from Azkaban,
and (what?) decides it was a rubbish plan all along and now he wants
the locket back? Or has Bella decided she wants it for some other
reason?
<snip>

But Sirius isn't allowed out to play by DD, so she doesn't get her
chance until the DoM fiasco, when she takes it. Now she's either
screamingly cross that Harry's got 12GP, or she's managed to sneak
back and get the locket just after the Order cleared out pronto.

>If that's right, 

Carolyn:
I think the subsequent time-line is somewhat irrelevant, and Bella 
possibly just a fun embellishment. I just can't believe Reg didn't 
have help, and the most logical person to help him is actually Voldy. 
Really, very, very few other wizards would be powerful enough.

So, I was just speculating on why Voldy might want to use Reg like 
this, and suggested that the locket was being moved up to weapon-
status, in much the same manner as the diary, prior to GH. People 
keep saying that the piece of soul in the diary was different to the 
bits in the other Hxs, but we have no information either way. For all 
we know, each and every soul-fragment can take on sentient life as 
soon as they get a chance to lock on to a new human host.

I think it really unlikely that Voldy explained any of the finer 
detail to Bella, anymore than he did so with Lucius about the diary, 
but he may have ordered her to kill Regulus and make sure that 
something he was carrying was stashed safely at 12GP. He may have 
been aware that she was due to inherit, but breaking and entering 
even a house as well-protected as Pa Black's would presumably never 
be a problem for Voldy, so the inheritance issue is not that 
important.

Voldy, of course, did not forsee the GH debacle so all bets are off 
as to what his subseqent plans for the locket might have been - maybe 
return it to its cave hiding place. However, with events turning out 
as they did, one of the things Bella might have brooded on in Azkaban 
is the important thing that her master asked her to hide for him. She 
might make an attempt to retrieve it, in order to get back in his 
good books after the MoM fiasco.


Dot:
questions arising:

Why go to so much trouble to let Regulus think he was clever? If
he's being hunted by Voldy because he tried to back out of the DEs,
why doesn't Voldy capture him, force-feed him something nasty,
and watch and laugh while he takes three months to die? Why the
elaborate hoax?

Carolyn:
I think it appealed to Voldy's sense of humour for DD to find a false 
locket, and hopefully die in the process. And Voldy probably did 
force-feed him the potion in the bird bath, and Reg no doubt had a 
very bad time of it. Bella may have been ordered to finish him off, 
or simply been told to search a dead body for the locket. 

Dot:
Why go to such circuitous (I'm going to run out of synonyms, I know
it) lengths to get the locket into an ordinary wizarding family's
home? Even Malfoy came up with a better scheme than that. Imperio
someone, make them plant it, then memory charm them.

Carolyn:
Killing two birds with one stone basically. Reg was due to die, die, 
die for his disloyalty anyway so might as well make use of him. And 
the Blacks' is no ordinary wizarding home, but a very well-protected 
one, with DE sympathies and plenty of other nasties in the cupboards.

Dot:
Why has Voldy changed his mind about where he wants the locket to
be? Or, if it's Bella acting on her own, what does she want it for?

Carolyn:
See above - belt and braces in advance of GH. Bella's just trying to 
do what she thinks her master wants/has ordered.


Dungrollin:
...I'm also convinced R.A.B. is Regulus, and I'm suspicious of 
Regulus finding the cave and getting the locket out by his own and on 
his self. I think he had help from a senior DE <snip>

The question is, who was it?
<snip>

Obviously, it can't have been Snape, because if he were Good, and
out to destroy Voldy's hipkitches from such an early time, he would
have told DD all about it yonks ago, and DD would never have
bothered going to the cave to get a fake. If he were ESE (as if!),
why would he have helped Regulus pinch one of his master's trinkets?
Perhaps someone with a penchant for ESE!Snape could think this one
through, (I'm afraid my doublethink abilities are too limited).

<snip further cast of suspects>

Basically, I can't decide between ESE!Aberforth and
MoreResentfulThanHeSeems!Lucius, for the moment.

Carolyn:
This is where I've come to a dead end as well. Snape seems to me the 
most likeliest of the whole bunch, because it is clear from the 
Sluggy evidence that  it is not unusual for very advanced students 
with an interest in the Dark Arts to be interested in Hxs. But I 
cannot figure out how he found the location of the cave, and if he 
did do it, why he would not have told DD (since naturally, he is Not 
Guilty as charged <g>).

Carolyn









From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 09:01:12 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:01:12 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcmmiq+2o6k@...>
Message-ID: <dcncoo+6fet@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> Thanks to Kneasy for making that observation about the four tarot
> symbols: the Jewel, the Cup, the Sword and the Wand. Both Slytherin
> Hxs, the ring and the locket, are jewels, Dumbledore believes that the
> Hufflepuff Hx is Helga's cup, and he says the last relic of Gryffindor
> is his sword. So as Kneasy mentioned, this leaves us with Rowena
> Ravenclaw's wand.
> 
> And where can Rowena Ravenclaw's wand be found? Obviously, in the
> possession of the best wandmaker in the British Isles: 
> 
> **************************************************************
> SS/PS, Ch. 5, p. 82 US ed :
>  
> "The last shop was narrow and shabby. Peeling gold letters over the
> door read Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC. A single
> wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window"  
> **************************************************************
> 
> 
> A *single* wand in the shop's window. Naturally, it will be the
> greatest wand the Ollivanders have ever made. And if the Ollivanders
> have been in business since 382 BC, they could have easily
> manufactured the wand of Rowena Ravenclaw, who lived a mere one
> thousand years ago. And after her demise her wand wouldn't fit any
> other wizard, so why not return it to the makers, who would of course
> treasure it and pass it from generation to generation. 
> 

I like it.
Shades of 'The Purloined Letter' - hide it in plain sight.
Despite positing the possible Tarot link, I was having a bit of trouble
figuring out how a single wand could be identified as important.
Ans: Go back to the beginning, to a wand sitting in solitary splendour
in a shop window. Brilliant.

Now all we have to do is wonder if Ollivander slipped the wand to
Neville (one of his last customers) before the heavy mob came for him.
Might have done - DD showed an interest in Ollie and his wares, and
a timely warning that Voldy was after the Ravenclaw relic wouldn't be
too fanciful. That's assuming that Voldy hadn't subverted it already.

If he did Hosschuck it previously then Neville is in for troubled times.
Or has Ollivander hidden it elsewhere, or - horror of horrors, handed 
it over to Voldy?

Plenty of scope for speculation here. 
Is it my imagination, or was there less of Neville in HBP than usual? 

Kneasy





From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 09:40:34 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:40:34 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcncoo+6fet@...>
Message-ID: <dcnf2i+sblv@...>

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

> Is it my imagination, or was there less of Neville in HBP than 
usual? 
> 
> Kneasy

Yes, far too little IMO. Did you notice, however, that the mimble 
mumble got an honourable mention? It's still on the table so to 
speak.

I would be severly disappointed if Neville turned out simply to be 
an also ran.

I like the idea that Voldy wanted to turn Prophecy Boy into an 
acolyte.

Firstly he tried to spawn one of his own using Cissy and Lucy. That 
failed, conception being tricky to time, and Draccy was born in 
June, oops.

Then he viewed his remaining options (Neville/Harry) and decided to 
off one and abduct the other, bring him up as his own *and* turn him 
into a bad tempered nag (cross horse! Sorry!). With prophecy boy 
close at hand, Voldy could control him and if that failed prophecy 
boy could only defeat Voldy by suiciding first, so then couldn't 
defeat him. Game, set, match.

Sadly, I think for JKR, Harry is the chosen one and there are no 
such plans for Neville, so in a last ditch to salvage my own plot 
I've decided someone will *believe* Neville is a poorclutz when in 
fact it is his wand, or maybe the mimblewimble.

Regards
Jo









From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 14:43:00 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:43:00 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcncoo+6fet@...>
Message-ID: <dco0pk+315a@...>

Neri previously:

> > And where can Rowena Ravenclaw's wand be found? Obviously, in the
> > possession of the best wandmaker in the British Isles: 
> > 
> > **************************************************************
> > SS/PS, Ch. 5, p. 82 US ed :
> >  
> > "The last shop was narrow and shabby. Peeling gold letters over 
the
> > door read Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC. A single
> > wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window"  
> > **************************************************************


Kneasy wrote:
> I like it.
> Shades of 'The Purloined Letter' - hide it in plain sight.
> Despite positing the possible Tarot link, I was having a bit of 
trouble
> figuring out how a single wand could be identified as important.
> Ans: Go back to the beginning, to a wand sitting in solitary 
splendour
> in a shop window. Brilliant.
> 
> Now all we have to do is wonder if Ollivander slipped the wand to
> Neville (one of his last customers) before the heavy mob came for 
him. <snip>

Neri again:
Yes! I like this. I wondered about Neville and Gran being the last to 
visit Ollivander, but couldn't figure out how it would fit. But 
Ollivander slipping Neville the Ravenclaw wand before Voldy can get 
to it, this is obviously why we needed the whole story about Neville 
breaking his father's wand. Now, what kind of wand was it that 
Neville got? In the train he says it's cherry and unicorn tail. Hmmm. 
That sounds more Neville than Rowena Ravenclaw, doesn't it? But I 
guess Ollivander could have lied to Neville about the ingredients, 
and how would Neville know?

I like the elegance of all the Horthingies ending up in Harry's 
possession or close proximity. The Ravenclaw wand in Neville's 
possession would certainly fit this pattern. I already figured out 
the locket might be in Harry's own Gringots vault, and the sixth Hx 
is of course in his own head. Now all that is left is to figure out 
why would the Hufflepuff cup end up in the bottom of his trunk. Do 
you suppose Dumbledore put a Hx-magnet charm on Harry, or was it JKR 
who did it?

Neri








From adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 16:11:50 2005
From: adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid (Adan)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:11:50 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dco0pk+315a@...>
Message-ID: <dco606+dbk0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
> Neri wrote:

> I like the elegance of all the Horthingies ending up in Harry's 
> possession or close proximity. The Ravenclaw wand in Neville's 
> possession would certainly fit this pattern. I already figured out 
> the locket might be in Harry's own Gringots vault, and the sixth Hx 
> is of course in his own head. Now all that is left is to figure out 
> why would the Hufflepuff cup end up in the bottom of his trunk. Do 
> you suppose Dumbledore put a Hx-magnet charm on Harry, or was it 
JKR 
> who did it?

I thought that one of the horcruxes could be in the Room of 
Requirement's "Hiding Things" incarnation.  I know that in HBP it was 
simply the site for the broken vanishing cabinet, but it seems 
plausible at least.

p.526 "He was standing in a room the size of a large cathedral, whose 
high windows were sending shafts of light down upon what looked like 
a city with towering walls, built of wht Harry knew must be objects 
hidden by generations of Hogwarts inhabitants."

Old swords and a bloodstained axe, a chipped bust of an ugly old 
warlock, and a tiara were all mentioned in with the fanged frisbees 
and whatnot.  

And didn't Harry leave his potions book there?  I don't recall him 
ever going back for it, just his saying that he was.  Though I have 
missed some things in my quick readings.

Adan, who still thinks Felix is too good to be true





From adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 16:33:54 2005
From: adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid (Adan)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:33:54 -0000
Subject: Harrycrux Variations (was: A dastardly Voldy plan)
In-Reply-To: <dcj9l6+s88i@...>
Message-ID: <dco79i+fi35@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
<snipped posts from several posters>

> Neri:
> Yes, the main problem with all versions of Harrycrux, IMO, is 
whether
> Dumbledore knew or suspected. If he did, why didn't he warn
> Harry? If
> he didn't, then what was the Essence Divided thing about?

While I don't really like the idea of Harry!Crux, something just came 
to mind that I don't recall having seen.  What if LV did make his 
Harry!Crux, but when taking Harry's blood in GOF to make his body he 
somehow nullified it?  Would that explain that %!$&#@ "gleam" in DD's 
eye upon hearing the news from Harry?  

I was thinking that would also tie into having no mind invasions in 
HBP, but they were quite prevalent in OOtP so that killed that.  At 
least I caught it before posting for once!

Adan, curious if "DD" now stands for Dead Dumbledore





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 16:39:12 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:39:12 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcmmiq+2o6k@...>
Message-ID: <dco7jg+toe9@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> Thanks to Kneasy for making that observation about the four tarot
> symbols: the Jewel, the Cup, the Sword and the Wand. Both Slytherin
> Hxs, the ring and the locket, are jewels, Dumbledore believes that
> the Hufflepuff Hx is Helga's cup, and he says the last relic of 
> Gryffindor is his sword. So as Kneasy mentioned, this leaves us 
> with Rowena Ravenclaw's wand.
<snip>
> Hmm. Did Voldy decide that it would now be safer to have his Hx in
> his possession? Did he kidnap old Ollie together with the wand, so he
> won't be able to tell anything to anybody, and kidnapped Fortescue
> too so it won't look as if he was interested in Ollivander
> specifically? However, there were signs of struggle in Fortescue's 
> shop, but not in Ollivander's. So did old Ollie get a whiff that
> Voldy is after him and went underground with the precious wand? 

Jen: The symmetry of this is really fantastic, I like Kneasy's 
proposal about the four suits of the Minor Arcana corresponding to the 
4 remaining Horcruxes. 

A total aside here: Maybe Carolyn was right that having two Slytherin 
pieces bungs up the symmetry here? I get the symbolism of the stone 
ring Horcrux, denoting the extinguishment of the Riddle line. That 
fits the Pentacles/Diamond suit of the Arcana. But the locket, worn by 
his mother and symbolizing the magical line of Tom's family back to 
Slytherin, who did he murder for this Horcrux? I think it would be his 
*most* important murder. (I'm convinced the cup was after Hepzibah's 
murder, a rather silly person associated with Hufflepuff). Also, 
doesn't the diary make the Heir of Slytherin connection? 

I guess the locket's not a red herring though, especially since it was 
found in that particular cave with those particular protections. And 
the tiny little detail that both Dumbledore and another person were 
willing to die to retrieve it.

But back to Ollivander, I read a theory that LV kidnapped him to force 
a new wand out of him, one without the shared Phoenix core. Anyone 
like that idea? I guess you could substitute LV forcing Ollivander to 
give up Rowena's wand instead, and when he found it missing, either 
killing him in a rage or forcing another wand be made. 

That would be interesting, a little sabotage on Ollivander's part?

Jen





From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 18:02:31 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:02:31 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcmmiq+2o6k@...>
Message-ID: <dcocfn+9rg1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> Thanks to Kneasy for making that observation about the four tarot
> symbols: the Jewel, the Cup, the Sword and the Wand. Both Slytherin
> Hxs, the ring and the locket, are jewels, Dumbledore believes that the
> Hufflepuff Hx is Helga's cup, and he says the last relic of Gryffindor
> is his sword. So as Kneasy mentioned, this leaves us with Rowena
> Ravenclaw's wand.
> 
> And where can Rowena Ravenclaw's wand be found? Obviously, in the
> possession of the best wandmaker in the British Isles
> More clues needed.

I love this theory. Everything fits so elegantly!

I apologize for the oversimplification below, but for some reason I'm
having trouble keeping track of it all today. So, to sum up, we can
surmise that two of the six Horcruxes have been destroyed. That is,
the ring and the diary.  The way I see it, that leaves four remaining
Horcruxes for Harry to find and destroy in Book 7. Using the tarot
suits as a guide, each of the remaining Horcruxes should be:

jewel......Salazar's locket..Slytherin
cup........Helga's cup.......Hufflepuff
swords.....Godric's sword....Gryffindor
wands......Rowena's wand.....Ravenclaw

The only problem I have is this: It seems unlikely that Voldie could
have even gotten into Dumbledore's office, let alone create a Horcrux
out of Gryffindor's beloved sword.  Further, it's unlikely that, if he
had succeeded, it would have gone undetected and, even worse, come to
Harry's rescue in the Chamber of Secrets.

So, are we back to Harry as Horcrux? Could the sword, originally
safeguarded at Godric's Hollow, been Voldemort's intended target? It
seems feasible that either the sword's rightful place was within
Godric's Hollow, or that Dumbledore, suspecting the worst, decided to
hide the sword along with the Potters and Harry. And, as a result of
Voldie's disastrous AK attempt, was Harry the mistaken recipient of
the sixth and final piece of Voldie's soul?

Ack! How long before Book 7???!

:: Entropy ::






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 19:54:41 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:54:41 -0000
Subject: The horcruxes (again)
Message-ID: <dcoj21+ia3k@...>

I've been desperately trying to work out why on earth JKR might 
use 'horcrux' in relation to 'a container for the soul'. For some 
reason, church plate kept floating into my mind.

Anyway, I think I've found the connection. Christian churches who 
use communion wafers (or 'hosts') often have a special little box 
called a 'pyx'. These are used to keep consecrated wafers when 
travelling, to be used in giving communion to the housebound, sick 
or dying.

http://www.inhisname.com/ChurchPages/Pyx_Cast.htm shows some 
pictures of pyxes. You'll note that very often, the box is engraved 
with a cross. Or, in Latin, a crux.

So, there's the horcrux, which contains a split part of a soul, the 
splitting created by murder. It cannot be opened. And there's the 
pyx, marked with a cross/crux, containing a wafer traditionally 
handed out with the words 'the body of Christ' (who, Christian 
tradition says, died to save everyone). 

Opposites? Or am I imagining the connection?

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape

"Whether you can act or not - next time I get asked to be your 
defence counsel, could you please *not* fire an AK at someone two 
weeks before the trial?" - Pip









From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 22:45:52 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:45:52 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcgmr8+6g9s@...>
Message-ID: <dcot30+9k0d@...>

Kimberly wrote:

> No way he would *intentionally* create spares of himself that can 
act 
> independantly of the original.  They would basically be totally 
> separate entities, his equal in magic and power (I assume, or what 
> would be the point?), and with the same ambitions and nastiness, and 
> would, therefore, set out immediately to get rid of the original.  
> After all, we know he works alone, and doesn't want buddies.  So 
> instead of just having to deal with that annoying Potter boy, he'd 
> suddenly be at war with himself, and possibly more than one of 
> himself.  And at varying ages, too, if the Riddle from the diary is 
> any indication.  I doubt he'd want to fight his younger, fitter 
> self.  

There'd also be the distinct possibility of V/V fanfiction, something 
that should make even the darkest of Dark Lords think twice.

David





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 23:03:26 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:03:26 -0000
Subject: A Black and White Snape Theory
Message-ID: <dcou3u+t5eo@...>

A Black and White Snape Theory

By Randy Estes

As many have stated that JKR uses the symbols of Alchemy, one can 
see certain patterns in the HP books that have been discussed by the 
old crowd and other groups.  There are three important processes or 
stages of Alchemy named: the dissolution or black stage, the 
purification or white stage, and the perfection or red stage.  These 
are explained in "The Alchemist's Tale:`Harry Potter & the 
Alchemical Tradition in English Literature'" by John Granger.


The processes of Alchemy dictate that Black (Sirius) must die or 
dissolve, and White (Albus Dumbledore.) must die or purify, and 
finally the red stage will bring Harry Potter to perfection.  I 
would be very concerned for Ginny Weasley or Rubeus Hagrid given the 
red stage is coming in Book 7.

Another theme of Alchemy (or specifically the Alchemical Wedding) is 
the death of the Black King which could be Kingsley Shacklebolt ( a 
black wizard named king) or it could also refer to Regulus Black ( a 
black ruler) who initials are RAB. I believe we will hear the tale 
of Regulus Black in book 7 as many have surmised.  I have a few more 
ideas related to Regulus Black.

What if Regulus Black was the only real friend that Severus Snape 
ever had.  Maybe Snape longed to be like the pure "Black King" and 
therefore named himself the "Half-Blood Prince" in his attempt to be 
like Regulus.  They were both Death Eaters, and could have felt a 
certain kinship.  However, when Regulus turned against Voldemort, 
Snape may have been emotionally destroyed by his death caused by the 
Dark Lord.  If Bellatrix proves to be the one who killed Regulus, 
Snape would also have a natural hatred of her evidenced in his 
constant antagonism of her.  What is Sirius Black teased his brother 
constantly which led to further hatred of Sirius by Snape?  What if 
Snape found the dying Regulus Black and only then discovered that he 
was working for Dumbledore against the Dark Lord.  What is Regulus 
made the "Unbreakable Vow" with Snape as his dying act.  This could 
cause Snape to work for Dumbledore to continue the search for the 
horcrux objects. 

He would thus do all in his power to help Dumbledore bring down the 
Dark Lord through his deception and mastery of Occlumency.  He must 
always be seen as antagonistic to Harry and Neville to avert 
Voldemort's suspicions.  He must always align himself with known 
followers like the Malfoys and thus praise Draco Malfoy at all 
opportunities.  He must always be antagonistic to mudbloods such as 
Hermione Granger.  I also believe the theory that he was working 
with Dumbledore even when he shouted the AK spell to avert suspicion 
from himself and continue the work of the Order behind enemy lines.  

Snape almost seems to symbolize Judas betraying Jesus Christ to 
perform the necessary task that allows the greater plan to be 
accomplished.  Snape would be understood only by Dumbledore and 
reviled by all followers of Dumbledore who knew him.  Dumbledore 
seemed to have his moment of doubting in the Cave while drinking the 
potion similar to the ponderings of Jesus at Gethsemane before his 
ultimate betrayal by Judas. ("Let this cup pass from me
")  
Dumbledore must carry out his duties with the full knowledge that 
Snape will betray him and lead to his death. I think there is 
something extremely powerful in the surrender of his life for the 
good of everyone else.  ("No greater gift" as has already been 
written).  I wonder if Dumbledore has now gained another kind of 
power that Voldemort cannot defeat.  One is reminded of the scene in 
Star Wars where Obi-Wan gives up his life to help gain a place of 
power to help the others.  The distinction has already been pointed 
out that Lily gave up her life willingly while James did not.  
Dumbledore will have given up his life willingly to save Harry and 
the free Wizard world.  "It is one's choices that really matter
"

Just for the record, I have never been a Snape fan in the past, but 
I see these possibilities in the storyline that have deeper meaning 
than a simple betrayal of Dumbledore by Snape.

Randy









From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  2 23:19:08 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:19:08 -0000
Subject: Hedgecrumpets (spoilers, of course)
In-Reply-To: <dbg908+ukqr@...>
Message-ID: <dcov1c+b4qn@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> C
> A
> N
> '
> T
> 
> T
> H
> I
> N
> K
> 
> O
> F
>  
> A
> N
> Y
> T
> H
> I
> N
> G
>  
> A
> M
> U
> S
> I
> N
> G
>  
> Dungrollin, previously:
> > When Harry finds and has a go at destroying the Hawkrocker in 
the 
> > locket, how is he going to do it without withering his hand like 
> DD did?  I suggest somebody with an exceptionally strong *sliver* 
> hand might be rather useful. And I think the only way of 
convincing 
> him to do it is through his charming housemate.
> > 
> 
> Dungrollin replying to herself:
> Actually, the easiest way of getting rid of them for good would be 
> to chuck them through the veil.  That way they're definitely "on 
the 
> other side" and can't pull the bit of soul left in Voldy's body 
back 
> if somebody gets him.
> 
> Now, another question: Imagine that the only two hoseruckuses left 
> are Voldy and Nagini (the others having been chucked through the 
> veil), and somebody kills Nagini. Would the bit of soul in Nagini 
be 
> left floating around like Vapour!Mort was in Albania? Could that 
bit 
> of soul make itself a new body with the potion Voldy used in GoF? 
> Could there, in effect, be two Voldemorts?  
> 
> Dungrollin, concerned.

That reminds me a song from the 1960's...

"A little bit of Soul now, A little bit of Soul now..."  

Perhaps James Brown had a horcrux up his wazoo which gave him all of 
those cool moves on the dance floor ..Hey!   OOOOOOWWWWWW!   Watch 
it now, watch it!! UUH UUH!  Papa's got a brand new whorecrust bag!
Randy





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 00:53:02 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:53:02 -0000
Subject: Various very spoilerish responses and a further question
In-Reply-To: <dbhu68+ap2l@...>
Message-ID: <dcp4he+ld22@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "psychic_serpent" 
<psychic_serpent at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" 
> <erisedstraeh2002 at y...> wrote:
> > And again, I'm sorry, but I can't see any way that Harry is 
> > carrying a horcrux.  Voldemort hasn't been able to get anywhere 
> > close to him (other than in the graveyard in GoF, and we 
witnessed 
> > that scene, and there was no horcrux-planting going on).  
> 
> It's the scar.
> 
> Voldemort inadvertantly creates the horcrux when he tries and 
fails 
> to kill Harry when he's a baby.  He was probably going to Godric's 
> Hollow to get an artifact from Gryffindor to use for the last 
> horcrux, so he only had two out of the seven portions of his soul 
> left.  (Thrice refusing to give up the artifact may be how James 
and 
> Lily defied him.)  James's death served the purpose of providing 
the 
> death that would allow Voldemort to create the horcrux, while 
> Harry's death was meant to get Prophecy Boy out of his way; Lily 
> wasn't meant to die because Snape asked her to be spared, in all 
> likelihood.  But since she made trouble Voldemort had no 
> compunctions about killing her, even though Snape gave him the 
> prophecy.  Her sacrifice changed everything, creating the blood 
> protection that caused the AK curse to backfire on Voldemort, 
> dividing what was left of his soul into two parts, one of which 
went 
> into Harry's scar (imbuing him with some of Voldemort's powers, 
such 
> as Parseltongue) and the other part becoming a bodiless spirit.
> 
> Jo said that the question we should really be asking is WHY DIDN'T 
> VOLDEMORT DIE?  The clue is in the very first chapter.  Fudge says 
> this:
> 
> "That is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed?" 
[page 
> 11, US edition] 
> 
> It is possibly the most important thing that he says.  IS 
Voldemort 
> alive if he can't be killed?  "Neither can live while the other 
> survives," is what the prophecy says.  Perhaps Voldemort cannot be 
> said to be living, technically, while Harry survives, because 
Harry 
> has part of his soul inside him (the scar), so while Harry-the-
> Horcrux lives Voldemort cannot be killed, ergo, he is not 
> technically alive.  Harry also cannot be killed because his 
mother's 
> love is protecting him, so since it was not possible for Voldemort 
> to kill Harry, technically HE is not alive either (by the same 
> definition, that to live is to be someone who can be killed).  But 
> it is, according to the prophecy, only while Voldemort survives in 
> some form that Harry is not able to be killed, so it would seem 
that 
> Harry CAN be killed once Voldemort--and all of his soul--is truly 
> gone.  So Harry himself does not need to be "destroyed"--only his 
> scar.  I believe that this will be the last word of the last book 
> because he will no longer have it but he WILL survive.
> 
> I also have some detailed notes on Chapters 1 and 2 on my LJ:
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/psychic_serpent/
> 
> (The part about Fudge's quote is in the notes on Chapter 1 but I 
> didn't mention the scar being the horcrux yet.)
> 
> --Barb

I really like this idea.  It fits in well with the Philosopher's 
stone.  Nicholas Flamel decided it was best to give up his 
immortality and destroy the stone.  From a willingness to die comes 
a full life.  Lily also decides to die to give life to Harry.  

The phoenix must die to give birth to itself.  Harry must be willing 
to give up his own immortality (given him by mistake by Voldy).  He 
allows Snape to kill Voldemort but becomes mortal again?

Red Eye Randy







From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 03:40:48 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:40:48 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcmmiq+2o6k@...>
Message-ID: <dcpec0+qtjf@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> Thanks to Kneasy for making that observation about the four tarot
> symbols: the Jewel, the Cup, the Sword and the Wand. Both Slytherin
> Hxs, the ring and the locket, are jewels, Dumbledore believes that 
the
> Hufflepuff Hx is Helga's cup, and he says the last relic of 
Gryffindor
> is his sword. So as Kneasy mentioned, this leaves us with Rowena
> Ravenclaw's wand.

Jen: I spotted a small problem with this theory while reading the 
third part of JKR's TLC/Mugglenet interview. She categorized the 
houses below:

Gryffindor--Fire
Ravenclaw--Air
Hufflepuff--Earth
Slytherin--Water

Now the Minor Arcana*, each connected with its corresponding elements:

Gryffindor--Fire--Wands
Ravenclaw--Air--Swords
Hufflepuff--Earth--Pentacles/Swords
Slytherin--Water--Cups

Maybe JKR isn't going for a Tarot interpretation of the Horcruxes 
after all, even though it was a really lovely idea to have it all 
match up. Makes me wonder if the lightning-struck tower was used for 
the imagery as much as the Tarot interpretation. And JKR gets her 
little joke in about Trelawney drawing the Knave of Spades as Harry 
hides behind the statue 'a dark young man, possibly troubled, one who 
dislikes the questioner...'(chap. 10, p. 105, US)

But hey, Trelawney was dead-on, drawing the lightning-struck tower 
over and over, so JKR thinks she has a future reading cards. 

Jen
*Info from The Destiny Tarot by Jane Struthers. Also, here's a website 
if anyone is interested:
http://www.byzant.com/tarot/structureminor.asp





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 04:33:45 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 04:33:45 -0000
Subject: Another Clue in Book One "Spoiler"
Message-ID: <dcphf9+2a4o@...>

A
r
e
 
w
e
 
s
t
i
l
l
 
d
o
i
n
g
 
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
s
a
k
e
 
o
f
 
a
r
t
?

I remembered something from Book One that I have not seen mentioned 
here yet.  As we debate whether Albus Dumbledore sacrificed his own 
life to Snape to allow for Snape and Harry to help save the Wizard 
World, we have a clue from Book One.

During the Chess Match Ron sacrifices himself to let Harry checkmate 
the other King.  Ron even says "sometimes you have to make some 
sacrifices!"  This is a perfect analogy to our theories that 
Dumbledore planned the whole death scene to fool Voldemort about 
Snape's loyalties.






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 04:40:22 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 04:40:22 -0000
Subject: HBP - spoilers - Is it on the cards?
In-Reply-To: <dblg7s+j10d@...>
Message-ID: <dcphrm+tuo4@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> Kneasy:
> > Must give some thought to maybe matching other characters to cards.
> > Couuld be entertaining.
> 
> 
> Luna, anyone? 
> 
> 
> ~Eloise

I do not know about the Tarot Deck, but....

Luna represents pure Subconscious.  The moon is white (purity), and 
she is brutally blunt about topics most would avoid to speak about.  
The subconscious mind telling the conscious mind things it does not 
wish to hear.

Sorry if my spelling goes awry because I am starting to grow tired.  
Also I apologize for the late replies to messages, since I avoided 
this list for awhile when reading.

Red Eye Randy  (By the way Randolph means 'shield wolf", so I guess 
that my son and I need to be worried about becoming werewolves per 
that post by someone else about naming your kids dangerous wolf names.)






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 12:07:50 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:07:50 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcocfn+9rg1@...>
Message-ID: <dcqc2m+8fv4@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" <entropymail at y...> wrote:
> 
> I love this theory. Everything fits so elegantly!
> 
> I apologize for the oversimplification below, but for some reason I'm
> having trouble keeping track of it all today. So, to sum up, we can
> surmise that two of the six Horcruxes have been destroyed. That is,
> the ring and the diary.  The way I see it, that leaves four remaining
> Horcruxes for Harry to find and destroy in Book 7. Using the tarot
> suits as a guide, each of the remaining Horcruxes should be:
> 
> jewel......Salazar's locket..Slytherin
> cup........Helga's cup.......Hufflepuff
> swords.....Godric's sword....Gryffindor
> wands......Rowena's wand.....Ravenclaw
> 
> The only problem I have is this: It seems unlikely that Voldie could
> have even gotten into Dumbledore's office, let alone create a Horcrux
> out of Gryffindor's beloved sword.  Further, it's unlikely that, if he
> had succeeded, it would have gone undetected and, even worse, come to
> Harry's rescue in the Chamber of Secrets.
> 
> So, are we back to Harry as Horcrux? Could the sword, originally
> safeguarded at Godric's Hollow, been Voldemort's intended target? It
> seems feasible that either the sword's rightful place was within
> Godric's Hollow, or that Dumbledore, suspecting the worst, decided to
> hide the sword along with the Potters and Harry. And, as a result of
> Voldie's disastrous AK attempt, was Harry the mistaken recipient of
> the sixth and final piece of Voldie's soul?
> 

You're right of course - there's no certainty that Voldy did get his hands
on relics from all four Founders, though it seems a reasonable assumption
that he would have liked to have done so.

The Slyth Locket and the Huff Cup fell into his evil clutches, so unless
here's a very unexpected plot twist Harry definitely has to deal with those
two. The Gryff Sword - DD is adamant that it's free of Voldy pollution, and 
the Ravers Wand (assuming it exists and is indeed a plot device)  we don't
know about. 

This leaves us in a bit of a dilemma, only two of the remaining four Horkuks
can be identified with any confidence. OK, if Harry is included as a strong
possibility as a substitute for something of GG, then it simplifies matters
but mars the symmetry, to my way of thinking. A lot depends on what
turns up at GH, IMO. Something Harry finds there/finds out about while
he's there will be critical, is my bet.

Ravers wand is more fun, for the present at least. Neri's idea that it might
have been sitting in Ollivanders window is neat thinking, and the 'coincidence'
of Neville buying a new wand immediately prior to Ollivander's disappearance
is intriguing. Personally, I don't think Voldy ever got his sweaty mitts on it -
Wandmaestro!Ollivander would have noticed. He'd probably tell someone
about it, unless Ollie is a Voldy fan, charged by His Nastiness with keeping 
it safe.

In which case - where is it? How is Harry going to find it? Difficult.
Much easier if it's right under his nose, sticking out of Neville's pocket.
But all these relics seem to have powers of their own derived from the Founders.
The unpolluted ones (Sword and maybe Wand) could actually help Harry in
his mission. The Huff Cup might even be a weapon that turns against Voldy 
as user. That would be entertaining.

Lets face it - where magic is concerned, anything can happen.
 
Kneasy





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 13:54:31 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:54:31 -0000
Subject: Counting and trashing Horcruces
Message-ID: <dcqian+4pk0@...>

I have trouble keeping track of the damned things.

Two have been deactivated: the Diary and the Ring.

On the generally unchallenged assumption that Voldemort himself 
should be counted in the total, that theoretically leaves 4.  
However, there are two difficulties with this.

The first is the idea that Harry may be an accidental Hx (BTW 
someone more thorough and energetic than myself should follow up the 
possibility that a bit of Harry's soul got detached via the scar and 
sealed in an object at GH along with a bit of V's soul, thus 
creating a double Horcrux and accounting for the link between them) 
without Voldemort knowing it.  

The second is that, according to Dumbledore, Voldemort may have been 
making the things *since* rebirthing - as I understand it, this is 
where Nagini comes in.  If so, he could have replaced the diary, at 
least.

That way, there could still be 5 objects plus Harry out there:

Locket, cup, unknown presumed Ravenclaw object: part of the 
original "Empire Collection" to which the ring and the diary 
belonged;
Nagini (presumed replacement for GH supposed failure), unknown 
object to replace the diary: part of the new "Post-Modern 
Collection";
Harry: the nucleus of the rival "Salon des refusees Collection".

And he may get to work to replace the ring, too.

The other thing that occurs to me about all this is that by the time 
they have finished, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Harry will have done a 
pretty fine job between them of trashing all the wizarding world's 
most ancient and magical objets d'art.  The ring is gone, the locket 
is e'en now prik't, the cup cannot be far behind.

This raises unavoidable Tolkienesque associations for me.  Do these 
trinkets, like the Elven Rings of Middle Earth, play some role in 
maintaining the WW?  People have already speculated on possible 
Nazgul-inducing properties of Slytherin's ring had Dumbledore kept 
it intact.  Like the, count 'em, 7, Palantiri, do the properties of 
these devices become corrupted and formed to the will of the Dark 
Lord?

In other words, will the WW take lasting damage from the destruction 
of its ancient treasures?

David






From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 16:38:38 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:38:38 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcqc2m+8fv4@...>
Message-ID: <dcqrue+jpj8@...>

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

> > jewel......Salazar's locket..Slytherin
> > cup........Helga's cup.......Hufflepuff
> > swords.....Godric's sword....Gryffindor
> > wands......Rowena's wand.....Ravenclaw

> >It seems unlikely that Voldie could have even gotten into
> >Dumbledore's office, let alone create a Horcrux out of Gryffindor's
> >beloved sword.  Further, it's unlikely that, if he had succeeded, >
>it would have gone undetected and, even worse, come to Harry's
> >rescue in the Chamber of Secrets.
> >So, are we back to Harry as Horcrux? Could the sword, originally
> >safeguarded at Godric's Hollow, been Voldemort's intended target? 

Kneasy:
> >You're right of course - there's no certainty that Voldy did get
> >his hands on relics from all four Founders, though it seems a
> >reasonable assumption that he would have liked to have done
> >so.<snip> This leaves us in a bit of a dilemma, only two of the
> >remaining four Horkuks can be identified with any confidence. OK,
> >if Harry is included as a strong possibility as a substitute for
> >something of GG, then it simplifies matters but mars the symmetry,
> >to my way of thinking. 

Entropy:
Yes, the idea of Harry as HorseChux definitely mars the symmetry.
However, if Godric's sword had been the intended target, then the
symmetry remains (somewhat) intact.  

Kneasy:

> The unpolluted ones (Sword and maybe Wand) could actually help Harry in
> his mission. The Huff Cup might even be a weapon that turns against
Voldy 
> as user. 

Entropy:

This brough to mind an important element of the HorSocks for me.  The
only one we have actually seen eliminated is the diary. In order to
destroy the diary, it was necessary for Harry to confront the piece of
the soul contained therein; that is, Diary!Tom himself.

Does this mean that the task of the HorPuxes involves not just finding
and destroying each of them in succession, but actually confronting
and destroying various incarnations of Voldemort himself?  In this
case, it was not simply a powerful protection which so badly injured
DD's hand, but an actual battle with Ring!Voldemort. Just as the diary
contained a piece of Voldemort as he was during his school days, each
HorCracks should contain Voldemort at that particular stage in his
life, with the knowledge and powers he possessed at that time.  If
this is the case, then Harry clearly fought the weakest and least
knowledgeable of the Voldemort sevenths, and his successive battles
will be far more difficult.

All of this speculation leads back to, of course, Horcrux!Harry, who
would contain the darkest, most knowlegdable Voldemort who, at the
height of his powers, mistakenly inflicted his most powerful seventh
on Harry.

Ahhh, speculation. Let the games begin!

:: Entropy ::





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 18:39:37 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:39:37 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcqrue+jpj8@...>
Message-ID: <dcr319+c6el@...>

Entropy:
> 
> This brough to mind an important element of the HorSocks for me.  The
> only one we have actually seen eliminated is the diary. In order to
> destroy the diary, it was necessary for Harry to confront the piece 
of
> the soul contained therein; that is, Diary!Tom himself.

That's not how I see it, rather the reverse.  As long as Harry was 
focussed on Riddle, he got nowhere - and there's plenty of evidence 
that Riddle was playing for time in that scene.

Once he stabs the *diary*, Riddle vanishes and Ginny revives.

It is true that, had Riddle not come out of the diary, the Basilisk 
would not have been summoned and harry would not have had a handy fang 
to do the stabbing with.  But I think the inference is that a powerful 
magical entity requires another powerful magical weapon to destroy it, 
not that the fang was effective because Riddle had had a hand in its 
availability.  I take it that, with an appropriate weapon, Harry could 
have destroyed the diary at any time, had he known what it really was.

David





From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 19:21:30 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:21:30 -0000
Subject: The Ravenclaw Hx identified?
In-Reply-To: <dcr319+c6el@...>
Message-ID: <dcr5fq+r6b5@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> That's not how I see it, rather the reverse.  As long as Harry was 
> focussed on Riddle, he got nowhere - and there's plenty of evidence 
> that Riddle was playing for time in that scene.
> 
> Once he stabs the *diary*, Riddle vanishes and Ginny revives.
> 
> It is true that, had Riddle not come out of the diary, the Basilisk 
> would not have been summoned and harry would not have had a handy 
fang to do the stabbing with.  But I think the inference is that a 
powerful magical entity requires another powerful magical weapon to 
destroy it, not that the fang was effective because Riddle had had a 
hand in its availability.  I take it that, with an appropriate 
weapon, Harry could have destroyed the diary at any time, had he 
known what it really was.
> 
> David

Carolyn:
If that's true, it appears you need to destroy evil with evil. 
Otherwise, JKR could have had him just stick Gryffindor's sword 
through it.

Interesting. Wonder what DD used to destroy the ring.






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug  3 19:45:29 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:45:29 -0000
Subject: What would convince Harry/canned memories
In-Reply-To: <dc02il+etr3@...>
Message-ID: <dcr6sp+oppn@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> 
wrote:
> > I had two questions. Why didn't Dumbledore just *tell* Harry why 
he could
> > trust Snape? And how, now, can Harry possibly learn, and 
*believe in,* the
> > reason Dumbledore trusted Snape? I think the only person who 
knew,
> > Dumbledore, made it impossible for himself to tell anyone. I 
think it is
> > only Dumbledore, still, who has a reasonable chance of making 
Harry
> > understand. And I think it will still be Dumbledore who tells 
him.
> > 
> > I grant you, death is a bit of an obstacle to communication. But 
given all
> > that we now know of Pensieves, I think I can see an explanation 
for why
> > Dumbledore did not tell him (or anyone else, evidently) and the 
way for
> > Dumbledore to give this last bit of information to Harry.
> > 
> > Here's my summation of Pensieve knowledge (forgive the caps, 
please--I
> > cannot underline or otherwise set off for ease of reading):
> > 
> > (1) PUTTING A MEMORY IN THE PENSIEVE TAKES IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD. 
Canon
> > supports this:
> >
> 
> You're right, but whether Jo will stick strictly to existing canon 
is
> something else again. There are hints that some previously 
believed to
> be fixed canon is not so fixed after all - the Protection Where 
Lily's Blood Dwells
> for one (well spotted that poster) and there could be more that'll 
reveal
> themselves as we become more familiar with the detail in the book.
> 
> Yes, some of us have commented already on how useful bottled 
memories
> will be in setting young Potter on the straight and narrow, though 
I hadn't 
> myself got round to the possibility that the way Snape could avoid 
betraying
> himself to Voldy (or DD) is not to have the dangerous memories in 
his noggin
> in the first place (nice bit of deductive thinking there, by the 
way).  There's
> even a danger that this neat wrinkle of banishing inconvenient 
memories
> could be over-used - what a wonderful excuse for characters not 
telling
> Harry stuff when he needs it! Even (and this repeats a thought I 
posted
> some time back) -  there could be a bottled memory *from Harry* 
showing
> what he saw at GH. Yes, he was a toddler and he might not have 
understood
> what he saw, but that wouldn't neccessarily mean that the memory 
couldn't
> be accessed. They must have been doing something interesting in 
the Missing
> 24 hours, don't you think?
> 
> It could also play to the long-held Memory-Modified Neville 
theories.
> Hells teeth! What has Jo presented us with?
> 
> A further question -  if someone dies with memories missing, does 
that
> mean that they are missing from any post-death animated 
representation
> of them? 'Cos I was sort of relying on DD's portrait launching 
into the
> final explication at the end of book 7. But if he's got memory 
blanks that
> exercise might be less than complete.
> 
> The implications of these handy thought-sized bottles bear 
thinking about. 
>  
> Kneasy

Perhaps, the memories being missing from your head depend on which 
spell you use to retrieve them.  For instance, you have the "cut and 
paste" spell or the "copy and paste" spell for pensieve use.  If you 
wish to move the memory out for better storage space utilization, 
you would choose the "cut and paste" spell.  Sometimes you can use 
a "disc optimization" spell to clean out unwanted memories from your 
mind.  

Randy  ( who hopes Bill Gates does not make money every time someone 
uses a pensieve too !)







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 01:24:35 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:24:35 -0000
Subject: Counting and trashing Horcruces
In-Reply-To: <dcqian+4pk0@...>
Message-ID: <dcrqoj+uqk6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
<bit of snipping>
> 
> The other thing that occurs to me about all this is that by the 
time 
> they have finished, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Harry will have done 
a 
> pretty fine job between them of trashing all the wizarding world's 
> most ancient and magical objets d'art.  The ring is gone, the 
locket 
> is e'en now prik't, the cup cannot be far behind.
> 
> This raises unavoidable Tolkienesque associations for me.  Do these 
> trinkets, like the Elven Rings of Middle Earth, play some role in 
> maintaining the WW?  People have already speculated on possible 
> Nazgul-inducing properties of Slytherin's ring had Dumbledore kept 
> it intact.  Like the, count 'em, 7, Palantiri, do the properties of 
> these devices become corrupted and formed to the will of the Dark 
> Lord?
> 
> In other words, will the WW take lasting damage from the 
destruction 
> of its ancient treasures?
> David

I was under the impression that the object wasn't destroyed just the 
bit of soul it contained.  Harry saw DD wearing the ring and also on 
a table in his office.  IIrc, the dairy was not destroyed either....

Regards,
Fran







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 03:36:48 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:36:48 -0000
Subject: This and that OT
In-Reply-To: <27AC67B4-01B0-44C3-9BCD-CFF1B47EEE36@...>
Message-ID: <dcs2gg+i488@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Spoiler
> Space
> Can
> Be
> Re-cycled.
> After
> It  is
> No longer
> Needed
> Mods
> Should
> Snip it
> Out
> And
> Send
> 
> Kneasy
> Who thinks Neil used his Time-turner to get a sneak preview.
> He keeps it in the attic with a certain portrait - the one with 
the  
> wrinkles.

I seem to remember that Tom Riddle had stolen one of Neil's bunny 
slippers at Hogwarts, and he was muttering to himself about horse 
socks instead of bunnies.  Perhaps that's where the last one was 
transferred.

RED EYE Randy (Shield Wolf who keeps growing too much hair and looks 
menacingly at the moon from time to time)






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 05:39:20 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 05:39:20 -0000
Subject: OT Poetry __The Witch from Nantucket
Message-ID: <dcs9m8+9roj@...>

There once was a Witch from Nantucket
Who kept horcruxes inside her bucket.
She took them to town
And she showed them around
Now this Soul Sister's friend stole her locket.

Seems a lad came from over the pond
Wanted so much to show her his wand
He took her back to his cave
Which he soon made her grave
Once he found she was not a true blonde.

Now the moral of the story is quite clear
Don't be charmed by those men who all leer
And those guys in the pool
Are all deadheads you fool
And that stuff in the bowl is not beer.


Red Eye Randy ( who has read one too many posts today..)






From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 12:45:14 2005
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:45:14 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All?
In-Reply-To: <dclt5d+c9op@...>
Message-ID: <dct2kq+6a05@...>

Sigune:
This reply is mighty late, but I needed some time to reflect on it. 
As you said, right now canon evidence can lead either way and 
anyone's Snape interpretation is determined by that person's view on 
a character JKR leaves deliberately ambiguous. Reading your post, I 
see that your Snape is definitely stronger and less petty than mine, 
and that has its consequences.

<snip>

Kneasy:
<A nice wrinkle in chap. 2 is that Draino's objective is never 
mentioned, which sets up doubts in the readers minds - deliberately 
so, I'm sure. On first reading my reaction was "It'll be to do with 
that Potter kid." 
Bet others thought so too.

Has Voldy actually told Sevvy what he wants Draino to do? Or is Snape 
pretending to know more than he actually does and is he assuming that 
the target is Harry? If so this would make the DD-icide even bangier. 
He's trapped by his own promise into doing something he never 
envisaged. This could lead us into an horrendous swamp, very similar 
to the 'magical contracts are unbreakable' impasse from GoF - if you 
didn't agree to enter into the contract in the first place, how can 
it possibly be binding? 
Leading this time to: if an Unbreakable Vow is made but the vowers 
think it refers to different things, what happens? The 'promiser' can 
be considered to have fulfilled what he *believed* to have been the 
vow, can't he? Because if he doesn't do what he thinks he's promised, 
he's broken the vow based on what he thought he was committing 
himself to.  
Hm. Difficult.>

Sigune:
It is. We know very little about the terms of the Unbreakable Vow ? 
such as, for example, is it really entirely unbreakable? (Couldn't a 
wizard of Dumbledore's stature have lifted it? If so, it's entirely 
more sensible that Snape should have informed him of everything.) 
Does breaking the Vow mean that you die on the spot (struck by 
lightning or something) the moment you fail to fulfil (any part of) 
the promise ? or does it mean you'll be doomed to come to a sticky 
end at some indefinite point in the future? (If it's the second, that 
might be called to support the speculation about the AK not being 
what it looks and having actually failed.)

As for the fact that the precise contents of Draco's mission is never 
mentioned, I fail to be convinced by the assumption that Snape didn't 
know what it was all about. The chapter *had to be* vague ? not only 
because JKR wishes to keep Snape's loyalties ambiguous, but also (if 
I recall correctly you hate this kind of argument; I beg your pardon, 
Kneasy) because making Draco's mission explicit in Chapter Two would 
give away too much of the book's plot; because let's be fair, the 
identity of the Half-Blood Prince wasn't much of a mystery (even *I* 
thought it was obvious and that's saying something) and it couldn't 
have kept the book going.


Kneasy:
<But I think he does know who the target is.
Sevvy gazes into Cissy's tear-filled baby blue eyes - and he's an ace 
at Legilimancy. He knows. He might even see that Cissy means to bind 
him with a UV.>

Sigune:
Legilimency is very convenient, isn't it? :-) 
However: although we have been repeatedly told that Snape is an ace 
at *Occlumency* we don't know his skill at Legilimency equals that. 
If it does, it becomes harder to maintain that he didn't know about 
the Vanishing Cabinets after the Christmas chat ? or do we assume 
Auntie Bella turned dear Draco into a real expert Occlumens?
Also: awareness of Cissy's intention to bind him with an Unbreakable 
Vow doesn't imply that he also knows exactly what clauses she is 
going to include.

On a similar issue ? that of whether or not Snape would at all be 
able to keep things from Dumbledore-the-Legilimens, ewe2 wrote:

<One question I would ask here, although I can't see how it can be 
substantiated from current canon, is whether Dumbledore is a better 
Legilimens than Snape's Occulumens. It is doubtful that Snape would 
be unaware of such an attempt (even Draco's training affords him that 
ability, and isn't it interesting that Bella trained him?), but it is 
an outside possibility. JKR has made much of DD's trust (and 
therefore the likelihood of DD not making an attempt at Legilimency), 
but I cannot think that Snape could entirely fool him, whether he 
wanted to believe Snape's story or not.>

Sigune again:
The answer to this depends, I should say, on whether or not 
Dumbledore is a better Legilimens than Voldemort. We know that Snape 
has been able to fool Voldemort from the tender age of, what, twenty ?
 the age at which he defected. I am inclined to assume that a really 
good Occlumens can hide even the fact that he is pushing some 
memories/thoughts away.
I tend to think that yes, Snape is a better Occlumens than Dumbledore 
is a Legilimens; that is why Dumbledore *has to* trust Snape. If he 
could simply X-ray him then the endlessly repeated stress on the 
whole `trust' matter would be a bit superfluous. 


<snip excellent explanation of Voldie's motives for targeting Dumbly, 
not Harry>

Kneasy:
<Just how weakened is DD? Send in a volunteer, a disposable 
volunteer, to find out. Sevvy may even exaggerated the debilitating 
effects of the injury 
- just as he denigrates Harry's magical abilities. 

"That's all very well," you'll say, "but stop whittering and say if 
you think Sevvy told DD that he'd promised to do the dirty deed if 
Draco didn't."

Yes. I think he did.
I think he told him everything.
And DD made his plans accordingly.

Draco is nasty but inept. He has delusions of adequacy. Bet DD thinks 
so too, though he might not use the same words. Draco will fail; DD 
knows it, Snape knows it and so does Cissy. DD can't offer Draino 
help until the little creep actually tries and fails, and through 
sheer force of personality DD ensures that young Malfoy doesn't even 
try to pot a sitting duck.

There's Malfoy with a helpless DD at his mercy and he chickens out. 
Snape arrives. Now the S. Snape we all know and love - what would be 
his reaction, all other things being equal. He'd bully Malfoy. He'd 
more or less force him to cast the AK.  "Fulfill your master's 
wishes, you horrible little scrote!" That way the Unbreakable Vow 
never gets invoked, Snape is free and clear, Draino doesn't get 
special attention from Voldy, DD is dead and all the DEs cheer. But 
that's not what happens; Sevvy ignores Malfoy, except to push him out 
of the way; he regards DD. For what? Assessing his physical state? Is 
DD likely to survive that Potion? Then comes revulsion, hatred and an 
AK.>

Sigune:
Hm. I don't accept Snape shoving Malfoy out of the way and offing 
Dumbledore himself as proof of the fact that it was planned that way. 
Goading Draco on would be the thing to do for ESE!Snape, Snape-the-
enthusiastic-Death Eater. The Snape who keeps Malfoy from killing is 
the one who agreed to protect him and the man Dumbledore trusts ? he 
keeps the miserable little bugger from tainting his soul at the age 
of sixteen. Somehow I think that's what Dumbledore would have wanted. 
Forcing Draco to cast the AK would certainly have been the easy way 
out for Snape. ? Goodness ? would he have a conscience after all? ;-)


Kneasy:
<Revulsion and hatred for what? For DD or for what has happened to 
him and for he who was responsible for it? I like to think it's the 
latter. And I also like to think that there was a previous agreement 
between the two - "If I get something terminally nasty - DO IT!" He 
survives the hand through Snape's efforts - even so it can't be 
cured. What else might he run into? Nothing pleasant, that's for 
sure. ('Course, if the Potion is curable, then we're into a different 
ball-game entirely.)

Right at that moment who will be more use to Harry in the future? A 
dying/dead DD or a strong Snape behind enemy lines? No contest.
Everyone is expendable - except Harry.>

Sigune:
It does make sense, but I still do have a quibble with this: 
How could the Marvellous Duo know Dumbledore would be near death at 
the time of Draco's definitive attempt? Even if you assume that Snape 
*told* Draco to strike on Dumbledore's return from the cave, there is 
still the issue of the Vanishing Cabinets about which Snape knew 
nothing and the fixing of which delayed Draco's `earnest' try. Draco 
strikes that night because the Cabinets are fixed, not because 
Dumbledore has been out hunting Hopsickles.
Or would you suggest that Dumbledore told Snape to just forget about 
Draco and just kill him as soon as he somehow ended up terminally 
ill? But if it hadn't been for the Cabinets carrying Death Eaters, 
Dumbledore would have got to Snape in time and he would have been (at 
least partially) healed.

I think it is still equally, if not more, likely that the decision 
between Saving Dying Dumbledore or Snape Behind Enemy Lines lay with 
Snape, not Dumbledore.


Kneasy:
<One thing you can say about DD - he plans ahead. And that plan might 
include a little extra. The absence of Fawkes is a sign, IMO. DD 
attacked and no guardian dicky-bird? How likely is that? Not very. 
Unless it was arranged.>

Sigune:
Or he was simply resigned. "Tu quoque, fili mi? Ah well ? I'm done 
for anyway." Or, after his initial doubt, the exchange of looks (with 
the possibility of Legilimency, which I admit I skipped over in my 
original post) conveys Snape's intentions to him and he agrees. 


Kneasy:
<He *chose* to die. No struggle, no avoidance.
Last time somebody did that it put a spoke in Voldy's wheel.
Something to look out for in book 7?>

Sigune:
I sincerely hope so :-).





From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 14:47:19 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:19 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcnao7+42a1@...>
Message-ID: <dct9pn+38uk@...>

> Dungrollin:
> ...I'm also convinced R.A.B. is Regulus, and I'm suspicious of 
> Regulus finding the cave and getting the locket out by his own and 
> on his self. I think he had help from a senior DE <snip>
> 
> The question is, who was it?
> <snip>
> 
> Obviously, it can't have been Snape, because if he were Good, and
> out to destroy Voldy's hipkitches from such an early time, he would
> have told DD all about it yonks ago, and DD would never have
> bothered going to the cave to get a fake. If he were ESE (as if!),
> why would he have helped Regulus pinch one of his master's 
> trinkets? Perhaps someone with a penchant for ESE!Snape could 
think 
> this one through, (I'm afraid my doublethink abilities are too 
> limited).
> 
> <snip further cast of suspects>
> 
> Basically, I can't decide between ESE!Aberforth and
> MoreResentfulThanHeSeems!Lucius, for the moment.
> 
> Carolyn:
> This is where I've come to a dead end as well. Snape seems to me 
> the most likeliest of the whole bunch, because it is clear from 
the 
> Sluggy evidence that  it is not unusual for very advanced students 
> with an interest in the Dark Arts to be interested in Hxs. But I 
> cannot figure out how he found the location of the cave, and if he 
> did do it, why he would not have told DD (since naturally, he is 
> Not Guilty as charged <g>).
> 
> Carolyn


Dungrollin:
While trying to clear some of the inch-thick slick of duckweed from 
the pond yesterday morning (a satisfying, if tedious job which 
allows the mind to wander and the frogs to breathe), I found myself 
reasoning this way:

The problem with postulating Snape (aside from the fact that he's 
*obviously* still working for DD) is that he's hardly more plausible 
than Regulus. Snape too was only a handful of years out of Hogwarts. 

Slughorn's drunken stutterings ("I am not proud ... I am ashamed of 
what ? of what that memory shows ... I think I may have done
great damage that day ...") lead me to think that had anybody come 
to him asking about Hipreplacements after Tom did, he'd have told 
them to bugger off.

Which suggests to me that there's no way Regulus could have found 
out about them. There was nothing in Hogwarts library, DD had 
forbidden all discussion of them, Slughorn doesn't even want to 
revisit the memory of talking about them. Voldy apparently trusted 
no-one. Who could have suspected that he was making a High-hat?

Perhaps someone who didn't go to Hogwarts at all, someone who didn't 
have the benefit of a Headmaster like DD to excise all references to 
unmentionably evil magic in the library. Someone like Karkaroff, who 
went to Durmstrang and learned the Dark Arts there.  Actually, 
Karkaroff makes a lot of sense ? it explains why he was so
surprised to find that the Dark Marks were coming back in GoF, it 
explains why he blabbed as soon as he was caught by the ministry ? 
he never thought he'd have to beg for Voldy's forgiveness because he 
thought that Voldy was gone for good, not realising that he had more 
than one Howcryptic.

It's still a stretch, really, because we also need to explain how 
whoever it was found out about the cave. The only people who knew 
for certain are Tom and Amy and Dennis. Mrs Cole and DD know/knew 
that *something* happened, and anyone who knew that Voldy was really 
Tom Riddle could have tracked down the Muggle Orphanage and (with a 
bottle of gin) induced Mrs Cole to tell the story. But why would 
anyone think to do that?  It still requires that Voldy had let slip 
something about a really great bit of Muggle torture he did before 
he even owned a wand. Which runs contrary to what DD says about him:

"He was very guarded with me; he felt, I am sure, that in the thrill 
of discovering his true identity he had told me a little too much. 
He was careful never to reveal as much again, but he could not take 
back what he had let slip in his excitement, nor what Mrs Cole had 
confided in me."

Though we could assume that Tom was much less guarded with his proto-
Death Eaters in the Slytherin common room.

Then, yesterday afternoon (while re-sealing the bath) I thought: 
wait a moment... Sluggy didn't tell Tom about the spell needed to 
make a Horseblanket, so where did Tom find out? 

How about Grindelwald? Could Karkaroff have also been a Grindy 
acolyte? Is that how he and Tom met? I should think Grindy would 
have been somewhat suspicious of Tom, and, perhaps through 
legilimency picked up the memory of Amy and Dennis in the cave. 
(This would undoubtedly have angered Tom no end, so he'd have 
dedicated himself to becoming the best Legilimens in the world). 
Thus, it could have been Grindy who let it slip to Karkaroff before 
DD nobbled him.

Or is someone going to tell me that we know when Karkaroff was born 
and it doesn't tally?

Just a thought or five.

Dungrollin





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 14:58:31 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:58:31 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All?
In-Reply-To: <dct2kq+6a05@...>
Message-ID: <dctaen+pcet@...>

 
> Kneasy: 
> He's trapped by his own promise into doing something he never 
> envisaged. This could lead us into an horrendous swamp, very 
similar 
> to the 'magical contracts are unbreakable' impasse from GoF - if 
you 
> didn't agree to enter into the contract in the first place, how can 
> it possibly be binding? 
> Leading this time to: if an Unbreakable Vow is made but the vowers 
> think it refers to different things, what happens? The 'promiser' 
can 
> be considered to have fulfilled what he *believed* to have been the 
> vow, can't he? Because if he doesn't do what he thinks he's 
promised, 
> he's broken the vow based on what he thought he was committing 
> himself to.  
> Hm. Difficult.>

Kathy W:
But that is just like magical deals in fairy tales. Whether it's 3 
wishes or prophecies there is usually some twist. Sometimes that 
twist plays into the wisher's being surprised and sometimes it works 
that the mere mortal tricks the magical person. 

Snape either knew Draco's mission or had a good idea, but was 
planning to weasel out of the vow by word play. Everyone of the three 
conditions had some fudge room. The third one caught him off guard, 
but the wording still has some play in it.
> 
> Sigune: 
> As for the fact that the precise contents of Draco's mission is 
never 
> mentioned, I fail to be convinced by the assumption that Snape 
didn't 
> know what it was all about. The chapter *had to be* vague ...
snip

Kathy W:
It was just like the teaching position with Slughorn. He and 
Dumbledore knew which position was being offered. We were supposed to 
think it was DADA, just like Harry did. I however knew what was going 
on. (and that doesn't happen too often!)

Just because we thought Harry was the target, didn't mean Snape did.
 
> Sigune:
> Legilimency is very convenient, isn't it? :-) 
> However: although we have been repeatedly told that Snape is an ace 
> at *Occlumency* we don't know his skill at Legilimency equals that. 
> If it does, it becomes harder to maintain that he didn't know about 
> the Vanishing Cabinets after the Christmas chat ? or do we assume 
> Auntie Bella turned dear Draco into a real expert Occlumens?

Kathy W:
Although there has been hints that Snape is a Legilimens throughout 
the books, it's never been stated. And even now, no one comes out and 
says it, but it's very clear. Seems to me he's gotten better at it. 
But he's said before, you don't just read minds like an open book. 

So unless he knew to look for the thoughts about the cabinet, he 
might not have seen them. It appears that he goads the person into 
thinking about certain experiences. Draco, upset at being caught 
during the party, might be easier to "read" than normal. Besides, 
Draco had been avoiding Snape, even to the point of disobeying orders 
to come to his office. When Draco does use Occlumency, Snape can 
detect it. Snape believes Aunty Bella is the teacher, but do we 
really know that?
 
> Kneasy:
> <He *chose* to die. No struggle, no avoidance.
> Last time somebody did that it put a spoke in Voldy's wheel.
> Something to look out for in book 7?>

Kathy W:
So who got the "benefit" Snape or Draco?








From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 16:22:51 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:22:51 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dct9pn+38uk@...>
Message-ID: <dctfcr+gjjp@...>

Dung:
> Then, yesterday afternoon (while re-sealing the bath) I thought: 
> wait a moment... Sluggy didn't tell Tom about the spell needed to 
> make a Horseblanket, so where did Tom find out? 
> 
> How about Grindelwald? Could Karkaroff have also been a Grindy 
> acolyte? Is that how he and Tom met? I should think Grindy would 
> have been somewhat suspicious of Tom, and, perhaps through 
> legilimency picked up the memory of Amy and Dennis in the cave. 
> (This would undoubtedly have angered Tom no end, so he'd have 
> dedicated himself to becoming the best Legilimens in the world). 
> Thus, it could have been Grindy who let it slip to Karkaroff 
before 
> DD nobbled him.

Jen: JKR was mum about Grindelwald in that last interview, guess  
we're finally due for some answers. I'm not sure about the Karkaroff 
connection; I'm still figuring on Amy Benson as either a mistaken 
identity character (one we already know) or a new character we'll 
meet. But Grindelwald must be the Horcrux connection.

Even if Tom and Grindelwald never met directly, it's pretty clear GW 
was able to form at least one Horcrux before being defeated by 
Dumbledore. I think that's who DD refers to when he said 'no wizard 
has ever done more than tear his soul in two' (chap. 23. p. 500) and 
why he adamantly refuses for Horcrux information to be available at 
Hogwarts. Also, it explains how Dumbledore knew to suspect Voldemort 
of making Horcruxes, because he's seen it happen before.

If the Riddle murders happened the summer after Tom's fifth year (no 
other option seems to fit with the canon we have now, even though 
the Lexicon places it after the sixth year), then he had two years 
to learn form Grindelwald, until 1945.

I wonder if word of the GW Horcrux somehow leaked out in the WW 
underworld? Was Riddle already hanging around Knockturn Alley and 
that's how he found Borgin & Burkes? He must have been, during 
summers if nothing else. But Riddle *had* to know about the tunnels 
at Hogwarts too, if he discovered more secrets about the castle than 
anyone else.

So what do you think Dung, was Riddle an apprentice or did he 
secretly discover GW's work on Horcruxes and learn that way? Somehow 
I can't see Loner!Tom admiring anyone else enough to apprentice with 
them. 

Jen, thinking Dung has a pretty cool job if she gets to think about 
HP while she's working.





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 17:10:00 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:10:00 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronis? was: cobwebs  and Re: Peter
In-Reply-To: <dcaoq4+n8ip@...>
Message-ID: <dcti58+1s4g@...>

SNIP
> KathyW
> Sort of like the ropes that came out of Snape's wand back in PoA? 
> Stong enough to restrain a werewolf? 
> 
> Not only were people searching maps, they had other ideas: death 
of 
> Aragog, someone's end, someone's goal, something to do with 
Draco's 
> detour....it's almost as if JKR took all the ideas and worked them 
> into the book, if not the chapter.
> 
> The images that this chapter create are amazing. Who lives at 
> Spinner's End? Two SPYders. Hmm, and spy was part of the spider 
> riddle back in GoF. Snape has been described in spider-like terms 
> (particularly in OoP), fitting he would live here, possibly 
killing 
> flies in this very house as a teen. Right in the chapter itself he 
> says, "I spun him a tale of deepest remorse..."
> 

Randy:

Great Idea!  Sounds like Snape's patronis is a Spider!?  Any 
comments? He sets traps for his enemies.  He will ensnare Voldemort 
as his potions (poisons) "ensnare the senses..."






From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 17:19:36 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:19:36 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcm8q2+kskq@...>
Message-ID: <dctin8+sgej@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin"
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:

> I think you're absolutely right. But I'm also convinced R.A.B. is 
> Regulus, and I'm suspicious of Regulus finding the cave and getting 
> the locket out by his own and on his self. I think he had help from 
> a senior DE <snip>
> 
> I'm looking for a DE who was ticked off with Voldy, but who didn't 
> necessarily want him to know that they were <snip>
> 
> Obviously, it can't have been Snape,<snip>
> Bella <snip>
> Barty Crouch Junior? <snip>
> Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov, Lestrange (presumably Rodolphus, 
> Rabastan or their father) and Avery (etc...)
> 
> Dungrollin


Yes, the initials plus the locket found at Grimmauld place in OOP was
enough to convince me that the author of the note was Regulus. But who
helped him? What about Kreacher? 

Harry mentions that the boat "doesn't look like it was built for two
people" and is worried that the boat will support both of their
weights.  Supposing that Regulus was an average-sized man, Kreacher's
small, somewhat emaciated frame would not have added any significant
amount of weight to the small craft.

Dumbledore's response to Harry's concern is that "Voldemort will not
have cared about the weight, but about the amount of magical power
that crossed his lake. I rather think an enchantment will have been
placed upon this boat so that only one wizard at a time will be able
to sail in it."  One *wizard*. We already know that house elves have
strong magical powers of their own, but it seems to be separate from
the type of magic that wizards possess (we have seen that they are
immune to Hogwart's enchantments against apparating and disapparating
and such).  Just as Kreacher's weight was insignificant to the sailing
of the boat, so were his magical powers undetected by the enchantment.

Finally, if the locket found at Grimmauld Place turns out to be the
HorseCrax locket, we could easily connect the dots that Kreacher was
able to get his hands on the locket and tuck it away at Grimmauld
Place before Regulus had a chance to figure out what to do with it. 

:: Entropy ::





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 17:27:46 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:27:46 -0000
Subject: Just summon your Snorlax: Re: Those dam Hordevours!
In-Reply-To: <dcbgic+4ttd@...>
Message-ID: <dctj6i+3g6l@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at j...> wrote:
> I said, regarding Tom Riddle using the "soul tears" from old 
murders:
> > > This assumes one can "save up" the soul fragments from a 
murder 
> > > and use them later, which I doubt.  I suspect that horcrux 
must 
> > > be made 
> > > at or immemdiately after the time of the murder.
> 
> 
> and Jo said:
> > I'm curious why do you doubt this?
> >
> > The way I see it is that we are told murder tears the soul, but 
not 
> > that the remnant promptly exits stage left. Why would it?  DD 
> > indicates that there is a primary bit of soul, the one still 
with 
> > Voldy, that appears to anchor all the others. 
> > 
> > A rip caused by murder would, I imagine, remain entire unless 
the 
> > individual attempted to heal it (remorse, reparation etc). 
Creating 
> > a HRX, to me, implies removing the off cut and depositing it 
> > elsewhere, something that can be done any time or place, 
subsequent 
> > to the death, that you choose.
> 
> Good post, Jo, I copied the whole thing instead of excerpting.
> 
> Going back and looking at Slughorn's description of the horcrux, I 
> agree there is nothing that says the murder must be recent. 
However, 
> being able to say, "Hey!  I murdered some guy twenty years ago, I 
> just realized I can make a horcrux!" seems, well, too easy.  
Hermione 
> finds a book saying the horcrux is the "wickedest of magical 
> inventions", so wicked that the book "Magick Moste Evile" refuses 
to 
> discuss it.  The topic is banned at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is 
> adamant about the ban.  If the problem with horcruxes was that 
only 
> murderers could make them, that doesn't seem evil enough to get 
this 
> treatment. AK is discussed openly, and there are plenty of 
murderers 
> in the wizarding world.  So, I was thinking that it had to be more 
> than just a murder in one's past, and that an unwilling human 
> sacrifice was part of the actual creation of the horcrux.  
> 
> However, I was just talking to a friend, and she said that perhaps 
> the murder isn't what makes the horcrux so evil.  What makes it so 
> evil, maybe, is how it permanently separates the soul -- she 
compared 
> it to selling your soul to the devil.  So, that is another 
> possibility.
> 
> As for what happens to one's torn soul long after committing 
murder, 
> I definitely don't think the fragment of soul leaves.  We've seen 
> that, when Tom Riddle got rid of fragments of his soul, he became 
> less human, even in appearance.  Having part of your soul leave 
you 
> seems to be very rare.  I was thinking more that the horcrux could 
> only be made when the rip in the soul was fresh.  After a time, 
the 
> rip would sort of scar over.  But that is just speculation.  I 
hadn't 
> thought of repentance as being needed to heal the soul; I like 
that 
> idea.
> 
> -- Judy

Randy:  

Interesting posts on the process.  It seems to me you just take out 
your pokeball and Yell "Snorlax, I choose you!"  Then the guy pops 
out of the pokeball and is ready to do battle with the other 
snorlaxes in the stadium.  If you don't have any kids (especially 
small boys) you may not understand these comments. ;0)





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 19:06:33 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:06:33 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All?
In-Reply-To: <dct2kq+6a05@...>
Message-ID: <dctovp+pp6t@...>

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

> Legilimency is very convenient, isn't it? :-) 
> However: although we have been repeatedly told that Snape is an ace 
> at *Occlumency* we don't know his skill at Legilimency equals that. 
> If it does, it becomes harder to maintain that he didn't know about 
> the Vanishing Cabinets after the Christmas chat ? or do we assume 
> Auntie Bella turned dear Draco into a real expert Occlumens?
> Also: awareness of Cissy's intention to bind him with an Unbreakable 
> Vow doesn't imply that he also knows exactly what clauses she is 
> going to include.
> 

Kneasy:
I may be wrong, but I  think that if you're good at one, you're good at 
the other; dual aspects of the same skills. I also seem to remember Jo 
mentioning that he's pretty hot at Legilimancy. Can't for the life of me 
remember where, but I'm pretty sure it's in black and white somewhere.

> 
> Sigune again:
> The answer to this depends, I should say, on whether or not 
> Dumbledore is a better Legilimens than Voldemort. We know that Snape 
> has been able to fool Voldemort from the tender age of, what, twenty ?
>  the age at which he defected. I am inclined to assume that a really 
> good Occlumens can hide even the fact that he is pushing some 
> memories/thoughts away.
> I tend to think that yes, Snape is a better Occlumens than Dumbledore 
> is a Legilimens; that is why Dumbledore *has to* trust Snape. If he 
> could simply X-ray him then the endlessly repeated stress on the 
> whole `trust' matter would be a bit superfluous. 
> 
> 

Kneasy:
Again, I  think that magical powers weren't needed, Sevvy told DD everything.
Indeed, if DD felt that he had to probe Snape's mind that would be a sure
sign that he didn't trust him.

> 
> Sigune:
> Hm. I don't accept Snape shoving Malfoy out of the way and offing 
> Dumbledore himself as proof of the fact that it was planned that way. 
> Goading Draco on would be the thing to do for ESE!Snape, Snape-the-
> enthusiastic-Death Eater. The Snape who keeps Malfoy from killing is 
> the one who agreed to protect him and the man Dumbledore trusts ? he 
> keeps the miserable little bugger from tainting his soul at the age 
> of sixteen. Somehow I think that's what Dumbledore would have wanted. 
> Forcing Draco to cast the AK would certainly have been the easy way 
> out for Snape. ? Goodness ? would he have a conscience after all? ;-)
> 
>

Kneasy:
Not the exact circumstances, no. That couldn't be planned for, not
unless DD knew what was going to happen - which is unlikely. Though I
did once write a post pointing out that there were occasions, too many for 
comfortable coincidence, where DD seemed to have made plans for events 
in such a way that it made one wonder if he'd had a peep at the script, that
he did know, at least in general outline, what was going to happen, and
it was on this vaguish foreknowledge that he had based his plan and it
enabled him to move characters around the board accordingly.
Problem is, that sort of reasoning plays into the hands of supporters of 
the Time Travel heresy, and I'm allergic to TT theories.  

No, fairly general guidelines would be enough. DD dying would be the rule
of thumb in all probability. Malfoy being there was a surprise - he was
expecting Snape. After the withered hand it makes sense to have someone
check you over after a night out playing with Horsecrotches.

See, all this "Promise you will do whatever I say" stuff with Harry - all very
well and probably not a problem in most situations - but DD off to the next
great adventure - could he trust Harry to stay calm if that happened? Nope,
Harry would be going bananas.

So, they land, someone comes up the stairs and starts to open the door -
and DD immmediately petrifies Harry *before* they can see who it is.
What is the point of this? Certainly not to fool Draino - Harry is under his 
Invisibilty Cloak and could easily have disarmed or petrified Draino long
before the scumbag could cast  an AK.

It only makes sense if DD is dying, knows it and is expecting Snape to
turn up and administer the necessary Coup de Grace to save an old friend
and colleague from more suffering, perhaps even enslavement to Voldy.
That scenario would have Harry screaming his head off, fighting tooth and
nail to stop Sevvy and 'save' DD. But that's not what DD wants. It's time to die. 
The fact that Draino doesn't get to be a murderer and Sevvy fulfills the UV is 
pretty much serendipity IMO. Useful, though, helps the plot along no end.








From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 19:57:37 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dcjtug+5d8l@...>
Message-ID: <20050804195737.64154.qmail@...>

--- Talisman <talisman22457 at ...> wrote:

> This little number was just what his lies usually are, a 
> manipulative tool.  Anyone could have gotten Slughorn drunk.  Even 
> DD could have played the Lily card: "You don't want her to have
> died in vain, Harry's The Chosen One, we must help him, etc."
> 
> No, what DD wanted was for Harry, himself, to assert that he is The
> Chosen One, for Harry to accept the mantle.  That's what that
> little task was all about. That's the only thing that no one else 
> but Harry could do.
 
> Pull those strings DD.


Well, yes I agree but there's another element to Harry's getting that
memory away from Slughorn: for the first time Harry had to use
subterfuge to get what he wanted from an adult rather than just
charging in like a Gryffindor hero.  He had to use strategy, take a
round-about way rather than the direct approach (which bombed when he
tried it and he didn't waste time coming up with another option).

Learning guile and cunning is a useful skill for a Chosen One.  Had
Snape been under an invisibility cloak and seen the whole thing, I
think he'd have been both surprised and impressed.

Magda



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 23:05:23 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dctin8+sgej@...>
Message-ID: <20050804230524.86096.qmail@...>

All of this talk of lockets and inferi conjures up a
scene in my head with music playing.  There's RAB
singing with Sting's voice that Police song "Message
in a Locket!" (to the tune of 'Message in a Bottle')

As the fast reggae guitar, drum, and bass play, we see
RAB shouting

I'm sending out an SOS 
I'm sending out an SOS
I'm sending out an SOS 
I'm sending out an SOS

Then the inferi get out of the water and start dancing
in the fashion of a Michael Jackson "Thriller" video.

Message in a Locket
Message in a Locket

Stewart Copeland is banging on the drums which
surround the bowl of potion, and Andy Summers is
enthralled to hear his guitar riff echoing off the
walls of the cave while the Inferi are jamming in
time.

I'm sending out an SOS 
I'm sending out an SOS
I'm sending out an SOS 
I'm sending out an SOS

Sting is slapping the strings on his bass while
Kreacher is dong his spin moves on the boat.


By the way I think Michael Jackson is really an
inferi, or he may just have created too many horcruxes
at this point! I know his face did not look like that
20 years ago and there is no way he gets to teach at
Hogwarts!  ;0)

Red Eye Randy


Message in a Locket
Message in a Locket

Sending out an SOS
Sending out an SOS...

As the band sinks into the lake until the next wizard
shows up...maybe that is what really happened to the
Police after all.






--- entropymail <entropymail at ...> wrote:

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin"
> <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> 
> > I think you're absolutely right. But I'm also
> convinced R.A.B. is 
> > Regulus, and I'm suspicious of Regulus finding the
> cave and getting 
> > the locket out by his own and on his self. I think
> he had help from 
> > a senior DE <snip>
> > 
> > I'm looking for a DE who was ticked off with
> Voldy, but who didn't 
> > necessarily want him to know that they were <snip>
> > 
> > Obviously, it can't have been Snape,<snip>
> > Bella <snip>
> > Barty Crouch Junior? <snip>
> > Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov, Lestrange
> (presumably Rodolphus, 
> > Rabastan or their father) and Avery (etc...)
> > 
> > Dungrollin
> 
> 
> Yes, the initials plus the locket found at Grimmauld
> place in OOP was
> enough to convince me that the author of the note
> was Regulus. But who
> helped him? What about Kreacher? 
> 
> Harry mentions that the boat "doesn't look like it
> was built for two
> people" and is worried that the boat will support
> both of their
> weights.  Supposing that Regulus was an
> average-sized man, Kreacher's
> small, somewhat emaciated frame would not have added
> any significant
> amount of weight to the small craft.
> 
> Dumbledore's response to Harry's concern is that
> "Voldemort will not
> have cared about the weight, but about the amount of
> magical power
> that crossed his lake. I rather think an enchantment
> will have been
> placed upon this boat so that only one wizard at a
> time will be able
> to sail in it."  One *wizard*. We already know that
> house elves have
> strong magical powers of their own, but it seems to
> be separate from
> the type of magic that wizards possess (we have seen
> that they are
> immune to Hogwart's enchantments against apparating
> and disapparating
> and such).  Just as Kreacher's weight was
> insignificant to the sailing
> of the boat, so were his magical powers undetected
> by the enchantment.
> 
> Finally, if the locket found at Grimmauld Place
> turns out to be the
> HorseCrax locket, we could easily connect the dots
> that Kreacher was
> able to get his hands on the locket and tuck it away
> at Grimmauld
> Place before Regulus had a chance to figure out what
> to do with it. 
> 
> :: Entropy ::
> 
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug  4 23:43:00 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:43:00 -0000
Subject: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <dcf9or+q6l7@...>
Message-ID: <dcu964+pbpg@...>

My apologies to Dumbledad and quigonginger.  

I just posted this same scenario today and now I am finally getting 
to your posts and see that you beat me to it!  I guess it is just 
too tempting to see MJ as the results of too many facetucks.  I 
really think JKR was thinking of him when she described Tom Riddle 
in Dumbledore's office.  

I still like my Police Soundtrack for the dancing Inferi.  Hey 
there's a great name for my new band " The Dancing Inferi" !  I play 
guitar and I'll be having auditions for the DI starting next week.

Red Eye Randy

Sending out an SOS, Sending out an SOS...

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" <timregan at m...> 
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I think I know who the human whorecrotch is, and it is not 
Harry. 
> Let's
> > examine the evidence
> > 
> > 1) Having part of the soul of the Dark Lord residing inside you 
would
> > drain you of your vitality and color.
> > 2) Voldemort's meddling in his own soul reduced his once handsome
> > features to "glaring red eyes and slits for nostrils" (PS/SS C17)
> > 3) Voldemort's sense of grandeur and destiny would start to take 
over
> > your own judgements.
> > 
> > In short, one of Voldemort's horcruxes is Michael Jackson.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dumbledad.
> 
> Ginger sighs, 
> Thanks a lot, I'll never again read the scene where Harry fights 
the 
> Inferi without imagining them dancing to Thriller.  Oooh, filk 
bunny.
> 
> Actually, if you go to to CMC's filk site, and go to Abe's Babes, 
> you'll find out who Michael Jackson really is.
> 
> Ginger, doggiesitting a dog named Jackson this weekend.





From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 00:51:34 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:51:34 -0000
Subject: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <dcu964+pbpg@...>
Message-ID: <dcud6m+qoia@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at y...> wrote:
> My apologies to Dumbledad and quigonginger.  
> 
> I just posted this same scenario today and now I am finally getting 
> to your posts and see that you beat me to it!  I guess it is just 
> too tempting to see MJ as the results of too many facetucks.  I 
> really think JKR was thinking of him when she described Tom Riddle 
> in Dumbledore's office.  
> 
> I still like my Police Soundtrack for the dancing Inferi.  Hey 
> there's a great name for my new band " The Dancing Inferi" !  I 
play 
> guitar and I'll be having auditions for the DI starting next week.
> 
> Red Eye Randy
> 
> Sending out an SOS, Sending out an SOS...
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
> <quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" <timregan at m...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > I think I know who the human whorecrotch is, and it is not 
> Harry. 
> > Let's
> > > examine the evidence
> > > 
> > > 1) Having part of the soul of the Dark Lord residing inside you 
> would
> > > drain you of your vitality and color.
> > > 2) Voldemort's meddling in his own soul reduced his once 
handsome
> > > features to "glaring red eyes and slits for nostrils" (PS/SS 
C17)
> > > 3) Voldemort's sense of grandeur and destiny would start to 
take 
> over
> > > your own judgements.
> > > 
> > > In short, one of Voldemort's horcruxes is Michael Jackson.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Dumbledad.
> > 
> > Ginger sighs, 
> > Thanks a lot, I'll never again read the scene where Harry fights 
> the 
> > Inferi without imagining them dancing to Thriller.  Oooh, filk 
> bunny.
> > 
> > Actually, if you go to to CMC's filk site, and go to Abe's Babes, 
> > you'll find out who Michael Jackson really is.
> > 
> > Ginger, doggiesitting a dog named Jackson this weekend.

Wait a minute, doesn't horcrux mean too many surgical manipulations 
of the face ending with bad results. 

I was reminded of Micheal Jackson when JKR described Voldy. Can Voldy 
moonwalk and does he wear a white glove.  I can definitely see him 
dangling his child off a balcony...

Fran
 





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 01:38:49 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:38:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronis? was: cobwebs  and Re: Peter
In-Reply-To: <dcti58+1s4g@...>
Message-ID: <dcufv9+7fcq@...>


> Randy:
> 
> Great Idea!  Sounds like Snape's patronis is a Spider!?  Any 
> comments? He sets traps for his enemies.  He will ensnare Voldemort 
> as his potions (poisons) "ensnare the senses..."

Pippin:
But why would that "give too much away"? We already know that
Snape is a spy and rather unsavory, don't we?

Something to consider -- we don't know what Snape's patronus
is, but Dumbledore did, and Dumbledore trusted Snape.

Pippin





From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 09:12:25 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:12:25 -0000
Subject: ZZZZZZZZ (was A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <20050804195737.64154.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <dcvahp+30qg@...>

Talisman:
> > No, what DD wanted was for Harry, himself, to assert that he is 
> > The Chosen One, for Harry to accept the mantle.  That's what that
> > little task was all about. That's the only thing that no one 
> > else but Harry could do.
>  
> > Pull those strings DD.
> 
Magda:
> Well, yes I agree but there's another element to Harry's getting 
> that memory away from Slughorn: for the first time Harry had to use
> subterfuge to get what he wanted from an adult rather than just
> charging in like a Gryffindor hero.  He had to use strategy, take a
> round-about way rather than the direct approach (which bombed when 
> he tried it and he didn't waste time coming up with another 
> option).
> 
> Learning guile and cunning is a useful skill for a Chosen One.  Had
> Snape been under an invisibility cloak and seen the whole thing, I
> think he'd have been both surprised and impressed.

Dungrollin:
'Cept he didn't learn subterfuge, did he, he just took a potion. 
Harry's first effort at getting the memory involved blundering in 
with not even any idea of what a horsebox *was* - it didn't even 
occur to him to ask DD after seeing the doctored memory before he 
boldly wandered up to Sluggy and asked. 

It's interesting to compare the three of them (Harry, Tom and Snape) 
and how they would go about getting such information from Slughorn. 
Tom, we know, managed to politely flatter Slughorn into divulging 
almost everything he wanted to know. I can imagine a teenage Tom 
Riddle watching Harry's first attempt from under an invisibility 
cloak, rolling his eyes and muttering "Amateur!"

Snape, on the other hand, I don't think is capable of this kind of 
flattery. It's not in his nature to get what he wants by making 
people feel good about themselves. The only time I remember 
flattering behaviour from him was at the end of PoA when he was 
after an Order of Merlin from Fudge, when he was being an obsequious 
creep. And he didn't end up getting it, anyway. 

How would Snape do it? I think he'd trick Slughorn into revealing 
what he wanted to know. It would be very cleverly done, and done in 
such a way that Sluggy probably didn't even realise what he'd given 
away. A well set-up game of magical scrabble, perhaps... It couldn't 
be too hard to ensure that Sluggy had an H and an X and a triple 
word score to put them on, and then say "Oh Sir, you're making that 
up! I've read the entire restricted section of the library and there 
is *no* such thing as a Horcrux!" And wait to be proven wrong.

Harry knows it's hopeless. He's useless at this sort of thing, and 
he's already alienated Slughorn by being an idiot and charging in 
with the first stupid idea that occurs to him. So he cheats and uses 
Felix.

Perhaps the lesson Harry's learned here (and from the HBP) is that 
if your abilities in a certain sphere are limited, you can almost 
always cheat with magic.

Dungrollin






From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 09:49:01 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:49:01 -0000
Subject: A dastardly Voldy plan - was: Re: Lockets
In-Reply-To: <dctfcr+gjjp@...>
Message-ID: <dcvcmd+iu3m@...>

Dung:
> Sluggy didn't tell Tom about the spell needed to make a 
> Horseblanket, so where did Tom find out?
>
> How about Grindelwald? Could Karkaroff have also been a Grindy
> acolyte? Is that how he and Tom met? 

Jen: JKR was mum about Grindelwald in that last interview, guess
we're finally due for some answers. I'm not sure about the Karkaroff 
connection; I'm still figuring on Amy Benson as either a mistaken 
identity character (one we already know) or a new character we'll 
meet. But Grindelwald must be the Horcrux connection.
<snip>

So what do you think Dung, was Riddle an apprentice or did he
secretly discover GW's work on Horcruxes and learn that way? Somehow 
I can't see Loner!Tom admiring anyone else enough to apprentice with 
them.


Dungrollin:
Tom was still in his "I can charm the birds from the trees" phase at 
this point. He knew how to carefully flatter people to get what he 
wanted, and I'll bet if he did have contact with Grindelwald he 
spent a good amount of time watching and learning and deciding not 
to make the same mistakes. Like only having one Hoesharpener. 

In fact... We only have Tom finishing Hogwarts in 1945 because of 
the "50 years ago" stuff in CoS, don't we? If that's a vague date, 
(perhaps a couple of years out) then wouldn't it be possible that 
Tom met up with Grindy, learned about Hotcroutons (and possibly made 
his first), and then, after DD had finished Grindelwald off, Tom 
decided to ask Slughorn what would happen if you made more than one? 
It could all be DD's fault for demonstrating so clearly that one 
Hatbox is never enough.


Jen, thinking Dung has a pretty cool job if she gets to think about
HP while she's working.

Dungrollin:
Not *work* work, housework; own pond, own bath. Though I admit to 
gazing out of the window a lot when I *am* at work, too (but that's 
normal, isn't it?)

Dungrollin, previously:
> But I'm also convinced R.A.B. is Regulus, and I'm suspicious of 
Regulus finding the cave and getting the locket out by his own and 
on his self. I think he had help from a senior DE 
<snip>
>
Entropy:
Yes, the initials plus the locket found at Grimmauld place in OOP 
was enough to convince me that the author of the note was Regulus. 
But who helped him? What about Kreacher?

Harry mentions that the boat "doesn't look like it was built for two 
people" and is worried that the boat will support both of their
weights. Supposing that Regulus was an average-sized man, Kreacher's 
small, somewhat emaciated frame would not have added any significant 
amount of weight to the small craft.

Dumbledore's response to Harry's concern is that "Voldemort will not 
have cared about the weight, but about the amount of magical power 
that crossed his lake. I rather think an enchantment will have been 
placed upon this boat so that only one wizard at a time will be able 
to sail in it." One *wizard*. We already know that house elves have 
strong magical powers of their own, but it seems to be separate from 
the type of magic that wizards possess (we have seen that they are 
immune to Hogwart's enchantments against apparating and 
disapparating and such). Just as Kreacher's weight was insignificant 
to the sailing of the boat, so were his magical powers undetected by 
the enchantment.

Dungrollin:
Ye-e-ess... Though it seems to me that Voldy didn't care about 
weight *or* magical power for crossing the lake, since DD with his 
stupendous magical power plus Harry still got across with no 
problem. Neither did it apparently occur to Voldy to simply count 
the number of people in the boat (which would be the easy way of 
doing it, really ? don't tell me he couldn't enchant it to capsize 
when the second person gets in, no matter how heavy/powerful they 
are). 

I don't really understand all that obfuscation of DD's between 
raising the boat and getting in it, frankly. All that happened is 
that DD and Harry got in a small boat and crossed a scary lake. Why 
did JKR bother having DD suspect that the boat was enchanted so that 
only one wizard at a time would be able to sail in it, and then get 
round it by saying that Harry doesn't count? I'd have preferred to 
have seen DD do something clever to get around Voldy's protections, 
than just have him describe the obstacles and why they don't matter. 
Makes Voldy look a bit thick and incompetent again.

Entropy:
Finally, if the locket found at Grimmauld Place turns out to be the
HorseCrax locket, we could easily connect the dots that Kreacher was 
able to get his hands on the locket and tuck it away at Grimmauld 
Place before Regulus had a chance to figure out what to do with it.

Dungrollin:
Yeah, it could have been Kreacher, but it doesn't explain how 
Regulus knew Voldy was making Horlicks in the first place, nor does 
it explain how Regulus knew about and found the cave. (Or are you 
suggesting that Kreacher is first and foremost Voldy's elf?)

And what's Kreacher's motivation in all this? Did he go to the cave 
with Regulus because Reg ordered him to? If he did, why would he 
hide the locket from Reg afterwards? 

Unless Regulus ordered Kreacher to keep it hidden, I'm doubtful that 
Kreacher's got it, since he was hoarding Black family heirlooms 
which had presumably been around for centuries. The Slytherin locket 
would have been a newly-acquired possession of Regulus's, it would 
be less important to Kreacher than that tapestry, or the goblets 
with the black family crest for example.  

I reckon ESE!Aberforth got the locket off Fletcher. Mundungus was 
supposed to be barred from Aberforth's pub, so what were they doing 
in cahoots in Hogsmeade?

Dungrollin





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 10:07:46 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:07:46 -0000
Subject: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <dcud6m+qoia@...>
Message-ID: <dcvdpi+hiu5@...>

Fran wrote:

> Wait a minute, doesn't horcrux mean too many surgical manipulations 
> of the face ending with bad results. 
> 
> I was reminded of Micheal Jackson when JKR described Voldy. Can 
Voldy 
> moonwalk and does he wear a white glove.  I can definitely see him 
> dangling his child off a balcony...

Was anyone not?

http://www.livejournal.com/users/judyserenity/5931.html?
thread=11307#t11307

(I'm sageofgodalming and Judy is writing a book about MJ.)

David





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 10:49:04 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:49:04 -0000
Subject: What If He Didn't Tell All? (now not very LONG)
In-Reply-To: <dcl6pq+olkh@...>
Message-ID: <dcvg70+btbd@...>

Sigune wrote:

> Dear masterminds,
> 
> I have the audacity of offering up an essay in defence of a theory 
> (my own, *ahem*) that I haven't encountered anywhere else yet - that 
> Snape was loyal, but not entirely truthful. Features lots of canon 
in 
> support. By all means tear it apart.

I really like this analysis, and it's hard not just to do an 
extended 'me too'.  It seems to me to have some remarkable merits:

1) It is (once we find out what Draco's task was) pretty well the 
surface reading of the text, but presented in such a way that it 
becomes a double bluff.  For example, Hagrid's overheard conversation 
leads Harry to come not far from the truth, but we as readers are so 
used to assuming that there is an explanation that exonerates Snape - 
think of the conversation with Qirrell.

Snape AKs Dumbledore in full view of the reader, and the fandom is off 
inventing fanciful theories about fake deaths, being already dead, 
killing according to a plan, and so on.  JKR has got us all assuming 
that when she says 'Yes' she means 'No', or 'Nitwit, Oddment, Blubber, 
Tweak.'  Especially 'tweak'.  So now, when she says 'Yes' and means 
it, none of us believe her.

2) It manages to simultaneously have loyaltothecause!Snape and 
Unforgivable!Snape.  He really did use AK to finish off Dumbledore - 
how will JKR resolve that one?  Yet he still has been working against 
Voldemort, which according to Dumbledore (in GOF) is the thing that 
matters.  The Snape who now enters Book 7 is as interesting as ever he 
was, if not more so, and IMO far more interesting than a Snape who has 
pulled off some complicated trick with Dumbledore's connivance.

Just a couple of points that have been debated since.

I think it would be very risky for Snape to claim to know what Draco's 
mission was if he didn't in fact know it.  All Bella has to do is 
say "Go on, tell us, then.  Whisper it in Cissy's ear if you don't 
trust me."

The other issue is how much choice he had in making the Vow.  Was it 
just the thrill of being able to show his power over Narcissa?  It 
depends, I think, on his assessment of his and Bella's true standing 
with Voldemort.  He may have calculated that to refuse to commit 
himself would fatally weaken his mission - he may well have wondered 
if Voldemort's choice of Draco had been calculated to bring about 
precisely this situation.  Which is more interesting, the spinner who 
turns and twists at the end of his thread, or the gameplayer who 
miscalculates in a fatal moment of hubris?

Finally, I agree that Dumbledore, having survived the ring, can be 
expected to have every hope, if not perhaps expectation, of surviving 
the locket, too.  His instructions to Harry make it plain that he has 
a chance of being killed (as does his plea to the Dursleys), but they 
do not make it a certainty or a definite plan.

David






From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 14:39:31 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:39:31 -0000
Subject: Michael Jackson filk
Message-ID: <dcvtn3+rame@...>

I know it's not customary to post filks here, but I thought Tim and 
Randy might enjoy this.  I posted it on the Hog's Head, and it will 
be up on CMC's filk site in a day or two (he's continuously 
updating), but since I quoted Tim, I thought I'd let him see it.

If you don't like filks, go on to the next message.

This is from the Hog's Head (in its entirety):
*********************************

Quite recently, in a galaxy so close as to be considered a parallel 
universe, Tim Regan (Dumbledad) said:

"I think I know who the human Horcrux is, and it is not Harry. Let's
examine the evidence

1) Having part of the soul of the Dark Lord residing inside you would
drain you of your vitality and color.
2) Voldemort's meddling in his own soul reduced his once handsome
features to "glaring red eyes and slits for nostrils" (PS/SS C17)
3) Voldemort's sense of grandeur and destiny would start to take over
your own judgements.

In short, one of Voldemort's horcruxes is Michael Jackson."

Needless to say, it spawned a filk.

To Tim Regan


Horcrux  To the tune of Thriller by Michael Jackson.

The scene:  The cave.  Harry has forced DD to drink the green goo.

HARRY:
You've drained the basin,
And now you're needing water from the lake.
You'd put your face in,
But instinct tells you that is a mistake.
You try to scream,
And *aguamenti's* futile; you must face it.
Water's a dream,
And once you touch the lake, you realize:
It's your demise.

'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
And no one's gonna save you 
>From th' inferi left and right.
'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
You're fighting for your life to get a Horcrux, 
No lux, tonight.

Magical drink banned, 
The lake's the only place where waters run.
You feel the cold hand, 
And then you realize what you have done.
You see their eyes,
A horror that's beyond imagination.
Your memory fries.
Inferi start to creep up from behind.
You've lost your mind.

'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
They're coming by by the score, 
And there's no chance to set it right.
'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
You're fighting for your life to get a Horcrux,
No lux tonight.

Out of the pool-
(Where is Paula Abdul to teach promanade?)
If they were dancin' 
We might have a chance to flee in time.
The walls I climb.
This is LV's perfect crime. 

You try the old spells,
But more keep coming in on every side.
Your nightmare's worst hells,
You wonder if your Headmaster has died.
But just in time, 
He comes around and casts a ring of fire.
He's so sublime.
He boards the boat and you cast off to sea.
Now you are free.

It was a Horcrux, Horcrux night.
And you're with Dumbledore
So there's no cause to shake or cry.
Yeah, it's a Horcrux, Horcrux night.
So you just hang on tight,
And have a Horcrux, no lux, soul tucks,
This sucks! here tonight.

DUMBLEDORE (a la Vincent Price):
Darkness rules Tom Riddle's land.
Hold tight your wand within your hand.
Creatures out to suck your blood
Are lurking in the salt and mud.
Remember, Harry, if you're found,
A ring of fire to cast around.
If it is cast, all's good and well,
But if it's not, you're doomed to hell.

Their soulless eyes all seem to stare.
Their bony hands are everywhere.
They rise up from their liquid tomb
To seal your fate and bring your doom.

And though we managed to survive,
As I could *Accio lux*,
There's more than one way to deprive
The Dark Lord of a Horcrux.


Ginger, who will never read that scene without thinking of dancing 
inferi again.





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 14:57:09 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <dcvdpi+hiu5@...>
Message-ID: <20050805145709.25439.qmail@...>

Reading the page from Judy's journal I noticed a few
things...

1.  I feel something in common.  I thought I was the
only one who likes to read these books slowly and try
to guess what will come next.  I tried to read 3
chapters per day and stretch the book to about 2
weeks, but I ended up reading the last 6 chapters
pretty quickly as usual.  Delayed gratification is the
term that I was told.

2.  I think the idea that the Potions book is a
horcrux is a great idea!  It is old enough and it
could have turned Snape to the Dark Side.  Perhaps Tom
Riddle gave it to Snape's mother after he finished his
NEWT  as a gift to another promising Slytherin.  The
book slowly starts to bring you over to the Darker
Spells like it did to Harry.  Also Harry is the only
one who knows where it is, and he would have to go
back to Hogwarts to get it!  So we would also get one
last look at Hogwarts before the For Sale sign goes up
in the front yard.  Sniff, sniff.

3.  Michael Jackson is Voldemort and he did do the
Moonwalk after all the Death Eaters left the scene. 
This is why Peter Pettigrew loathes Voldy so much.  He
really hates watching Voldy do the Moonwalk.

4.  I feel a strange familiarity with Judy's journal. 
I am now longing to build a large underground secret
chamber which connects to the master bathroom.  I
beleive there is a giant monster cockroach waiting to
be released to wreck havoc throughout the
neighborhood.  BWAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA....

Red Eye Randy


--- davewitley <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:

> Fran wrote:
> 
> > Wait a minute, doesn't horcrux mean too many
> surgical manipulations 
> > of the face ending with bad results. 
> > 
> > I was reminded of Micheal Jackson when JKR
> described Voldy. Can 
> Voldy 
> > moonwalk and does he wear a white glove.  I can
> definitely see him 
> > dangling his child off a balcony...
> 
> Was anyone not?
> 
>
http://www.livejournal.com/users/judyserenity/5931.html?
> thread=11307#t11307
> 
> (I'm sageofgodalming and Judy is writing a book
> about MJ.)
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 15:13:36 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Michael Jackson filk
In-Reply-To: <dcvtn3+rame@...>
Message-ID: <20050805151336.61983.qmail@...>


Brilliant !  I think we could bring Vincent Price back
from the grave to do the Soundtrack CD !

What's that other Michael Jackson song...?

"The Man in the Mirror"   Hmmmmmmmm.  Mirror of
Erised?

I never knew Filks were banned.  I wrote a few back in
the old days of HP4Gups and the beginnings of the Old
Crowd.  


--- quigonginger <quigonginger at ...> wrote:

> I know it's not customary to post filks here, but I
> thought Tim and 
> Randy might enjoy this.  I posted it on the Hog's
> Head, and it will 
> be up on CMC's filk site in a day or two (he's
> continuously 
> updating), but since I quoted Tim, I thought I'd let
> him see it.
> 
> If you don't like filks, go on to the next message.
> 
> This is from the Hog's Head (in its entirety):
> *********************************
> 
> Quite recently, in a galaxy so close as to be
> considered a parallel 
> universe, Tim Regan (Dumbledad) said:
> 
> "I think I know who the human Horcrux is, and it is
> not Harry. Let's
> examine the evidence
> 
> 1) Having part of the soul of the Dark Lord residing
> inside you would
> drain you of your vitality and color.
> 2) Voldemort's meddling in his own soul reduced his
> once handsome
> features to "glaring red eyes and slits for
> nostrils" (PS/SS C17)
> 3) Voldemort's sense of grandeur and destiny would
> start to take over
> your own judgements.
> 
> In short, one of Voldemort's horcruxes is Michael
> Jackson."
> 
> Needless to say, it spawned a filk.
> 
> To Tim Regan
> 
> 
> Horcrux  To the tune of Thriller by Michael Jackson.
> 
> The scene:  The cave.  Harry has forced DD to drink
> the green goo.
> 
> HARRY:
> You've drained the basin,
> And now you're needing water from the lake.
> You'd put your face in,
> But instinct tells you that is a mistake.
> You try to scream,
> And *aguamenti's* futile; you must face it.
> Water's a dream,
> And once you touch the lake, you realize:
> It's your demise.
> 
> 'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> And no one's gonna save you 
> From th' inferi left and right.
> 'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> You're fighting for your life to get a Horcrux, 
> No lux, tonight.
> 
> Magical drink banned, 
> The lake's the only place where waters run.
> You feel the cold hand, 
> And then you realize what you have done.
> You see their eyes,
> A horror that's beyond imagination.
> Your memory fries.
> Inferi start to creep up from behind.
> You've lost your mind.
> 
> 'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> They're coming by by the score, 
> And there's no chance to set it right.
> 'Cause this is Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> You're fighting for your life to get a Horcrux,
> No lux tonight.
> 
> Out of the pool-
> (Where is Paula Abdul to teach promanade?)
> If they were dancin' 
> We might have a chance to flee in time.
> The walls I climb.
> This is LV's perfect crime. 
> 
> You try the old spells,
> But more keep coming in on every side.
> Your nightmare's worst hells,
> You wonder if your Headmaster has died.
> But just in time, 
> He comes around and casts a ring of fire.
> He's so sublime.
> He boards the boat and you cast off to sea.
> Now you are free.
> 
> It was a Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> And you're with Dumbledore
> So there's no cause to shake or cry.
> Yeah, it's a Horcrux, Horcrux night.
> So you just hang on tight,
> And have a Horcrux, no lux, soul tucks,
> This sucks! here tonight.
> 
> DUMBLEDORE (a la Vincent Price):
> Darkness rules Tom Riddle's land.
> Hold tight your wand within your hand.
> Creatures out to suck your blood
> Are lurking in the salt and mud.
> Remember, Harry, if you're found,
> A ring of fire to cast around.
> If it is cast, all's good and well,
> But if it's not, you're doomed to hell.
> 
> Their soulless eyes all seem to stare.
> Their bony hands are everywhere.
> They rise up from their liquid tomb
> To seal your fate and bring your doom.
> 
> And though we managed to survive,
> As I could *Accio lux*,
> There's more than one way to deprive
> The Dark Lord of a Horcrux.
> 
> 
> Ginger, who will never read that scene without
> thinking of dancing 
> inferi again.
> 
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 16:49:21 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:49:21 -0000
Subject: OT:  Re: Michael Jackson filk
In-Reply-To: <20050805151336.61983.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <dd05ah+brlh@...>

Randy:
> Brilliant !  

Ginger: (blush) Thank you.  I hoped you'd like it.

Randy:
> I never knew Filks were banned.  I wrote a few back in
> the old days of HP4Gups and the beginnings of the Old
> Crowd.  

Ginger:
I have no idea if they are or not.  I've just never seen one here 
since I started, and didn't want to commit some sort of faux pas.

I usually post on HPfGU, but due to the volume lately, I've only been 
posting on the Hog's Head.  BTW, that was my 70th filk.

Ginger, getting back to life and laundry





From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug  5 22:34:11 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:34:11 +1000
Subject: FILK: Dumbledore's Dead
Message-ID: <20050805223411.GD11465@...>

While you're all staggering from the impact of Ginger's masterpiece, I thought
I'd sneak in my 2nd filk of all time to honour Sigune's interesting post and
sum up Snape's ambiguity. The mere fact that I am making a clumsy attempt to
finish Gail's quest to filk the entire Beatles canon is neither here nor
there (or perhaps everywhere).

Dumbledore Dead (to the tune of Norwegian Wood)

I once took a Vow
Or should I say, it once took me
She begged for her son
This won't look good on my CV

She asked me to say that I'd save him and Bella would Bond
She got me to do it I must have been out of my mind

We knelt on the floor, 
she grasped my hand, Bella, her wand
She said if he failed, 
I'd do the job, it smacked my gob

And Draco was hopeless and so I was forced by the Vow
In front of four DE's I gave Albus the Green Ka-Pow!

And when we got out
I was alone, phoenix had flown
Won't Voldy be pleased?
"Isn't it good, Dumbledore dead?"

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 03:14:20 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:14:20 -0000
Subject: FILK: Dumbledore's Dead + the UV
In-Reply-To: <20050805223411.GD11465@...>
Message-ID: <dd19uc+5bc3@...>

Yay!  Pippin did that tune quite a while ago, and it was brilliant.  
Here's the link:

http://home.att.net/~coriolan/students/wood.htm#Oliver-Wood

Have you sent your version to CMC?  He's updating, you know.  Or if 
you posted on the main list, he'll get it there.

I like the "bird has flown" comparison to the phoenix flying away.  
Good fit.  

As long as I'm here, another thought entered my mind today.

Snape was supposed to kill DD if Draco failed, and if he (Snape) 
didn't, then he (Snape) would die.  Draco failed twice and Snape 
didn't do it, but he lived.  Does this mean that as long as Draco was 
still trying and intending on succeeding that the Vow didn't kick 
in?  But it only kicked in if Draco failed and wasn't going to try 
again (or couldn't try again)?  In which case, DD must have been 
dying or Snape could have just let Draco try again and again and 
Snape would have been ok.

Unless Snape Legilimanced Draco and saw that he (Draco) had truely 
had a change of heart, in which case, this could be interesting.

Thoughts?  
Ginger, hoping Sean does a filk #3.






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 03:25:12 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 20:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The UV
In-Reply-To: <dd19uc+5bc3@...>
Message-ID: <20050806032512.27802.qmail@...>

--- quigonginger <quigonginger at ...> wrote:

> As long as I'm here, another thought entered my mind
> today.
> 
> Snape was supposed to kill DD if Draco failed, and
> if he (Snape) 
> didn't, then he (Snape) would die.  Draco failed
> twice and Snape 
> didn't do it, but he lived.  Does this mean that as
> long as Draco was 
> still trying and intending on succeeding that the
> Vow didn't kick 
> in?  But it only kicked in if Draco failed and
> wasn't going to try 
> again (or couldn't try again)?

<snip>

CV: For that matter, we don't know if there is a time
limit on UV's. Snapey could just keep "intending to
get around to it" and stall the curse until Dumbledore
dies of something else or the Snapestir goes first.

By the way, I'm predicting that when Quirrell makes
his triumphant return in Book 7, that sneaky
Headmaster will be by his side. Did everybody notice
that my assertion that Grindelwald is related to WWII
got a hearty boost in the last interview?

CV, feeling smug about now.


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 04:17:45 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 21:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: More Old Filks Re: [the_old_crowd] FILK: Dumbledore's Dead
In-Reply-To: <20050805223411.GD11465@...>
Message-ID: <20050806041746.96555.qmail@...>

I really like this one too.

I used "We can work it out" and "Hey You've got to
hide your love away" to do filks when Book 5 came out
and everyone was upset about Sirius.  If you care to
see them, I copied them into this email.  

Randy
I'm thinking of starting Red Eye Randy and the Dancing
Inferi Band...perhaps you can join us !  

I like the sound of Red Eye Randy's Dancing Inferi
Band...(perhaps a concept album with all of Harry's
friends and enemies on the cover...) Sung to the tune
of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band:

First song could start off :

"It was 20 years ago today. 
Voldemort took their souls away.   
They've been dead for really quite awhile.
But their moves have got a certain style.
So may I introduce to you.
Those folks you haven't seen for years.
Red Eye Randy's Dancing Inferi Baannnnnddddd!"

Anyway, the old songs are listed below:


DJ takes to microphone....I'd like to dedicate the
following to Penny and Carole and all you lovely
ladies out there in cyberspace....

After reading all the posts on this "old crowd" list,
I feel we should follow this one up with an old
Beatles' tune:

sung to the tune of
Hey, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away!
By Lennon & McCartney


Hey, She Just Can't Kill off Sirius Black!
words by Randy Estes

Here I stand book in hand
Just got back from the mall.
Now he's gone I can't go on
Feelin' two foot small.

I read Book four and yelled for more
I waited three long years
Then I find she's lost her mind
I'm fighting back the tears!

Hey, She just can't kill off Sirius Black!
Hey, She's got to bring my Sirius Back!

Waited in line to get Book five
I stayed up way too long
Then I read that my baby's dead
How could things go so wrong?

How can she say to me
Harry will find a way.
I don't care cause it's just not fair
Sirius Black must stay!

Hey, She just can't kill off Sirius Black!
Hey, She's got to bring my Sirius Back!

JKR, wherever you are
You've got some explaining to do!
Listen hon, our Fanfics aren't done
And he's our favorite dude!

Hey, You just can't kill off Sirius Black!
Hey, Go find some way to bring him back!

Hey, You just can't kill off Sirius Black!
Hey, Find a way to bring Padfoot Back!

musical interlude....

JKR's response...
sung to the tune of 
We Can Work it Out 
by the Beatles

"I Just Wrote Him Out!"
words by Randy Estes

Try to see it my way
I could get it right and still you'd think that its
all wrong!
Why should I do it your way?
If I left him in, then these books would all be twice
as long!

What's this all about?
I just wrote him out!

These books aren't that short and there's no time 
For fussing and fighting my friends.
I have always thought these characters were mine
So I will ask you once again.

Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
It's not your story anyway
And who's this idiot who keeps writing these stupid
songs! :0)

What's this all about?
I just wrote him out!

These books aren't that short and there's no time 
For fussing and fighting my friends.
I have always thought these characters were mine
So I will ask you once again.

Try to see it my way
I'm the one in charge and there are things that you
don't know.
Why should I do it your way?
My husband's getting jealous and said that Padfoot's
got to go!

What's this all about?
I just wrote him out!

music fades...."That's another back to back hit
request on WJKR ...All Potter....All the time...."

This was posted on Old Crowd in 2003 by me.

--- ewe2 <ewetoo at ...> wrote:

> While you're all staggering from the impact of
> Ginger's masterpiece, I thought
> I'd sneak in my 2nd filk of all time to honour
> Sigune's interesting post and
> sum up Snape's ambiguity. The mere fact that I am
> making a clumsy attempt to
> finish Gail's quest to filk the entire Beatles canon
> is neither here nor
> there (or perhaps everywhere).
> 
> Dumbledore Dead (to the tune of Norwegian Wood)
> 
> I once took a Vow
> Or should I say, it once took me
> She begged for her son
> This won't look good on my CV
> 
> She asked me to say that I'd save him and Bella
> would Bond
> She got me to do it I must have been out of my mind
> 
> We knelt on the floor, 
> she grasped my hand, Bella, her wand
> She said if he failed, 
> I'd do the job, it smacked my gob
> 
> And Draco was hopeless and so I was forced by the
> Vow
> In front of four DE's I gave Albus the Green Ka-Pow!
> 
> And when we got out
> I was alone, phoenix had flown
> Won't Voldy be pleased?
> "Isn't it good, Dumbledore dead?"
> 
> -- 
> "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" -
> Adam Savage
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 05:07:41 2005
From: kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid (corinthum)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:07:41 -0000
Subject: Freezing Harry
Message-ID: <dd1git+s9t0@...>

I just finished reading HBP, since I couldn't purchase it until a
couple of days ago.  So, though I've spent several hours today reading
posts (recovering from jet lag is an excellent excuse for laying
around the apartment doing nothing productive), there's no way I can
catch up on the whole list.  Obligatory apoligies if I'm being
repetitive.

Okay, I've read theories trying to figure out why Dumbledore froze
Harry when Draco appeared.  The theories seem to be a) to protect
Harry from running into the bedlam on the other side of the door,
where he may be injured or killed, or b) to stop Harry from preventing
Snape from killing him or otherwise interfering with his great master
plan.

First, I believe Snape is still on the side of good.  I've always
thought that, and read through Dumbledore's death still firmly
believing it.

I don't think either Snape or Dumbledore expected or planned the
Unbreakable Vow.  I can't decide whether it was Narcissa's panicked
idea or a carefully planned trap, but I think it caught Snape by
surprise.  However, knowing that to refuse it would reveal him as a
spy, he had no choice but to make it.

Upon making the vow, I believe Snape contacted Dumbledore and, as many
others have surmised, Dumbledore decided his own life was less
valuable than Snape's and, if it came down to it, Snape should kill
him rather than break the vow.

However, I don't agree that Dumbledore wanted to die, or that he
planned to.  The wording of the vow actually left a lot of leeway on
the third point:  

"And should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail, [...]
will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to
perform?"  (US pg 36)

It doesn't say "if he fails" or "if he doesn't succeed by a certain
date" but "if it seems he will fail".  I think Dumbledore was only
telling part of the truth (big surprise) when he said that he did not
confront Draco earlier for Draco's own safety.  I think his inaction
was also to prevent the vow from being activated: as long as Draco was
still actively trying to kill Dumbledore, however unsuccessfully, an
argument could still be made that he was moving toward success.  So
the plan was for Snape to continue watching Draco, possibly even to
try to persuade him away from effective means of action.  Note that
the first two parts of the vow say nothing about helping Draco, only
watching over and protecting him.  They would stall, and, in the
meantime, try to keep Snape out of any conflicts that may lead to the
vow being activated.  After all, why wasn't Snape patrolling the halls
with McGonagall, Flitwick, and the other Order members that night, but
instead sitting in his office for hours?  Very un-Snape-like, but
since the others didn't question it, it was probably on Dumbledore's
orders.

Back to the freezing incident.  Dumbledore had sent Harry to go get
Snape, to bring him and only him.  But upon seeing Draco burst through
the door, he realizes that bringing Snape to the scene would be fatal
(either for Snape or himself).  He doesn't have time to explain this,
and only has a split second to react, so he freezes Harry in place to
prevent him from following the orders he just gave.  

Snape arrives anyway, though, and is forced to make a decision.  And I
don't believe that in pleading with him Dumbledore was asking to die.
 Snape had, in the argument in the woods, refused to agree to
Dumbledore's order to kill him if necessary, and Dumbledore made one
last attempt to convince him that Snape's death would be worse than
Dumbledore's.  He makes the plea after the point of no return has been
reached; Draco armed, Dumbledore unarmed and weak, and Amycus says
"the boy doesn't seem able to-".  No more wiggle room left... either
Snape or Dumbledore is about to die, and Dumbledore knows it needs to
be him.

Well, that's my overly long take on the scene.  I'm sure you've all
already discussed it, but any comments?

-Kelly, who forgets if she used the handle Corinth on this list or
just the other one, but will stick with her name for now





From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 07:03:46 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:03:46 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] FILK: Dumbledore's Dead: small correction
In-Reply-To: <20050805223411.GD11465@...>
References: <20050805223411.GD11465@...>
Message-ID: <20050806070346.GC14107@...>

> And Draco was hopeless and so I was forced by the Vow
> In front of four DE's I gave Albus the Green Ka-Pow!

Should be:

And Draco was hopeless and so I was forced by the Vow
In front of four DE's to give Albus the Green Ka-Pow!

I've sent this on to CMC for world domination purposes.

A little crestfallen that Pippin beat me, but thanks for your kind works
Ginger and Randy!

ewe2

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 12:55:43 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 12:55:43 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
Message-ID: <dd2c0f+noft@...>

This post is carrying on Aberforth's Goat's baahing from: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2306 
where he suggested that Hermione letting Snape up to the Tower 
was/had to be the *right* thing to do - because she was under Felix 
Felicis at the time. It also owes quite a bit to my co-defence 
counsel at Accio, Serena Culfeather, as a lot of this was worked out 
when defending the unavoidably absent Snape in the Snape Trial 
there - though the Felix Felicis part ended up being not used.

The action/effects of Felix Felicis is described in HBP Ch. 9, pp. 
177-178 (UK edition - all page numbers following are the UK 
editions).  Ch. 22 pp. 446 ? 459 gives Harry's pov account of what 
it's like to be under the influence. The summary version of these 
two chapters is that - even if you don't know why you're doing that 
action, Felix Felicis makes you take the most felicitous action. 

In HBP Ch. 25, p.516 Harry asks Ron, Hermione to take the potion and 
asks them to give Ginny some. In Ch. 29 p. 571 Ginny obligingly 
states that she did take some, and in Ch. 28 p. 558 we get to see 
corroborating evidence the stuff was probably working ? Ginny is 
dodging hex after hex. More corroborating evidence ? Ron and Ginny 
(with Neville) `luckily' run into OOP members immediately they break 
free of the Peruvian darkness (HBP, Ch. 29, p.576)

During the timeline in which FF should be in effect (given that Ch. 
9 states Harry's bottle contains 12 hours, Harry takes 3 hours in 
Ch. 22 and the remaining 9 hours are shared between three people) ?

- Ron and Ginny have the DE's get past them. (HBP Ch. 29, p.576)

- Hermione `allows' Snape to go to tower, believing Snape's story of 
Flitwick's passing out. (HBP Ch. 29 pp.577 ? 578). Incidentally, two 
separate people state that Flitwick was sent to Snape (McGonagall 
and Hermione), and that he has been injured is also mentioned by 
Ginny. 

Looking first at the problem of *why* Ron and Ginny, dosed up to the 
nines with 'lucky juice', still allowed the DE's to get past them. 
Allowing the DE's into Hogwarts is what sets the Dark Mark off. It's 
a DE, Gibbon, who does that - *not* Draco (does Draco actually know 
how?) 

The sighting of the Dark Mark means Dumbledore chooses to fly into 
Hogwarts (and has the adrenalin energy to do it), rather than 
remaining at the Three Broomsticks alone with an Imperius'd 
Rosemerta. (HBP Ch. 27 p.543) 

So I'd say that, unknown to Ron and Ginny, they've made the right 
choice in letting the DE's in. 

Continuing on the DE's being let in: Snape is not one of the Order 
members on patrol. Dumbledore knows he has remained in his rooms 
(and may have ordered him to do so) because Dumbledore asks Harry 
to `wake' Severus. (HBP Ch. 27 p. 545).  Allowing the DE's in also 
causes Flitwick to be sent to fetch Snape. This may have occurred 
before Harry could possibly have reached Snape, even if he hadn't 
been immobilised. I've not been able to work out the timeline here, 
but, interestingly, Hermione mentions that it was 'nearly 
midnight'(HBP Ch. 29, p.577). 

Moving on to Hermione letting Snape get past her.  Unless we are 
asked to believe that Hermione did not take the Felix potion when 
requested, or that it had ceased operation before Ginny's dose did, 
her action, as Mike Gray points out, allows Snape to reach 
Dumbledore at the Astronomy tower. The conclusion from the known 
actions of Felix Felicis is that this action of Hermione's was 
somehow `lucky'. Additional evidence that FF was in operation is 
that caring for Flitwick `luckily' kept Hermione out of the OOP/DE 
fight. 

Snape was meant to get to the Tower. That was the luckiest thing 
that could happen. 

OK, what would have happened if he hadn't got there? 

Well, the first point to note is that Dumbledore is surrounded by 
murderous enemies ? Greyback has to be hit with a spell to stop him 
attacking Dumbledore (HBP Ch. 27 p. 555). If Draco hadn't cut the 
mustard (which he obviously couldn't), Dumbledore would certainly 
have been attacked with murderous intent, and given his weakened 
state and the number of DE's, very probably he'd have been killed.

Since the UV would not have been fulfilled, both Snape and 
Dumbledore would have died. Looking at Snape's actions after 
Dumbledore's death: one thing that strikes the eye is that he 
immediately pulls the DE's out of Hogwarts (HBP Ch 28 pp.557 ? 558). 
Would that have happened if he'd been dead? Or would the DE's (who 
include Fenrir Greyback, so fond of children) have stayed and done 
as much damage as possible to both school and pupils?

Snape also isn't seen to cast a single spell or jinx on any Order 
member - which is kinda interesting.

So - no Snape. Both Snape and Dumbledore are dead, dead, dead. With 
no DE having any particular desire to leave ('But you know how much 
I like kids, Dumbledore' HBP Ch. 27, p 554), the DE's rampage around 
Hogwarts in a running battle with the Order. How many die from that? 
How many students die or are bitten? What state is the Order in 
after this (presumably) major disaster?

With added Snape - Dumbledore is dead. Snape has survived, can pull 
the DE's out, leaving the Order battered with its leader dead, but 
still intact. And the Hogwarts students all survive.

The conclusion is that Snape killing Dumbledore was the luckiest 
thing that could happen.

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape








From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 13:31:01 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:31:01 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd2c0f+noft@...>
Message-ID: <dd2e2l+eloj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

<complete snipping>

To play devil's advocate, I'd say the potential weakness of this 
analysis is with the massive extent of the luck, as well as the overall 
perspective--lucky for whom?

That is to say, it is indeed lucky that Hermione et al. survive in the 
way that they do, probably because of the potion.  But I don't know if 
we can say that, therefore, *all* the resultant events are influenced 
by their luck.  Is there a limit to the ambient effects of Felix 
Felicis?  Does it have such drastic effects all the way down the chain 
of causality, fairly removed from the immediate vicinity of those who 
have taken it?  We might try to argue that there's a chaotic system 
here, but I don't think human actions and motivations are amenable to a 
strictly deterministic model.

Unknowable at the moment, I think.  Seems a little overextended, to me.

-Nora polishes her A.N.T.I.T.H.E.S.I.S. badge until it shines






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 14:54:29 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:54:29 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd2e2l+eloj@...>
Message-ID: <dd2iv5+7k6c@...>

Nora writes:
> 
> To play devil's advocate, I'd say the potential weakness of this 
> analysis is with the massive extent of the luck, as well as the 
overall 
> perspective--lucky for whom?
> 

Well, indeed.
> That is to say, it is indeed lucky that Hermione et al. survive in 
> the way that they do, probably because of the potion.  But I don't 
> know if we can say that, therefore, *all* the resultant events are 
> influenced by their luck.  Is there a limit to the ambient effects 
> of Felix Felicis?  Does it have such drastic effects all the way 
> down the chain of causality, fairly removed from the immediate  
> vicinity of those who have taken it?  

Pip!Squeaks:

Dunno. But several apparently 'luckier' alternatives occur to me in 
the above scenario. 

1. Draco comes out of the Room of Requirements and *doesn't* see 
Ginny and Ron [uh, how unlucky was that. Gosh, Ginny and Ron don't 
realise to keep watch where Draco can't see them... how unlike, say, 
Harry realising he needed to go to the vegetable patch]. Ginny and 
Ron dive on him, discover the details of the cabinet, and run to 
find the Order, luckily just running into them (as they did). The 
DE's don't get in, Ginny and Ron get another Special Award for 
services to the school, and there's cake and lashings of ginger beer 
all round. 

That's a very lucky outcome for Ron and Ginny. And it doesn't 
require much stretching of the chain of causality, just a few little 
hints from Felix. Why didn't it happen?

2. Snape comes out of the room and tells Hermione to check Flitwick. 
Hermione, prompted by Felix, decides to use Expelliamus, 'luckily' 
outdrawing Snape, 'luckily' overeggs the pudding, and Snape is 
thrown backwards, hitting his head against the wall... oops, sorry, 
we've used that plot device before, haven't we?

[Anyone else starting to wonder if Harry's christening involved him 
being dunked in a lifetime's supply of Felix {g}?]

But, getting back to Hermione - Flitwick doesn't notice her and 
Luna. Why? Again, that suggests time was pressing, Flitwick getting 
to Snape quickly was somehow lucky for Hermione. Why? Surely if it 
*wasn't*, Felix would have hinted to Hermione that she should - 
well, stand in a part of the corridor where Flitwick, rushing down 
without really seeing her, cannons into her and bounces off the 
wall, knocks himself out, or is otherwise stopped. 

Without Flitwick's message, Snape would never have even known the 
DE's were in Hogwarts. And in case we haven't grasped that, 
McGonagall kindly spells it out for us, 'If I hadn't alerted Snape 
to what was going on, he might never have joined forces with the 
Death Eaters. I don't think he knew they were there before Filius 
told him, I don't think he knew they were coming.' (HBP Ch. 29 p.575)

Felix successfully guided Harry through a series of actions that led 
to him getting the Pensieve memory. Very often, the action he took 
wasn't apparently 'lucky', but turned out to be. Very often, the 
actions of others are involved. For example, Filch 'luckily' leaves 
the front door unlocked. This isn't lucky for Filch, but it is lucky 
for Harry. Equally, you could argue that dying might not have been 
too lucky for Dumbledore, but somehow seems to have been 'lucky' for 
Ron, Ginny and Hermione. At least, their actions seem to be 
orientated to letting Dumbledore reach Hogwarts, and Snape reach the 
Tower. 

BTW, did anyone else notice that Lupin claims Snape would have 
killed Hermione and Luna when in fact Snape had only Stunned 
Flitwick? Pippin? Did you notice that one?

So you're left with the question: *why* is Snape killing Dumbledore 
(which took place when Felix was still in operation - Ginny is 
successfully dodging DE jinxes when Harry comes down from the 
Tower), apparently something that Ron, Ginny and Hermione all do 
something to help happen.

Either Felix stops operating for some things, then restarts - which 
is *not* how it is described, either by Slughorn in Ch. 9 or by its 
effects on Harry in Ch. 22. Or, it was in operation all the time.

In which case Dumbledore's death-by-Snape is not something Ron, 
Hermione or Ginny should prevent. Somehow,the Felix potion seems to 
be trying to stop them doing actions which would prevent it. Not 
just once, either.


Nora:
We might try to argue that there's a chaotic system 
> here, but I don't think human actions and motivations are amenable 
> to a strictly deterministic model.
> 

I suspect Felix is a probability enhancer. The subject is given the 
ability to 'see' the fog of future probability, and to select the 
action which increases the likelihood of outcomes that are'luckiest' 
for them. Possibly as they move further and further along the tau 
line, they can select higher and higher probability choices, until 
finally the desired outcome has a 100% probability. 

But along the way, it seems to encourage the subject to select a 
probability tau line that enhances the probability of other 'lucky' 
outcomes.  Harry doesn't consciously plan to get Filch into trouble, 
but that happens. 

Nora:
> Unknowable at the moment, I think.  Seems a little overextended, 
to me.
> 

Pip!Squeaks:

Hey, you're talking to the originator of the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory 
here. I've been told that I extend my chains of reasoning until they 
stretch tightrope-like across a giant chasm. 

Then I tap dance along them, twirling my umbrella {vbg}.

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 15:38:59 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:38:59 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd2iv5+7k6c@...>
Message-ID: <dd2lij+483e@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

> In which case Dumbledore's death-by-Snape is not something Ron, 
> Hermione or Ginny should prevent. Somehow,the Felix potion seems to 
> be trying to stop them doing actions which would prevent it. Not 
> just once, either.

I still can't make the jump here.  There's a massive difference 
between the Felix causing actions that are lucky for 
Ron/Hermione/Ginny, and these actions *ultimately* resulting in 
something good/positive/lucky/whatever.  To argue the latter 
stretches the continuity into something like a single line of dominos 
being toppled by one being tipped over, as opposed to something with 
multiple lines of influence feeding in.

Why I can't make the jump is that this still reeks of determinism.  
Or even more, a disturbingly Panglossian approach to the entire set 
of events.  :)  I suppose that can be made to fit thematically, but I 
wouldn't bet much on it.
 
> Pip!Squeaks:
> 
> Hey, you're talking to the originator of the MAGIC DISHWASHER 
> theory here. I've been told that I extend my chains of reasoning 
> until they stretch tightrope-like across a giant chasm. 
> 
> Then I tap dance along them, twirling my umbrella {vbg}.

We'll still have to wait, I suspect, but being the devotee of Faith 
that I am, I haven't seen too much to support the sheer factual 
assertions of the DISHWASHER in the past two books.  We all might 
take a lesson in assuming that the obvious is not what's going to 
happen from the shippers, hmmm?

BANGs in plain sight rather than baroque theorization, perhaps?

-Nora ponders going to make her garden grow





From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 16:21:00 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:21:00 -0000
Subject: Legilimency, Intention, & Secret Agent Snape (was: What If He Didn't Tell All?)
In-Reply-To: <dct2kq+6a05@...>
Message-ID: <dd2o1c+10cqe@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune"
<severelysigune at y...> wrote:
T
O

T
H
E

V
I
C
T
O
R

G
O
E
S

T
H
E

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

O
F

W
A
R
>> Kneasy: But I think he does know who the target is. Sevvy gazes
>> into Cissy's tear-filled baby blue eyes - and he's an ace at
>> Legilimancy. He knows. He might even see that Cissy means to bind
>> him with a UV.

This got me to thinking about Legilimency. I may be wrong, as I
haven't had the ambition to actually re-read all of the OOP
legilimency lessons, but I don't recall Snape ever reading something
in Harry's thoughts which hadn't actually yet happened. We see
snatches of Harry's miserable time with the Dursleys and, later,
memories of Hogwarts, but we don't (IIRC) ever see Snape reading
Harry's *intention* to hex him into the next room, as I'm sure he must
have wanted to do more than once during those lessons.

The thing is this: the pensieve allows us to see memories as they
actually happened, without the filter of one's perceptions or
feelings. Legilimency seems to work similarly. Through legilimency,
Snape sees the things Harry has experienced (and, to a lesser extent,
Harry sees bits and pieces of things that Snape has experienced), and
has been able to draw conclusions from these memories (i.e. Dudley
tormented Harry *so* Harry must hate Dudley). But he has never been
able to actually feel what Harry felt at the time, nor was he able to
divine Harry's intentions for the future.

Why is this important? Well, I see two reasons. For one, it would be
far easier to fool Voldemort into believing that Snape is actually
working for him if, while Voldie is legilimizing Snape, he only sees
memories of Snape being a right b*st*rd to Harry at all times, while
at the same time throwing in a bit of good-natured nurturing towards
the Malfoy boy. Snape's thoughts or intentions at the time would be
undetectable. Only his actions would be seen.

Secondly, this would offer a neat explanation for why Snape could have
AK'd Dumbledore so easily. Assuming that Snape and Dumbledore had some
quickie legili-meeting of the minds, and Dumbledore had shown him
where he had been that night, Snape would have clearly seen what they
were up against.  Being potions master, Snape would have realized
instantly what Dumbledore had drunk that night. He would have known
that a) Dumbledore was far too frail to survive that potion or b) the
potion was far too lethal for anyone to survive for long. Both knowing
that Dumbledore had only a short time to live anyway, and rather than
squander the opportunity, they chose to have Snape do the AK and get
the points for it in the Voldie camp.

Snape may have even known that DD was none too long for this world
when he made the pact with Narcissa. He was frail and damaged by then
and probably had only enough time to, as they say, set his affairs in
order. 



> Sigune:
> Legilimency is very convenient, isn't it? :-)


:: Entropy ::





From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 19:21:44 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:21:44 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd2lij+483e@...>
Message-ID: <dd32k8+j6vv@...>

Pip Squeaked:
> > In which case Dumbledore's death-by-Snape is not something Ron, 
> > Hermione or Ginny should prevent. Somehow,the Felix potion seems 
> > to be trying to stop them doing actions which would prevent it. 
> > Not just once, either.
> 
Nora replies:
> I still can't make the jump here.  There's a massive difference 
> between the Felix causing actions that are lucky for 
> Ron/Hermione/Ginny, and these actions *ultimately* resulting in 
> something good/positive/lucky/whatever.  To argue the latter 
> stretches the continuity into something like a single line of 
> dominos being toppled by one being tipped over, as opposed to 
> something with multiple lines of influence feeding in.
> 

Pip!Squeaks:
I have to admit, Nora, I don't get what 'jump' is required. 
Dumbledore dies within the timeline of Felix being in operation. 
Therefore, either Dumbledore's death is a lucky result for the 
subjects within that timeline (since it partly results from the 
actions of the subjects under Felix's influence), or the actions 
which indirectly resulted in Dumbledore's death were immediately 
lucky for the subjects (in that case, Dumbledore's death is an 
unforseen side-effect).

Is there any result of Dumbledore's death that can be seen within 
the operation period? Yup. Snape, as a result of DD's death, is able 
to take the DE's out of Hogwarts. OK, that's immediately good for 
Ron, Ginny and Hermione.

However, the DE's would never have *got* into Hogwarts in the first 
place if it hadn't been for Ron and Ginny (under the influence). I 
honestly can't see how letting a group of ravening Death Eaters (one 
of whom is very fond of kiddies for lunch) into the building 
is 'lucky'. At all.

So the action which (indirectly) leads to Dumbledore's death is not 
lucky. It's not at all lucky, in fact. Ron and Ginny have to 
unluckily be seen by Draco, then Draco has to unluckily use his 
Peruvian Darkness powder, and then Ron and Ginny have to unluckily 
not have been told by Fred and George what the counter-spell is. 
Then the DE's have to unluckily get past them in the darkness, then 
the darkness unluckily has to last until they've all gone.

Nora:
> Why I can't make the jump is that this still reeks of   
> determinism. Or even more, a disturbingly Panglossian approach to 
> the entire set of events.  :)  I suppose that can be made to fit 
> thematically, but I wouldn't bet much on it.

You'll have to take that up with the author, because I would point 
out that JKR did not need to have Ron, Ginny and Hermione fed Felix 
Felicis. She could have had Slughorn give a three hour bottle as 
prize, or have Harry need to take it all himself. She managed to 
find a way to have both Neville and Bill injured but surving - do 
you think she couldn't have managed that with Ron, Hermione and 
Ginny? 

Instead, she deliberately chooses to write a scenario in which three 
people are *supposed* to be lucky - but are apparently 
simultaneously hit by the most appalling bad luck.

And the apparent bad luck results in both Snape and Dumbledore 
reaching the Tower...


*******************************************************************

> > Pip!Squeaks:
> > 
> > Hey, you're talking to the originator of the MAGIC DISHWASHER 
> > theory here. I've been told that I extend my chains of reasoning 
> > until they stretch tightrope-like across a giant chasm. 
> > 
> > Then I tap dance along them, twirling my umbrella {vbg}.
> 
Nora writes:
> We'll still have to wait, I suspect, but being the devotee of 
> Faith that I am, I haven't seen too much to support the sheer 
> factual assertions of the DISHWASHER in the past two books.  We 
> all might take a lesson in assuming that the obvious is not what's 
> going to happen from the shippers, hmmm?
> 
> BANGs in plain sight rather than baroque theorization, perhaps?


Pip!Squeaks:
Looking back at my original baroque theorisation, way back in the 
wilds of 2002 (before we'd even heard about the Order of the 
Phoenix):

I quaintly suggested that the DE war was based on a terrorist war, 
with undercover spies playing a major part. 

Well, Snape's certainly an undercover spy, playing a major part. And 
from the latest interview: "what Voldemort does, in many senses, is 
terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened."

So, check that one off. And I suggested Snape was a good actor; now 
canon. I suggested Dumbledore might use 'need to know', and we found 
that one out in OOP. OK, that's now canon. 

I seem to have badly underestimated Voldemort's gullibility {grins 
cheerfully}, but judging by HBP, Voldemort might be a 
symbolic/allegoric character rather than a real characterisation.

I suggested that Dumbledore and Snape deliberately let Pettigrew 
escape. That one's still 'unproven', but odd how Pettigrew is now in 
Snape's own house...

I suggested that Snape should have been able to stop the thirteen 
year old Harry at any point in the Shack - also still unproven. But 
note how Snape can easily block every single spell of the older and 
wiser Harry during Snape's flight from Hogwarts. 

The pre-planned potion idea (which came along after the original 
post) may well be a bust, I'm afraid, since Snape specifically 
refutes advanced knowledge that Voldy was going to use Harry's blood 
in his resurrection potion. There is, however, a possibility still 
remaining that it may turn out to be a good guess - because Snape 
says that in his Chapter 2 speech to Cissy and Bella, and might be 
lying through his teeth. Certainly he claims to have thought Voldy 
dead, which is a bit odd when neither Hagrid or Dumbledore thought 
that...

But if it's a bust, it's a bust, and I'll have to join Pippin in 
having the honour of JKR taking the trouble to directly refute one 
of my theories {evil grin}.

As for Dumbledore not establishing Sirius's innocence as long as 
Sirius could take Harry away from his protection at the Dursleys - 
did you notice in HBP that Sirius's innocence was immediately 
established after the fight at the Ministry? 

After he was dead.

So, the DISHWASHER. For a theory first set forth in 2002, long 
before OOP and HBP, I'm quite satisfied. Certainly I seem to have 
picked up on a lot of JKR's backstory quite successfully.

The big question of course, is whether Snape's hatred of Harry is 
genuine. Who is he really working for? Has he always been trying to 
protect Harry, whilst giving Legilimens!Voldemort plenty of mental 
pictures of how Snape *hates* that Potter boy? 

Or is he a true double agent, plotting Harry's downfall whilst 
pretending to be an agent for Dumbledore? 

The question of what was really going on in the Shrieking Shack 
(which was the subject of the original DISHWASHER post, then called 
the Spying Game) can't be answered until we know that. Book Seven 
awaits.

Two things about Book Six really made this old MDDT member giggle 
hysterically, though. One was the final canon proof of Oscar Winner!
Snape. The other was finding out, after being told several times 
that the books were called 'Harry Potter and...', not 'Severus Snape 
and...' that the Half Blood Prince was Snape. 

It's about Harry and Snape, you know. This series really *is* all 
about Harry and Snape. ;-)

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape.





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 20:11:05 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:11:05 -0000
Subject: King Arthur / Snape social class / thick!Voldy / stunned!Flitwick
Message-ID: <dd35gp+696p@...>

Severely Sigune wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2708 :

<< (King Arthur, to name another example, has the uncanny habit of
promising helpers "anything you ask", expecting everybody to ask for
money. Duh.) >>

In The Tale of Culhwch and Olwen in the Mabinogion, Arthur promises to
give someone anything they want but with a long paragraph of 'except
for' his horse, his dog, his sword, his spear, his wife, and so on.
That is where we learned that his dog is named Caball which means
'horse'.

(Btw a nitpick: that habit is 'unwise' not 'uncanny'. I think you may
be going by etymology, in which 'canny' means 'knowledgeable' which is
similar to 'wise', rather than usage, in which 'uncanny' means
something like 'supernatural and scary'.)

<< who has painstakingly eradicated any sign of his origins in his
diction and dress but somehow never found the acceptance and
admiration he considers his due >>

That reminds me, credit to Pippin for asserting, long ago, that
Snape's colloquialism when speaking with Filch while bandaging his
Fluffy bite demonstrated his working-class origin.

Dungrollin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2756 :

<< I'd have preferred to have seen DD do something clever to 
get around Voldy's protections, than just have him describe the
obstacles and why they don't matter. Makes Voldy look a bit thick 
and incompetent again. >>

Maybe She originally wrote it that way but all her editors said they
couldn't understand DD's solution.

Pip!Squeak wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2771 :

<< BTW, did anyone else notice that Lupin claims Snape would have
killed Hermione and Luna when in fact Snape had only Stunned
Flitwick? Pippin? Did you notice that one? >>

Maybe Snape liked Flitwick, in contrast to hating Hermione and Ginny.






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 20:11:47 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:11:47 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd2lij+483e@...>
Message-ID: <dd35i3+l4o9@...>

Pip Squeaked:
 
> > In which case Dumbledore's death-by-Snape is not something Ron, 
> > Hermione or Ginny should prevent. Somehow,the Felix potion seems to 
> > be trying to stop them doing actions which would prevent it. Not 
> > just once, either.


Nora replied:

> I still can't make the jump here.  There's a massive difference 
> between the Felix causing actions that are lucky for 
> Ron/Hermione/Ginny, and these actions *ultimately* resulting in 
> something good/positive/lucky/whatever.  To argue the latter 
> stretches the continuity into something like a single line of dominos 
> being toppled by one being tipped over, as opposed to something with 
> multiple lines of influence feeding in.


Neri adds:

There's another important piece of canon regarding the properties of
Felix. It comes from Hermione, who is usually the one in charge of
supplying us with the textbook answers. This is when Harry fails to
enter the Room of Requirement in the form that Draco is using, and he
wants to use Felix for that:

*******************************************************
HBP, Ch. 24:

"I think I'm going to take another swig of Felix," said Harry, "and
have a go at the Room of Requirement again." 
"That would be a complete waste of potion," said Hermione flatly,
putting down the copy of Spellmans Syllabary she had just taken out of
her bag. "Luck can only get you so far, Harry. The situation with
Slughorn was different; you always had the ability to persuade him,
you just needed to tweak the circumstances a bit. Luck isn't enough to
get you through a powerful enchantment, though. Don't go wasting the
rest of that potion!"
*******************************************************

This also fits with JKR saying that "she doesn't believe in luck", and
generally that magical devices in the Potterverse (veritaserum,
disapparating, time-turners, the Philosopher's Stone, etc.) aren't
"magic solutions" that can solve any problem and make the wizard some
kind of a super being. Therefore I think it would be dangerous to
conclude that Hermione, Ron and Ginny "could do no wrong" only because
they took a swig of Felix.


Neri







From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 20:32:12 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:32:12 -0000
Subject: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime
In-Reply-To: <dd32k8+j6vv@...>
Message-ID: <dd36oc+hmqj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> Pip Squeaked:
>
> I have to admit, Nora, I don't get what 'jump' is required. 
> Dumbledore dies within the timeline of Felix being in operation. 
> Therefore, either Dumbledore's death is a lucky result for the 
> subjects within that timeline (since it partly results from the 
> actions of the subjects under Felix's influence), or the actions 
> which indirectly resulted in Dumbledore's death were immediately 
> lucky for the subjects (in that case, Dumbledore's death is an 
> unforseen side-effect).

The jump is the first one--that Dumbledore's death, since it results 
from actions lucky to the subject, is also lucky for the subjects.  I 
don't see the two things as essentially related, and potentially even 
contradictory: the actions which are lucky for the people being 
affected by the potion could help contribute to something decidedly 
unlucky for another person, or even more them in the long run.

<snip>

> Instead, she deliberately chooses to write a scenario in which 
> three people are *supposed* to be lucky - but are apparently 
> simultaneously hit by the most appalling bad luck.
> 
> And the apparent bad luck results in both Snape and Dumbledore 
> reaching the Tower...

There's the ironic reading, if you want to take it.  All of that good 
luck--and some of it helps contribute to a decidedly negative 
outcome.  Just twists the knife at the end, don't it?

[At present, I'm also skeptical of theories which lessen the knife-
twisting at the end--including any variations of DD not being dead 
and it not having been an AK curse.]

<snip>

> The question of what was really going on in the Shrieking Shack 
> (which was the subject of the original DISHWASHER post, then called 
> the Spying Game) can't be answered until we know that. Book Seven 
> awaits.

I suspect it was far more WYSIWYG than the MD would have it, at 
least. :)
 
> Two things about Book Six really made this old MDDT member giggle 
> hysterically, though. One was the final canon proof of Oscar Winner!
> Snape. The other was finding out, after being told several times 
> that the books were called 'Harry Potter and...', not 'Severus 
> Snape and...' that the Half Blood Prince was Snape. 

I don't think Oscar!Winner Snape is completely and utterly canonical 
either, mind you.  It's partially because I distrust any theory which 
can explain everything (such as psychoanalysis)--it becomes 
meaningless.  Snape is acting when you need him to be and then 
telling the truth also when you need him to be, so it explains every 
facet of behavior in all circumstances.

Now, if you go and re-read some things and take the *genuinely* 
subversive approach of reading them straightforwardly, some things 
fall into line and concept of Character that don't require so much 
artifice to be strapped onto the text, at least at the present.  
Maybe we've all been really overreading Snape all of these years, 
assuming as matter of course that there *must* be so much more to it 
than a petty little grudge against a schooldays nemesis.  Maybe 
that's the base of it all, and the story is not "good but not nice" 
but rather "consumed by the past."

Snape gets a book title to himself; so did Sirius.  It was probably 
bound to happen eventually...

-Nora stands by her characterization of the FF reading as 
Panglossian, natch






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 21:08:45 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:08:45 -0000
Subject: Sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder
Message-ID: <dd38st+764m@...>

I'm almost embarrassed to bring up such a minor point after such a recent run of 
insightful and penetrating posts (I particularly love Neri's wand theory). Nonetheless, I'm a 
bit curious about the Peruvian Darkness Powder. 

On its own, it doesn't seem to be necessary to drive the plot forward. Lots of other 
contrivances could have existed at the necessary points in the story line, nor would JKR 
have needed to be make them so prominent.  IIRC, there is a moment where Ron 
specifically states that F&G need to be more careful who they sell such tools too. 

Which brings me to consider several points.

One, I question if F&G would even consider selling such a thing to Draco, indeed did they 
even intend it to be available for sale to "minors." 

Two, OOTP began to show that F&G's "joke" materials can be used as weapons as well as 
for harmless pranks. HBP seems to take us a step farther in suggesting mechanisms for 
"humor" can have a dark side. Hermione getting hurt, though accidentally, by F&G's 
mechanisms for humor may have been foreshadowing of something more serious later.  

Three. A new person has entered the picture in the form of F&G's assistant. Might she have 
been the one to sell Draco the powder (even inform him specifically of it), and might she 
not be a future means to have F&G's magical inventions become available for abuse. It 
seems to me that there was little need to introduce this new character in such a seemingly 
minor role, unless that person will play a bigger role later. 

I don't like the looks of this for F&G's future well being.  






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 21:39:07 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:39:07 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd36oc+hmqj@...>
Message-ID: <dd3alr+jd2v@...>

Nora wrote:
> I don't think Oscar!Winner Snape is completely and utterly 
> canonical either, mind you.  It's partially because I distrust any 
> theory which can explain everything (such as psychoanalysis)--it 
> becomes meaningless.  Snape is acting when you need him to be and 
> then telling the truth also when you need him to be, so it 
> explains every facet of behavior in all circumstances.

Pip!Squeaks:
No, Freudian psychology does not have a scientific basis. It isn't 
disprovable. On the other hand, when and where Snape is acting 
*should* be disprovable - though I admit it's going to be a heck of 
a lot handier when we get Book 7 in our hot little hands.

For example, if Snape had said that he didn't know about Harry's 
blood being used in advance, and then Dumbledore had also said that, 
I would take it as read that the MD potion idea was a bust. 
Corroborating evidence, you see. It's when there's no corroborating 
evidence that I suggest things could be taken either way.

But, for example, the corroborating evidence from several other 
people is that Snape probably does dislike Harry, but doesn't 
actually want him dead  - and the evidence of Snape's *actions* 
supports that.

Of course, Snape does give a perfectly plausible reason for that. 
And Snape claims to be supporting Voldemort, and with the death of 
Dumbledore he's certainly more than talking a good talk... except - 
why didn't he take advantage of the confused situation and strike 
the Order with a few more killer blows? He doesn't seem to aim any 
jinx or curse at *anyone* on the side he's supposedly not on. 
Instead he pulls the DE's out, immediately. 

And then he calls off the DE Crucio'ing Harry Potter...


> Nora:
> Now, if you go and re-read some things and take the *genuinely* 
> subversive approach of reading them straightforwardly, some things 
> fall into line and concept of Character that don't require so much 
> artifice to be strapped onto the text, at least at the present.  
> Maybe we've all been really overreading Snape all of these years, 
> assuming as matter of course that there *must* be so much more to 
> it than a petty little grudge against a schooldays nemesis.  Maybe 
> that's the base of it all, and the story is not "good but not 
> nice" but rather "consumed by the past."

Pip!Squeak:
On the other hand, that reading ignores the straightforward reading 
that - Snape is a bloody liar. This is not a subversive reading, but 
one supported by the text. Yes, certainly, Snape could be a man 
obsessed by a childhood bully. Certainly he could be so petty as to 
transfer this grudge to the bully's son. Certainly he could be a DE 
to the core, but none of this changes the fact that, since GoF, 
possibly even from PoA, JKR has carefully established that: Snape. 
Is. A. Darn. Liar.

He's a liar. That's the straightforward character reading. The only 
question is - *when* is he lying?

If you decide WYSIWYG with Snape, you are actually going against the 
text. That is not the straightforward, simple reading. The 
straightforward, simple reading is that - after six books - we have 
no idea what's going on in this man's head. We have no idea why he 
does what he does. We don't know what side he's on. We don't know 
whether he's good, evil, or (going by the imagery in HBP Chapter 2, 
and the Hanged Man symbolism) the person balanced between good and 
evil, a mixture of both light and dark.

What we do know is - he's a bloody liar. Oh, and his dad was a 
muggle called Tobias Snape, and his mum was called Eileen Prince, 
and he lives in a mill town. There, wasn't that worth waiting six 
books for? {vbg}


> Nora:
> Snape gets a book title to himself; so did Sirius.  It was 
> probably bound to happen eventually...
> 

True. Sirius got a book title to himself. Oh, and a major role in 
the next two books... But, unlike Sirius, Snape hovers in the 
background of every single book. 

Also, it depends which type of plot JKR is doing. If it's the 
circular type (suggested by Harry's decision to go back to Godric's 
Hollow, where it all started), then Book 7 should take Harry back to 
Book 1. Godric's Hollow. The real meaning of the Philosopher's 
Stone. And Snape, as the apparent villain.

Or is he the real one, this time round?

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape





From Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 21:55:55 2005
From: Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (Blair)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:55:55 -0000
Subject: Sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder
In-Reply-To: <dd38st+764m@...>
Message-ID: <dd3blb+aag4@...>

Lyn wrote:
> One, I question if F&G would even consider selling such a thing to 
Draco, indeed did they 
> even intend it to be available for sale to "minors." 

Oryomai:
Would F&G sell Draco *ANYTHING* is a better question in my opinion.  
They know of the Malfoy family (shown in CoS when they ask if he's 
Lucius' son).  I can't imagine that Draco would be caught dead in the 
shop run by the disgraceful Weasleys!

Lyn: 
> Three. A new person has entered the picture in the form of F&G's 
assistant. Might she have 
> been the one to sell Draco the powder (even inform him specifically 
of it), and might she 
> not be a future means to have F&G's magical inventions become 
available for abuse. It 
> seems to me that there was little need to introduce this new 
character in such a seemingly 
> minor role, unless that person will play a bigger role later. 

Oryomai:
We don't have enough information on her to decide what her motives 
are.  Could she be a DE in disguise?  Is she a Voldemort supporter?  
Will she be a member of the Order?  Who is she exactly?  It doesn't 
seem to me like F&G would let her run the front of the store while 
they sat around.  I think they'd be there, too.  They would've seen 
Draco in their store and chased that little pansy out!  (pun slightly 
intended...) 

The powder is quite an interesting plot device.  I, for one, thought 
that the end of the book got slightly muddled -- like JKR wrote it 
specifically to keep us off balance about everyone's motives.  I did 
enjoy the reappearance of the best friend of thieves and plunderers!

Oryomai






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug  6 21:58:30 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:58:30 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd3alr+jd2v@...>
Message-ID: <dd3bq6+d7sq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

> Pip!Squeaks:
> No, Freudian psychology does not have a scientific basis. It isn't 
> disprovable. On the other hand, when and where Snape is acting 
> *should* be disprovable - though I admit it's going to be a heck of 
> a lot handier when we get Book 7 in our hot little hands.

Well, yes.  Testable eventually.  Not so testable at the present--
which is why I'm wary of it. :)
 
<snip>

> Of course, Snape does give a perfectly plausible reason for that. 
> And Snape claims to be supporting Voldemort, and with the death of 
> Dumbledore he's certainly more than talking a good talk... except - 
> why didn't he take advantage of the confused situation and strike 
> the Order with a few more killer blows? He doesn't seem to aim any 
> jinx or curse at *anyone* on the side he's supposedly not on. 
> Instead he pulls the DE's out, immediately. 
> 
> And then he calls off the DE Crucio'ing Harry Potter...

So he could be helping out Harry--or he could be sincere and far more 
interested in getting his ass out of there and going off to tell Mr. 
Boss what he just did for him.  I wonder what the meaning of giving 
Snape a quasi-comic exit is.  Chased off by an enraged hippogriff--
why does JKR make him ridiculous so often?

> He's a liar. That's the straightforward character reading. The only 
> question is - *when* is he lying?

Agreed. :)
 
> If you decide WYSIWYG with Snape, you are actually going against 
> the text. That is not the straightforward, simple reading. The 
> straightforward, simple reading is that - after six books - we have 
> no idea what's going on in this man's head.

The most straightforward reading that I was thinking of takes actions 
as primary.  Yes, some of these are complex/contradictory.  However, 
many of them are not unless you want to complicate them: these 
culminate in, you know, murdering the Headmaster and running away 
from Hogwarts.  WYSIWYG says that when Dumbledore gave us the reason 
for Snape's actions at the end of PS/SS, it was sincere.  The text 
gives us a particular picture of Snape--we are the ones who choose to 
read more or less into it, going on the lack of explicit motivation.

> We have no idea why he does what he does. We don't know what side 
> he's on. We don't know whether he's good, evil, or (going by the 
> imagery in HBP Chapter 2, and the Hanged Man symbolism) the person 
> balanced between good and evil, a mixture of both light and dark.

Despite the canonicity of his being a liar (why is it, then, that 
y'all are so consistently reading him as lying to Voldemort but not 
to Dumbledore, when either side is now so totally open?), I don't 
think that essentially impinges upon the demonstrations of 
grudges/pettiness/whatever you want to call it, assuming something of 
the WYSIWYG.  I think of this because JKR seems to be working as an 
essentialist, with people's actions illustrating their inner 
character.

I think his literary effect works as it does precisely because he's 
lurking, but rarely a genuinely prominent character.  Neri's list of 
How To Write Snape is devastatingly accurate.  I suspect that he will 
actually be much less interesting post book 7.

-Nora looks forward to Magical Happy Fun Fantasy Quest Mode






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 00:05:48 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:05:48 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd3bq6+d7sq@...>
Message-ID: <dd3j8s+mth9@...>

Nora:
> So he could be helping out Harry--or he could be sincere and far 
> more interested in getting his ass out of there and going off to  
> tell Mr. Boss what he just did for him.  I wonder what the meaning 
> of giving Snape a quasi-comic exit is.  Chased off by an enraged 
> hippogriff--why does JKR make him ridiculous so often?

Pip!Squeak:
Dunno. Usually, that is a sign in a book/drama that someone isn't as 
dangerous as they seem. At least, if they start off ridiculous, they 
can often end up being very dangerous (Quirrel, anyone?), but 
someone who is projecting a dark image and yet is frequently 
ridiculous in reality is often an authorial sign that image and 
reality don't match.

>  Pip!Squeak:
> > If you decide WYSIWYG with Snape, you are actually going against 
> > the text. That is not the straightforward, simple reading. The 
> > straightforward, simple reading is that - after six books - we  
> > have no idea what's going on in this man's head.
> 
Nora:
> The most straightforward reading that I was thinking of takes 
> actions as primary.  Yes, some of these are                       
> complex/contradictory.  However, 
> many of them are not unless you want to complicate them: these 
> culminate in, you know, murdering the Headmaster and running away 
> from Hogwarts.  WYSIWYG says that when Dumbledore gave us the 
> reason for Snape's actions at the end of PS/SS, it was sincere.  
> The text gives us a particular picture of Snape--we are the ones 
> who choose to read more or less into it, going on the lack of     
> explicit motivation.

Pip!Squeak:
But I don't think you are taking his actions as primary, Nora. I 
think you are taking his *words* as primary. That is, you are being 
influenced by his (mainly) verbal treatment of Harry and possibly 
also by his actions being filtered through Harry's pov.

And yes, I genuinely think Snape *hated* James, that this is a given 
facet of his character. Again, there's an awful lot of corroborating 
evidence there. 

But the face value reading of 'that's why Snape hates Harry'? Go 
read Dumbledore's speech again. And notice the one word Dumbledore 
does *not* say, when Harry asks him 'Quirrel says he hates me 
because he hated my father. Is that true?'

Dumbledore does not say 'yes'. In fact, never in his explanation of 
Snape's actions in PS/SS does he say that Snape hates *Harry*. Go 
read it. The hatred is always referred back to James. Snape 
hates/hated James (and in light of Book Six, it's well worth 
remembering that Dumbledore knew this perfectly well).

Face value reading: Dumbledore when asked why Snape hates Harry - 
doesn't answer. Instead, he explains why Snape chose to protect 
Harry.

Snape's actions (outside the taking of points and giving of 
detentions), in PS/SS, in CoS, in PoA, in GoF, in OOP are never 
anything other than protective of the Hogwarts students. And even 
after he's killed Dumbledore and does a runner - still you can look 
at those actions and see - what he does is the best thing that can 
be done for the students. He gets the DE's the heck out of Hogwarts, 
as fast as possible, including Fenrir. And this is part of a 
consistent pattern for Snape.

In PS/SS he tries to stop Quirrell (and also shows himself willing 
to face down a troll). In PoA he considers Lupin-the-werewolf a 
danger and tries to stop him teaching (and eventually, after Lupin 
transforms, does). In GoF he's part of the attack team against Fake!
Moody. In OOP he stops Crabbe (or was it Goyle) strangling Neville.

Deprived of words and divorced from Snape - those actions are 
protective. Deprived of words, Snape is very often shown as someone 
trying to stop students getting killed or injured. If they were 
placed on another character - we'd all be saying, oh, yeah, he's 
protective.

> Pip!Squeak
> > We have no idea why he does what he does. We don't know what 
> > side he's on. We don't know whether he's good, evil, or (going 
> > by the imagery in HBP Chapter 2, and the Hanged Man symbolism) 
> > the person balanced between good and evil, a mixture of both 
> >light and dark.

Nora:
> Despite the canonicity of his being a liar (why is it, then, that 
> y'all are so consistently reading him as lying to Voldemort but 
> not to Dumbledore, when either side is now so totally open?), 

Pip!Squeak: 

Well, I think there is already one theory going around that Snape 
may have, while essentially supporting Dumbledore, absent-
mindedly 'forgotten' to mention the final part of the Unbreakable 
Vow {g}. So there are theories that have him lying to both {ebg}. 

And also, while Dumbledore is undoubtedly more than slightly dead, 
Snape's actions to date seem a little more damaging to the DE's than 
to the OOP. He tried to stop Quirrel getting the stone (actions). He 
showed his Dark Mark (without any orders from Dumbledore) to Fudge 
(action). He, according to Dumbledore, was the one who deduced Harry 
and Co. had gone to the MoM, and sent the Order after them - which 
resulted in Voldemort losing several minions to Azkaban, including 
Malfoy (probably an action - it's reported second hand).

His hit rate for Voldemort, otoh, appears to be: he killed 
Dumbledore. Admittedly, that's one heck of a hit - but everything 
else he's done for Voldemort is a verbal assertion. 

Good thing Voldemort doesn't have friends, really, because with 
friends like Snape, he certainly doesn't need enemies. 

Nora:
> I don't 
> think that essentially impinges upon the demonstrations of 
> grudges/pettiness/whatever you want to call it, assuming something 
> of the WYSIWYG.  I think of this because JKR seems to be working 
> as an essentialist, with people's actions illustrating their inner 
> character.

Pip!Squeak:
Which actions best illustrate character? The grudge holding petty 
git actions? Or the protective-of-student actions? The action in 
Book Six where he kills Dumbledore, or the action in Book One where 
he saves Harry?

The grudge holding petty git actions are annoying. Harry loses 
points for his house. Neville has to survive horrible Potions 
lessons. But in fact, they do both survive, and Harry even gets a 
fairly good OWL grade. Snape (in actions) is a grudge holding petty 
git, but his *actions* as grudge holding petty git are annoying, not 
dangerous.

Which could be JKR's illustration of Snape's inner character, 
y'know. He's a grudge holding petty git (and is culpable for that, 
because he should know better). And that's annoying. And he's also, 
at the same time, someone who tries to protect and teach his pupils. 
Whether or not he has to risk his life to do that.


One final point. His last action is not the killing of Dumbledore. 
His last seen actions (before he gets attacked by Buckbeak) are to 
*not* fight back against Harry, to stop another DE crucio'ing him 
and even to say some things that sound like lessons - 'blocked 
again, and again, and again, until you learn to keep your mouth shut 
and your mind closed' - this when he's fleeing Hogwarts. He also 
tries successfully to get Draco out of Hogwarts.

He kills Dumbledore. And then he acts protectively towards Harry 
(and Draco). Interesting combination.


> 
> -Nora looks forward to Magical Happy Fun Fantasy Quest Mode

Pip!Squeak looks forward to straightforwardly reading Book Seven.





From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 00:21:18 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:21:18 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder
In-Reply-To: <dd38st+764m@...>
References: <dd38st+764m@...>
Message-ID: <20050807002118.GE15628@...>

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:08:45PM -0000, Lyn J. Mangiameli wrote:
> Two, OOTP began to show that F&G's "joke" materials can be used as weapons as well as 
> for harmless pranks. HBP seems to take us a step farther in suggesting mechanisms for 
> "humor" can have a dark side. Hermione getting hurt, though accidentally, by F&G's 
> mechanisms for humor may have been foreshadowing of something more serious later.  

Good point, because I've always seen G&F as quitessential tricksters, and
tricksters are dangerous fun. JKR even makes the connection obvious with
Peeves, so it is not surprising that Wizard Wheezes can be "weaponised". 

> Three. A new person has entered the picture in the form of F&G's assistant. Might she have 
> been the one to sell Draco the powder (even inform him specifically of it), and might she 
> not be a future means to have F&G's magical inventions become available for abuse. It 
> seems to me that there was little need to introduce this new character in such a seemingly 
> minor role, unless that person will play a bigger role later. 

This is possible, but if G&F are classically irresponsible, they would not
care even if they knew, except to keep their "jokes" for themselves. I get a
hint of Carnaby Street about that section of the novel, all rushing headlong
into the future without a care about the consequences. 

Then again, there are hints of hard-nosed business acumen about the Twins, so
might they not be aware of such a "channel" and use the double-edged nature of
their creations to their advantage? Backfiring "weapons" for DE's perhaps?

There is no further explaination, but I doubt Draco would turn up at the shop
himself if he could help it, and their assistant appears too frazzled by her
job to properly pay attention to suspicious customers...

> I don't like the looks of this for F&G's future well being.  
 
I don't worry about them at all, it's rare to have a trickster (of the
non-Rumplestiltskin type) come a cropper. I'm still waiting for Harry to cop
it for financing them.

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 01:12:32 2005
From: kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid (corinthum)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:12:32 -0000
Subject: Sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder
In-Reply-To: <dd3blb+aag4@...>
Message-ID: <dd3n60+u694@...>

Oryomai wrote:

> I did 
> enjoy the reappearance of the best friend of thieves and plunderers!

This was actually a small detail that jarred with me.  Ron, I believe,
mentioned Draco's Hand of Glory as though he had had it previous
years, i.e. before Lucius was thrown in Azkaban.  But in CoS, I
thought Lucius made it pretty clear that he felt it was an insult to
imply his son was in the same league as thieves and plunderers.  So
how did Draco get Hand?

-Kelly





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 02:03:19 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:03:19 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd3j8s+mth9@...>
Message-ID: <dd3q57+jn0u@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

> Pip!Squeak:
> But I don't think you are taking his actions as primary, Nora. I 
> think you are taking his *words* as primary. That is, you are being 
> influenced by his (mainly) verbal treatment of Harry and possibly 
> also by his actions being filtered through Harry's pov.

There are any number of cases where, however, words *are* actions.  
Words are the treatment in the classroom, after all--and I think 
those words are indicative of character.  In the Shrieking Shack, it 
is an undoubted action that Snape takes Black and the children back 
to the castle.  But it's also the case that before then, he was 
verbally taunting and turning the screws--and that's an action as 
well.  As is his behavior with Fudge ("only hope DD isn't going to 
interfere").

The Harry's POV argument is useful, but dangerous as well.  It gets 
used as a way to mitigate anything and everything, but it's a little 
bit like Snape being an actor: it gets used when convenient, and not 
when it's not.

> And also, while Dumbledore is undoubtedly more than slightly dead, 
> Snape's actions to date seem a little more damaging to the DE's 
> than to the OOP. He tried to stop Quirrel getting the stone 
> (actions). He showed his Dark Mark (without any orders from 
> Dumbledore) to Fudge (action). He, according to Dumbledore, was the 
> one who deduced Harry and Co. had gone to the MoM, and sent the 
> Order after them - which resulted in Voldemort losing several 
> minions to Azkaban, including Malfoy (probably an action - it's 
> reported second hand).
> 
> His hit rate for Voldemort, otoh, appears to be: he killed 
> Dumbledore. Admittedly, that's one heck of a hit - but everything 
> else he's done for Voldemort is a verbal assertion. 

I'd say that despite your list, we have remarkably little information 
of what has been done concretely for the Order, post-return to 
Voldemort.  I have one potential theory in mind that it's the return 
to an active position that has changed everything.  Pre-resurrection, 
Snape fights the good fight because it keeps him where he wants to 
be.  Post-resurrection, with the boss back and badder than 
ever...hedging his bets, perhaps?

What's been pretty much confirmed is that as Dumbledore has no 
confidantes, we are on shakier ground for assuming that the two of 
them have a solid two-way connection.  I get the image now of Snape 
bringing in information and getting told what to look for, but 
decidedly not being let in on the big picture and the connections 
that only someone with knowledge like Dumbledore's could make.

Everyone mentions the endless red herrings, but at least to my eyes, 
we've seen significantly fewer of the sneaky mysteries (not including 
the long-running Big Questions, one of which finally got answered) in 
books 5 and 6.  I see the structure of the series as having shifted.

> One final point. His last action is not the killing of Dumbledore. 
> His last seen actions (before he gets attacked by Buckbeak) are to 
> *not* fight back against Harry, to stop another DE crucio'ing him 
> and even to say some things that sound like lessons - 'blocked 
> again, and again, and again, until you learn to keep your mouth 
> shut and your mind closed' - this when he's fleeing Hogwarts. He 
> also tries successfully to get Draco out of Hogwarts.

Bellatrix offers Harry instruction in how to better perform the 
Cruciatus Curse, and I don't see anyone making that argument that 
she's teaching out of the goodness of her heart. :)

I wonder, given interview comments and others, whether Snape's advice 
is actually going to be effectual for Harry.  Harry can't do 
Occlumency because he can't repress his memories; he's really in 
touch with what's happened to him.  At least the way that JKR puts 
it, Occlumency comes across as decidedly emotionally unhealthy.  
Draco is good at it because he can suppress pity and compassion--is 
that why Snape is good at it too?  If so, I can't see that being 
Harry's route at all.

-Nora's top request for a question to be answered concerns the extent 
to which Legilimency can be used to communicate specific concepts, 
natch





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 12:29:09 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:29:09 -0000
Subject: Sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder
In-Reply-To: <dd3n60+u694@...>
Message-ID: <dd4uql+v3js@...>

> Oryomai wrote:
> 
> > I did  enjoy the reappearance of the best friend of thieves and
plunderers!

Corinthum: 
> This was actually a small detail that jarred with me.  Ron, I
believe, mentioned Draco's Hand of Glory as though he had had 
it previous years, i.e. before Lucius was thrown in Azkaban.  But 
in CoS, I thought Lucius made it pretty clear that he felt it was an 
insult to imply his son was in the same league as thieves and 
plunderers.  So how did Draco get Hand?


Pippin:
Um,  why would Draco  have to *buy*  anything? He had the Room of 
Requirement! 

All he had to do was tell the Room he needed some PDP and presto!
The Hand might be a little harder since I don't think the Room
can bring things that aren't in the castle already. But  once the
cabinet 
was fixed, all Draco needed to do was nip over to BandB's and help 
himself. Best friend of thieves and plunderers, indeed. 

Alternatively, perhaps Riddle  smuggled the Hand into the castle,
long ago. It's Ginny who who calls the Hand of Glory "that awful
shrivelled arm" as if she's seen it before, but doesn't know what
it's called. Maybe she has. It would certainly be useful when dealing 
with a basilisk. If it can't see you, it can't petrify you, right?


Pippin
who thinks we now know what JKR insisted had to be in the CoS movie:
the cabinet, the Hand, and Draco's thieving ways.






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 14:01:15 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:01:15 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd3q57+jn0u@...>
Message-ID: <dd547b+a6c7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> Everyone mentions the endless red herrings, but at least to my
eyes, 
> we've seen significantly fewer of the sneaky mysteries (not
including  the long-running Big Questions, one of which finally got 
answered) in books 5 and 6.  I see the structure of the series as
having shifted.
> 

Pippin:
Shifted? Oh heavens no. We've far more ahead of us than a 
straight money hunt for the horcruxes, as signalled by the
fact that the first one Harry finds is a fake. 

And what about that, eh? How could RAB have gotten
through protections that even Dumbledore and Harry together couldn't
defeat? If RAB swapped the hx before it was hidden why didn't Voldie
know?

Or *did* he know? A decoy hx would be dead useful, after all. 
 Since Voldemort will never need to recover it,   he
can make its protections lethal. And so they were.


And there's more. Allow me.


1) Snape's outrageous lie
"The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on
the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture
and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of
Sirius Black" -- HBP ch 2

cf OOP
"But he gave Narcissa information of the sort that is very valuable
to Voldemort [...] Voldemort knew already, of course, that Sirius
was in the Order, that you knew where he was--but Kreacher's
information made him realize that the one person whom you 
would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black."

Snape is claiming credit for Kreacher's information, in front of
the very person it was given to. How did he expect to get away
with that?

2) Narcissa's claim that the Dark Lord has ordered her not
to speak of the plan is delivered with eyes tight shut. How much
does she really know?

3) The overheard conversation between Snape and Draco,
where Harry is certain that Snape is sincere in his desire to
help. And why wouldn't he be? Snape is sworn to step in
if it seems Draco will fail to perform the Dark Lord's orders.
But the Dark Lord has ordered some preliminary measures,
 and if Draco admits failure with one of those, then
Snape can  fulfill his oath, and leave the intended victim
quite safe. F'rinstance, suppose Draco had asked Snape to
help him with fixing the cabinet? Snape could have done it,
held his oath fulfilled, and happily prepared to ambush the
DE's when they appeared.


4) Lupin's outrageous lie
"Oh, I've been underground," said Lupin. "Almost literally.
That's why I haven't been able to write, Harry; sending
letters to you would have been something of a giveaway."

But surely Voldemort knows that Lupin is a member of
the Order!  Does Lupin wear another name and face
among the werewolves? It would have to be someone
he was close to, if he was using polyjuice. Hmmm.

5) Dumbledore's choices
DD  feeds us a lot of guff about slowing reflexes. But
he manages to freeze Harry before Draco can deprive
him of his wand. Why in blazes didn't he freeze Draco
first??? Or disarm him? Then he could have dealt
with Harry at his leisure. 

I suspect Dumbledore had something to teach Draco,
and more importantly Harry, and it was that every
racist punk is *not* a would-be murderer. Dumbledore
is reasonably safe in this belief, after all, Draco  passed
up a heavensent opportunity to kill Harry on the train.


Nora:
> -Nora's top request for a question to be answered concerns the
extent  to which Legilimency can be used to communicate specific 
concepts,  natch

Pippin:
But Snape answered your question! 

"Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your
mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" 

and just in case you missed that, Jo makes it clearer still --

Mustering all his powers of concentration, Harry thought, _Levi--
"No, Potter!" screamed Snape. [...] "You dare use my own spells
against me, Potter?

Snape knew what spell Harry was going to use. A specific concept, 
indeed.

Pippin





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 14:16:42 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:16:42 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd547b+a6c7@...>
Message-ID: <dd554a+ps4r@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

**opening disclaimer: I may not actually believe any of this**

> 1) Snape's outrageous lie
> "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him 
> on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent 
> capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped 
> dispose of Sirius Black" -- HBP ch 2
> 
> cf OOP
> "But he gave Narcissa information of the sort that is very valuable
> to Voldemort [...] Voldemort knew already, of course, that Sirius
> was in the Order, that you knew where he was--but Kreacher's
> information made him realize that the one person whom you 
> would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black."
> 
> Snape is claiming credit for Kreacher's information, in front of
> the very person it was given to. How did he expect to get away
> with that?

You're not being very sneaky here, Pippin--Law of the Excluded 
Middle?  How do you know that Snape wasn't *also* passing information 
to Voldemort, which helped in the whole scenario at the Ministry as 
well as the murder of Emmeline Vance?  Narcissa may well be thinking 
at that point: "You too?  WTF?"

I suppose that someone else could have betrayed Emmeline Vance and 
Snape took the credit for it, or maybe she's not dead.  That last is 
a cop-out, it seems to me.

<snip>

> 5) Dumbledore's choices
> DD  feeds us a lot of guff about slowing reflexes. But he manages 
> to freeze Harry before Draco can deprive him of his wand. Why in 
> blazes didn't he freeze Draco first??? Or disarm him? Then he could 
> have dealt with Harry at his leisure. 
> 
> I suspect Dumbledore had something to teach Draco, and more 
> importantly Harry, and it was that every racist punk is *not* a 
> would-be murderer. Dumbledore is reasonably safe in this belief, 
> after all, Draco passed up a heavensent opportunity to kill Harry 
> on the train.

I do indeed think that Dumbledore is trying to make a point here with 
Draco, and do things in a particular way.  I don't think that 
invalidates the point that it may well have gone very, very wrong.  
The Dumbledore who is all "Let me help you out, Draco" suddenly (in 
some theories) becomes the dying-all-book-kill-me-now-from-mercy, 
Severus, Dumbledore.

Draco does a pretty good job at getting off two near-misses, as 
well.  I'd say that Dumbledore actually seriously underestimated 
Draco in this book, and for once Harry was really dead-on right.

> Nora:
>> -Nora's top request for a question to be answered concerns the
>> extent to which Legilimency can be used to communicate specific 
>> concepts, natch
> 
> Pippin:
> But Snape answered your question! 

Being able to pick up on what spell is being used; I see that.  Being 
able to pick up on something like "Kill me now"; not so sure.  
Legilimency is not mind-reading, after all--Snape also tells us that.

I also point you to elsewhere, that I'm not convinced Snape's model 
of emotional repression is going to be Harry's ultimate path to 
success.

-Nora notes that Legilimency is not telepathy, there is no telepathy 
in Harry Potter...





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 18:16:23 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:16:23 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd554a+ps4r@...>
Message-ID: <dd5j5n+7ppt@...>

Pippin:
> > Snape is claiming credit for Kreacher's information, in front of
> > the very person it was given to. How did he expect to get away
> > with that?

Nora: 
> You're not being very sneaky here, Pippin--Law of the Excluded 
> Middle?  How do you know that Snape wasn't *also* passing
information  to Voldemort, which helped in the whole scenario 
at the Ministry as  well as the murder of Emmeline Vance?  Narcissa 
may well be thinking  at that point: "You too?  WTF?"

Pippin:
Even if you were right, Bella would think it was lame if
she knew about Kreacher.

 "You've sunk to a new low, Severus, claiming credit for a 
House Elf's work!"


He has to know that she doesn't, and that can only be if he is certain
that  only Narcissa knows who her source was, ie, he and Cissy are 
already in cahoots. That fits with Dumbledore's statement that Sevvie 
is watching over Draco on his orders, which corresponds 
with the actual vow much better than with Draco's claim that
Snape swore to help him.

Nora: 
> I suppose that someone else could have betrayed Emmeline Vance and 
> Snape took the credit for it, or maybe she's not dead.  That last
is  a cop-out, it seems to me.

Pippin:
Why a cop-out? Dumbledore states that the Order can convince Voldemort
that Draco and his family are already dead. That's an anvil-sized
hint that at least some of the murders Voldemort thinks he's gotten
away with are faked. We even saw how it could be done. Slughorn shows 
us a fake crime scene, something the press would surely describe as a
nasty murder, and Dumbledore  reminds him that he should have set the 
Dark Mark over it to be convincing.   Snape would know how, of
course.  

If a live body can be transfigured into an armchair, surely
an armchair can be transfigured into a corpse. We've seen illusory
corpses before, in OOP.

The would-be murderers would have to be convinced that they had in
fact committed the crime, and Dumbledore tells us that can be done,
too. Morphin was convinced that he had killed the Riddles.

While Dumbledore expresses his grief over the loss of Amelia Bones,
you'll notice he never says anything about the Vance murder. 

Nora:
> I do indeed think that Dumbledore is trying to make a point here
with  Draco, and do things in a particular way.  I don't think that 
 invalidates the point that it may well have gone very, very wrong.  

Pippin:
But when did it go wrong? Would it take  Dumbledore any
longer to realize this was the wrong locket than it did Harry? He
would know he'd been decoyed, or at least that there was a good chance
of it. Which, as I've said in another post, almost guarantees that
the potion has no antidote. Voldemort doesn't need to find out how
the drinker managed to find his way to the cave. He already knows.

His victim will be  allowed to live just long enough to realize that
he's been snookered. I suspect only Dumbledore's great magical
power allowed him to survive as long as he did. 


Nora:
> The Dumbledore who is all "Let me help you out, Draco" suddenly (in 
> some theories) becomes the dying-all-book-kill-me-now-from-mercy, 
> Severus, Dumbledore.

Pippin:
That's not my theory of what happened.

I suspect Rowling believes, as  many successful people do, that you
never really fail until you've stopped trying. IMO, that's just
the sort of catch-phrase  Portrait!Dumbledore would say, with, 
perhaps, a fleeting, possibly imagined twinkle in his painted eyes.
If so, then Draco truly failed only when he lowered his wand and 
didn't respond to the DE's orders.


Meanwhile, Draco had to be allowed his near misses.
Fortunately as Snape told us, there are many spells
of protection on Hogwarts and its students. Only one student has,
as far as we know, ever killed anyone at Hogwarts, and it took the
king of serpents and the Heir to do it. Draco just isn't in that 
class. 

The text of the vow is if it *seems* Draco will fail, so if it
*seemed* Draco had succeeded, Snape would be off the hook.
It was really the arrival of the other DE's that clinched things,
assuming that Snape would have been able to cure Dumbledore
and that DD could have faked his own death if he'd had time.

Which brings us to another mystery: How did the DE's know it was 
time to attack? Draco didn't have time to send owls,  only Rosmerta 
had a coin ("she had the other") the floo network must be watched, 
Draco didn't tell Snape about the attack, Draco didn't know Fenrir
was coming, so who was his contact? Must  be an Order member, 
doncha think? Of course it could be a House Elf at B and B's or 
something, but in that case, why not tell us?

Nora:
> Draco does a pretty good job at getting off two near-misses, as 
> well.  I'd say that Dumbledore actually seriously underestimated 
> Draco in this book, and for once Harry was really dead-on right.

Pippin:
I agree that Dumbledore underestimated Draco. He
didn't think Draco would be able to get the DE's into the castle,
and he probably thought that Draco would have to admit failure
at that point, allowing Snape to fulfill his vow without killing
anybody. 

But if Snape is innocent, Harry should be looking for
someone who'd already demonstrated
a capacity for betrayal, someone whom it would thus  be reckless 
to trust -- wonder who that could be?<veg>

We have canon that Dumbledore didn't trust Snape recklessly --
Jo told us that although there was another reason, he didn't
give Snape the DADA job  because he feared
it would bring out the worst in him.

> > Nora:

> I also point you to elsewhere, that I'm not convinced Snape's model 
> of emotional repression is going to be Harry's ultimate path to 
> success.

Pippin:
I agree. So why bother to show the reader that Snape can pick up
specific intentions from someone's mind? Why bother to show that 
Dumbledore's corpse is in a very different state from every other AK 
victim we've seen? It's not because it happened that way -- it's
because Jo decided that it needed to happen that way.

Pippin
wondering what the Faith contingent thinks of Jo's admission that
she's subverting the fantasy genre
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 18:35:24 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:35:24 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd5j5n+7ppt@...>
Message-ID: <dd5k9c+7m0p@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

<massive snip>

> Pippin
> wondering what the Faith contingent thinks of Jo's admission that
> she's subverting the fantasy genre
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm

You mean the same article that has had god know how many people's 
knickers in a twist for its profoundly shallow and inaccurate 
characterization of the current state of the fantasy genre? :)

I wibble, here.  She's writing fantasy in some ways, but she's 
Schiller's naive (rather than sentimental) author, because of her 
indicated lack of knowledge and interest in the genre itself.  That 
she's hit upon some of the common models of fantasy is a combination of 
accident and the fact that the models aren't unique to fantasy.

Of course, Harry Potter is something of a generic mess in and of 
itself.  We've got the background of the British schoolboy story, we've 
got Bildungsroman, and we have particular fantasy elements.  The setup 
for book 7 *could* point towards some of the aspects of epic high 
fantasy (which often has a quest component), but that doesn't sit very 
well with the general tone of 1-6.  Rowling's not writing a detailed 
and separate Secondary World here--half the time the magic is more 
parody, and it's certainly not the kind of deep system-building that 
you get from practitioners of High Fantasy.  And then we got a heavy 
dose of Dickens in HBP, and the ever-present scourge of Jane Austen.

Subverting fantasy?  Hardly.  She'd have to have it dug a lot deeper in 
to do that.  Playing with genre?  Very much so.

-Nora admits that fantasy is her distraction literature of choice, and 
thus knows the genre fairly well--better than the Time writer, for sure





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 19:11:45 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:11:45 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd5j5n+7ppt@...>
Message-ID: <dd5mdh+jqfr@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> Pippin:
> Why a cop-out? 

Because you have a way to soft-pedal absolutely every devastating 
event in the book.

Emmeline Vance's murder?  Faked.
Dumbledore snookered by the locket?  He realizes it, and acts 
accordingly to set another plan in motion.
Snape kills Dumbledore?  Well, it was originally another plan, and 
it's not actually the Avada Kedavra the text says, it's something 
else that keeps that particular sin off of Snape's conscience.

Not the actions of a 'ruthless' author, those.

IMO, it takes a lot of emotional punch out of what are, in many ways, 
genuinely earnest and somewhat naive books.  Does anyone here think 
that Rowling didn't intend us to take Dumbledore's exegesis upon love 
and choice really seriously?  [Interesting to note: in interview, she 
stated that Sirius' "You should have died!" was completely honest on 
his part, and he would indeed-y have done the same.]  We're asked to 
buy straightforwardly something that could easily merit a deep amount 
of scorn and derision for how it's put and phrased.  But then, by 
this theory, we're asked to complicate and find ways to mitigate the 
emotional impact of any number of events.

I suppose that could be where she's going.  Pity we have 2+ years to 
wait and find out.

-Nora thinks about works that do not 'work' when not read in good 
faith: Gounod's _Faust_ is way up there...





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 21:24:01 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Warren)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:24:01 -0000
Subject: Introduction
Message-ID: <dd5u5h+r6gf@...>

As per the rules of the hut, this is my introduction.

I met a few of youse up'a'yonder at that-there Whacky-oh conference 
in Reading.  

I am a 38 y.o. married psychologist who enjoys reading children's 
fantasy fiction and I have difficulty distinguishing reality from 
fantasy.

I have spent some time on the HPANA, Accio, and other HP related 
forua, but so far the discussion hereabouts is much more 
interesting. 

I also enjoy mythology, sci-fantasy literature, music (folk, 
country, rock, jazz, blues), outdoor sports, adventure narratives, 
and cycling.

Other authors I have enjoyed recently are Neil Gaiman, Phillip 
Pullman, T. H. White, Marion Zimmer Bradley, & Frank Herbert. 

Goddess bless,

Waldo





From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 21:58:07 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:07 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd3q57+jn0u@...>
Message-ID: <dd605f+ru8r@...>


> > Pip!Squeak:
> > But I don't think you are taking his actions as primary, Nora. I 
> > think you are taking his *words* as primary. That is, you are 
> > being influenced by his (mainly) verbal treatment of Harry and 
> > possibly also by his actions being filtered through Harry's pov.
>
Nora: 
> There are any number of cases where, however, words *are* 
> actions.  Words are the treatment in the classroom, after all--and 
> I think those words are indicative of character.  In the Shrieking 
> Shack, it is an undoubted action that Snape takes Black and the 
> children back to the castle.  But it's also the case that before 
> then, he was verbally taunting and turning the screws--and that's 
> an action as well.  As is his behavior with Fudge ("only hope DD  
> isn't going to interfere").

Pip!Squeak:
Hmmm... you see, here is where I'd argue you are actually walking 
away from the FAITH viewpoint. Because you're picking and choosing 
which bits of canon you prefer according to whether it fits your 
theories about Snape. Welcome to theorising {g}.

Having been told in canon that Snape is a spy, ('who tells naught 
but lies'), and an actor, you then choose to treat his words as more 
reliable actions than his physical actions. That's not FAITH. 
Because you've been told in canon several times, Snape's words are 
not reliable indicators. He's a spy (you've been told). He's an 
actor (you've been told). But you prefer the view of Snape you get 
from his words, so you select his words-as-actions as reliable 
evidence over his physical-actions. Despite canon having warned you 
against this.

You have to cross check both. And cross check against other 
characters viewpoints, as well. The point I was trying to make in my 
last post was that Snape's physical actions point to a rather 
different man than the verbal actions do. Add that to the canon 
information that he's a spy, actor, and bloody good liar, and you 
might consider his physical actions the more reliable information.

Or you might not. But if not, please could you point to the 
supporting evidence that Snape's words display his character?

> Nora:
> The Harry's POV argument is useful, but dangerous as well.  It 
> gets used as a way to mitigate anything and everything, but it's a 
> little bit like Snape being an actor: it gets used when 
> convenient, and not when it's not.

Pip!Squeak:
Um. Did you notice that the description of Snape in Chapter 2 HBP 
(narrator pov) is subtly different from the description of Snape in 
Harry's pov? He has long black hair, parted in curtains around a 
sallow face and black eyes. No greasy hair, no 'cold' black eyes. He 
doesn't 'smirk', though he does have a slighly mocking 
smile. 'Sardonic' gets used as well, which I don't remember Harry 
using.

So there's a stylistic difference between narrator pov description 
and Harry pov description.

Incidentally, the argument that my using 'Harry's pov' and 'Snape as 
actor' is using non-disprovable arguments is in itself non-
disprovable - in the way that you are currently using it. It's a 
little annoying to be constantly told I'm using a 'convenient' 
argument when I'm trying to give supporting evidence all the time.



> Pip!Squeak:
> > And also, while Dumbledore is undoubtedly more than slightly 
> > dead, Snape's actions to date seem a little more damaging to the 
> > DE's than to the OOP. He tried to stop Quirrel getting the stone 
> > (actions). He showed his Dark Mark (without any orders from 
> > Dumbledore) to Fudge (action). He, according to Dumbledore, was 
> > the one who deduced Harry and Co. had gone to the MoM, and sent 
> > the Order after them - which resulted in Voldemort losing 
> > several minions to Azkaban, including Malfoy (probably an 
> > action - it's reported second hand).
> > 
> > His hit rate for Voldemort, otoh, appears to be: he killed 
> > Dumbledore. Admittedly, that's one heck of a hit - but 
> > everything else he's done for Voldemort is a verbal assertion.
 
> Nora:
> I'd say that despite your list, we have remarkably little 
> information of what has been done concretely for the Order, post-
> return to Voldemort.  I have one potential theory in mind that 
> it's the return to an active position that has changed 
> everything.  Pre-resurrection, Snape fights the good fight because 
> it keeps him where he wants to be.  Post-resurrection, with the  
> boss back and badder than ever...hedging his bets, perhaps?

Pip!Squeak:
And again, you are picking and choosing your evidence. I take a 
through line with the character through the entire series, and you 
reply 'oh, that doesn't count, because *I* only want to consider the 
last two books'.

Incidentally, my concrete evidence did include the last two books. 
What was done concretely for the Order in OOP? According to 
Dumbledore, 'he [Snape] informed the Order as soon as possible about 
what you had said. It was he who deduced where you had gone when you 
did not return from the Forest...' OOP Ch.37 p734 British hardback.

That deduction resulted directly in the Order's Heavy Mob being sent 
to the Ministry. And in HBP Ch. 2, Snape cheerfully (well, 
delicately) describes the DE side of the battle of the Ministry as 
a 'fiasco'.

Of course, he might be lying when he says that {g}. And actually, 
you can show that he is: his own contribution to ensuring it *was* a 
fiasco is something he *definitely* doesn't mention to Bella.


<snip>
Pip!Squeak:
> > One final point. His last action is not the killing of 
> > Dumbledore. His last seen actions (before he gets attacked by 
> > Buckbeak) are to *not* fight back against Harry, to stop another 
> > DE crucio'ing him and even to say some things that sound like 
> > lessons - 'blocked again, and again, and again, until you learn 
> > to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed' - this when he's 
> > fleeing Hogwarts. He also tries successfully to get Draco out of 
> Hogwarts.

Nora:
> Bellatrix offers Harry instruction in how to better perform the 
> Cruciatus Curse, and I don't see anyone making that argument that 
> she's teaching out of the goodness of her heart. :)
> 

Pip!Squeak:
True. However, I note that Bellatrix is busily trying to Crucio 
Harry back at the time (along with aiming some other spells that 
blow bits off statues). Actions versus words. Snape's physical 
actions support that he's trying *not* to hurt Harry. Bellatrix's 
physical actions support that she *is*. Hence my argument that one 
is teaching, the other is not - there's supporting evidence. 

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug  7 23:19:28 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:19:28 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd605f+ru8r@...>
Message-ID: <dd64u0+u7i6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

<snip>

> Or you might not. But if not, please could you point to the 
> supporting evidence that Snape's words display his character?

It's a little loosey-goosey--that I admit.  But when we have a fairly 
consistent picture of someone who enjoys being verbally abusive (or, 
if you prefer, somewhat nasty) to his inferiors, shouldn't we take 
that as partially indicative of character?  You might castigate me 
for too much reliance upon interviews (I think they're a great 
heuristic), but I keep thinking about the statement that children 
aren't fooled by a teacher like Snape--that they know abuse of power 
when they see it.  So if you take abuse of power in the classroom 
seriously (which I am perhaps overinclined to do, because it hits too 
close to home), and combine it with Snape's own peculiar ideas about 
fairness and respect, you get an essential aspect of character.  I 
wouldn't be so hasty as to say it's the only one, but I think it's 
often given short shrift in the rush of evaluating only actions.  I 
lean on this far more now than I would have been comfortable before, 
because JKR's universe is such an essentialist one (which bothered a 
lot of people out there, this time around.)
 
<snip>

> So there's a stylistic difference between narrator pov description 
> and Harry pov description.

Point taken.  I recall some similar efforts to try to establish that 
every time Snape's eyes glittered that he was lying, but such 
consistency came to naught.

> Pip!Squeak:
> And again, you are picking and choosing your evidence. I take a 
> through line with the character through the entire series, and you 
> reply 'oh, that doesn't count, because *I* only want to consider 
> the last two books'.

Being as I began to focus upon the idea that maybe Snape has been up 
to something considerably different, I thought that was fair.  I 
should have made the transition clearer.
 
> Incidentally, my concrete evidence did include the last two books. 
> What was done concretely for the Order in OOP? According to 
> Dumbledore, 'he [Snape] informed the Order as soon as possible 
> about what you had said. It was he who deduced where you had gone 
> when you did not return from the Forest...' OOP Ch.37 p734 British 
> hardback.

Hardly unproblematic, if you want to go with Neri's past reading of 
there being a noticable and significant time gap in the course of 
events.  I don't know whether it's meaningful or simply JKR messing 
up with maths, but it seems right up your alley. :)

> Nora:
> > Bellatrix offers Harry instruction in how to better perform the 
> > Cruciatus Curse, and I don't see anyone making that argument that 
> > she's teaching out of the goodness of her heart. :)
> > 
> 
> Pip!Squeak:
> True. However, I note that Bellatrix is busily trying to Crucio 
> Harry back at the time (along with aiming some other spells that 
> blow bits off statues). Actions versus words. Snape's physical 
> actions support that he's trying *not* to hurt Harry. Bellatrix's 
> physical actions support that she *is*. Hence my argument that one 
> is teaching, the other is not - there's supporting evidence. 

Agreed, it's different.  However, I'm left decidedly unsure of 
Snape's sincerity...well, to be honest, I'm always unsure of Snape's 
sincerity, being as there are times it would be very Good for him to 
be sincere, and times that it would not, natch.  Maybe he's been 
trying his damnedest to teach the idiot kid the whole time, but just 
doesn't understand how to.  If that's the case, for such a supposedly 
brilliant man he's really an awful pedagogue, or maybe he just 
doesn't know how *important* it is.  Spies are supposed to have good 
people skills to avoid getting killed, right?

-Nora says the word of the day is: performativity






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 03:45:48 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:45:48 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd5k9c+7m0p@...>
Message-ID: <dd6khc+1kvu@...>

> > Pippin
> > wondering what the Faith contingent thinks of Jo's admission that
> > she's subverting the fantasy genre
> > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005
/0705-time-grossman.htm

Nora:
> You mean the same article that has had god know how many people's 
> knickers in a twist for its profoundly shallow and inaccurate 
> characterization of the current state of the fantasy genre? :)
> 

Pippin:
*She* didn't characterize the fantasy genre that way, the author of
the article did. As far as I know, she stands by the quote.

You don't need to be up on modern fantasy to satirize the genre.
Cervantes reads just as well as a parody of Star Wars and LOTR as
it does of Le Morte Darthur.

I assume she's read Cervantes. And acres and acres of folk tales.
And Narnia. And Pullman. And  the Alchemical whatsit. She's  spent 
decades  working this stuff out.  Whatever she is, she's not naive.

Pippin





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 04:29:08 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:29:08 -0000
Subject: Hoax? (Re: That Bloody Man Again )
In-Reply-To: <dd5j5n+7ppt@...>
Message-ID: <dd6n2k+lcpt@...>

> Pippin:
> But when did it go wrong? Would it take  Dumbledore any
> longer to realize this was the wrong locket than it did Harry? He
> would know he'd been decoyed, or at least that there was a good
> chance
> of it. Which, as I've said in another post, almost guarantees that
> the potion has no antidote. Voldemort doesn't need to find out how
> the drinker managed to find his way to the cave. He already knows.
> 
> His victim will be  allowed to live just long enough to realize
> that he's been snookered. I suspect only Dumbledore's great magical
> power allowed him to survive as long as he did. 

Jen: You make an interesting point here, Pippin, that the entire 
cave set-up was a hoax meant only to kill the person finding it. And 
that he or she would only discover the truth while being dragged 
down into the Inferi or slowly poisoned to death! Is that right?

My first thought was--'but that can't be, Only a handful of people 
know about the cave and we're lead to believe all were Muggles. 
Except Dumbledore.' Ding Ding Ding! One very important wizard knows 
about the cave and has the intelligence and skills to find it.

But if Voldemort set up the cave as a big gotcha for Dumbledore, or 
anyone else for that matter, why in the world wouldn't he take 
credit for it? Any person (un)lucky enough to find the cave would be 
going to the grave like we are, scratching his or her proverbial 
head--'hmmm, who is RAB and if it's *Regulus* how did he have the 
skills to do this? And if not....' glub, glub, glub down into the 
lake or death by posioning. No opportunity to know Voldemort won. If 
it's a hoax, Voldemort messed up big time. 

(Not to mention Riddle never knew Dumbledore heard the cave story 
from Mrs. Cole. But I don't think you were inferring the hoax was 
meant only for Dumbledore, that was just my own speculation).

I found JKR's journey through the psychology of Voldemort's evil 
extremely telling. Given his particular profile, Voldemort would not 
let the opportunity pass by to inform the victim he just got 
snookered by Voldemort himself. In fact, I'm not certain it fits the 
profile for LV to plan a hoax at all. Voldemort plans with a very 
specific purpose and outcome in mind. He doesn't waste time 
satisfying his morbid sense of humor with no other 'trophy'in the 
bargain. For instance, Voldemort's quite satisfied when one of his 
schemes makes a fool of someone, like transporting Harry to the 
graveyard right under Dumbledore's nose, but he doesn't plan the 
scheme with that being the *primary* outcome.

Much as I love the idea of a hoax, I don't think the glimpses into 
Voldemort's psychology support it. We have extensive information 
about Voldemort's magic: He fears death & darkness, believes blood-
letting weakens the enemy, overlooks the obvious to feed his 
particular obsessions, trusts no one, and is over-confident about 
his strategy for immortality. He doesn't need to 'get' anyone else 
because he assumes no one can touch him.

Jen






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 04:32:18 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:32:18 -0000
Subject: That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis
In-Reply-To: <dd5mdh+jqfr@...>
Message-ID: <dd6n8i+mflm@...>

> > Pippin:
> > Why a cop-out? 

Nora:
> Because you have a way to soft-pedal absolutely every devastating 
> event in the book.
> 
> Emmeline Vance's murder?  Faked.
> Dumbledore snookered by the locket?  He realizes it, and acts 
> accordingly to set another plan in motion.
> Snape kills Dumbledore?  Well, it was originally another plan, and 
> it's not actually the Avada Kedavra the text says, it's something 
> else that keeps that particular sin off of Snape's conscience.
> 
> Not the actions of a 'ruthless' author, those.

Pippin:

Huh?
Every devastating event in the book? Dumbledore's still dead,
snookered into giving his life needlessly, and how is Harry going to
feel when he realizes that? Especially since he's the one who made
Dumbledore drink the potion.  Tonks is doomed if you ask me,
and was probably imperius'd into being Draco's DE contact. What
was she doing, grey-faced and blank, outside the RoR?

Amelia Bones, dead along with countless others; Bill, seriously
wounded  and maybe facing the same kind of discrimination that 
Lupin does; Lupin betraying the Order, so much more of an 
emotional jolt than Snape  that most folks can't believe Jo would 
do that to them, no matter how many clues she sneaks into innocent 
chapters.

But, y'know, Greyback is presumably still on the loose, and that's
very odd, because the last time Harry saw him he was in the full body 
bind. He didn't escape with Snape. There were Snape, Draco, and the 
blond DE  ahead of Harry, and Alecto and Amycus behind him. One DE, 
Gibbon, is dead.

 So  who put the body bind on him and saved Harry's skin? Who took it 
off and rescued dear old Fenny? Canon saith not. The saga continues...

Pippin






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 12:32:23 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:32:23 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Hoax? (Re: That Bloody Man Again )
References: <dd6n2k+lcpt@...>
Message-ID: <02c001c59c15$3ac17390$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Pippin:
> But when did it go wrong? Would it take  Dumbledore any
> longer to realize this was the wrong locket than it did Harry? He
> would know he'd been decoyed, or at least that there was a good
> chance
> of it. Which, as I've said in another post, almost guarantees that
> the potion has no antidote. Voldemort doesn't need to find out how
> the drinker managed to find his way to the cave. He already knows.
> 
> His victim will be  allowed to live just long enough to realize
> that he's been snookered. I suspect only Dumbledore's great magical
> power allowed him to survive as long as he did. 

Jen: You make an interesting point here, Pippin, that the entire 
cave set-up was a hoax meant only to kill the person finding it. And 
that he or she would only discover the truth while being dragged 
down into the Inferi or slowly poisoned to death! Is that right?

My first thought was--'but that can't be, Only a handful of people 
know about the cave and we're lead to believe all were Muggles. 
Except Dumbledore.' Ding Ding Ding! One very important wizard knows 
about the cave and has the intelligence and skills to find it.

But if Voldemort set up the cave as a big gotcha for Dumbledore, or 
anyone else for that matter, why in the world wouldn't he take 
credit for it? Any person (un)lucky enough to find the cave would be 
going to the grave like we are, scratching his or her proverbial 
head--'hmmm, who is RAB and if it's *Regulus* how did he have the 
skills to do this? And if not....' glub, glub, glub down into the 
lake or death by posioning. No opportunity to know Voldemort won. If 
it's a hoax, Voldemort messed up big time. 

<snip>

Much as I love the idea of a hoax, I don't think the glimpses into 
Voldemort's psychology support it. We have extensive information 
about Voldemort's magic: He fears death & darkness, believes blood-
letting weakens the enemy, overlooks the obvious to feed his 
particular obsessions, trusts no one, and is over-confident about 
his strategy for immortality. He doesn't need to 'get' anyone else 
because he assumes no one can touch him.


SSSusan:
This may be an incredibly naive & suracey reading on my part, but in addition to the objections laid out by Jen, I can't quite figure out a way in which a cave-and-horcrux hoax would add to the story *at this point.*  While I could imagine Voldy being skilled enough to set it up, I can't quite imagine how this would move along a story which is heading into its final-of-seven-parts part.  

In HBP we have Harry learning from DD all that he can about what horcrowsies are, how many there likely are, and about how incredibly well-protected they are each likely to be.  We have DD now *dead* so that Harry is on his own to find at least 3 additional, if not 4, horsecrocks... and I think most of us believe this will be a fearsome task for 17-year-old Harry w/o DD at his side.  Additionally, even *if* Snape is (still?) on the side of good, Harry sure as hell doesn't believe it.  He's less likely than ever to listen to anything Snape might be able to tell him -- and, heck, quite likely to attempt to kill him on sight.  

So the task facing Harry is daunting, we're running out of time in this series, there is so much to do/so much to answer, and so little space in which to get it done.  Having the cave/locket scene turn out to be just a har-dee-har-har on Voldy's part would, imo, make Harry's ability to find & destroy all the hincapies still out there even MORE unbelievable.  As it stands now, either DD is right and the switched locket represents a substitute for the one *already* destroyed by RAB or, at most, the real locket horslut is still out there, but at least Harry would know what it looks like and have some notions about where to go find it (beginning with Kreachur and 12 GP).  Starting from *scratch,* though?  And not recognizing that DD was wrong about the locket's already having been destroyed?  It just puts too much MORE onto Harry, plot-wise, for my liking.  

I could very well be wrong, of course. :-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 12:57:37 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:57:37 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd6khc+1kvu@...>
Message-ID: <dd7ks1+u71g@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> *She* didn't characterize the fantasy genre that way, the author of
> the article did. As far as I know, she stands by the quote.
> 
> You don't need to be up on modern fantasy to satirize the genre.
> Cervantes reads just as well as a parody of Star Wars and LOTR as
> it does of Le Morte Darthur.
> 
> I assume she's read Cervantes. And acres and acres of folk tales.
> And Narnia.

Did you read the article, Pippin, because she says she never finished 
Narnia. :)  [She never finished Tolkien either, who for good or ill has 
been the overwhelming model for High Fantasy, although I think that has 
decidedly changed.]

> And Pullman. And the Alchemical whatsit. She's spent 
> decades working this stuff out.  Whatever she is, she's not naive.

When I think of fantasy, there are some hallmarks of the modern genre 
that I think Rowling's work is distinctively missing, or doesn't engage 
with on as deep of a level as it could have.  And the first and 
foremost of those is the magic.

Particularly as we go on in the series, there are times when I shake my 
head and think "That's a really neat and inventive piece of magic, but 
how is it supposed to really work?"  You'll note that Rowling's 
standard explanation is "It's magic--it does that.", which I hate to 
say it, but is a rather ad hoc sort of answer.  Typically in fantasy, 
the foundations of how and why the magic works are utterly essential to 
the unique cosmology which each author is constructing, and it often 
has really deep thematic resonance.

The closest we get in HP is magic as choice and intention, but we don't 
get as many other connections as I might have thought.  The magic sits 
very lightly upon the story, in many ways.  Mercifully, she's not 
writing the kind of systematic issue!fic that Pullman did, and why I 
couldn't make myself finish the third book there (but people told me 
what happened.)

Rowling's idea that she's subverting the genre is predicated on the 
idea that the genre is essentially escapist, when someone discovers 
they have powers and then life becomes so much more magical and happy.  
She is hardly the first person to do that, although given her lack of 
knowledge of the genre, it may well feel that way.  [I'd say that in 
many of the things that I've read, the sharp reader knows immediately 
that getting new powers is going to result in a world of suck for the 
character, before eventual triumph.  That sounds familiar, no?]

-Nora sets her standards for generic subversion high, like Bach






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 15:07:20 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:07:20 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd7ks1+u71g@...>
Message-ID: <dd7sf8+bauu@...>

Nora:
> When I think of fantasy, there are some hallmarks of the modern
genre  that I think Rowling's work is distinctively missing, or
doesn't engage  with on as deep of a level as it could have.  And the
first and foremost of those is the magic.
> 
> Particularly as we go on in the series, there are times when I
shake my  head and think "That's a really neat and inventive piece of 
magic, but how is it supposed to really work?"  You'll note that
Rowling's standard explanation is "It's magic--it does that.", which
I hateto  say it, but is a rather ad hoc sort of answer.  Typically in
fantasy,  the foundations of how and why the magic works are utterly
essential to  the unique cosmology which each author is constructing,
and it often  has really deep thematic resonance.
> 

Pippin:
What if the deep thematic resonance is that the way the magic works
doesn't matter? 

What really matters is friendship and bravery, with a little assist
from books and cleverness. Magic can't change your life. Love can.

No, Rowling isn't the first person to ever say these things; she
didn't claim that she was. 

I do see her subverting the idea of heroes and villains, very
much. There are, in her world, some uniquely good individuals,
and some uniquely bad ones, but most people are not so easily
categorized. They are the sum of their choices, good and bad.
'The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters' is 
being expanded into 'the world isn't divided into good guys 
and bad guys'. There are no Orcs, no  clones, no sentient beings 
who are  nonetheless vermin to be exterminated.

Pippin






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 15:54:25 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:54:25 -0000
Subject: Hoax? (Re: That Bloody Man Again )
In-Reply-To: <02c001c59c15$3ac17390$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <dd7v7h+mr40@...>

Jen:
He doesn't need to 'get' anyone else
because he assumes no one can touch him.


SSSusan:
This may be an incredibly naive & suracey reading on my 
part, but in addition tthe objections laid out by Jen, I can't
 quite figure out a way in which a cave-and-horcrux hoax 
would add to the story *at this point.* While I could
imagine Voldy being skilled enough to set it up, I can't 
quite imagine how this would move along a story which 
is heading into its final-of-seven-parts part.

<snip>

. Having the cave/locket scene turn out to be just a 
har-dee-har-har on Voldy's part would, imo, make Harry's 
ability to find & destroy all the hincapies still out there even 
MORE unbelievable.g.

Pippin:
Anyway you look at it, Jo's still got to explain how a fake horcrux
got swapped for the real one. Now suppose Voldemort was keeping 
the locket near him, as he now keeps Nagini. Let's suppose that RAB 
was Regulus,  just as clever and rash as Sirius (Sluggy wanted the
set). Unlike Sirius, he  remained on good terms with his family and 
had access to their library of information on the Dark Arts. 

Of course, Sirius said Reggie was an idiot, but Sirius did have
a woeful tendency to underestimate anyone he didn't like. 

Regulus realized what the locket was. Having decided
to defect, he stole the real locket, leaving the fake in its place. 
He took the real locket to GP, where he erased its distinguishing 
mark ("that'd come off," quoth Mundungus.) The spell that disguised 
the fake wore off quickly, and Voldie discovered the theft,
but Regulus was already dead and beyond questioning. Oops!

Voldie realized that if Regulus could discover his secret, 
someone else could too. So he decided to hide the fake horcrux as if
it were a real one. If anyone else ever seems to be hunting his
secrets, he will see that their quest leads them to the fake and a 
very nasty end. 

As for the real locket, I think Voldemort doesn't believe
that someone like Regulus could destroy it. The locket
has endured a thousand years, surely it has magic
enough to look after itself. If it's now concealed in a
stronghold of his enemies, so much the better. 

This leaves the real locket at GP for Harry to find, along with
Regulus's story. It makes Harry realize that though Dumbledore 
took great pains to conceal Harry's involvement in the hx hunt 
from anyone, he flaunted his withered hand, wore the ring openly, 
and even left it on display in his office. He openly hired Slughorn
and brought him to Hogwarts.

 Why? Would DD  want Voldemort to know he was hunting horcruxes? 

 Perhaps. In all those long years of searching, only two have
turned up, discovered by chance. Not a good record of success.
How is Dumbledore to find the others? 

But Voldemort is ruled by fear. If he thinks one of his preciouses
has been destroyed by intention, he will need to reassure himself
that the others are safe.

Voldemort wants there to be just six, remember. He can't just
make more, willy nilly.  Voldemort will have to check on his
horcruxes, and lead Dumbledore right to them. A clever plan,
but the cheese cauldron in this case is that Dumbledore assumes
that he is the first to discover Voldemort's secret. Not so.

Of course Voldemort would think that with Dumbledore dead, and his
secret known to no other, he can safely check on his real horcruxes, 
thus leading Harry right to them. Ah, yes. That moves the plot along
nicely.

Pippin





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 16:03:53 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:03:53 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd7sf8+bauu@...>
Message-ID: <dd7vp9+88n5@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:
> What if the deep thematic resonance is that the way the magic works
> doesn't matter? 

That's a strong possibility.  It also helps mark this out as not 
really being fantasy at root, but Bildungsroman with fantastic 
elements dropped on top of it.
 
> I do see her subverting the idea of heroes and villains, very
> much. There are, in her world, some uniquely good individuals,
> and some uniquely bad ones, but most people are not so easily
> categorized. They are the sum of their choices, good and bad.
> 'The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters' is 
> being expanded into 'the world isn't divided into good guys 
> and bad guys'. There are no Orcs, no  clones, no sentient beings 
> who are  nonetheless vermin to be exterminated.

She's only subverting that if you take a pretty black and white 
baseline to the good vs. evil approach.  Flawed characters in 
fantasy are only shocking if, again, you're somewhere in the 1950's, 
or even before then.  But despite everyone having at least a toe of 
clay, I get the feeling that there is still Good, and there is still 
Evil in Rowling's world.  She's said that she writes about Evil, in 
many of its forms.  She's not doing something as profoundly 
subversive as someone like George R. R. Martin, where there's a 
lurking subplot with genuinely scary evil things Up North, but 
that's taken a backseat (for three books) to the nasty things that 
people can do to each other, with pretty much no invocation of any 
kind of good guys and bad guys--rather, a constant shift in POV and 
thus reader sympathy.

The Order is still on the side of Good, and Voldemort is Evil.  Love 
is Good.  I'll make fairly solid predictions that the scale isn't 
going to be fundamentally upset.  Individuals can wax and wane in 
their adherence to either side.  But I do get the feeling that 
opportunists go somewhere worse than the Vestibule.

-Nora thinks: morally ambiguous characters!  Shock and awe!





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 18:26:55 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:26:55 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd7vp9+88n5@...>
Message-ID: <dd885f+vbhn@...>

Nora:
> The Order is still on the side of Good, and Voldemort is Evil. 
Love 
> is Good.  I'll make fairly solid predictions that the scale isn't 
> going to be fundamentally upset.  Individuals can wax and wane in 
> their adherence to either side.  But I do get the feeling that 
> opportunists go somewhere worse than the Vestibule.
> 
> -Nora thinks: morally ambiguous characters!  Shock and awe!

Pippin:
Maybe I am not following you, but you seem to be saying that
in a morally ambiguous universe there is nothing very shocking about 
morally ambiguous characters, while in a world which posits a stark 
division between Good and Evil, there can't *be* morally ambiguous 
characters. I think Jo wants to show us  a world of Good and
Evil in which there *are* morally ambigous characters, where the
triumph of Good depends on its refusal to micromanage moral
certainty. I think, by your own definition, that's subversive.

Murder is Bad, okay.  Love is Good, you betcha. Picking on people at 
school is...acne. Horrible while it lasts, but mostly people get over
it. Potentially disfiguring, fatal in rare cases, we'd all
be happier if it didn't exist, but a threat to civilization as we know
it, no. No point in trying to curse your nose off to get rid of it.

The fate of the opportunists is to lead cramped, pointless lives,
never knowing that  joy and wonder exists just beyond
their blinkered vision. How sad. But they're not murderers. Even
Umbridge isn't.

Pippin






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 18:38:46 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:38:46 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd885f+vbhn@...>
Message-ID: <dd88rm+102pc@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> Maybe I am not following you, but you seem to be saying that
> in a morally ambiguous universe there is nothing very shocking about 
> morally ambiguous characters, while in a world which posits a stark 
> division between Good and Evil, there can't *be* morally ambiguous 
> characters. I think Jo wants to show us  a world of Good and
> Evil in which there *are* morally ambigous characters, where the
> triumph of Good depends on its refusal to micromanage moral
> certainty. I think, by your own definition, that's subversive.

In fantasy as whole, the presentation of a genuinely morally ambiguous 
universe instead of merely nods in the direction of complication--
that's subversive.

Good and Evil with the morally ambiguous is a fair description of 
Rowling, but it's not as subversive (if at all) precisely because the 
bedrock moral constancy behind everything is still there (even if 
people rarely reach it).  I think we're supposed to take Dumbledore's 
speech about the power of love and Harry's "pure heart" at face value, 
as heart-felt and genuine and the expression of the moral sentiments 
underpinning the Potterverse.

No messy cases where love knots seamlessly into the will to power and 
the whole thing ends with everyone burning on stage in this saga, I 
think.  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it would be more 
subversive.

To boil it down: if being subversive of the genre norms of fantasy can 
be accomplished by having flawed characters against the still-present 
reality of Good and Evil, I guess Rowling's being subversive.  I don't 
think that's too shocking in the genre.

I also don't think the Potterverse survives ironic readings, but that's 
another issue.

Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you take the 
power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely straight face?  
Does it do anything to the rest of the series thematically or otherwise 
if you don't?

-Nora buys into it for the purpose of reading, but finds herself 
increasingly aware of having to purposefully do it






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 19:29:16 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:29:16 +0100
Subject: The Stone and the Diary
Message-ID: <2A22EFC6-4386-471B-9249-B6E66A1F62E8@...>


Surfacing briefly - the last 4 days having been spent mesmerised by
the 2nd Ashes Test and the 3rd starts on Thursday. All out of
fingernails, too - chewed down to the knuckles - and Old Trafford
is usually a spinner's dream - could get hairy.

I'm not very impressed with DD in the Horcrux chapter. Some of his  
explanations leave a lot to be desired - particularly regarding the  
Stone and the Diary. Now, is Jo getting clunky or is this a bit of  
obfuscation?

Stone first.
Voldy is immortal, or as near as makes no odds. He wouldn't rely on  
the Stone, according to DD,  something about hating having to rely on  
something/somebody apart from himself - hence his squirreling away of  
bits of himself in various knick-knacks. Yet when blasted he has  
enormous difficulty forming a body, he's lost most of his powers -  
despite his cunning plan of soul-splitting for safety. Yet the Stone  
wouldn't give him a body, nor would it increase his powers, he'd  
still be stuck in Quirrell. All that guff about "I see myself  
presenting the Stone to my Master" is just that - guff. Voldy would  
be no better off, it'd only extend his existence as it already is,  
unless it has effects we haven't been told about. Further, he was  
supping at unicorn fluids to keep alive, but isn't that the purpose  
of these Haircuts scattered hither and yon? Why not direct Quirrell  
to Malfoy Towers and get a refresher from the Diary or visit the old  
homestead and root the ring out? He didn't, so what's going on?

Possible explanations:

1. The splitting occurred post PS/SS - which conflicts with canon.

2. Each Hearsekiss is capable of independent development into a new  
Voldy, but not capable of resurrecting another soul fragment, nor the  
Voldy original if it gets zapped. If so, then the fragments are  
probably permanently separated. Immortality by cloning. The events in  
CoS tend to support this hypothesis.

3. The Horsecuts don't contain any powers apart from the tamper- 
proofing spells, just bits of soul. If this is the case they don't  
really need to be destroyed. Slinging 'em through the Veil should be  
quite enough.

4. His magic (or research) is over-rated.

5. DD is lying or up to his old tricks of indulging in mushroom  
management techniques.

6. Jo has dropped a bollock.


The Diary.
Notable for not being surrounded by a  Dark Magic obstacle course.
And why? According to DD it's so Voldy can boast about being the  
Heir. Don't see the point, myself. All he has to do is announce it  
and it becomes an ineluctable truth for the DEs, the wizard in the  
street isn't going to argue and a few like DD know it anyway. More to  
the point - Diary!Tom would make his appearance. What would Voldy do  
about that? All  those press interviews, explaining that "Yes, I am  
Tom and Tom is me but younger and waddya mean, can I prove it?"
All very tedious.

No; DD  slipped in a possibly very important observation during his  
whitterings re: the Diary: it can be used to open the Chamber. That  
seems to be its main function.  And we know from Jo that the Chamber  
will feature again before the end.

Only the Heir can open the Chamber - 'cept Harry, of course, just  
whisper a few Parseltongue phrases and he's in like Flynn. Mind you,  
if Harry's a Whorscrocks then he's got soul. Voldy's. Sitting  
somewhere between his ears. That'd do it.

A minor aside.
The Cave.
All together now. Give me an A, George.
"Oh, I do like to be beside the seaside,
Oh, I do like to be beside the sea,
Oh, I do like to stroll along the prom, prom, prom,
Where the brass band plays tiddly om pom pom."

Where is this Cave? 'Cos I seem to remember that the original draft  
of PS chap. 1 had GH exploding on an island off-shore. Still  
relevant, do you think? 'Cos if it is - could the locket have been  
dumped in the bird-bath by an associate after Voldy was discommoded  
by his Nemesis in nappies? That the whole set-up was intended for a  
Hossclox very different from the locket?

Kneasy



From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 21:28:49 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:28:49 -0000
Subject: The Stone and the Diary
In-Reply-To: <2A22EFC6-4386-471B-9249-B6E66A1F62E8@...>
Message-ID: <dd8iqh+he0k@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> I'm not very impressed with DD in the Horcrux chapter. Some of his  
> explanations leave a lot to be desired <snip>
> Stone first.Voldy is immortal, or as near as makes no odds. He
> wouldn't rely on the Stone, according to DD,something about
> hating having to rely on something/somebody apart from himself -
> hence his squirreling away of bits of himself in various
> knick-knacks. Yet when blasted he has enormous difficulty forming a
> body, he's lost most of his powers - despite his cunning plan of
> soul-splitting for safety. Yet the Stone wouldn't give him a body, >
nor would it increase his powers, he'd still be stuck in Quirrell.

Entropy:

I suspect that when Voldie came upon his Horcrux-immortality scheme,
the idea was that whatever bit of his soul that was left in his
original body would be killed, but there would be many others out
there just waiting to be re-activated by his faithful minions. I don't
think he anticipated being left in his post-Godric's Hollow state, a
sub-living soul which had the unfortunate predicament of being
bodiless while at the same time retaining consciousness.

This may have left him with an unforeseen set of circumstances.
Instead of idly waiting for old Lucius to figure it all out and
reactivate Diary!Tom, his still-aware post-GH self was compelled to do
something beyond twiddling its non-existent thumbs. Thus his foray
into Sorcerer's Stone experimentation and unicorn blood drinking, as
well as that bit of ill-advised face-to-back-of-head grafting. What I
mean is, rather than being "most sincerely dead", as he had
anticipated, this bit of his soul which was still in it's original
packaging was still viable, though damaged, and it's simply not like
Voldement to sit by when there's immortality experimentation to be done. 

> Possible explanations:
> 1. The splitting occurred post PS/SS - which conflicts with canon.

Entropy:
Nyet, obviously.

> 2. Each Hearsekiss is capable of independent development into a new  
> Voldy, but not capable of resurrecting another soul fragment, nor
the Voldy original if it gets zapped. If so, then the fragments are  
> probably permanently separated. Immortality by cloning. 

Entropy:
Permanently separated, but retaining some *psychic* connection after
the soul/body has been reactivated? This had interesting implications,
as there could, conceivably be as many as seven Voldies running around
at once; all perpetrating various evil deeds, yet communicating in a
Harry-through-Nagini's-eyes kinda way.

And I don't believe "resurrecting" would be the proper term. Once the
soul is dead, it's probably dead and gone for good. The Horshacks seem
to be in a dormant state, locked in their teeny cells until
reactivated by, as in Diary!Tom's case, another's life-force.

> 3. The Horsecuts don't contain any powers apart from the tamper- 
> proofing spells, just bits of soul. If this is the case they don't  
> really need to be destroyed. Slinging 'em through the Veil should be
quite enough.

Entropy:
Good point, but unlikely, I think.  From what we know about the
mythology of the veil, it is possible to return back through it. 
Slinging the HorseFluxes through whole would simply hide them from the
population at large, but they would still continue to protect the soul
within. And who's to say someone "over there" won't decide to toss it
back to our side?

> 4. His magic (or research) is over-rated.

Entropy:
Ne-vah!

> 5. DD is lying or up to his old tricks of indulging in mushroom  
> management techniques.

Entropy:
Quite possibly.

> 6. Jo has dropped a bollock.

Entropy:
Ne-vah! (Oh, okay, maybe.)

:: Entropy ::
 





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug  8 23:50:53 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:50:53 -0000
Subject: RAB Secrets Revealed
Message-ID: <dd8r4t+vlv9@...>

Just a comment on the number of posts in July 2005.  It reminded me of 
all the owls dropping letters for Harry to attend Hogwarts in the 
first book.  I felt like Uncle Vernon trying to catch them all and 
read them.

Regarding the identity of RAB, I am sure that I have not yet read this 
theory.  

According to several more learned posters on this site, Voldy went to 
school in the 1940's and was active making his soul deposits during 
the 1950's and 1960's.  The chronology leads to an important discovery.

If his soul mission started in the 1940's and continued throughout the 
1950's and 1960's, the effects of this activity is quite clear.  His 
Black Magic is quite effident and continues to influence us today.  
Voldy deposited Soul bisquits into the Black Bluesmen in America.  
People like Muddy Waters, BB King, and Aretha Franklin.  He never 
realized the possibility that these monster Soul licks would propagate 
and lead to the Rhythm and Blues (RAB) Artists that soon created Rock 
and Roll Music.

Thus without that Old Black Magic, most white men would never have 
learned to shake their booties.  We might all be still listening to 
Pat Boone if not for Lord Voldemort!  ;0)

Red Eye Randy






From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 03:42:29 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] RAB Secrets Revealed
In-Reply-To: <dd8r4t+vlv9@...>
Message-ID: <20050809034229.54031.qmail@...>

Randy <estesrandy at ...> wrote:

... snip ...

Regarding the identity of RAB, I am sure that I have not yet read this 
theory.  
... snip ...

Voldy deposited Soul bisquits into the Black Bluesmen in America.  
People like Muddy Waters, BB King, and Aretha Franklin.  He never 
realized the possibility that these monster Soul licks would propagate 
and lead to the Rhythm and Blues (RAB)... 

Red Eye Randy

Voldie's soul could never survive in a media so full of a force he detests ... the force he has always underestimated ... love.  Your mojo has got to have some love behind it.  IMHO, of course.  

Peace,

Justin Felt-Flatulent

		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 07:55:03 2005
From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:55:03 -0000
Subject: Introduction
In-Reply-To: <dd5u5h+r6gf@...>
Message-ID: <dd9ngn+fr6a@...>

Well, well - a warm welcome to wild Waldo!

I met Warren at Accio - and after hearing several people raving about 
what a cool presence he'd been on the Accio boards, I wasn't 
expecting to end up thinking they'd downplayed him.

(And I certainly didn't expect him to give us some unexpected insites 
into cross-dressing and HP fans either. But since I'm at my in-laws 
just now and don't have much time online, I'll just have to leave 
that story up to your imaginations ... )

Great to see you here - and next time I need to steal a bike, you're 
the first HP fan I contact.

Peace, 

Mike, who is at his in-laws and not online much





From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 11:47:59 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Snape and Lilly Sitting in the Tree
In-Reply-To: <dd8r4t+vlv9@...>
Message-ID: <20050809114800.45593.qmail@...>

Just a thought - and probably a thought you guys have
already chewed it up and spit out several hundred
posts ago. Still, three observations:

1) Slughorn can't stop rattling along about how much
Harry's potions work reminds him of his mother's.

2) Slughorn, however dim in some ways, did teach Lilly
and knew what he was talking about. It's not just that
he's good; there's a familiy resemblence.

3) The real inspiration behind Harry's work were the
glosses in the textbook of one Severus Snape ...

?) ... who may or may not have been Lilly's BF ...

4) ... but certainly didn't end up gettingthe girl and
gradually turn nasty.

Something tells me that some more clarification about
Snape and Lilly's relationship will put this into
context. Was Lilly, like her son, getting a free ride
from Snape - or was Snape the one getting the goods
from from his GF? 

And, of course, when Lilly started sniffing out one
James Potter - was that when Snape started adding in
curses? 

Every once in a while, I get the impression that I
might not mind Jo's finishing these books after all.

Baaaaa,

Mike (who is desperately trying to prepare for an MA
final. And is hence noodling around ToC, tinkering
with his LJ and generally wasting precious time ... )

P.S. Anybody know when Steve gets home from his jaunt
through Scottland? 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 13:33:40 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:33:40 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lilly Sitting in the Tree
In-Reply-To: <20050809114800.45593.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddabbk+3cf3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Mike Gray <mikesusangray at y...> 
wrote:

SNIP
> 1) Slughorn can't stop rattling along about how much
> Harry's potions work reminds him of his mother's.
>
SNIP 
>> Something tells me that some more clarification about
> Snape and Lilly's relationship will put this into
> context. Was Lilly, like her son, getting a free ride
> from Snape - or was Snape the one getting the goods
> from from his GF? 
> 
SNIP
> And, of course, when Lilly started sniffing out one
> James Potter - was that when Snape started adding in
> curses? 
> 
Randy replies:
If Snape gives Lilly the HPB book to help her along with Potions, or 
if Slughorn gives her the book he always gives to his most 
interesting student of the year based on his observations... then 
Lilly also gets the benefits of the book's power.  (perhaps a 
horcrux from Voldy) just like Snape did.....

But she tells James about the new spell she found in the book about 
levitating your enemies.  James blows her cover to Snape when he 
uses it on Snape for the first time.  Snape's worst memory is when 
he realizes that Lilly has told one of his secret spells to his 
worst enemy (James Potter) who is now using it on Snape in public.  
Thus James gets the publicity from using this clever new spell that 
he proceeds to teach to others as if it was his own creation.

Snape has been betrayed by the girl that he helped in Potions class, 
and he will never again help another student.  He will also never 
try to be close to another person (ie Cissy, the one he truly 
loves).  He will instead hide his emotions and take care of Cissy's 
boy Draco as if he were his own son.  He never reveals his true 
feelings to Cissy, but she suspects them anyway given women's 
intuition.

I am beginning to think that the HBP Potion's Book is a Voldy 
influenced object if not a snorlax.

Red Eye Randy







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 14:23:11 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:23:11 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
Message-ID: <ddae8f+4h50@...>

Something jumped out at me on 3rd re-read.
In the final confrontation between Snape and Harry,
Snape's words are almost bantering when Harry calls 
him a coward  the first time, though he has to shout 
as there's so much other noise.

"Coward, did you call me, Potter?" shouted Snape. "Your
father would never attack me unless it was four on one,
what would you call him, I wonder?"

Translation: I've got you outnumbered five to one, you
idiot, and you think it's cowardice that keeps me from
attacking you? 

It never has seemed before that Snape is
troubled by  an accusation of cowardice -- if he was,
surely Sirius would have thrown it right back at him
when they were fighting at GP? And Slytherins don't
really mind being considered cowards by Gryffindors,
at least if Phineas is any guide. They don't see anything
wrong with saving their own skins first.

Harry sees Snape with the same look of rage he had
on the tower, which could mean he was acting both
times. 

But then Harry says, "Kill me like you killed him, you 
coward--" and we get a reaction we've *never* seen
before...

"DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly
demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain
as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house
behind them --"CALL ME COWARD!"


Now, Harry is only thinking of Dumbledore when he
says "like you killed him," but Snape has been talking
of James. Could it be that the "DON'T--" is our first glimpse of
Snape's remorse for his part in James's death, an interpretation
reinforced  by the hellish image of the dog burning alive, and the 
word 'demented' which calls up worst memories?

Then, realizing he's giving himself away, Snape
finishes with "CALL ME  COWARD!" 

What do you think?


Pippin





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 14:46:50 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddae8f+4h50@...>
Message-ID: <20050809144650.38674.qmail@...>

pippin wrote:

---------------------------------
Something jumped out at me on 3rd re-read.
In the final confrontation between Snape and Harry,
Snape's words are almost bantering when Harry calls 
him a coward  the first time, though he has to shout 
as there's so much other noise.

<snip>

But then Harry says, "Kill me like you killed him, you

coward--" and we get a reaction we've *never* seen
before...

"DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly
demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain
as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house
behind them --"CALL ME COWARD!"

Now, Harry is only thinking of Dumbledore when he
says "like you killed him," but Snape has been talking
of James. Could it be that the "DON'T--" is our first
glimpse of Snape's remorse for his part in James's
death, an interpretation reinforced  by the hellish
image of the dog burning alive, and the word
'demented' which calls up worst memories?

Then, realizing he's giving himself away, Snape
finishes with "CALL ME  COWARD!" 

What do you think?


SSSusan:
Wow, Pippin, as I read this along with you, here, I
could see *right* where you were going, and I thought
to myself, "Snape thinks Harry's talking about JAMES!"
 Yes, I think you're definitely onto something with
that.  

OTOH, I don't think Snape caught himself up short and
switched him statement in midstream as you've
suggested.  Rather, I think his *whole* response is
about James -- the "DON'T" and the "CALL ME COWARD."  

I think Snape did something very, very risky or very,
very brave in attempting to warn James about Voldy,
and Harry's calling Snape a murderer (of JAMES) just
really pissed him off, bec. Harry has no idea what he
risked back at that time.

Just my two knuts. 

Siriusly Snapey Susan, still firmly in the Good!Snape
Camp with Dungrollin





From kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 15:51:56 2005
From: kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid (Kirsty)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:51:56 -0000
Subject: Introduction
Message-ID: <ddajes+hbre@...>

Hi,

Well here I am introducing myself.

My name is Kirsty and I'm a 22 year old student from the South of 
England.

I was invited here by Catherine, who thought it may help me with my 
dissertation.

I was at the Accio conference and thoroughly enjoyed the papers I 
went to as well as helping out a lot as a steward.  I met a few of 
you at the conference, but some only to say hello too.

Anyway I study theology and religious studies at the University of 
Winchester and am about to go intol my third and final year.  I am 
writing a dissertation this year for 30 credits of my degree on some 
aspects on Harry Potter - my ideas keep changing as I speak to 
people, but I am interested in the morality and ethics behind and 
within Harry Potter and also the religious implications that many of 
the aspects within the books cause.  However I am very slow at 
spotting many simple things within the books, which is why I found 
the conference and meeting so many amazing people fascinating.

Ok...hope this explains a bit about me

Kirsty






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 17:08:52 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:08:52 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddae8f+4h50@...>
Message-ID: <ddanv4+gmdu@...>

Pippin wrote:
> <snip>
> But then Harry says, "Kill me like you killed him, you 
> coward--" and we get a reaction we've *never* seen
> before...
> 
> "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly
> demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain
> as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house
> behind them --"CALL ME COWARD!"
> 
> 
> Now, Harry is only thinking of Dumbledore when he
> says "like you killed him," but Snape has been talking
> of James. Could it be that the "DON'T--" is our first glimpse of
> Snape's remorse for his part in James's death, an interpretation
> reinforced  by the hellish image of the dog burning alive, and the 
> word 'demented' which calls up worst memories?
> 
> Then, realizing he's giving himself away, Snape
> finishes with "CALL ME  COWARD!" 
> 

Neri:

This is an interesting interpretation. Although I must say, if at 
this point Snape thinks even for just one second that by "killed him" 
Harry means James rather than Dumbledore, then he must be extremely 
obsessed with James. But I think he is indeed obsessed with James, so 
I can buy this interpretation.

I personally think that HBP gave a big boost to the old Snape-owes-a-
Life-Debt-to-James theory, because we found out that Snape was the 
one who heard the prophecy and told Voldy about it, and because he 
changed sides after he realized how Voldy interpreted it and whom 
Voldy intends to kill. Of course, in Spinner's End Snape says that it 
was Voldy who sent him to DD, and this must be true, but Snape must 
have given DD at least one piece of information that Voldy didn't 
plan to feed DD, and this was the fact that Voldy is after the 
Potters and their son. It certainly looks like Snape's first priority 
here was to save James' life.

In the TLC/Mugglenet interview JKR said the Life Debt is a good 
direction to theorize about. When asked if Ginny owes a LD to Harry 
she said something like (paraphrasing from memory) "not really, but I 
can't explain it now". This suggests that LD mechanics is a central 
plot point. It's pretty much canon that in the Potterverse cosmology 
LD is up there with Ancient Magic, Fidelius, Patronus and that sort 
of things, but no details are supplied, which is probably for a good 
reason. However, if LD magic follows moral rules like most of the 
Potterverse high magic I'd guess that you only owe LD to somebody who 
saved your life if he had a good reason not to do it, or if you 
wouldn't do it for him. So Peter owes a LD to Harry but Ginny 
doesn't, because Ginny had never wronged Harry but Peter had (or 
something corny like that).

During the fated "prank" James saves Severus' life despite the hate 
between them. If this isn't enough to generate a LD immediately, then 
it certainly does after Snape telling Voldy about the prophecy. He 
had put the man he owes his life to in mortal danger, so in order to 
acquit himself of the debt he must prevent James' death, and this is 
why he tells Dumbledore. But telling DD fails to prevent James and 
Lily's death at GH, and now Snape owes a double LD to Harry.

So while I tend to think that Snape has always been his own agent, 
and he indeed killed DD, I agree that his first priority during the 
series was keeping Harry alive, and this hasn't changed, which 
promises some dramatic moments in Book 7.


Neri

 








From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 17:13:54 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <20050809144650.38674.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050809171354.18278.qmail@...>

pippin wrote:
Then, realizing he's giving himself away, Snape
finishes with "CALL ME  COWARD!" 

What do you think?


SSSusan earlier:
OTOH, I don't think Snape caught himself up short and
switched him statement in midstream as you've
suggested.  Rather, I think his *whole* response is
about James -- the "DON'T" and the "CALL ME COWARD."  

I think Snape did something very, very risky or very,
very brave in attempting to warn James about Voldy,
and Harry's calling Snape a murderer (of JAMES) just
really pissed him off, bec. Harry has no idea what he
risked back at that time.


SSSusan again:
Heh heh.  Let me backpedal a wee bit here.  

I implied I'm convinced this exchange was Snape
thinking Harry was referring to James.  Let me now say
that I think that is one of TWO possibilities, either
of which would make sense to me.  I *like* this
scenario that Snape was thinking of James, but I also
believe it's equally possible that DD *was* the
subject in both their minds.  

Believing in Loyal!Snape as I do, the escalation in
anger on Snape's part *could* also have been Harry's
moving from curses & insults & general attacks to the
specific issue of DD's killing.  If one believes Snape
did what DD was asking/begging him to do, NOT what he
wanted to do, and that he is at heart loyal to & as
close to DD as to anyone, then the escalation in anger
in his response also would make sense, would it not? 
Potter's words would have cut to the core.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's away from her book and so
could be misremembering what came just before Pippin's
summary.





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 19:07:44 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Introduction
In-Reply-To: <dd9ngn+fr6a@...>
Message-ID: <20050809190744.70529.qmail@...>


Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray <aberforthsgoat at ...> wrote:

> Well, well - a warm welcome to wild Waldo!


Danke mein guter Freund. 

? buono da essere qui.


> (... certainly didn't expect him 

> to give us some unexpected insites (sic)
> into cross-dressing and HP fans either. 

> But since I'm at my in-laws 

> just now and don't have much time online, 

> I'll just have to leave that story up to 

> your imaginations ... )


So much the better.  Imagination is so often more appealing than reality.  Trust me on this point.  


> Great to see you here - and next time 

> I need to steal a bike, you're the first 

> HP fan I contact.

> Peace, Mike, who is at his in-laws and not online much

Peace back atcha, bro'

- Dubya

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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




From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 19:35:00 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:35:00 -0000
Subject: Flint?
Message-ID: <ddb0h4+cabv@...>

I'm trying to put together a timeline of when horcruxes were made 
and with which murders they might be associated. I think I've 
encountered a problem in the Riddle murder timeline.

When Tom is asking Slughorn about horcruxes, he is wearing the ring 
which means he has already killed the Riddles. At this point, he 
doesn't know how to create a horcrux which means he hasn't created 
the diary yet. How much time can pass with a murder hanging out 
there before it can become a horcrux? We don't know, so we don't 
know if the Riddle murders are available to be used for the ring 
horcrux. But this is a discussion for another day. Back to the 
timeline problem.

Tom creates the diary using his 16-year-old self. Presumably he was 
actually 16 when he created it and it is likely that he used the 
murder of Myrtle for that horcrux.

The Lexicon places the death of the Riddles after Tom leaves 
Hogwarts, but this doesn't seem possible if he is already wearing 
the ring when he talks to Slughorn and before he has made any 
horcruxes. He must have killed the Riddles before Myrtle and before 
he left Hogwarts.

A flint or an error in the Lexicon?

CV






From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 20:17:18 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddae8f+4h50@...>
Message-ID: <20050809201718.6697.qmail@...>

--- pippin_999 <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> "Coward, did you call me, Potter?" shouted Snape. "Your
> father would never attack me unless it was four on one,
> what would you call him, I wonder?"
> 
> Translation: I've got you outnumbered five to one, you
> idiot, and you think it's cowardice that keeps me from
> attacking you? 


I don't view it that way.  I think Snape's sentence is the same kind
of coded sentence he used at the end of OOTP when he told Crabbe not
to strangle Neville as it would involve paperwork.  It was a coded
message to Harry (that Harry missed, natch) that he would intervene
to save a Gryffindor (Sirius/Neville) from a Slytherin
(Voldemort/Crabbe).  Neville isn't really in danger of dying at
Crabbe's hand but Sirius, if he's caught, is in danger of death from
Voldemort.  It's a sentence that makes the reader think "Huh?" and
then the light goes on.

The sentence above is designed the same way.  We (and Harry, who
again misses it by a mile) know because we saw the pensieve scene
that it was NEVER 4 on 1, that Lupin was an unwilling bystander, that
Pettigrew would never risk his neck, that at most it was 2 on 1.  And
Snape knows Harry saw the pensieve scene too.  We're supposed to say
"Huh?  What did he mean by that?"

I think Snape means that this is all an act, that just as the 4>1
never happened, that all of this isn't "really" what it seems either.
 It's another coded message.

> 
> But then Harry says, "Kill me like you killed him, you 
> coward--" and we get a reaction we've *never* seen
> before...
> 
> "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly
> demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain
> as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house
> behind them --"CALL ME COWARD!"
> 
> Now, Harry is only thinking of Dumbledore when he
> says "like you killed him," but Snape has been talking
> of James. Could it be that the "DON'T--" is our first glimpse of
> Snape's remorse for his part in James's death, an interpretation
> reinforced  by the hellish image of the dog burning alive, and the 
> word 'demented' which calls up worst memories?


No, if Harry had said "..like you killed *them*...", then it might
imply James and Lily to Snape.

But I don't think that Snape thinks he did kill James, and from his
furious line in POA I think he actually tried to warn him and thus
save him.  So I don't buy the James-guilt-for-death argument.

No, Snape knows that Harry is referring to Dumbledore here.  And it's
a raw open wound and he lashes out - kid, you don't know what it cost
me to do what I did on the Astronomy Tower. Don't you dare call me a
coward about it.

Snape couldn't give a damn about what Harry thinks of him but he
cares deeply that he killed Dumbledore.  It shows here.  

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug  9 22:07:21 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:07:21 -0000
Subject: Flint?
In-Reply-To: <ddb0h4+cabv@...>
Message-ID: <ddb9ep+pjsk@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "constancevigilance"
<constancevigilance at y...> 
wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a timeline of when horcruxes were made 
> and with which murders they might be associated. I think I've 
> encountered a problem in the Riddle murder timeline.
> 
> When Tom is asking Slughorn about horcruxes, he is wearing the ring 
> which means he has already killed the Riddles. At this point, he 
> doesn't know how to create a horcrux which means he hasn't created 
> the diary yet. How much time can pass with a murder hanging out 
> there before it can become a horcrux? We don't know, so we don't 
> know if the Riddle murders are available to be used for the ring 
> horcrux. But this is a discussion for another day. Back to the 
> timeline problem.
> 
> Tom creates the diary using his 16-year-old self. Presumably he was 
> actually 16 when he created it and it is likely that he used the 
> murder of Myrtle for that horcrux.
> 
> The Lexicon places the death of the Riddles after Tom leaves 
> Hogwarts, but this doesn't seem possible if he is already wearing 
> the ring when he talks to Slughorn and before he has made any 
> horcruxes. He must have killed the Riddles before Myrtle and before 
> he left Hogwarts.
> 
> A flint or an error in the Lexicon?

Pippin:
I can't speak for Steve, but it wasn't clear to me from GoF exactly
when the Riddles died (fifty years before could be an approximation,
especially given  Jo!math.) However the lexicon takes all numbers 
given in canon as is. 

 I think we all assumed that Tom must have left school by then
because we thought if he'd done underage magic, it would have been 
detected. 

Of course we knew nothing of Morphin. When you assume...

I also think that Tom knew more than he was letting on about Horcruxes
when he questioned Sluggy. He doesn't press Slughorn about the spell,
but goes right on to whether it's possible to make more than one,
and whether seven would be particularly powerful. 

I think he had already made the Diary, with Myrtle, and was 
hoping to make another with his father's death, but wasn't sure it was
possible. As for the source of his  knowledge,  I speculated
pre-HBP about what would have happened if Tom had discovered the 
RoR and asked for a Dark Arts library. I think we found out. 

I get the feeling the torn soul fragment sticks around -- otherwise
you wouldn't need to horcrux it to keep it outside your body.

Pippin
wondering about the possibility that the basilisk was a Slytherin
horcrux. Kneasy? 





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 00:05:31 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:05:31 -0000
Subject: Flint?
In-Reply-To: <ddb0h4+cabv@...>
Message-ID: <ddbgcb+kc6o@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "constancevigilance" 
<constancevigilance at y...> wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a timeline of when horcruxes were made 
> and with which murders they might be associated. I think I've 
> encountered a problem in the Riddle murder timeline.

Jen: Steve made mention on HPFGU, before Accio, that he was looking 
over the Riddle timeline given the new information in HBP. Don't 
know if he's updated it yet, or plans to.

>From new canon, it looks like Tom murdered the Riddles in the 
summmer between his fifth year and sixth year. We know he opened the 
COS during his fifth year, and Tom turned 16 during that year. Then 
DD said: "In the summer of his sixteenth year, he left the orphanage 
to which he returned annually, and set off to find his Gaunt 
relatives." (chap. 17, p. 363, US) So that would be the summer 
between fifth and sixth years.

The discussion with Slughorn followed, during the sixth year, when 
Tom was 16 going on 17. Slughorn refers to Tom as a prefect. So the 
murders had to be in the summer before a prefect year and not his 
head boy year.


CV:
> Tom creates the diary using his 16-year-old self. Presumably he
> was actually 16 when he created it and it is likely that he used
> the murder of Myrtle for that horcrux.

Jen: I don't think Myrtle was the murder. ;) For one she's not 
significant to Tom, he doesn't even mention her when he talks with 
Harry in the COS. For another it was more a case of negligent 
homicide, with Myrtle being unfortunately at the wrong place at the 
wrong time.

We know he infused the diary with his 16-year old self after opening 
the chamber; what we don't know is if the diary Horcrux was made 
then. I'm thinking that Tom *did* want to know more from Slughorn 
about the process, but gave up on it when Slughorn appeared 
completely agahst.

So by sixth year, Riddle has the ring and the diary, but no 
Horcruxes. Possibly he learns the process during his seventh year, 
from Grindelwald as people have suggested, or maybe Horcruxes were 
behind his interest in working at Borgin & Burkes, where he hoped to 
pick up the information in Knockturn Alley. Either way, by the time 
he visits Hepzibah, his looks have started to change very subtly, 
with the red eyes as the giveaway that he's formed at least one 
Horcrux.

Jen







From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 02:25:13 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Flint?
In-Reply-To: <ddb9ep+pjsk@...>
Message-ID: <20050810022513.68641.qmail@...>

> Pippin wrote:
> ... snip ...
> I also think that Tom knew more than 
> he was letting on about Horcruxes when 
> he questioned Sluggy. He doesn't press 
> Slughorn about the spell, but goes right 
> on to whether it's possible to make more 
> than one, and whether seven would be 
> particularly powerful. 

Waldo  - aka  - Justin Felt-Flatulent - aka  - Warren:
 
My thoughts exactly.  There is no reason to assume that Tom / LV had not made any HorseCrocks-es at the time he asked asked Slugghorn his question.  His studied veneer of innocence / ignorance was clearly subterfuge.  If I had just robbed a bank, I might make it a point to imply in casual conversation that I did not know that there had ever been a bank on that corner.  For that matter,  I ask people questions I already know the answer to every day - because Lt. Colombo is a special hero of mine.   
 
Peace,
 
Justin Felt-Flatulent

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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




From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 08:36:01 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Introduction - What to Expect if You're a Newbie
In-Reply-To: <ddajes+hbre@...>
Message-ID: <20050810083601.49654.qmail@...>

Heya Kristy!

Did we meet at Accio? I sorta think so, but I can't
quite remember.

Anyway, after welcoming Warren with what's gotta be
the most inarticulate and badly spelled post in ToC
history (it's, umm, like, all this real smart strategy
to, you know, make folks feel at home?), I've gotta
say that you're interested in some pretty cool stuff.

I'm a wannabe theologian trying to get a doctoral
dissertation(1) off the ground. I presented a version
of the proposal at Accio - and a lot of material is
stuff I've either tried out on or stolen from folks on
this list. I've noticed that the process of
formulating ideas for list consumption has really
stretched me as a theologian - and has started some
fascinating conversations (aka brawls) to boot. So
don't be shy! You don't need finished chapters - just
toss out an idea you happen to be mulling and step
back (quickly) to watch the action. 

What to expect? Well, here's a run down:

Whatever you write, Barry will immediately start
banging on it with a scary collection of polysyllobic
jokes and pointy quotations. (And no, I don't know how
to spell polysyllobic, and I'm not bothering to find
out either.)

Pippin (whom I have, rather suspiciously, as yet never
seen in the same room as Barry) will swat Barry over
the nose with a (very old) newspaper full of
mythological quotes, learned asides and Talmudic
wisdom.

Neri will shrug it all off - a remark or two delivered
with the sort of aplomb only a really smart atheist
biologist can bring off.

David will launch a sly remark that says more
intentionally contradictory, funny things in a single
sentence than a whole stack of encyclopedias
theologicae pottericae. 

Rita will magically combine seven intelligent replies
into a single, multi-slashed post about Hermione's
love life, WB merchandising, neo-pagan sociology,
cyber-politics and the cooking habits of obscure
suburban tribes.

If you get really, really lucky, Lexicon!Steve will
give it to you, chapter and verse.

>From the looks of it, Waldo!Warren will say something
worth reading, I shudder to think what.

Penny, if she lets herself get drawn in, will say
something perceptive and helpful.

Amy Z. Curmudgeon will tell the truth.

I'll misplel somthing.

Someone else is sure to apparate in the shape of a
truly astounding acronym - IDIOTGOAT, for example -
that apparently refers to 27th time this theory was
hashed out back in the heyday of HPfGU, when it had a
membership of a mere 12,649 souls, as opposed to its
current count of half the geeks in Christendom and a
posting rate that would put a mainframe off its
breakfast.

Everyone else will be everyone else: 

Neil will roll his eyes; Nora will poke someone with a
sharp object; Catherine, realizing that she has enough
presentations to keep things hopping until Accio 2035,
will forget a bubbling crock-pot full of Saxon produce
and oriental culinary philosophy, leading to the
wholesale destruction of the entire Norfolk
countryside and several neighboring continents. 

Oh yeah: And Randy will be. Unless you're a Brit, in
which case he'll be something else instead. In fact,
he'll be "something else" no matter which way you cut
it - I mean, him and Neil were the funniest guys
around back before HPfGU was even a Yahoo group, and
guess what: there he still is.

Not that that last bit had anything to do with
theology, unless you're really meta- about it. But it
was amusing and it kept me from having to study.

So just fire away, Kristy. You're in the right place.

Baaaaaaaaa,

Mike the Goat

(1) OK, what gives? When I tell a fellow Yank Im
revving up for a dissertation, they look impressed;
when I tell a Brit about it, they pat me on the head.
Obviously, this is a Yank-Brit thing. Im guessing
that a dissertation is gets you less academic mileage
on ye olde side of ye pond.




From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 09:37:14 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Genre - Subversion, JKR vs. CSL & Pullman
In-Reply-To: <dd6khc+1kvu@...>
Message-ID: <20050810093714.4954.qmail@...>

I've been following an exchange between Pippin and
Nora with considerable interest. Going back to the
start, Pippin parried:

> *She* didn't characterize the fantasy genre that
> way, the author of
> the article did. As far as I know, she stands by the
> quote.
> 
> You don't need to be up on modern fantasy to
> satirize the genre.
> Cervantes reads just as well as a parody of Star
> Wars and LOTR as
> it does of Le Morte Darthur.
> 
> I assume she's read Cervantes. And acres and acres
> of folk tales.
> And Narnia. And Pullman. And  the Alchemical
> whatsit. She's  spent 
> decades  working this stuff out.  Whatever she is,
> she's not naive.

You know, JKR's relations to the CSL's Narnia tales
and Pullman's HDM series is a bit odd.

In some of her earliest interviews I seem to recall Jo
making some very positive statements about the Narnia
books. As far back as 2001, while still avvowing a
childhood read and an adult re-read, she was hedging
her bets: she points out that CSL is metaphysically
hamfisted. In her recent Time interview she goes so
far as to say that she never even finished reading the
series and was trying to subvert the genre. (And
proceedes to talk about the last book in the series
... )

(En passant, when Jo says she didn't finish the
series, I'm wondering if maybe she didn't finish her
*adult* re-read. And when she says "subverting the
genre," I think what she means is "subverting the
expectations raised by a somewhat simplistic reading
of the Narnia stories." She certainly isn't subverting
Avalon, Earthsea or the Dark is Rising, to name a few.
But for non-fantasy geeks - a tribe to which JKR does
seem to belong - Narnia *is* the fantasy genre.)

In the meantime (despite some nutcase fan who actually
wrote a whole piece  - and immortalized it on the
internet - to prove that Pullman was the original
Lockhart) she has always been a big Pullman fan. When,
in the same interview, she takes a shot at CSL for
damning Susan for lipstick and nylons, her statement
is lifted almost verbatim from statements made by
Pullman.

Anyway, I like JKR and I like Pullman, too - but I
think Jo was on a bit of a Pullman high when she did
that interview. I can definitely see why Terry
Pratchett got ticked about it. Poor ol' TP been
stuffing the genre for decades, and then in strides
this  - etc.

* * * * *

While I'm thinking about things:

I still think that Jo - if you leave out TP - is
remarkably ironic about the magic of her secondary
world - which *does* still allow her to count as
subversive. For example, at the end of the Dark is
Rising we are meant to feel a deep sense of loss as we
imagine a world in which the Old Ones will retreat and
magic will fade. Not really all that different from
the diminished world at the end of LotR!

In the Potterverse, otoh, magic just doesn't have
enough of that numinous quality to make it worth
crying over. It's cool - but for Harry Potter to lose
his magic would be more a shame - like me losing my
fancy new laptop - than a direct source of existential
pain - like that REM song about losing your religion. 

That make any sense? Probably not. I'm rambling. Oh
well. Note to self: send this post and GET THE HELL
BACK TO WORK!

Baaaaaaaa,

Mike



From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 10:33:51 2005
From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:33:51 -0000
Subject: Firs' years... this way
Message-ID: <ddcl6f+ivsb@...>

Greetings all and welcome to Kirsty and Waldo (and a series of other 
people I've neglected to welcome).

If anyone would like to propose new members for The Old Crowd, please 
enter the details in the database, here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/database

A few have already entered recently, through the secret tunnel behind 
the statue of Horcrucia, but I plan to send out another group 
invitation on Saturday 13th August.  This will include more presenters 
and delegates from the recent Accio conference.  

I confess that I haven't checked the aforementioned database for a 
while, but I think I'm right in saying - off the top of my head - that 
only the entries after and including Barry's 23 July entries are new 
suggestions.

Neil







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 12:41:29 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:41:29 -0000
Subject: Flint?
In-Reply-To: <ddb9ep+pjsk@...>
Message-ID: <ddcslp+4j27@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> Pippin
> wondering about the possibility that the basilisk was a Slytherin
> horcrux. Kneasy?

I did consider this as a possibility - it'd be a neat wheeze from 
she-who-must-be-read-with-a-suspicious-mind. Not only that, it'd
fit neatly into Possession Theory - but - I don't think so. Sad, that.

Oh, it'd be possible to twist, mangle, distort and otherwise pervert
known canon to make the bits fit ("What's new?" you cry, "it never 
stopped you before.") and there are facets of the CoS finale that
could be read in a way to provide support - "Speak to me, Slytherin,
greatest of the Hogwarts Four!" - and if you posit that GG's sword
has the magical power to destroy a Sally Hearseclick then you could
be off and running. But I'm not convinced. (What're the odds that this
time Jo has pulled a fast one that I've missed? About fair, I reckon.)

I am convinced that there is still something Sally-related down in the
Chamber, though to match the expectations of discriminating readers 
it'd have to be a bit more subtle than a rampaging Muggle-munching 
ophidian.

The consensus view is that Hersclix have been made before - but only
one per wizard. Would Sally stuff his soul into a mortal, though admittedly
long-lived beastie? Seems a bit risky IMO.
May have been Sally!Essence that taught Tom how to form Hosschucks
though, there doesn't seem to be an instruction manual anywhere else.

Kneasy
Who has a beady eye on that capriform correspondent.





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 18:16:53 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:16:53 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <20050809201718.6697.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <dddgal+qhi8@...>

Magda: 
> I don't view it that way.  I think Snape's sentence is the same kind
> of coded sentence he used at the end of OOTP when he told Crabbe not
> to strangle Neville as it would involve paperwork.  It was a coded
> message to Harry (that Harry missed, natch) that he would intervene
> to save a Gryffindor (Sirius/Neville) from a Slytherin
> (Voldemort/Crabbe).  Neville isn't really in danger of dying at
> Crabbe's hand but Sirius, if he's caught, is in danger of death from
> Voldemort.  It's a sentence that makes the reader think "Huh?" and
> then the light goes on.

Pippin:
Canon does say that Neville "was trapped in a stranglehold by Goyle
and looked in imminent danger of suffocation." I don't think that was
a secret message from Snape to Harry, I think it was another
indication that Snape is willing to risk blowing his cover in order
to save a student.

Magda: 
> The sentence above is designed the same way.  We (and Harry, who
again misses it by a mile) know because we saw the pensieve scene
that it was NEVER 4 on 1, that Lupin was an unwilling bystander,
that Pettigrew would never risk his neck, that at most it was 2 on 1. 
And Snape knows Harry saw the pensieve scene too.  We're supposed to
say "Huh?  What did he mean by that?"


Pippin:
I think from Snape's PoV it was four on one. Lupin was more than an
unwilling bystander because he was a prefect. It's one thing for a
civilian not to get involved  and another for a policeman.  I get the 
impression James would have been just as happy to pick on Snape 
because Pettigrew was bored as because Sirius was. And contrary
to what Sirius said, Pettigrew has shown that he will take risks 
for no immediate gain. He bit Goyle, remember? 

It's interesting that in his dialogue with Harry, Snape mentions
James twice but Dumbledore not at all. I think Snape is trying as
hard as possible not to think about what happened on the tower. 
I don't think he believes  that  he killed  Dumbledore.  I think he's 
burning to find out what did happen, but knows that if he tries to
find out, he'll sacrifice what Dumbledore died to save. 

IMO, if Snape had killed Dumbledore for some evil purpose, or had
it together enough to pretend   that he'd done so, he'd be showing 
elation. Instead, he adopts the mask of anger, because in his
confusion about what just went down, it's the role that's 
easiest to perform. 

He's got to get the DE's off the grounds before they hurt someone 
else. Dumbledore's protections are lifted, the school has never
been so vulnerable as it is now,  and Harry, by trying to make them 
stand and fight, is nobly doing exactly the wrong thing, dagnabbit, 
just like his  ever-so-saintly father. 

Snape doesn't know that Harry has found out that he was the
eavesdropper.  And then Harry says "like you killed him" and
just for a moment, IMO, Snape reveals his true self.

It's canon, or at least Dumbledore's word, that Snape did blame 
himself because Voldemort went after James. What we don't know 
is what convinced Dumbledore that Snape's remorse was genuine. 

I agree with you that Snape tried to warn James, but I don't 
think that he considered himself absolved on account of that,
because it didn't work. James didn't believe him. 

Pippin





From Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 18:59:00 2005
From: Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:59:00 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Firs' years... this way
In-Reply-To: <ddcl6f+ivsb@...>
References: <ddcl6f+ivsb@...>
Message-ID: <8C76BF4B4246BCC-DF0-3130@...>

After this message, I decided to check the database (because I'm that bored today lol).  Oddly, I'm listed on the database as not being a member, but check it out....
 
Oryomai
--Sorry for the massively random post, but I'm off today and not entirely sure that to do with myself :-)


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




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 21:01:10 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:01:10 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Remorse
References: <dddgal+qhi8@...>
Message-ID: <007f01c59dee$a2774570$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>


Pippin:
IMO, if Snape had killed Dumbledore for some evil purpose, or had
it together enough to pretend that he'd done so, he'd be showing 
elation. Instead, he adopts the mask of anger, because in his
confusion about what just went down, it's the role that's 
easiest to perform. 


SSSusan:
Can you expand on this, please, Pippin?  You know that I'm also not of the opinion that Snape killed DD for an evil purpose, but I'm intrigued about just what you're saying here.  WHY the confusion for Snape?  What DOES he believe he's done?  

Siriusly Snapey Susan



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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 10 23:40:04 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:40:04 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <007f01c59dee$a2774570$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <dde38k+o80l@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Pippin:
> IMO, if Snape had killed Dumbledore for some evil purpose, or had
> it together enough to pretend that he'd done so, he'd be showing 
> elation. Instead, he adopts the mask of anger, because in his
> confusion about what just went down, it's the role that's 
> easiest to perform. 
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Can you expand on this, please, Pippin?  You know that I'm also not
of  the opinion that Snape killed DD for an evil purpose, but I'm
intrigued about just what you're saying here.  WHY the confusion for 
Snape?  What DOES he believe he's done?  
>

Pippin:
I think, in light of DD's explanation of why he didn't move in on
Draco, we have an explanation for old questions like, 'If Snape tells
DD everything, why didn't he do something about Quirrell?' 
The answer is that  Voldie uses relatively innocent people as 
pawns, and if he's rumbled, he kills them. 

So let's assume that whether he took the vow with Narcissa 
under DD's orders or not, Snape told DD about it and they had a
thorough discussion of Snape's options. That does not make Snape 
Dumbledore's confidante anymore than Draco is.

Now Jo told us that she worded Trelawney's prophecy very carefully,
and we can presume the same of Snape's vow. "And should it prove
necessary...if it seems Draco will fail, will you carry out the deed
that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"

There are three or four loopholes here. "Should it prove necessary" --
well, it's obviously not necessary if Dumbledore dies of some other
cause. Dumbledore has been up to some pretty dangerous stuff lately.

Another is  that the deed is undefined. 
If the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to take out the garbage, put out 
the cat, and kill Dumbledore, then it seems to me Snape has his
choice of  tasks. 

I think Snape and DD  were pretty sure that Draco's tasks involved
more than killing Dumbledore, as indeed they did, and they were
hoping that Draco would admit failure and turn to Snape for help at 
some earlier stage of the  game. Dumbledore believed that the DE's 
couldn't get inside the castle, and that Draco on his own wasn't 
capable of killing anyone. 

There was also the option of making it seem that Draco had succeeded. 
The oath only kicks in if it seems Draco will fail. That might have
been the  preferred option. But it was forestalled by the train stomp.

Dumbledore would be reasonably sure that Draco was not a killer after
he utterly failed  to do anything worse to Harry on the train than
break his  nose and then  make fun of him. The Dark Lord will hear of
this incident too -- Draco didn't keep it a secret, after all. No,
Draco definitely doesn't have what it takes--he breaks orders by 
attacking Harry, and then doesn't do anything remotely vile by DE 
standards. If Voldemort really expected Draco to kill Dumbledore,
he'd have known then that he had the wrong tool, and he'd have 
broken it. 

Narcissa is right -- the Dark Lord doesn't expect that his orders
will result in the death of Dumbledore. 

So if it seems that Draco has given up trying to kill Dumbledore, and
Snape steps  in  and tries, but also  falls short of success -- then 
the vow is not broken. He's carried out the deed that Draco was
ordered to perform.

Well, Snape can do that. 'You can all point your wands at me and
say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed.' Snape 
naturally finds this a bit dicey. He used to be able to do an AK, I'd
assume, what if he still can? But Dumbledore trusts Severus.


The difficulty, as Dumbledore sees it, will be to do it without
blowing  Snape's cover. Whether Snape or Draco eventually tries to 
kill him, Dumbledore is going to have to fake his own death. 
This he plans to do -- has Sluggy brew up some DoLD potion, 
brings Harry up to speed on  the hunt for the horsedroppings, 
and so forth. Naturally he can't let Harry in on the full extent of 
the plan, because Harry's mind will be an open book whenever 
Voldemort decides to take a looksee.  

DD says he ordered Snape  to watch over Draco, and I think the row
that Hagrid overheard was Snape trying to get out of this after the
Ron incident. Snape was blaming himself and trying to resign, or else 
get permission to move against Draco, and Dumbledore told him he 
was to continue his investigations of Slytherin House (and no more)
 -- he'd agreed to do it and that's that.

So Snape arrives on the tower, sweeps his eyes around, deduces that 
Harry is there, sees that Dumbledore looks to be in dire straits.
Perhaps he realizes Dumbledore is dying, but perhaps he thinks it's
an act, just part of the show they've planned to deceive the DE's.

 And Dumbledore utters his plea, and Snape, Dumbledore's man through 
and through, does the curse, which fails. It blasts Dumbledore into
the air, which we can be reasonably sure wouldn't have killed him on
its own.  If baby!Neville can bounce, surely it's not beyond the
powers of a wizard like DD. 

But the "not a health drink" green goo of death catches up with DD and
kills him as he falls. 

Snape realizes DD must have died as  soon as he hears Harry yell,
"Stupefy!' behind him. He doesn't know what the hell went wrong.

But  there are a bunch of Death Eaters in the castle, and his first 
priority is to get them away from the kids. So he does, hindered by
Harry, who, as usual, has been deceived by appearances. 

Pippin





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 02:25:12 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:25:12 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <dde38k+o80l@...>
Message-ID: <ddecu8+miun@...>

> Pippin:
> <huge snip>
> 
> But the "not a health drink" green goo of death catches up with DD and
> kills him as he falls. 
> 

Neri:
I'm not a law buff and I don't even watch law movies and TV series,
but I wondered about one thing here. How are we (or any of the
characters) to ever find out if Dumbledore was indeed killed by the
green goo during the fall, or by the fall itself? If Dumbledore and
Snape were faking it but Dumbledore was killed by the fall, I think
the technical term would be manslaughter? The juries might acquit
Snape on the technicality, although the chance of Dumbledore dying
exactly during the three seconds of his way down (after already
surviving a fight with a horde of inferi, a swim, an apparation, a
broom flight and a pretty long talk) seems so small that I suspect
most judges wouldn't consider it "reasonable doubt". 

But mostly I just can't see the line on Dumbledore's gravestone "died
while botching his faked assassination". It just, you know, not the
way for The Wizard With The Silver Beard to go. "Betrayed by an ally
he trusted", now that somehow seems much more appropriate. But perhaps
Jo was subverting the genre again?

Neri     






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 04:24:12 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:24:12 -0000
Subject: OT_Regarding Mike's assessment of this Old Crowd...
Message-ID: <ddejtc+c2ga@...>

snip
<Oh yeah: And Randy will be. Unless you're a Brit, in
<which case he'll be something else instead. In fact,
<he'll be "something else" no matter which way you cut
<it 

Randy Replies scratching his head...

Okay Mike,  I have to ask.  Randy will be what? And what does unless 
you're a Brit mean exactly?

Randy Will be a 

1.  A cheeky toad?  (I was once called that by a British friend.)
2.  A pile of Winnie's Pooh?
3.  An insightful HP reader?  (has a remote chance at best)
4.  An annoying poster who tries to distact us?
5.  An undereducated git
6.  JKR's illegitimate half brother?
7.  The guy who posts the answer to the HP finale before Book 7?
8.  Arthur Weasley in disguise? (Red beard and 3 kids so far...)
9.  Mosquito flying around the bedroom at night so you cannot sleep?
10.  Horcrux?

Post your answer and announce your country of origin for statistical 
purposes.  Make sure to completely fill in the circle next to your 
answer and please use a #2 pencil.  "And you there, stop folding up 
your tests into paper airplanes!!  How many times do I have to tell 
you!...Hey put that wand down!"

My main question is do I have a dual nature?  I am one thing to a 
Yank and yet another to a Brit?

Red Eye Randy ( who is quite amazed that anyone actually reads some 
of his posts)







From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 04:34:07 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:34:07 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT_Regarding Mike's assessment of this Old Crowd...
In-Reply-To: <ddejtc+c2ga@...>
References: <ddejtc+c2ga@...>
Message-ID: <20050811043407.GA7737@...>

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:24:12AM -0000, Randy wrote:

> Okay Mike,  I have to ask.  Randy will be what? And what does unless 
> you're a Brit mean exactly?

1. You can never be a penguin. You don't have the legs.
2. If you're a Brit, they must be American. Otherwise you're a Pom.

ewe2, australian.

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 04:59:15 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:59:15 -0000
Subject: Irish Myths _A Deep Well for JKR
Message-ID: <ddelv3+8th8@...>

I know most of you have already seen this, but maybe some of you 
have not.  This link shows you the Irish origins of many of the 
characters in Harry Potter.

My favorite is Arthur Weasley, the "Red Haired Man" and "Will of the 
Wisps" are similar to that clock of Mrs. Wealey.

I think you will see resemblances to Veelas, Thestrals, the 
Dementor's Kiss, and the description of the Cave in Book 6.


http://www.irishfestivals.net/symbols.htm



Enjoy .

Randy








From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 08:35:10 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT_Regarding Mike's assessment of this Old Crowd...
In-Reply-To: <ddejtc+c2ga@...>
Message-ID: <20050811083510.38783.qmail@...>

Randy Replied 
 
> Okay Mike,  I have to ask.  Randy will be what? 

Careful what you scratch there, pardner, or we'll have
another innocent casualty of language. 

Anyway, let's see ... I think I'm going to have to
spring for (8):

> 8.  Arthur Weasley in disguise? (Red beard and 3
> kids so far...)

... on grounds of the latter part of the parenthesis. 

Let's just say that Brits (proper ones, anyway) sort
of skip the "Randy" page in their "My Very Favorite
Names for My Darling Innocent Baby" books, murmering,
"Not Randy, we're British." I have the impression they
assume that we boys of the Wild West like the name
because that's just the way we are.

I once knew a Baptist pastor in Rome. He was a small,
very gentle man, with huge glasses that made him look
like a shy puffin. By one of those strange twists of
fate, he had ended up with the name "Randy Seaman,"
which my UK friends just couldn't seem to get out of
their heads. Poor guy. 

(But he did have a lovely French-Swiss wife and - if
memory serves me right - five fine children who spoke
an amazing mixture of English, French, German and
Italian - all in one sentence, often enough. So he
obviously had *some* kind of mojo going.)

> Red Eye Randy ( who is quite amazed that anyone
> actually reads some of his posts)

Good grief. Why else would anybody follow this forum?

Baaaaaa,

Mike the Goat



From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 13:04:02 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:04:02 -0000
Subject: OT_Regarding Mike's assessment of this Old Crowd...
In-Reply-To: <20050811083510.38783.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddfic2+uoc6@...>

 Kathy W here:
Randy or Mike wrote the following two paragraphs which read as if they 
are supposed to be limericks. Any one up for it?


> I once knew a Baptist pastor in Rome. He was a small,
> very gentle man, with huge glasses that made him look
> like a shy puffin. By one of those strange twists of
> fate, he had ended up with the name "Randy Seaman,"
> which my UK friends just couldn't seem to get out of
> their heads. Poor guy. 
> 
> (But he did have a lovely French-Swiss wife and - if
> memory serves me right - five fine children who spoke
> an amazing mixture of English, French, German and
> Italian - all in one sentence, often enough. So he
> obviously had *some* kind of mojo going.)






From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 13:21:53 2005
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:21:53 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <dd88rm+102pc@...>
References: <dd88rm+102pc@...>
Message-ID: <200508111520.55444.silmariel@...>


Nora:
> Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you take the
> power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely straight face?  

I can't. Actually reading the power of love so clearly stated as an axiom 
ended my suspension of disbelief, so I put it in the 'whatever' list and 
tried to ignore it anytime it surfaced (cheap trick, but it ended working). 
That kind of things do not bother me in books more clearly cutted into 
Good/Light/Order and Bad/Darkness/Chaos, more unrealistic scenarios, or when 
it is stated from the beginning of the series.

Harry's pure heart is something that made me laugh <not trying to offend 
anyone but I considered it comic>, I would have bought a 'because you are a 
good person' (still debatable, but I think I'd side Harry), but pureness of 
heart ... not really. I'm not saying I can't find pure of heart heroes nice, 
only that I can't see Harry as an example of one.

> Does it do anything to the rest of the series thematically or otherwise
> if you don't?

> -Nora buys into it for the purpose of reading, but finds herself
> increasingly aware of having to purposefully do it

That's my problem, if I try to buy it I discover myself questioning Harry's 
actions and reasoning in terms of his pure heart instead of doing it in terms 
of being Harry, so the scenes I would've found natural in Harry, I had to 
force myself into buying they came from a pure heart, and I was aware of it.

If I don't try to buy it, it doesn't change the series thematically, I still 
see people most of the time, two sides, lots of bias, misunderstandments and 
double moral, still the hero, ergo the good (but not Good) ones, saving the 
day at the end of the series, well, the books don't change if I ignore love 
and Harry's heart as DD's ramblings but do if I buy it.

Silmariel



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 13:36:42 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT_Regarding Mike's assessment of this Old Crowd...
In-Reply-To: <ddfic2+uoc6@...>
Message-ID: <20050811133643.4983.qmail@...>

--- potioncat <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

>  Kathy W here:
> Randy or Mike wrote the following two paragraphs
> which read as if they 
> are supposed to be limericks. Any one up for it?
> 
> 
> > I once knew a Baptist pastor in Rome. He was a
> small,
> > very gentle man, with huge glasses that made him
> look
> > like a shy puffin. By one of those strange twists
> of
> > fate, he had ended up with the name "Randy
> Seaman,"
> > which my UK friends just couldn't seem to get out
> of
> > their heads. Poor guy. 
> > 
> > (But he did have a lovely French-Swiss wife and -
> if
> > memory serves me right - five fine children who
> spoke
> > an amazing mixture of English, French, German and
> > Italian - all in one sentence, often enough. So he
> > obviously had *some* kind of mojo going.)
> 
> 


Red Eye gives it a try:

I once knew a Pastor from Rome
Who's name was quite funny to some.
Though his sermons were dandy
His first name was Randy
Which caused people in church to say "Hmmmmmm."

He married a fair lass who spoke French
Who oft led him away from the bench.
Now they have five young ones
Who speak in multiple tongues
So I guess that his thirst has been quenched!

Red Eye Randolph ( who always wondered why the women
smile at me so much) ;0)

Actually, I once met a girl in college who was from
Australia. She giggled and smiled when I introduced
myself, and proceeded to tell me the deeper meaning to
the name. (so to speak);0) Unfortunately, it still did
not get me a date.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 20:21:26 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:21:26 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <200508111520.55444.silmariel@...>
Message-ID: <ddgc06+213s@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel <silmariel at t...>
wrote:
> 
> Nora:
> > Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you
take the power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely 
straight face?  

Silmariel:
> I can't. Actually reading the power of love so clearly stated as an
axiom  ended my suspension of disbelief, so I put it in the
'whatever'  list and  tried to ignore it anytime it surfaced (cheap 
trick, but it ended working). That kind of things do not bother me 
in books more clearly cutted into Good/Light/Order and 
Bad/Darkness/Chaos, more unrealistic scenarios, or when  it is 
stated from the beginning of the series.
> 

Pippin:
It did take me out of the story for a minute. My train of thought
went something like "Huh? What about the time he-- Oh, wait, this 
is the part where we're supposed to think Dumbledore's lost it. Well, 
I'm on to you, Jo m'girl. Dumbledore hasn't lost it, he's got a blind 
spot but this isn't it. He just means something different than what 
Harry/the reader thinks he means, and we'll find out what in Book 
Seven."

But if I had to hazard a guess now, it's not that Harry's never been
cruel or selfish, because he has. But he's never wanted to hurt
anyone who he thought cared about him, or anyone he thought 
was weaker than himself. He's been that way from the beginning. 
He's also never intentionally misused his powers, though once or 
twice he's attempted it.  Still, when  he failed with the cruciatus 
curse, he did not try to find somebody to teach it to him.

Pippin





From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 20:31:07 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:31:07 -0000
Subject: The Battle of Hogwarts - Who are the Good Guys?
Message-ID: <ddgcib+109sr@...>

I'm crossposting this from The Big List because they are discussing 
Time Turners over there and, well, that will consume all attention 
for quite some time as we all know. I'd really like some discussion 
on these guys.



At the Battle of Hogwarts, there are two suspiciously unnamed DE's.
JKR loves names and gives names to even the most insignificant
characters, so two who are only described but never named are
unusual. As I began to look at the activities of these guys, I got
even more suspicious of them. Let's look at the sequence of events:

----------------

DE's arrive. Lots of fighting. Gibbon goes to the top of the tower
and sets off the Dark Mark. He comes back down and is killed by the
Killing Curse from Blondie which Lupin believes was aimed at him.

Malfoy goes into the tower stairs followed by the brother and sister
(Amycus and Alecto) and Greyback and a brutal faced man. They lock
the stairs behind them. Neville tries going through the lock and
gets tossed in the air. Blondie is sending curses everywhere which
do a lot of property damage but miss all the people. Snape goes
through the locked door. Lupin tries to go through the lock and is
tossed in the air.

Blondie sends a hex that collapses the ceiling and breaks the curse
lock blocking the stairs to the tower roof. The Order head for the
tower stairs.

Draco is not killing Dumbledore. The four death eaters reach the
top. Greyback starts to finish Dumbledore off but the Brutal Face
stops him. Snape arrives. Snape AK's Dumbledore.

Malfoy, Snape, Greyback, Amycus and Alecto leave the tower. Harry is
unfrozen. Brutal Face is leaving the tower. Harry freezes him. We
never hear from him again.

Snape and Malfoy come out from the tower. Snape yells "It's over,
time to go" There is a big fight going on. Snape and Malfoy get
through it unscathed. Greyback attacks Harry. Somebody freezes
Greyback. Someone sends a green jet towards him, but Harry dodges
and takes off after Snape, running safely through the melee.

Amycus is fighting Ginny. Harry Impedimentas him. Ron, McGonagall
and Lupin are battling Death Eaters. Tonks is fighting Blondie.
Amycus and Alecto flee.

Harry hits Blondie with a hex. Blondie howls with pain. Blondie
flees after Amycus and Alecto. The Room Of Requirment is apparently
blocked. Harry takes a short cut through the Great Hall.

Harry chases them out the front doors which have been blasted. The
Gryffindor hourglass is smashed. He has overtaken Amycus and Alecto
but Blondie, Snape and Malfoy are still ahead.

Alecto hits Harry with a curse. Harry falls. Harry gets back up and
trips Amycus and Alecto.

Hagrid suddenly appears. Blondie hits him with lots of curses which
do no harm. Harry runs past Blondie and Hagrid towards Snape.

Harry attempts a Crucio against Snape but Snape parries. Blondie
ignites Hagrid's house, possibly stopping Harry from attemptingany
more unforgivable curses.

Harry attempts many jinxes against Snape who parries them all. Snape
advises Harry: Keep your mouth shut and your mind closed.

Someone (either Blondie or Amycus or Alecto) crucios Harry. Snape
cancels it and berates the DEs.

Malfoy, Snape, Blondie, Amycus and Alecto escape. We do not know
what happens to the other DE's in the battle.

--------------------

Summary of activity by ambiguous DE's:

Snape: Stuns Flitwick, AKs Dumbledore (results under debate),
saves Malfoy, gives Harry good advice, (maybe) smashes Gryffindor's
hourglass, cancels a Crucio on Harry, stops DE from doing any more
damage to Harry.

Blondie: Kills a Death Eater, trashes Hogwarts, unlocks the door to
the tower, stops Harry from using an unforgiveable by burning
Hagrid's house.

Brutal Face: Stops Greyback from killing Dumbledore. Is frozen by
Harry.

-----------------

My conclusion:

All three are Good Guys undercover. Each of them do something to the
advantage of the Order or Harry. None of them do anything harmful to
the Order. Well, Snape's AK is still under discussion, but I'm
solidly on the side of it was a fake AK and Dumbledore is alive.
Something about dragon's blood being used to fake a death earlier in
the book. A trickle of blood from Dumbledore's mouth. 12 uses of
dragon's blood. Hmmm. But I digress.

We know from an earlier book that Dumbledore has spies (note the
plural) in the DE's. I think we are witnessing three of them in
action.

So, does anyone agree that these guys' actions are counter to Death 
Eating?

Wild-eyed theorizing:

Blondie (and maybe Brutal Face) are metamorphmagi of people we
already know. I'm guessing that Blondie is Shacklebolt. A Black man
might enjoy the irony of becoming Very White as a disguise and he is
a big man, so becoming even bigger wouldn't be too tough, if that is
even a problem. Brutal Face? Who knows.


Other questions:

What happened to the two frozen DEs - Greyback and Brutal Face?
Pippin's theory - Greyback was rescued by ESE!Lupin. Brutal Face,
too? But that would contradict my theory that BF is a Good Guy 
unless ESE!Lupin doesn't know that.


~ Constance Vigilance








From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 21:10:33 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:10:33 -0000
Subject: The Battle of Hogwarts - Who are the Good Guys?
In-Reply-To: <ddgcib+109sr@...>
Message-ID: <ddges9+7ou9@...>


CV:
> Other questions:
> 
> What happened to the two frozen DEs - Greyback and Brutal Face?
> Pippin's theory - Greyback was rescued by ESE!Lupin. Brutal Face,
> too? But that would contradict my theory that BF is a Good Guy 
> unless ESE!Lupin doesn't know that.
> 

Brutal Face was found on top of the Astronomy Tower "stupefied"
according to Scrimgeour. At first I thought this was a mistake,
either by Jo or by Scrimmy, but now, natch, I have a theory...

First, I don't think Blondie was a disguised  Order member; they're 
not supposed to kill if they have a choice.  I don't think an 
Order member would set fire to Hagrid's cabin -- he would know 
that Hagrid usually kept creatures in it. And I don't think any
loyal Order member would have allowed Greyback to enter the 
school, even if it meant blowing cover --they'd have died first.

That leaves two unnamed Death Eaters,the ones
fighting Ron and Lupin,  yet to be accounted for. 

I would guess the remaining Order members chased the two unnamed
Death Eaters back to the RoR, while Lupin went up the Tower in the 
guise of looking for the  Death Eater who had gone up  there
and hadn't come back. He stupefied  Brutal Face from behind so that
he wouldn't be observed, then picked up Harry's invisibility cloak 
and used it to smuggle Greyback out of the building.

Pippin 






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 21:28:49 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The Battle of Hogwarts - Who are the Good Guys?
In-Reply-To: <ddges9+7ou9@...>
Message-ID: <20050811212849.72452.qmail@...>

pippin_999  wrote:


Brutal Face was found on top of the Astronomy Tower "stupefied"
according to Scrimgeour. At first I thought this was a mistake,
either by Jo or by Scrimmy, but now, natch, I have a theory...

First, I don't think Blondie was a disguised  Order member; they're 
not supposed to kill if they have a choice.  

CV: You don't find it suspicious that he missed ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY other than the DE? And that he was the one who unlocked the tower stairs so that Order members could go up and do whatever saving might be necessary? As it turned out, they didn't have time, but Blondie didn't know that.

Pippin: I don't think an 
Order member would set fire to Hagrid's cabin -- he would know 
that Hagrid usually kept creatures in it. 

CV: Probably not normally. But as Hagrid thought, a burnt house is readily fixable by a competent wizard. And Blondie may not have thought far enough ahead to think of animals.

Pippin: And I don't think any
loyal Order member would have allowed Greyback to enter the 
school, even if it meant blowing cover --they'd have died first.

CV: They may not have known that Greyback had advanced to biting people when he's in human form. Lupin (who is familiar with the latest werewolf rumors) thinks that Bill's bite is unique. Except for his "furry problem", Greyback is just another DE, as far as anyone knew. And Brutal Face is there to keep Greyback in check. He stopped Greyback from killing Dumbledore, but didn't stop Snape from doing the same thing. Why? If Brutal Face hadn't been stupified, he may have been useful to keep Greyback off Harry, but who knows. SOMEBODY sent a green flash towards Harry/Greyback. Who were they aiming at?

Pippin: That leaves two unnamed Death Eaters,the ones
fighting Ron and Lupin,  yet to be accounted for. 

I would guess the remaining Order members chased the two unnamed
Death Eaters back to the RoR

CV: But the RoR seems to be blocked, or that would be the first choice of exit for Blondie and the siblings.

 

Pippin:, while Lupin went up the Tower in the 
guise of looking for the  Death Eater who had gone up  there
and hadn't come back. He stupefied  Brutal Face from behind so that
he wouldn't be observed, then picked up Harry's invisibility cloak 
and used it to smuggle Greyback out of the building.

Pippin 

CV: Actually, according to my reading, it was Harry who stupefied Brutal Face. Then he stepped over him to go down the stairs.

I'm wondering about the Invisibility Cloak, too. It seems as if Harry is going into Revenge War dreadfully unprepared. No Invisibility Cloak. No Potions Book. It may have bad memories, but it did have excellent information. No Pensieve. Does anybody think that this artifact is likely to hold crucial information? Why not take it? Harry could even use it on himself to retrieve his Baby!Memory of who was there at his parents' deaths. And he should definitely give a careful examination of the contents of the Hiding Chamber in the RoR. But no - Harry is off to do battle barehanded and unprepared. "Bring 'em on!" Sheesh.

CV


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 22:28:21 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:28:21 -0000
Subject: The Battle of Hogwarts - Who are the Good Guys?
In-Reply-To: <20050811212849.72452.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddgje5+dlrv@...>

> Pippin: And I don't think any
> loyal Order member would have allowed Greyback to enter the 
> school, even if it meant blowing cover --they'd have died first.
 
> CV: They may not have known that Greyback had advanced 
to biting people when he's in human form. Lupin (who is familiar 
with the latest werewolf rumors) thinks that Bill's bite is unique. 
Except for his "furry problem", Greyback is just another DE, 
as far as anyone knew.<

Pippin:
Let me revise that. I don't think a loyal Order member would
allow *any* known killer Death Eater to enter the school.
Greyback has killed a child.

PoA
"I do not believe a single person inside this castle would have
helped Black enter it," said Dumbledore, and his tone made it
so clear the subject was closed that Snape didn't reply.

CV:
 And Brutal Face is there to keep Greyback in check. He stopped 
Greyback from killing Dumbledore, but didn't stop Snape from 
doing the same thing. Why?

Pippin:
Because Voldemort knows all about the vow by this time, and
is using it as a test for Snape. The DE's have orders that nobody
but Draco or Snape is to try for Dumbledore. 


> Pippin: That leaves two unnamed Death Eaters,the ones
> fighting Ron and Lupin,  yet to be accounted for. 
> 
> I would guess the remaining Order members chased the two 
unnamed Death Eaters back to the RoR
> 
> CV: But the RoR seems to be blocked, or that would be the first 
choice of exit for Blondie and the siblings.

Pippin:
They don't all follow Snape, only the three we know are kinda 
stupid.  I would guess that Alecto and Amycus didn't get as 
many OWLs between them as Harry did, and I think we're 
supposed to take Blondie's clumsy shooting as evidence
that he's also not NEWT material.

 Harry assumes that the Order have blocked the RoR,
because otherwise Snape would have led them out that way.

But when would they have had time? Lupin says  Ron,
Ginny and Neville ran into the patrolling Order members
almost immediately and gave chase to the Death Eaters. One broke 
away and headed up the Tower, the others were caught at the
base and battle was joined. McGonagall,Bill, Tonks and Lupin
were all still fighting or hors de combat when Harry came down
the stairs. 
 
> Pippin:, while Lupin went up the Tower in the 
guise of looking for the  Death Eater who had gone up  there
and hadn't come back. He stupefied  Brutal Face from behind 
so that he wouldn't be observed, then picked up Harry's invisibility 
cloak  and used it to smuggle Greyback out of the building.

> CV: Actually, according to my reading, it was Harry who stupefied 
Brutal Face. Then he stepped over him to go down the stairs.

Pippin:
"Petrificus Totalus!"
 The Death Eater buckled as though hit in the back with something
solid and fell to the ground, rigid as a waxwork. HBP-US 597

That is the incantation for the full body bind, which  Hermione
uses on Neville in PS/SS: 

"Petrificus Totalus!" she cried pointing [her wand] at Neville.
Neville's arms snapped to his sides. His whole body rigid, he swayed
where he stood and then fell flat on his face, stiff as a board.

Hermione ran to turn him over. Neville's jaws were jammed together
so he couldn't speak. Only his eyes were moving, looking at them
in horror. 

"What've you done to him?" Harry whispered.
"It's the full Body-Bind," said Hermione miserably. 

As we learned then, and were reminded in HBP, the body bind
leaves its victim immobilized but conscious.

'Stupefy' is  the stunning spell,  which, unlike the body bind, 
renders the victim unconscious. I think it shows up first in GoF 
when the Ministry uses it to stun Winky. 

Scrimgeour is specific about the condition of the Death
Eater: "Somebody Stupefied a Death Eater on top of the 
tower after Dumbledore died." Scrimgeour is an ex-Auror,
he ought to know what he is talking about.

So, it looks to me like somebody Stupefied the already
paralyzed Death Eater after Harry had gone. The Ministry
found him unconscious, and whatever they used to take
the spell off him removed the body bind as well. 

It got me confused, too. I had to iron my hands on That Other
List for saying Harry had stupefied Bruteface. He didn't.

CV 
> I'm wondering about the Invisibility Cloak, too. It seems as if 
Harry is going into Revenge War dreadfully unprepared. 
No Invisibility Cloak. No Potions Book.

Pippin:
It's not the first time he abandoned his cloak on top of the 
Astronomy Tower. He did the same in PS/SS and got it back
later with an unsigned note, "Just in case." He also left it in the 
Shrieking Shack. Lupin picked it up as they were leaving and later
returned it to Harry next day. Foreshadowing?

I'm guessing Harry will get the cloak back once more from an
anonymous benefactor. Somebody he probably shouldn't trust
as far as he can throw Buckbeak -- Witherwings, I mean.



Pippin





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 11 23:33:43 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:33:43 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <ddgc06+213s@...>
Message-ID: <ddgn8n+7hpi@...>

Nora:
> Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you
> take the power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely 
> straight face?  
 
Silmariel:
> I can't. Actually reading the power of love so clearly stated as an
> axiom  ended my suspension of disbelief, so I put it in the
> 'whatever'  list and  tried to ignore it anytime it surfaced 
(cheap 
> trick, but it ended working). That kind of things do not bother me 
> in books more clearly cutted into Good/Light/Order and 
> Bad/Darkness/Chaos, more unrealistic scenarios, or when  it is 
> stated from the beginning of the series.

Pippin:
> But if I had to hazard a guess now, it's not that Harry's never 
> been cruel or selfish, because he has. But he's never wanted to
> hurt anyone who he thought cared about him, or anyone he thought 
> was weaker than himself. He's been that way from the beginning. 
> He's also never intentionally misused his powers, though once or 
> twice he's attempted it.  Still, when  he failed with the
> cruciatus curse, he did not try to find somebody to teach it to
> him.

Jen: I buy it, because it's not about Harry's day-to-day activities 
and imperfections--we see he's pretty average and capable of all the 
usual human frailities.

Harry's pure soul and ability to love are important in magical 
terms, not Muggle ones. These concepts are vastly important to the 
connection between Harry and Voldemort. Dumbledore considers Harry 
remarkable because he shouldn't be who he *is*. He was cursed by the 
most evil wizard ever and marked by the experience like no wizard 
before him, then denied his true identity for 11 long years. 

At Hogwarts, Harry has been touched by evil hands, entered the 
Chamber of Secrets, been targeted and sucked by Dementors, forced to 
give up his blood for Voldemort's re-birthing and ultimately 
possessed by Voldemort. Yet he remains pure. To pass so closely to 
evil, to even be possessed by it, yet never be drawn to it, must 
signal something important in the terms Dumbledore speaks of 
as "magic at its deepest, its most inpentrable."

Harry does not have to be supremely magically powerful, or perfectly 
behaved, for his pure soul to cause the demise of Voldemort. 
Voldemort seems to be taking care of that part himself :). Each time 
he attempts to thwart or kill Harry by deeply evil means, the 
rejection seems to increase Harry's 'ability to love' in the sense 
that he grows more & more able to repel Voldemort. Harry also 
increases his ability to draw magical help to himself, and not 
always in the form of a more skilled wizard, either. He was 
completely alone in the graveyard and still managed to escape 
because both the Phoenix song and the mere *echos* of Voldemort's 
victims were drawn to help him. Contrast that with the ambiguously 
loyal DE's helping Voldemort that night. The power of love, indeed.

Jen





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 01:48:08 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:48:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddecu8+miun@...>
Message-ID: <ddgv4o+ojau@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...>
wrote:
> > Pippin:
> > <huge snip>
> > 
> > But the "not a health drink" green goo of death catches up with
DD and
> > kills him as he falls. 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I'm not a law buff and I don't even watch law movies and TV series,
> but I wondered about one thing here. How are we (or any of the
> characters) to ever find out if Dumbledore was indeed killed by the
> green goo during the fall, or by the fall itself? If Dumbledore and
> Snape were faking it but Dumbledore was killed by the fall, I think
> the technical term would be manslaughter? The juries might acquit
> Snape on the technicality, although the chance of Dumbledore dying
> exactly during the three seconds of his way down (after already
> surviving a fight with a horde of inferi, a swim, an apparation, a
> broom flight and a pretty long talk) seems so small that I suspect
> most judges wouldn't consider it "reasonable doubt". 

Pippin:
"Judge" Hall,   a real life lawyer, instructed the Accio jury that if
they believed that Dumbledore had died as a result of the Avada
Kedavra curse, either directly or by being blasted off the tower,
they must vote to convict. If they believed that there was a
reasonable chance that he had died of poisoning, then they must 
vote to acquit.  The judge said if you thought it was  80/20 
AK/poisoning, that was enough for reasonable doubt. Snape got 
off.


Neri:
> But mostly I just can't see the line on Dumbledore's gravestone 
"died while botching his faked assassination". It just, you know, not 
the way for The Wizard With The Silver Beard to go. "Betrayed by an 
ally he trusted", now that somehow seems much more appropriate. 
But perhaps Jo was subverting the genre again?

Pippin:
Of course he was betrayed by an ally he trusted! The ally who was 
running Draco, the one who arranged for the party of Death Eaters to 
assemble at Borgin and Burkes, the one whom he had been warned 
time and again might betray him, the one who had twice broken faith 
in the past and was awarded an unprecedented and, I am sorry to say, 
undeserved *third* chance, the one for whom Dumbledore, out of a 
combination of personal sympathy and political expedience, recklessly 
did what was easy rather than what was right. 

If the Death Eaters had not entered the school and forced Draco to 
attempt to fulfill his vow, then Snape might have had a chance to
cure Dumbledore of the potion. But Dumbledore regarded Snape's
mission as more important than his own life. Why do you think 
Dumbledore used brooms to enter Hogwarts rather than summoning
Fawkes to transport him? Because he needed Snape, and Fawkes 
would have confirmed Snape's loyalty --  Fawkes squawks  when Harry 
disparages Snape, and sings out in approval  when Harry expresses 
loyalty to Dumbledore. 

I believe that Fawkes will eventually prove to Harry that Snape is
loyal. Once he realizes that, he will be able to figure everything
else out.

Pippin





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 02:50:03 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:50:03 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
References: <ddgn8n+7hpi@...>
Message-ID: <008701c59ee8$8a70d9a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Pippin:
> But if I had to hazard a guess now, it's not that Harry's never 
> been cruel or selfish, because he has. But he's never wanted to
> hurt anyone who he thought cared about him, or anyone he thought 
> was weaker than himself. He's been that way from the beginning. 
> He's also never intentionally misused his powers, though once or 
> twice he's attempted it.  Still, when  he failed with the
> cruciatus curse, he did not try to find somebody to teach it to
> him.

Jen: I buy it, because it's not about Harry's day-to-day activities 
and imperfections--we see he's pretty average and capable of all the 
usual human frailities.

Harry's pure soul and ability to love are important in magical 
terms, not Muggle ones. These concepts are vastly important to the 
connection between Harry and Voldemort. Dumbledore considers Harry 
remarkable because he shouldn't be who he *is*. He was cursed by the 
most evil wizard ever and marked by the experience like no wizard 
before him, then denied his true identity for 11 long years. 

At Hogwarts, Harry has been touched by evil hands, entered the 
Chamber of Secrets, been targeted and sucked by Dementors, forced to 
give up his blood for Voldemort's re-birthing and ultimately 
possessed by Voldemort. Yet he remains pure. To pass so closely to 
evil, to even be possessed by it, yet never be drawn to it, must 
signal something important in the terms Dumbledore speaks of 
as "magic at its deepest, its most inpentrable."

Harry does not have to be supremely magically powerful, or perfectly 
behaved, for his pure soul to cause the demise of Voldemort. 
Voldemort seems to be taking care of that part himself :). Each time 
he attempts to thwart or kill Harry by deeply evil means, the 
rejection seems to increase Harry's 'ability to love' in the sense 
that he grows more & more able to repel Voldemort. Harry also 
increases his ability to draw magical help to himself, and not 
always in the form of a more skilled wizard, either. He was 
completely alone in the graveyard and still managed to escape 
because both the Phoenix song and the mere *echos* of Voldemort's 
victims were drawn to help him. Contrast that with the ambiguously 
loyal DE's helping Voldemort that night. The power of love, indeed.


SSSusan:
And I'm going to piggy-back onto this w/ something I posted at TOL today.  I'm totally w/ what Pippin said at the start of her paragraph:  it's NOT that Harry's never been cruel or selfish, because he HAS.  But he also has a capacity to care for others, to be empathetic.  NOT always, and not with EVERYONE, but especially in situations where he *sees* something which sheds light on a person's history.

This particular bit was written in response to someone thinking Harry will triumph by loving his enemies.  I'm not prepared to go quite that far, but....

And consider this... perhaps... as potential support for your view:
How did Harry respond to a couple of his/DD's pensieve adventures?

First, there was the point where, after learning Merope had died in
childbirth, Harry asked, "She wouldn't even stay alive for her son?"
and DD in turn asked Harry, "Could you possibly be feeling sorry for
Lord Voldemort?"

Now, I do *not* think DD was scoffing at Harry nor criticizing him;
rather, I think he was dead on about what Harry was feeling and
actually appreciative of that gut reaction. Granted, Harry's
response to the question was "No," but was that the truth?? Or was
DD correct, that Harry had been "caught" feeling sympathy -- or even
empathy -- for a baby who lost his mother? EVEN a baby whom Harry
KNEW to be Tom Riddle/Voldemort, a baby who grew up to be his own
parents' murderer and his own sworn enemy? An interesting
possibility, in my book.

The other scene came earlier, when DD & Harry had, via pensieve,
visited the Gaunts in their home, and Harry had witnessed Marvolo's
abusive behavior towards Merope. When they returned from the memory,
IIRC, Harry's very first question to DD was, "What happened to her?"
Again, he *knows* who this woman is - he knows she's the mother of
Lord Voldemort - and yet his first instinct was to ask what happened
to her, and in a way which I know *I* took as a concerned-for-her-
welfare kind of way.

Is this just curiosity? Perhaps. But Harry seems to be able to set
aside the kind of spiteful/vengeful/hate-filled responses one might
*expect* from him when viewing memories of Tom Riddle & his family,
and shows, instead, an inkling of compassion and concern.

I'm not saying this is something *consistent* we see in Harry.
Heaven knows that when it comes to Draco/Crabbe/Goyle/Slytherins and
to Snape, he's certainly quite ready to jump to quick conclusions
about their natures/actions/motives and to be pleased as punch should
anything nasty or negative befall them.

And yet... when it comes to Tom Riddle, the man he should MOST
despise and hate and want revenge upon, we see these little glimmers
of what might be... sympathy? empathy? compassion? I find that
interesting and compelling. Love for his enemy? I'm not sure. But
he certainly seems able to be moved by what he *sees* and *hears*
about TR's early life. (He was also moved by *seeing* how his dad
had treated teenaged Snape.) Perhaps with TR it's the similarity to
his own early life, but whatever it is, the fact that he could notice
it and even be somewhat moved by it -- that he didn't laugh "HAHA!
Look what happened to that evil family, they got exactly what they
deserved!"-- given that it's Tom Riddle, seems potentially
significant to me.

If this seems really a stretch, consider this. How did Lord
Voldemort react when faced with James, Lily & Harry at Godric's
Hollow? Apparently, according to Voldy himself, he had no difficulty
at all in AKing them all. (There was that enigmatic "Stand aside"
and "She didn't have to die," but we're not sure what was behind
that.) There certainly didn't seem to be any self-reflection or
pausing to compare the similarities in his own life to what he was
doing to Harry. :-)

Yet when Harry discovers the details about TR's family and how he was
orphaned, he shows interest... a willingness to compare & contrast
their situations, maybe... and possibly even a little compassion.

Potentially very telling, that.

JKR has said:
"But Harry is also innately honorable. He's not a cruel boy."
[Booklinks, July 1999]

"Harry, Ron and Hermione are innately good people. [Washington Post,
Oct. 1999]

Is there "Something About Harry"? Is that Something compassion or an
ability to empathize, even with his enemy?

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 03:37:19 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:37:19 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddgv4o+ojau@...>
Message-ID: <ddh5hf+tvh0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Why do you think 
> Dumbledore used brooms to enter Hogwarts rather than summoning
> Fawkes to transport him? Because he needed Snape, and Fawkes 
> would have confirmed Snape's loyalty --  Fawkes squawks  when Harry 
> disparages Snape, and sings out in approval  when Harry expresses 
> loyalty to Dumbledore. 
> 
> I believe that Fawkes will eventually prove to Harry that Snape is
> loyal. Once he realizes that, he will be able to figure everything
> else out.

That, Pippin, is one of the most original, and I dare say likely to come to pass, insights I've 
read in a long time. I hope it comes to pass.

Lyn







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 04:55:45 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 04:55:45 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddgv4o+ojau@...>
Message-ID: <ddha4h+4eq8@...>

> Pippin:
> "Judge" Hall,   a real life lawyer, instructed the Accio jury that if
> they believed that Dumbledore had died as a result of the Avada
> Kedavra curse, either directly or by being blasted off the tower,
> they must vote to convict. If they believed that there was a
> reasonable chance that he had died of poisoning, then they must 
> vote to acquit.  The judge said if you thought it was  80/20 
> AK/poisoning, that was enough for reasonable doubt. Snape got 
> off.
>

Neri:
In this case I must question the process of assembling this jury. If
they said that there was a 20/80 chance of Dumbledore dying of the
poisoning during the 3 seconds in which he was sailing off the tower,
this implies they were 100% sure he would have died of the poisoning
during the next 12 seconds if he weren't blasted. Considering he was
already surviving for many minutes after the poisoning, I'd say
someone was using something other than realistic judgment here. 
 
> Pippin:
> Of course he was betrayed by an ally he trusted! The ally who was 
> running Draco, the one who arranged for the party of Death Eaters to 
> assemble at Borgin and Burkes, the one whom he had been warned 
> time and again might betray him, the one who had twice broken faith 
> in the past and was awarded an unprecedented and, I am sorry to say, 
> undeserved *third* chance, the one for whom Dumbledore, out of a 
> combination of personal sympathy and political expedience, recklessly 
> did what was easy rather than what was right. 

Neri:
Am I to understand that in Accio 2006 they'll be convicting ESE!Lupin
of murdering Dumbledore? <g>

> Pippin: 
> <snip> But Dumbledore regarded Snape's
> mission as more important than his own life.

Neri:
Erm... does this mean we're back from
Dumbledore-botching-his-own-fake-assassination to
Dumbledore-asking-Snape-to-finish-him-off?

> Pippin:
> I believe that Fawkes will eventually prove to Harry that Snape is
> loyal. Once he realizes that, he will be able to figure everything
> else out.

Neri:
This is a bit too much fawkes ex machina for me. If Jo is going for
innocent!Snape I sincerely hope she has in store something more
convincing than Dumbledore dying of poisoning during falling off the
tower.

Neri







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 05:26:20 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:26:20 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse - Errata
In-Reply-To: <ddha4h+4eq8@...>
Message-ID: <ddhbts+trv0@...>

> Neri:
> In this case I must question the process of assembling this jury. If
> they said that there was a 20/80 chance of Dumbledore dying of the
> poisoning during the 3 seconds in which he was sailing off the tower,
> this implies they were 100% sure he would have died of the poisoning
> during the next 12 seconds if he weren't blasted. Considering he was
> already surviving for many minutes after the poisoning, I'd say
> someone was using something other than realistic judgment here. 
>  

Neri:
Oops, it was of course a horrible mistake to add probabilities here. A
more correct calculation would be as follows:

If the Accio jury think that Dumbledore had more than a 20% percent
chance to die during the 3 seconds of the fall, it means he had at
most 80% chance to stay alive in each 3 seconds. So if he weren't
blasted then during the next 30 seconds he would have at most 80%
exp(30/3) chance to stay alive, which is about 11%, and during the
next 60 seconds he had at most 80% exp(30/3) chance to stay alive,
which is about 1%, which means at least 99% chance to die.

I still don't see how could they be 99% sure that Dumbledore would
have died during the following 60 seconds, but then I've never been a
jury.

Neri 







From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 08:44:32 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:44:32 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddgv4o+ojau@...>
Message-ID: <ddhnhg+vdf4@...>

> Pippin:
> "Judge" Hall,   a real life lawyer, instructed the Accio jury that 
if
> they believed that Dumbledore had died as a result of the Avada
> Kedavra curse, either directly or by being blasted off the tower,
> they must vote to convict. If they believed that there was a
> reasonable chance that he had died of poisoning, then they must 
> vote to acquit.  The judge said if you thought it was  80/20 
> AK/poisoning, that was enough for reasonable doubt. Snape got 
> off.
>

The specific charge of which he was acquitted:

>>1. That he did with malice aforethought bring about the unlawful 
killing of Albus Dumbledore within the realm, namely at Hogwarts 
School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by the use of the Killing Curse, 
alternatively by causing the said Albus Dumbledore to fall from the 
Astronomy Tower, having previously attacked the said Albus Dumbledore 
with the intent of causing by magical means death or grievous bodily 
harm.. <<

He was not charged with *attempted* murder of which, even if it *was* 
the green goo that killed DD, he was guilty, assuming that was a real 
AK (which I know a lot of you don't) or a spell designed to 
precipitate his fall. In British law (if it were relevant) he would 
be guilty even if a) acting on DD's orders or b) acting from mercy.

"having previously attacked the said Albus Dumbledore with the intent 
of causing by magical means death or grievous bodily harm.."

is added as a sub-clause, although it is a crime in its own right of 
which he apprently wasn't tried. In a RL court, I think the options 
might have been left open to bring in guilty charges on a range of 
different counts. In any case, the law rests upon technicalities and 
available evidence; it is not a reliable guide to moral guilt or 
innocence.

(I'm using this as a starting point for some ramblings, having been 
away for a couple of weeks and trying to catch up)

I think I shall be rather disappointed if it wasn't a real AK. I 
certainly don't believe that the death was faked. Anticipated, in 
some way arranged (either with or without Snape's collusion) yes, but 
faked, no. In the various discussion that are going on, it just seems 
to me that it's leaving JKR with far too much complicated explanation 
to fit into the next book. I'm sorry, but I can't see it in practical 
terms. 

I don't see the point of the death being faked. We know that in the 
right circumstances a death can provide powerful magical protection. 
JKR has also said outright what many of us have said all along, that 
Harry's story requires that he completes his journey alone. I am sure 
DD will be present in the next book, *but not alive*. As I noted 
before, Dumbledore makes provision that against all precedent he will 
be buried at Hogwarts. OK, perhaps that's evidence for those of you 
who think he's still alive and having air pumped into that 
sarcophagus of his, but either way *he hasn't left Hogwarts*. 
BTW, if this is some plot involving DoLD, doesn't he need an 
accomplice? Wasn't the only likely one in a position where he really 
couldn't manage things post "mortem"? To reveal that he had another 
right hand man (or woman) again seems too much.

I know the effects of the apparent AK are anomalous. I'm not so 
convinced of Jo's consistency to let this worry me overmuch in the 
context of an image she was evidently intent on using - that of the 
Lightning Struck Tower, which requires the fall of a figure from its 
heights (well, the fall of two figures - that's an inconsistency in 
itself). I almost wonder if it was the intensity of the anger which 
Snape felt when casting the curse that led to DD being blasted off 
the ground like that. How many times has an AK been cast with intent 
at someone the caster did not *want* to kill (and whichever side 
Snape is on, I don't believe he wanted to cast that curse)? Assuming 
for now it was an AK, it was an AK cast under circumstances we've 
never seen before in canon.

~Eloise









From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 09:27:45 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:27:45 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse - Errata
In-Reply-To: <ddhbts+trv0@...>
Message-ID: <ddhq2h+7qsi@...>


> > Neri:
<snip>
> > Considering he was
> > already surviving for many minutes after the poisoning, I'd say
> > someone was using something other than realistic judgment here. 
> >  
> 

Pip!Squeak:
Naah. I was the junior defence counsel at the Accio trial, and as 
such had a good motive to check-count the votes {g}. There were four 
charges, one of which - joining the DE's voluntarily and with malice 
aforethought was withdrawn due to lack of any evidence on 
the 'voluntarily and with malice...' bit. 

The voting numbers for 'guilty' and 'not guilty' on the other three 
charges (bullying, being a DE, and murder) differed noticeably, so a 
substantial number of the jury did seem to be making up their minds 
on the evidence presented. There certainly seemed to be quite a few 
people who thought Snape was guilty of murder but was still not 
working for the Death Eaters...


> Neri:
> Oops, it was of course a horrible mistake to add probabilities 
> here. A more correct calculation would be as follows:
> 
> If the Accio jury think that Dumbledore had more than a 20% percent
> chance to die during the 3 seconds of the fall, it means he had at
> most 80% chance to stay alive in each 3 seconds. So if he weren't
> blasted then during the next 30 seconds he would have at most 80%
> exp(30/3) chance to stay alive, which is about 11%, and during the
> next 60 seconds he had at most 80% exp(30/3) chance to stay alive,
> which is about 1%, which means at least 99% chance to die.
> 
> I still don't see how could they be 99% sure that Dumbledore would
> have died during the following 60 seconds, but then I've never 
> been a jury.

They didn't need to be 99% sure Dumbledore would have died in the 
next 60 seconds. All they needed was a 20% possibility that drinking 
the Green Birdbath of Doom had, by the point Snape launched the AK, 
taken Dumbledore beyond the point of any mortal aid. He could have 
been sixty seconds from death, or he could have lingered another 
hour - but if he couldn't now be saved by anything short of a 
miracle, it was the potion that killed him, not Snape.


That's the kicker in English law; if the person you, say, stick a 
knife into has already been mortally wounded by, say, a gunshot 
wound, you ain't the murderer. The murderer is the one who shot 
them. *Provided* you can show a reasonable probability that when you 
stuck the knife in you changed nothing, and preferably that you knew 
you would change nothing.

For example, if you knew they were dying and stuck the knife in to 
stop yourself being shooting victim number two.

Or, say, if you were a junior officer in a war, and you knew that 
blasting your commander's dying body would set you up perfectly as 
your enemy's number one lieutenant. That doing this would be the one 
way you could make sure your commander's death wasn't wasted...

The term is 'ruse de guerre', and it's legitimate in law. The 
killing someone who is already dying is a case of 'novus actus 
interveniens' - did Snape's act break the chain of causation? If 
there's a reasonable probability Dumbledore was already dying, and 
had reached the point where nothing could save him, then - it 
didn't. And thus it was not murder.

Don't forget Dumbledore, when Snape reached the roof, was struggling 
to stand up. He was sliding down the wall, in fact. And Snape was 
the Potions Master, and might reasonably be expected to know the 
symptoms of certain potions. He might reasonably be expected to know 
when the answer to 'Can you save me from this poison?' is 'It's too 
late'.

And also don't forget that the Defence does not have to prove 
innocence. It's the job of the Prosecution to prove guilt. The 
presumption in English (and U.S.) law is that the accused is 
innocent and that for the accused to be convicted there must be no 
reasonable doubt of his guilt. 

But in the book, there's a number of oddities that add up 
to 'reasonable doubt'. Dumbledore swallowing a possibly fatal potion 
beforehand. Dumbledore's increasing weakness. The odd behaviour of 
the AK, which throws him into the air (unlike any other human we've 
seen). In the background there's that funny Felix Felicis, which 
seems to turn itself on and off whenever Dumbledore or Snape need to 
get to the Tower.

The fact that there is a trickle of blood from Dumbledore's mouth 
when Harry finds him. Yet AK leaves no marks...

We argued in the case that Dumbledore was probably dead when the 
apparent AK hit; simply because that was the easiest version to 
show. 

[Though I cheerfully admit that the moment when my co-counsel asked 
a prosecution witness 'How do you know Dumbledore wasn't dead at 
that point?' and got the reply 'Because he was talking' was the best 
moment of the whole trial...] 

But the defence that Snape changed nothing would still work if 
Dumbledore had died from the AK itself, or if he died from falling 
from the Tower, *provided* Dumbledore was already doomed when all 
that happened. Myself, I think Snape's AK didn't work. He couldn't 
kill Dumbledore. Instead, he fulfilled the Unbreakable Vow by 
*trying* to kill Dumbledore [Voldemort ordered Draco to *try* to 
kill DD]. Dumbledore actually died when he hit the ground, too weak 
to magically break his fall.

But it was Voldemort's potion that really killed him.

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape













From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 10:15:45 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <008701c59ee8$8a70d9a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <20050812101545.77611.qmail@...>

Interesting stuff going on in this discussion! I just
want to pick up on a couple things Susan said:

First,

> This particular bit was written in response to
> someone thinking Harry will triumph by loving his
> enemies.  I'm not prepared to go quite that far,
> but....

I'd like to see him do exactly that.

You know, we've touched on the centrality of love to
the series - particularly, discussing love as the
secret power behind the door in OotP. One objection
that came up was that the sort of love HP has shown so
far just doesn't seem all that special, notable or
powerful - leading to the suspicion that JKR is
feeding us bromides.

Before Accio (and while writing my paper) I got to
thinking about this - and I noticed that, if you think
in terms of classical Christian ethics, you have three
levels of love:

1. Do onto others as you would have others do unto
you.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
3. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you. 

Up till now, Harry has shown some amount of (1) and
(2) - certainly more than Voldie, and (arguably) more
than was to be expected for someone with his
childhood. 

However, I realized that if I wanted to claim that the
power behind the locked door was something along the
lines of Christian love, there was simply no way the
story could ignore to stage three - and stage three is
something Harry really hasn't shown yet.

However, like you mention, it seems like Jo has begun
to hint at it more and more over the last two books -
and Susan mentions two ways:

About Voldemort:

> Or was
> DD correct, that Harry had been "caught" feeling
> sympathy -- or even
> empathy -- for a baby who lost his mother? EVEN a
> baby whom Harry
> KNEW to be Tom Riddle/Voldemort, a baby who grew up
> to be his own
> parents' murderer and his own sworn enemy? An
> interesting
> possibility, in my book.

About Merope: 
 
> Is this just curiosity? Perhaps. But Harry seems to
> be able to set
> aside the kind of spiteful/vengeful/hate-filled
> responses one might
> *expect* from him when viewing memories of Tom
> Riddle & his family,
> and shows, instead, an inkling of compassion and
> concern.

Essentially, Harry is moving into a transitional stage
between (2) to (3) - the kind of thing you get in the
story of the good Samaritan. Granting that "neighbor"
is our word for "my kind of people; ie. the good
guys": he is beginning to the emotional realization
that his enemy (Voldemort, Snape, Malfoy) is not so
very different from his "neighbor" and that his
"neighbor" is not always all that different from
enemies (James being cruel to Snape). 

(Something related came out of Andrea Schutz's
presentation on Lupin: learning to love/recognize my
neighbor in the skin of my enemy. This is certainly a
transitional area that is *very* important to JKR.)

Recently, I've made some pretty strong assertions that
Snape is going to turn out to be a good guy. That's
basically because of my theological reading of the
plot. While I didn't (and don't) think Harry could
ever find any kind of reconciliation with Voldermort -
Voldie is too far gone for that, and Dumbledore
clearly believes that he must be killed - my
theological reading demanded that Harry find
reconciliation with his enemies - and now he has two
prime candidates in Snape and Malfoy. 

Anything less would be theologically stunted
understanding of love. And of course, understanding
that Snape isn't his enemy at all would make this
reconciliation plausible.

In retrospect, while I stand behind the theological
reading, I'm having some doubts about Snape. Not about
the reconciliation part, but about the good guy part.
Maybe Snape will turn out to have been bad all the way
through. Theologically speaking, so what? Harry will
still have to learn what it means to love - ie. care
about, empathize with, forgive, reach out to - him
anyway. And perhaps he *does* have the tools to do it.


And here's a new one, guys: What if Dumbledore trusted
Snape not because of Snape but because of Harry? What
if he knew that Harry has what it takes to get through
to Snape and trusted that before all is said and done,
Harry will succeed.

Just an idea.

Baaaaa,

Mike



From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 10:25:55 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:25:55 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse: another erratum
In-Reply-To: <ddhnhg+vdf4@...>
Message-ID: <ddhtfj+5fns@...>

Just realised that I used the totally non-sensical term "British Law" 
which betrays my lack of expertise on the subject. ;-) I still believe 
Snape could have been directly accused of attempted murder, however, 
whatever the circumstances.

I think this from Pip very interesting:

>>The term is 'ruse de guerre', and it's legitimate in law. The
killing someone who is already dying is a case of 'novus actus
interveniens' - did Snape's act break the chain of causation? If
there's a reasonable probability Dumbledore was already dying, and
had reached the point where nothing could save him, then - it
didn't. And thus it was not murder.<<

It's a case of circumstances altering cases, as if you intentionally 
kill someone you know is dying and cannot be helped in other 
circumstances (eg terminal illness) it is still murder. 

~Eloise






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 11:04:59 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:04:59 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse: another erratum
In-Reply-To: <ddhtfj+5fns@...>
Message-ID: <ddhvor+jdvq@...>

Eloise wrote:
> Just realised that I used the totally non-sensical term "British 
> Law" which betrays my lack of expertise on the subject. ;-) I  
> still believe Snape could have been directly accused of attempted 
> murder, however, whatever the circumstances.
> 
> I think this from Pip very interesting:
> 
> >>The term is 'ruse de guerre', and it's legitimate in law. The
> killing someone who is already dying is a case of 'novus actus
> interveniens' - did Snape's act break the chain of causation? If
> there's a reasonable probability Dumbledore was already dying, and
> had reached the point where nothing could save him, then - it
> didn't. And thus it was not murder.<<
> 
Eloise:
> It's a case of circumstances altering cases, as if you 
> intentionally kill someone you know is dying and cannot be helped 
> in other circumstances (eg terminal illness) it is still murder. 

Pip!Squeak:
That, I *think*, is different. I'm only a poor little actor; I play 
lawyers but I'm certainly *not* one - but from 'Judge' Hall's crash 
course on trying Snape, I think that killing someone who is 
otherwise dying from natural causes is to 'break the chain of 
causation'. The cause of death in these cases *should have been* 
natural causes. By intervening, you have changed the cause of 
death.  

OTOH, if somebody has been previously wounded, then quoting from 
http://www.sixthform.info/law/02_cases/mod4/murder/13_1_actus_of_murd
er.htm

Smith, R v [1959] CMAC
"If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating 
cause and a substantial cause, then death can be said to be a result 
of the wound albeit that some other cause is also operating."

The fun case of White, R v [1910] CA 
"D put cyanide into his mother's lemonade drink, but she died of 
heart failure before the poison could kill her. The answer to the 
question 'But for what the defendant did would she have died?' 
is 'No'. She would have died anyway."


As you correctly point out, D was aquitted of murder, on the grounds 
his mother was dying and did die of natural causes, but was found 
guilty of attempted murder for giving her cyanide. 

However, the ruse de guerre defence we used was also a defence 
against attempted murder; to quote from the Law Lord Viscount Sankey:

"If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a 
reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the 
prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the 
deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made 
out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter 
what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the 
prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the 
common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be 
entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove 
(a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) 
malice of the accused." 

So - there is reasonable doubt that Snape's intervention was the 
actual cause of Dumbledore's death (that's point (a) ) and, thanks 
to the ruse de guerre possibility, there is also a reasonable doubt 
that he acted with malice towards Dumbledore (that's point (b) ). 
Acquittal on murder, acquittal on attempted murder.

You then move onto manslaughter, but there again, the doubt that it 
was Snape's act which *really* killed Dumbledore comes into play. If 
it 'wus the potion, m'lud', then manslaughter's out as well.

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape.
 






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 13:10:37 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:10:37 -0000
Subject: Snape's Remorse: another erratum
In-Reply-To: <ddhvor+jdvq@...>
Message-ID: <ddi74d+29a0@...>

Pip:

> However, the ruse de guerre defence we used was also a defence 
> against attempted murder; to quote from the Law Lord Viscount 
Sankey:
> 
> "If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a 
> reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the 
> prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the 
> deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made 
> out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No 
matter 
> what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the 
> prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the 
> common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be 
> entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove 
> (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) 
> malice of the accused." 
> 
> So - there is reasonable doubt that Snape's intervention was the 
> actual cause of Dumbledore's death (that's point (a) ) and, thanks 
> to the ruse de guerre possibility, there is also a reasonable doubt 
> that he acted with malice towards Dumbledore (that's point (b) ). 
> Acquittal on murder, acquittal on attempted murder.

Which is really the point I was making with regard to the law resting 
on technicalities. A legal judgement doesn't necessarily indicate 
whether someone is morally guilty. Surely if I stab someone, it is 
really a matter of sheer luck that I am not convicted because someone 
else has already slipped them poison. My action is still that of a 
murderer, morally I am still guilty of an act designed to bring about 
the death of another. I'm also a bit intrugued by the malice thing. 
Maybe it's not technically murder , but bringing about another's 
death in any manner, whether with or without malice is certainly 
punishable under the guise of other crimes.

In the context of a discussion about *legal* guilt or innocence *of 
murder with malice*, I guess I have to concede the point, although 
still maintaining that he wasn't actually tried on a charge of 
attempted murder at Accio. However the legality isn't nearly so 
interesting as the morality or motivation of the characters involved, 
IMO. If Snape's doing whatever he did or didn't do to Dumbledore on 
the tower can be dismissed as innocent, then it loses much of its 
power. It becomes more interesting if Snape *believes* he has killed 
Dumbledore, or if he genuinely intended so to do, whatever his 
motivation. Also, of course, if the other characters believe he 
killed him, which apparently they do.

I have to admit I'm struggling with this whole thing. If the law 
really says that you can go through the actions of a murder and not 
be culpable simply because someone else got there first, then as Mr 
Bumble said, "the law is an ass". 

~Eloise





From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 13:37:05 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Snape's trial (was: Snape's Remorse - Errata)
In-Reply-To: <ddhq2h+7qsi@...>
Message-ID: <20050812133705.83245.qmail@...>

> Pip!Squeak:
> Naah. I was the junior defence counsel at the Accio
> trial, and as 
> such had a good motive to check-count the votes {g}.
> There were four 
> charges, one of which - joining the DE's voluntarily
> and with malice 
> aforethought was withdrawn due to lack of any
> evidence on 
> the 'voluntarily and with malice...' bit. 
> 
> Pip!Squeak
> 

I was on the "jury" and I voted guilty on abusing the
students, not guilty on membership of the DE and not
guilty on murder. My problem with the murder charge is
that they did not attempt to prove that Dumbledore had
died. I had reasonable doubt that any crime had been
committed at all. IMO, the counsels should have
stipulated at the outset that the victim was indeed
dead. If that had been done, then I guess I would have
concluded that it was the fall that killed him and
have had to vote guilty.

The trial was a highlight of the conference, by the
way. Great job, guys!

CV

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 13:44:04 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Remorse: another erratum
In-Reply-To: <ddi74d+29a0@...>
Message-ID: <20050812134404.5270.qmail@...>

Snip:

> I have to admit I'm struggling with this whole
> thing. If the law 
> really says that you can go through the actions of a
> murder and not 
> be culpable simply because someone else got there
> first, then as Mr 
> Bumble said, "the law is an ass". 
> 
> ~Eloise

Randy replies.  Per the link below, it is obvious that
the ancient Egyptians understood this too.
No, maybe the law is not an ass, but it is a baboon
headed dog!  See the link below for explanation.

http://www.crystalinks.com/thoth.html


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 13:55:07 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Remorse: another erratum
In-Reply-To: <ddi74d+29a0@...>
Message-ID: <20050812135507.23808.qmail@...>

--- eloise wrote:
Surely if I stab
> someone, it is 
> really a matter of sheer luck that I am not
> convicted because someone 
> else has already slipped them poison. My action is
> still that of a 
> murderer, morally I am still guilty of an act
> designed to bring about 
> the death of another.
<snip>
> 
> I have to admit I'm struggling with this whole
> thing. If the law 
> really says that you can go through the actions of a
> murder and not 
> be culpable simply because someone else got there
> first, then as Mr 
> Bumble said, "the law is an ass". 

If your actions did not cause the death of anyone,
then you are not a murderer, no matter what your
intent. What you absolutely are guilty of is
Aggravated Assault. In California, no one is ever
brought to trial on Attempted Murder, although they
may be arrested on that. There is too much possibility
of arguing on the Intent of the defendant for this.
But Aggravated Assault does not have that problem. If
a person Did A Very Bad Thing and did it
intentionally, then it's Assault no matter what the
result. In this case, Snape would probably have to be
brought up on two charges - Assault for the AK, then
Manslaughter for the fall because it was incidental to
the AK. If the jury did not think the fall killed
Dumbledore, then they could still vote guilty on
assault.

Feel better, Eloise?

Constance Vigilance

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From jrwahlund at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 14:14:13 2005
From: jrwahlund at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid (JoAnna Wahlund)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:14:13 -0500
Subject: OT: Dumbledore's death in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer
Message-ID: <a636324605081207142b2ff78a@...>

I thought this was a hoot. Enjoy!

Dumbledore's death in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer


The Poppynge of the Clogges

At Hogwarte's, schoole of wizardrye,
Unfoldeth drede folle tragedie!
Yonge Ron Weasleye, and classmayt Pottyr:
Fallen preye to 'tvyle rottyr,
Who, throughoute Harry's sadde lyfe,
Hath been the source of muche stryfe;
Hys parente's lyves, rendyred shorte,
By naughtie manne: Voldemorte!

Pottyr and freynd, in't towyr trapp'd,
At mercie of thyss eevil ratte!
What woe! What payn! Unluckiness!
To looke upon poor boye's dystresse.
"Fore all thysse tyme, my plans you've foyled,
Designs divertyd, and schemes despoyled!"
So began the Dark Lorde's awfolle gloatyng,
And standarde badde guy show?boatynge,
"But not todaye, you little shytte!
Payn's true meanynge, thou shalt wytte!"

And so commenceth vyle torture,
Whose detayle here 'tis harde to utter,
Arms asunder, Fingeres chopp?d,
Elbowes burned, and thynges off-lopp?d!
The outlook bleake for our hero,
But survival's chaunce is not yette zero!
In darkest cornere, unknown to't villayne,
Creeps Dumbledore, to sayve yon children!

Evil's wand is raysed for't fynalle tyme,
To finyshoff thysse horrid cryme:
"Farewelle Pottyr, we've had some jokes,
But now thou shalt be with thine folks!"
At thysse, yon Darke Lorde sends a shotte,
To putte the ende to Pottyr's lotte,
But 'fore the blast can Harry ice,
Brayve Dumbledore makes sacrifyce:
In Black Magyck's pathe he jumpes hedelonge,
For Pottyr's lyfe to helpe prolonge.

'It styngs! It burnes! Mine de this come!
>From bolt of lightnynge up my bumme!"
Though Pottyr's sayved, his trusted friend,
Hath in this towyr met hys ende.
Yesse, Dumble's Done, as is mine narratyv,
Of old lyfe, gonne, for yonger lyfeto lyv.

Tom Richardson

-- 
~JoAnna~

Proud mother of Elanor Mary
born 01/13/05

Elanor's website:
http://www.geocities.com/j_wahlund


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




From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 15:00:17 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <ddgc06+213s@...>
Message-ID: <20050812150017.18427.qmail@...>



pippin_999 <foxmoth at ...> wrote: 

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel <silmariel at t...>
wrote:
> 
> Nora:
> > Actually, there's a question for the list as a whole: can you

> > take the power of love and Harry's pure heart with a completely 

> >straight face?  


 < snip > 
 



> Pippin:
> But if I had to hazard a guess now, it's not that Harry's never 

> been cruel or selfish, because he has. But he's never wanted 

> to hurt anyone who he thought cared about him, or anyone 

> he thought was weaker than himself. He's been that way from 

> the beginning. He's also never intentionally misused his powers, 

> though once or twice he's attempted it.  Still, when  he failed with 

> the cruciatus curse, he did not try to find somebody to teach it to 

> him.

 

Waldo aka Justin Felt-Flatulent: 

 

I would have to agree. I know that the Malfoy apologists out there like to point out that poor, innocent Draco was hexed such-and-such-a-time and poor, innocent  Montague was stuffed in a vanishing cabinet when he was innocently trying to help the Vichy collaborators exterminate  
 er, I mean the innocent Inquisitorial Squad 
 innocently persecuting anyone they didn?t like.  But really,  were the Inquisitorial Squad the victims? 

 

I think that the text, in the voice of Dumbledore, is not saying that Harry has a saintly disposition , perfect in every way, or a Buddha-like ability to transcend self-centeredness.  However, it can be said that his motivation has never been to exploit the weak and gather power to himself so that he can dominate others.  He does not seek out opportunities to cause pain for anyone, even Malfoy, although he was not immune to enjoying hexing Draco once a confrontation was begun.  But even so, he felt shame and anguish when he seriously harmed Draco with the HBP?s curse ?for enemies.? He did not put his name in the Goblet of Fire (my favorite book) and resisted the temptation to accept help that was not also offered to others.  Again, he was not perfect in every way, but generally he cared more about fairness and the survival of himself, his friends, and the other contestants than he did about winning the tournament.  Those were his operating principles throughout.  In the end, neither
 he or Cedric would claim the cup for themselves.  

 
I can accept the idea that he has a purity of heart in the sense that the principles that initially motivate him are always those of compassion, desire for fellowship, courage, and loyalty.  That does not mean that he never reacts with anger or is immune to entirely human reactions to the challenges he faces.  Even when he is jealous of Cedric, he sincerely struggles with these feelings rather than just seeking a way to overcome and humiliate Cedric. 
 
So there is my theory:  Purity of heart does not equal perfect transcendence of all human frailties. 


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 15:52:11 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:52:11 -0000
Subject: Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again
In-Reply-To: <20050812150017.18427.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddigjb+788q@...>

Waldo aka Justin Felt-Flatulent:
> So there is my theory:  Purity of heart does not equal perfect 
>transcendence of all human frailties. 

Which chimes with what I have theorised on the appropriateness of love 
being the power that Lord Voldemort knows not: it Harry's (and thus 
every reader's) ordinary humanity which is capable of defeating evil. 
You don't need to be a fantastic magician, (which is why he isn't 
portrayed as one) just a decent person who makes the right choices. 
Every child who reads the series can aspire to being the latter, whilst 
the first is just make believe.

~Eloise





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 12 18:01:55 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Remorse
In-Reply-To: <ddha4h+4eq8@...>
Message-ID: <20050812180155.84771.qmail@...>

--- nkafkafi <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:

> > Pippin:
> > "Judge" Hall,   a real life lawyer, instructed the
> Accio jury that if
> > they believed that Dumbledore had died as a result
> of the Avada
> > Kedavra curse, either directly or by being blasted
> off the tower, ... [yadda yadda yadda]

... snip ...

> Neri:
> In this case I must question the process of
> assembling this jury. If
> they said that there was a 20/80 chance of
> Dumbledore dying of the
> poisoning during the 3 seconds in which he was
> sailing off the tower,
> this implies they were 100% sure he would have died
> of the poisoning  ... [etc., etc., etc.]


Waldo aka Justin Felt-Flatulent:

Well, I was there and it was not what you might call a
thorough, rational, and unbiased proceeding.  

Firstly,the trial took place late on Friday evening
whilst many of us were quite tired from traveling and
/ or setting up the event. Secondly,  the jury was
stacked with folks with erotomanic obsessions for
Severus Snape (and, surprisingly, Snape is the target
of their fascination and not Alan Rickman).  

Perhaps more significantly we were all probably more
interested in whether Snape was "guilty" in terms of
the narrative, and less concerned with whether he was
"guilty" of causing DD's death in the legal sense.
These two aspects of guilt were probably quite muddled
in our collective thinking and in the proceedings. I
myself am leaning towards "not guilty" in terms of the
narrative (i.e., he was acting in loyalty to DD and
against the DE's),  but I imagine that he would be
"guilty" in the legal sense.  After all,  "I killed
him because he really wanted me to,  I am quite sure
of it ..." isn't really considered a valid legal
defense.  On the other hand,  I believe that in Texas,
"He looked like he needed killin'" actually is a valid
legal defense.  

Peace,

Waldo



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 09:47:54 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:47:54 -0000
Subject: Snape trial:  is there a transcript?
Message-ID: <ddkfka+drir@...>

Hi.  I was just wondering if there is a transcript out there somewhere 
from the Accio Snape trial.  I'd really like to see it if there is.

Tim?  Pip?  Anyone?

Thanks, Ginger, who has only been to court once (and then only as a 
witness) and never wants to do it again.  At least my friend got off 
with Community Service and court costs, which is pretty good for being 
innocent.





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 13:37:53 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:37:53 -0000
Subject: Why did DD take Harry with him?
Message-ID: <ddkt3h+iabk@...>

DD explains why, despite his skepticism about the prophecy,
he believes Harry has to face Voldemort. But I was wondering,
why did he think it had to be Harry to find the horcruxes?
It seems to be a task that requires a great deal more magical
knowledge than Harry, or even Hermione has. 

So why did he bring Harry with him to fetch the locket?
As plenty of people have pointed out, a House Elf could supply
an extra pair of hands. Further, I've realized Jo gives us a broad
hint that extra hands weren't really necessary. As we saw at
the Dursleys, Dumbledore can enchant a cup so that it will  try,
with increasing insistence, to force you to drink it. We also saw 
Harry use a refilling charm.

DD could have gone to get the horcrux and then had Harry
relive the experience with him in the pensieve -- much safer
for Harry, right?

Then it dawned on me that out of our pitifully small sample set,
Harry is the only one who has destroyed a horklump without 
harm to himself. Considering the whopper of a curse that was
on the ring horcrux, that's probably highly significant.

And then I remembered the strange affinity
between Harry and the Diary. 
---
The fact was, even though he *knew* the Diary was blank,
he kept absent-mindedly picking it up and turning the pages,
as though it were a story he wanted to finish. And while Harry
was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before,
it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though
Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and
had half-forgotten. -CoS-US 233-234 (ch 13)
--

Also, Harry knew how to destroy the Diary, a powerful
magical object, without being told.
--
Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he
had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk
fang next to him and plunged it straight into the heart
of the book. -- CoS-US 322 (ch 17)
--

I think that Dumbledore hoped there was some connnection
between Harry and all the horcruxes that would enable him
to recognize them and destroy them, perhaps even sense
how to bypass the protections surrounding them.  Of course 
DD was unable to test this theory, except in a negative way,
 because the locket horcrux was a fake. 

But this would explain why DD might think that Harry could
continue the task of hunting horcruxes without him, though
Harry knows none of the magic that enabled DD to reach
the one he found. Provided, that is, that  Snape was alive to 
save Harry from the effects of whatever Dark Magic was used to 
protect them. That would provide a motive for Dumbledore to 
sacrifice himself to save Snape.

I'm wondering if Dumbledore didn't leave in Snape's custody
a parting gift from dear old Nicholas? And whether we won't
get the true proof of Snape's loyalties when he and Harry are
both at the verge of death and Snape uses the last dose
of elixir of life to save Harry. Snape doubters, would that 
convince you?

I'm also reminded that Dumbledore thinks he would have died
if Snape hadn't saved him from the curse. If what we have
is WYSIWYG!Snape, why didn't Snape just let him die?

Pippin





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 14:51:00 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:51:00 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
Message-ID: <ddl1ck+176b@...>

While scanning the globe via internet, I perused eqyptian mythology 
sites for clues to Harry Potter concepts.  I stumbled across 
something that resembles the horcrux theory.  I think it gives the 
formula for reassembling the soul after dividing into 6 horcruxes.  
The transmigration of souls after death is integral to Eqyptian 
practices.

Horus was the sun of Osiris and his eye is a famous symbol from 
ancient Eqypt.  Perhaps JKR likes the pun of Cross-Eyed for Horcrux 
deeper meaning or X's over the eyes of the dead like in cartoons.

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/udjat.htm

The math formula for adding the 6 parts does not quite equal one.  
This would imply that you are not quite whole when you finish.  
Especially if some kid kills off one of the pieces.  It would imply 
that Voldy would lose power as each HorusCross disappears.  "And he 
would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling 
kids and that stupid dog!"

Red Eye Randy






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 15:15:09 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:15:09 -0000
Subject: The origins of Harry Potter conflict
Message-ID: <ddl2pt+sr3k@...>

This stuff is just too good to pass up.  Harry Potter and the good 
side is represented by the Phoenix (or Sunbird) or winged disc (ie 
golden snitch) and the Evil god Set is represented by the Serpent.  
Horus and Set did battle.  These myths are based on Solar and Lunar 
eclipses.  The Eye of Horus looks like the light given off during a 
tolal Solar eclipse.  The eclipse also gives the black spot the 
illusion of having wings (ie winged disc, or snitch) also winged 
spirit bird or Phoenix.

When JKR says that her religious views might give things away.  I 
wonder if she means the illusions to myths she has studied.  This 
Horus versus Set myth of ancient Eqypt has so many of the symbols 
from the Harry Potter books.  The similar HP symbols include: the 
idea of split souls, the winged disc, the phoenix, the serpent, the 
retrieval of the parts of the dismembered pieces of a god to bring 
him back to life (HorusCrux).  There are many more that I cannot 
remember at this moment.  I wonder what the European versions of 
these myths look like.

http://eyeofhorussymbol.homestead.com/

Sorry if you guys already knew all this stuff.  I don't read all the 
other HP web sites and I missed a bunch of your posts in the past.

Red Eye <o> Randus






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 15:49:23 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:49:23 -0000
Subject: More and More Harry Potter symbols in Horus vs. Set story
Message-ID: <ddl4q3+5h5n@...>

Okay, you all probably found this before, but to me this is an 
epiphany.  Read this and then take your shots at my theory! I 
already mentioned the origin of the Phoenix and its battle with the 
Serpent!  There is more below:

The source of Harry Potter legend... Horus versus Set

Here is a list of common symbols:

1. The followers of Horus here mentioned are called in the 
text "Mesniu," i.e., "blacksmiths," or "workers in metal," and they 
represent the primitive conquerors of the Egyptians, who were armed 
with metal weapons, and so were able to overcome with tolerable ease 
the indigenous Egyptians, whose weapons were made of flint and wood.

Names of Quidditch players are Flynt and Wood !

2. The fight between the Sun-god and Set was a very favourite 
subject with Egyptian writers, and there are many forms of it. Thus 
there is the fight between Heru-ur and Set, the fight between Ra and 
Set, the fight between Heru-Behutet and Set, the fight between 
Osiris and Set, and the fight between Horus, son of Isis, and Set. 
In the oldest times the combat was merely the natural opposition of 
light to darkness, but later the Sun-god became the symbol of right 
and truth as well as of light, and Set the symbol of sin and 
wickedness as well as of darkness, and ultimately the nature myth 
was forgotten, and the fight between the two gods became the type of 
the everlasting war which good men wage against sin. In Coptic 
literature we have the well-known legend of the slaughter of the 
dragon by St. George, and this is nothing but a Christian adaptation 
of the legend of Horus and Set.

Bingo!  The slaying of the dragon linked to the story of Horus and 
Set!

3. After these things Horus, son of Ra, and Horus, son of Isis, each 
took the form of a mighty man, with the face and body of a hawk, and 
each wore the Red and White Crowns, and each carried a spear and 
chain. In these forms the two gods slew the remnant of the enemies. 
Now by some means or other Set came to life again, and he took the 
form of a mighty hissing or "roaring" serpent, and hid himself in 
the ground, in a place which was ever after called the "place of the 
roarer."


Set comes back to life by taking the form a a mighty Serpent !

4. The last great fight in the North took place at Tanis, in the 
eastern part of the Delta. When the position of the enemy had been 
located, Horus took the form of a lion with the face of a man, and 
he put on his head the Triple Crown.

The Lion of Gryffindor !

5. Meanwhile rebellion had again broken out in Nubia, where about 
one-third of the enemy had taken refuge in the river in the forms of 
crocodiles and hippopotami. Ra counselled Horus to sail up the Nile 
with his Blacksmiths, and when Thoth had recited the "Chapters of 
protecting the Boat of Ra" over the boats, the expedition set sail 
for the South. The object of reciting these spells was to prevent 
the monsters which were in the river from making the waves to rise 
and from stirring up storms which might engulf the boats of Ra and 
Horus and the Blacksmiths

Now the boat in the water protected by the reciting of magic spells 
to prevent the monsters which were in the river (inferi?) from 
attacking.  Perhaps another trip back to the cave for Harry and 
Voldy?


You know Harry sounds a little like Horus to me!  And maybe Horcrux 
is not cross-eyed but Cross Horus or Against Horus (ie Against Harry)

 To read more just see this link :

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg07.htm

Redus <o> Randus







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 17:53:36 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:53:36 -0000
Subject: Source of  Lily is Isis the mother of Horus
Message-ID: <ddlc30+a4np@...>

This for me is the nail in the coffin about the source for Harry 
Potter:

Harry's mother Lily is a perfect fit for Isis (The goddess who 
became the essence of nurturing love and magic).  Bingo!
:

1.  Voldemort kills James.  Set kills Osiris (father of Horus).


The daughter of Geb, sister to Osiris and Seth, the opposing gods of 
the ancient land, Isis, would come to epitomize love. Isis was also 
the great wife of the god Osiris. The goddess became the essence of 
nurturing love and magic. When a jealous Seth slew the beloved 
Osiris and dropped his body into the Nile, Isis did not simply mourn 
her lost love, but moved all forces of nature and rescued the body 
of her husband from where it had come to rest in Byblos.

2.  Lily tries to protect and hide baby Harry from Voldemort.

Isis went out into the countryside, gave birth to Horus and hid him 
in the papyrus marshes, guarding him from Seth and the natural 
forces and dangers, such as snakes and predators, until he came of 
age.

3. The power of Love from Isis is the greatest magic:

Ever after, kings, were the incarnation of Horus and the kings 
sought the protection of the goddess. The ancient regents saw the 
goddess with a throne upon her head and reached out to the divine 
essence of royalty. As wife of Osiris, associated with kingship or 
the deceased kings of Egypt, and as mother of Horus, the falcon god, 
always associated with the living Pharaoh, so Isis with her powers 
of love and magic became the epitome of the rights of kings.

4. A reference to Sirius:

Throughout the rule of the pharaohs, and on into the Greco-Roman 
times, and on into modern times, this goddess, because of her 
tenacious devotion, is known as the goddess of love. The Greeks, 
likewise, elevated Isis with her divine consort to the heavens. 
Osiris was Orion and Isis was Sirius. For her brilliance, Isis was 
called the "eye of Re," the powerful sun god. Another representation 
of Isis is as the "house" of Osiris, the womb of Horus.

5.  Harry has Lily's eyes, and her love protects Harry from Evil.

Imagery: Horus was represented as a falcon or a falcon beaded man,
his eyes were the sun and the moon. As the falcon, equated to the 
king. The eye of the moon
was the eye that was lost in battle with Seth. The ?eye of Horus? 
charm is considered protection
against evil. 


see this link:

http://www.webhotep.com/generic.jhtml?pid=75

Ladies and Gentlemen of the "Theory Jury", I wish to take a short 
recess, while you review the evidence.

Redus <o> Randus






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 20:43:25 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:43:25 -0000
Subject: Snape trial:  is there a transcript?
In-Reply-To: <ddkfka+drir@...>
Message-ID: <ddlm1d+o5d9@...>

Ginger wrote:
> Hi.  I was just wondering if there is a transcript out there 
> somewhere from the Accio Snape trial.  I'd really like to see it if 
> there is.
> Tim?  Pip?  Anyone?
> 
Pip!Squeak:

Not yet, but there should hopefully be a transcript or downloadable 
audio available soon. What we get will depend on the sound quality of 
the recording that was made :-)

Pip





From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 21:23:55 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:23:55 -0000
Subject: Source of  Lily is Isis the mother of Horus
In-Reply-To: <ddlc30+a4np@...>
Message-ID: <ddlodb+gq8d@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at y...> wrote:

<snip>

So, who's Osiris in this setup?  James?  Nah, JKR only seems to be 
going the incest route with the Gaunts (and maybe some of the Blacks).

Ever the problem with readings of mythological correspondences on the 
grand scale--everyone goes for the things that fit and ignores as 
detail the things that don't. :)

-Nora remembers a scurrilous little ditty about the subject, but won't 
repeat it





From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 21:36:20 2005
From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:36:20 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape trial:  is there a transcript?
In-Reply-To: <ddlm1d+o5d9@...>
Message-ID: <000301c5a04f$0bd69540$0200a8c0@hwin>

Pip wrote,

> Not yet, but there should hopefully be a transcript or downloadable 
> audio available soon. What we get will depend on the sound quality of 
> the recording that was made :-)

Say - weren't some of the Danish gals doing a video?

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who is finally back home again and
trying to get on top of things.)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, 
so that may not have been bravery...." 




From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 22:58:08 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:58:08 -0000
Subject: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <20050805145709.25439.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddltu0+ki98@...>

Randy Estes wrote:
> Reading the page from Judy's journal I noticed a few
> things...
> 1.  I feel something in common.  I thought I was the
> only one who likes to read these books slowly and try
> to guess what will come next.

This was the first time I stretched out reading a HP book,a nd I 
really liked it.  Plenty of time to speculate.  Oh, how I wish there 
were more than one book left!  Maybe JKR will have too much material 
for one book, and will have to split it into two parts. 


Randy also said:
> 2.  I think the idea that the Potions book is a
> horcrux is a great idea!  It is old enough and it
> could have turned Snape to the Dark Side....

Well, I had speculated that the potions book was a horcrux before I 
finished Book 6.  It is interesting how the book almost got Harry to 
kill Draco, but still, I tend now to think the book isn't a horcrux. 
If it were a horcrux, wouldn't Hermione's "specialis revelio" spell 
have shown it was enchanted? 


Randy then confessed:
> 4.  I feel a strange familiarity with Judy's journal. 
> I am now longing to build a large underground secret
> chamber which connects to the master bathroom.  I
> beleive there is a giant monster cockroach waiting to
> be released to wreck havoc throughout the
> neighborhood.  BWAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA....

Oh, no!  I go off to Albani-- er, California for a while, and Randy 
gets possessed by my Livejournal!  That's the last time I leave it in 
the care of Lucius Malfoy.

-- Judy, who also now gets flashes of Inferi dancing to Michael 
Jackson's "Thriller."  Did you know that Jackson used dancing undead 
again, in his 1996 film "Ghosts"? 






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 23:00:21 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:21 -0000
Subject: F&G->minors / Draco's HoG / Voldemort & the Stone / that Irish Folklore site
Message-ID: <ddlu26+d2pt@...>

Lyn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2778
:

<< One, I question if F&G would even consider selling such a thing to
Draco, indeed did they even intend it to be available for sale to
"minors." >>

I have a lot of trouble imagining F & G refusing to sell stuff to a
customer just because the customer is a minor (except where there is
some seriously enforced laws with serious punishment), being as how
they themselves were minors only recently, and that their market
testing indicated that Hogwarts students (mostly altho' not all
minors) are their target audience.

As businesspeople, they don't make money by refusing to sell their
merchandise. That's an argument against refusing to sell to minors and
also against refusing to sell to Slytherins. Malfoy could have had one
of his friends or hangers-on buy stuff for him.

Kelly wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_o
ld_crowd/message/2784 :

<< This was actually a small detail that jarred with me. Ron, I
believe, mentioned Draco's Hand of Glory as though he had had it
previous years, i.e. before Lucius was thrown in Azkaban. But in CoS,
I thought Lucius made it pretty clear that he felt it was an insult 
to imply his son was in the same league as thieves and plunderers. So
how did Draco get Hand? >>

That detail jarred with me just the same, so I made up a story that
Draco had bought the Hand by Owl Order after the CoS school year
began. 

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2805 :

<<  Yet the Stone wouldn't give him a body, nor would it increase his
powers, he'd still be stuck in Quirrell. >>

I assume(d) that he would get all his innate powers back by getting
his body back -- that is, getting a body sufficiently similar to his
own. The only non-innate power I know he had was immortality, and his
graveyard speech in GoF said: "But I was willing to embrace mortal
life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower 
 I
would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." I
figured that his 'old strength' 'back again' meant all his other
magical powers.

I am not as certain as you that the Stone wouldn't give him a body, a
body sufficiently similar to his own. The Stone is more powerful than
a hunk of meat, an old bone, and a vial of blood.

Red Eye Randy wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2832 :

<< ( who is quite amazed that anyone actually reads some
of his posts) >>

Well, of course, I read all your posts. Some are utterly excellent.

Red Eye Randy wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2834 :

<< This link shows you the Irish origins of many of the characters in
Harry Potter. My favorite is Arthur Weasley, the "Red Haired Man" and
"Will of the Wisps" are similar to that clock of Mrs. Weasley. I think
you will see resemblances to Veelas, Thestrals, the Dementor's Kiss,
and the description of the Cave in Book 6.
http://www.irishfestivals.net/symbols.htm >>

I wish you had listed Their Word <==> HP object. Nonetheless, I went
to their site and looked up words and I can't even tell which Irish
myths you think relate to "Veelas, Thestrals, the Dementor's Kiss, and
the description of the Cave in Book 6." Veela -> The Leeanan Sidh? The
Demon Bride? Thestrals -> the Pooka in horse form? But the Thestrals'
hooves aren't on backwards, and when the kids ride them, they don't
gallop into the depths of the sea until the kids drown. Dementor's
Kiss -> The Demon Bride's kiss? The book 6 cave -> the Burren? You
left out the Grogoch's similarities to House Elves, Brownies, and all
the similar folklore beings.

I got the impression that site prettied up Ireland. For example, Wills
o' the Whisp. I already know about Will o' Whisps -- they are marsh
lights that lead night travellers astray so they get stuck and drowned
in swamps (therefore used metaphorically for splendid erroneous
theories devoutly embraced, such as by HP theorists). They are what
the Potter oeuvre calls Hinkypunks, the latter a word I first learned
from Potter. That website says: "The Will-O'-The-Wisps, or fairy
lights, are quiet and helpful. They appear in the misty Irish
mountains to help searchers to locate someone lost in a ravine or
drowned in a rocky pool."

Veelas are a very Real Life part of Slavic myth; the part of their
story in which a Veela compelled to marry the mortal man who stole her
swan skin, and keep his house and bear his children, but if she ever
gets access to her swan skin, she grabs it and flies away, has always
reminded me and Tim of the traditional Selkie stories (and some
listies of Hagrid's mum), but the part in which men who go into the
woods by night see them dancing as amazingly beautiful women and are
seduced into at least being danced to death if not left stuck to a
tree to starve to death, etc, seems to me like stories mothers and
wives make up to try to discourage their sons and husbands from
cheating on them.






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 23:09:13 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:09:13 -0000
Subject: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <ddltu0+ki98@...>
Message-ID: <ddluip+616u@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at j...> wrote:

<< Well, I had speculated that the potions book was a horcrux 
before I finished Book 6.  It is interesting how the book almost 
got Harry to kill Draco, but still, I tend now to think the book 
isn't a Horcrux. If it were a horcrux, wouldn't Hermione's "specialis
revelio" spell have shown it was enchanted? >>

I thought there was some revelation to be made about why the book had
such powers of attracting Harry to trust it and tempting him to use
its spells without even knowing what they did.

It *did* obey Hermione's specialis revelio spell by falling open to
the inscription "This book belongs to the Half-Blood Prince." We may
not yet know the entire meaning of that inscription. 

However, if it was just that Snape had owned the book and written at
least the hexes in it and possibly also the potion recipe notes, the
book is not a Snape Horcrux -- Snape has no Horcruces as his eyes
never turn red.

But could the Half-Blood Prince still have been another entity that
possessed Snape and tried to possess Harry?





From SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 13 23:44:59 2005
From: SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid (songbird3411)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:44:59 -0000
Subject: Source of  Lily is Isis the mother of Horus
In-Reply-To: <ddlodb+gq8d@...>
Message-ID: <ddm0lr+ircc@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Nora <nrenka at y...> wrote:

>> So, who's Osiris in this setup?  James?  Nah, JKR only seems to be 
going the incest route with the Gaunts (and maybe some of the Blacks). 
Ever the problem with readings of mythological correspondences on the 
grand scale--everyone goes for the things that fit and ignores as 
detail the things that don't. :)<<

Well, as someone who has taken a fair few classes in Egyptology, I 
suppose I am qualified to comment here.  Egyptian religion and 
mythology is the very definition of a complex topic.  The pantheon was 
never truly defined.  The relationships between the Gods shifted and 
changed with the times.  Each dynasty changed the relationships and 
stories to fit with current events or ideology.

These Horus/Isis/Osiris/Set myths are some of the oldest in 
mythology.  (And Randy managed to pull the tamest versions of them.)  
However, the version Randy is quoting isn't even the most popular of 
the bunch.  In the (supposed) original version, it is Isis who 
reassembles Osiris.  In that version Horus is not even yet born.  
Also, I must point out that in Egyptian myth Seth wasn't even always 
the bad guy.  Some of the dynasties even took his name as the root of 
their dynasty.  Some pharoahs were named for him.  (See: Seti I, 
father of Ramses II)  Also, Seth wasn't always depicted as a serpent.  
Sometimes he was the god depicted as a lion.  I believe that will give 
you a taste of how complex Egyptian myth can get.

Anyway, before I start sounding like an Egyptology geek (though I 
truly am one), I needed to point out that if one was searching for a 
theme or idea in Egyptian mythology, it wouldn't be difficult to 
find.  I imagine just about every version of every kind of myth can be 
found with some God or other playing the lead.  

If JKR is using Egyptian myth as a basis for HP, she is a braver woman 
than I.  There is just a lot of *stuff* to slog through to find what 
you are looking for.  I am fairly well versed in it, but it still 
wouldn't be the place I would first look for HP comparisons.

Sorry if it sounds like I put a damper on Randy's posts.  I prefer the 
original myths, so I tend to see Isis as the one who reassembled 
Osiris, not Horus.  Although, the eye of Horus myths can certainly fit 
some aspects of HP, I will admit.  Something to think about.

Mindy






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 00:49:39 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Horcrux thriller
In-Reply-To: <ddluip+616u@...>
Message-ID: <20050814004939.42049.qmail@...>



--- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy"
> <judy at j...> wrote:
> 
> << Well, I had speculated that the potions book was
> a horcrux 
> before I finished Book 6.  It is interesting how the
> book almost 
> got Harry to kill Draco, but 

snip

> However, if it was just that Snape had owned the
> book and written at
> least the hexes in it and possibly also the potion
> recipe notes, the
> book is not a Snape Horcrux -- Snape has no
> Horcruces as his eyes
> never turn red.
> 
> But could the Half-Blood Prince still have been
> another entity that
> possessed Snape and tried to possess Harry?

My thoughts on this subject were that Snape got the
book second hand also.  I wonder if Snape's mom also
got it second hand and gave it to him.  Perhaps she
was led astray by a charming boy who first owned the
book.  Tom Riddle.

Red <0> Randy



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 01:11:43 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Source of  Lily is Isis the mother of Horus
In-Reply-To: <ddm0lr+ircc@...>
Message-ID: <20050814011143.46535.qmail@...>


 --- songbird3411 <SongBird3411 at ...> wrote:

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Nora
> <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> >> So, who's Osiris in this setup?  James?  Nah, JKR
> only seems to be 
> going the incest route with the Gaunts (and maybe
> some of the Blacks). 
> Ever the problem with readings of mythological
> correspondences on the 
> grand scale--everyone goes for the things that fit
> and ignores as 
> detail the things that don't. :)<<

Randy ponders...

I also think that even Professor Trelawney could
predict that including incestual relations for Harry's
parents would not sell very well in the children's
book market.

> Well, as someone who has taken a fair few classes in
> Egyptology, I 
> suppose I am qualified to comment here.  Egyptian
> religion and 
> mythology is the very definition of a complex topic.
>  The pantheon was 
> never truly defined.  The relationships between the
> Gods shifted and 
> changed with the times.  Each dynasty changed the
> relationships and 
> stories to fit with current events or ideology.
> 
> These Horus/Isis/Osiris/Set myths are some of the
> oldest in 
> mythology.  (And Randy managed to pull the tamest
> versions of them.)  
> However, the version Randy is quoting isn't even the
> most popular of 
> the bunch.  In the (supposed) original version, it
> is Isis who 
> reassembles Osiris.  In that version Horus is not
> even yet born.  
> Also, I must point out that in Egyptian myth Seth
> wasn't even always 
> the bad guy.  Some of the dynasties even took his
> name as the root of 
> their dynasty.  Some pharoahs were named for him. 
> (See: Seti I, 
> father of Ramses II)  Also, Seth wasn't always
> depicted as a serpent.  
> Sometimes he was the god depicted as a lion.  I
> believe that will give 
> you a taste of how complex Egyptian myth can get.
> 
> Anyway, before I start sounding like an Egyptology
> geek (though I 
> truly am one), I needed to point out that if one was
> searching for a 
> theme or idea in Egyptian mythology, it wouldn't be
> difficult to 
> find.  I imagine just about every version of every
> kind of myth can be 
> found with some God or other playing the lead.  
> 
> If JKR is using Egyptian myth as a basis for HP, she
> is a braver woman 
> than I.  There is just a lot of *stuff* to slog
> through to find what 
> you are looking for.  I am fairly well versed in it,
> but it still 
> wouldn't be the place I would first look for HP
> comparisons.
> 
> Sorry if it sounds like I put a damper on Randy's
> posts.  I prefer the 
> original myths, so I tend to see Isis as the one who
> reassembled 
> Osiris, not Horus.  Although, the eye of Horus myths
> can certainly fit 
> some aspects of HP, I will admit.  Something to
> think about.
> 
> Mindy
> 

Randy replies:

You know I still like this theory, and this evening I
discovered that someone else figured it out last year.
They claim that it is the same story being rewritten
throughout history.  One version is King Arthur which
leads to the Merlin (Dumbledore) connection.  I think
the basis of the story being derived from a well known
myth does not prevent the author from making the story
"her own" by changing the characters around.  


see the link:

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-michelle02.shtml

 The Horus myth is definitely the origin of the
Phoenix bird story.  I don't think anyone can say that
the Phoenix is not a key element of this series.

The analogy is that the solar eclipse has a moment
when the moon covers the sun and only small amounts of
light protrude around the edges.  This light takes the
shape of wings which led to the idea of a flaming sun
bird that is reborn from the ashes as the eclipse is
completed.  To see the picture look at the following
link.  I keep seeing the golden snitch!

http://wingedeyesymbol.homestead.com/

RER



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 01:22:49 2005
From: SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid (songbird3411)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:22:49 -0000
Subject: Source of  Lily is Isis the mother of Horus
In-Reply-To: <20050814011143.46535.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddm6d9+707u@...>

Randy replies:
 
>> You know I still like this theory, and this evening I discovered 
that someone else figured it out last year. [snip]

 http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-michelle02.shtml

 The Horus myth is definitely the origin of the Phoenix bird story.  I 
don't think anyone can say that the Phoenix is not a key element of 
this series. [snip again]<<

Now Mindy:

You know, Randy, I would love to talk to you about this off list.  
Heaven knows, I am willing to babble about Egyptian myth until the cows 
come home.  What I meant to say in my previous post, and stupidly 
forgot, is that I am not quite sure which versions of the myths you are 
referring to.  The dismemberment of Osiris is one of the most popular, 
but I can't make that work with anything in HP.  The fight between 
Horus and Set is a more likely candidate.  However, clearly the version 
of the tale I favor is not the one you are working with.  

So, would you be willing to email me your theory as well as which 
version of the myth you are working with?  

Mindy








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 01:24:23 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] re: F&G->minors / Draco's HoG / Voldemort & the Stone / that Irish Folklore site
In-Reply-To: <ddlu26+d2pt@...>
Message-ID: <20050814012424.67253.qmail@...>



--- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:

GIANT SNIP 
> Red Eye Randy wrote in
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2834
> :
> 
> << This link shows you the Irish origins of many of
> the characters in
> Harry Potter. My favorite is Arthur Weasley, the
> "Red Haired Man" and
> "Will of the Wisps" are similar to that clock of
> Mrs. Weasley. I think
> you will see resemblances to Veelas, Thestrals, the
> Dementor's Kiss,
> and the description of the Cave in Book 6.
> http://www.irishfestivals.net/symbols.htm >>
> 
> I wish you had listed Their Word <==> HP object.
> Nonetheless, I went
> to their site and looked up words and I can't even
> tell which Irish
> myths you think relate to "Veelas, Thestrals, the
> Dementor's Kiss, and
> the description of the Cave in Book 6." Veela -> The
> Leeanan Sidh? The
> Demon Bride? Thestrals -> the Pooka in horse form?
> But the Thestrals'
> hooves aren't on backwards, and when the kids ride
> them, they don't
> gallop into the depths of the sea until the kids
> drown. Dementor's
> Kiss -> The Demon Bride's kiss? The book 6 cave ->
> the Burren? You
> left out the Grogoch's similarities to House Elves,
> Brownies, and all
> the similar folklore beings.
>
 
I am so sorry about that says Randy sheepishly....

 http://www.irishfestivals.net/symbols.htm 

My take was:

Leanhaun Shee = Veela
Pooka = Thestral
Will o Wisp = the Clock
Red Haired Man = Arthur Weasley
Demon Bride's kiss = Dementor's Kiss
Burren = The Cave with hidden water

I now wonder if Lily's scream does not resemble the
cry of the Banshee since her husband died and her son
was just a lightning bolt away from death.

Red <o>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 02:29:57 2005
From: azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid (Sharon)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:29:57 -0000
Subject: Intro Profile
Message-ID: <ddmab5+7c4e@...>

***Name:
Sharon

***Nicknames/IDs:
azriona

***Age:
29 next month

***Family:
One husband, and temporary foster parent to two cats

***Home
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

***Birthday, Place of Birth:
15 September, California

***Education/Job/Role in Life etc:
BA in Theatre/Photography; Housewife (mwahahahaha)

***Other things we might want to know about you:
I'm in Kyrgyzstan for the next year; my husband works for the US 
Embassy here.  (No, he cannot get you a visa.)  I went to the HP 
Convention Alley last year where I co-presented a paper on Peter 
Pettigrew - I'm not the most die-hard fan of his, but I do firmly 
believe that he is not all he seems to be, and I get rather upset 
when people dismiss him or write him off as pure evil.

***First contact with Harry Potter:
My boss's daughter had read the books, loved them, and lent them all 
to us.  I read the first one in five days on the bus to and from work.

***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets
d'Art, general enthusing):
I have a thing for HP Lego, actually.  I also own a really awesome HP 
matroshka doll.  (Those are the Russian kind that stack inside each 
other.)

***Extent of Potter obsession:
Well, I did go to a convention in another country where I did a 
presentation...and there's a rumor around the embassy that my curio 
cabinet is full of HP things.  I also bribed a new embassy member to 
hand-carry the sixth book for me last month, so I wouldn't have to 
wait the month it would have otherwise taken.  (I got it one week 
after its release, at 9pm that Friday, and read straight through to 
8am the following day, with a four hour nap.)  Oh, and my current 
cross-stitch project is Harry and the Mirror of Erised; I estimate 
it'll take me about 3 years to finish.

***Other interests/activities:
Cooking, baking, writing, reading, photography, cross-stitch, seeing 
as much of Kyrgyzstan as I can while we're here.  Oh, and serious 
research into Britain during 1935-1948.

***Current/recent reading:
The Last Escape: The Untold Story of Allied Prisoners of War in 
Germany 1944-45 by John Nichol and Tony Rennell

***Current/recent listening:
Kyrgyz radio is excellent.  A typical playlist goes as follows: Billy 
Joel, Russian pop, Turkish pop, Ghostbusters theme song, Kyrgyz folk 
music, Britney Spears, ABBA, Elvis, Russian pop, Russian torch song, 
weird European techno (currrently the "crazy frog" song, if anyone 
knows it...)

***Current/recent viewing:
I just got Seasons 1-4 of the BBC version of "Coupling", so I'm going 
through that episode by episode.  Is much fun, but the husband 
doesn't like it (he's odd), so we spent last night watching "The 
Natural", and then the tail end of "The Truman Show".


Not sure who invited me, but thanks - I'm looking forward to some 
good discussions.

--az





From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 03:31:18 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 03:31:18 -0000
Subject: Intro Profile
In-Reply-To: <ddmab5+7c4e@...>
Message-ID: <ddmdu6+ce2d@...>

"Sharon" <azriona at j...> wrote:...

Hi, Sharon! Welcome to TOC. You used to be on HPfGU, didn't you?  I 
remember the name "Azriona".

Are you ethnically Kyrgyz?  Or, were your parents Westerners who 
happened to live in Kyrgyzstan when you were born?  (Either way, your 
English is excellent.)

-- Judy, born in boring New York State








From azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 03:44:58 2005
From: azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid (Sharon)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 03:44:58 -0000
Subject: Intro Profile
In-Reply-To: <ddmdu6+ce2d@...>
Message-ID: <ddmenq+qm4l@...>

Judy,

Nope, I'm American, born in California.  We're only in Kyrgyzstan 
because the government told us to come here - but I'm very glad they 
did because I love it and will be sorry to leave.  Today they're 
inaugerating the new president (after the old one was ousted during 
last March's coup), so you'll likely see us on the news tonight.

I still post occassionally at HPfGU, and I'm involved in FAP as well.  
I've stopped posting at HPfGU because it seems like everytime I get 
into a discussion over there, it turns into a Peter-fest, and I'm 
getting very tired of having to constantly defend him 24-7.

And thanks about the English - I spend so much time dealing with 
Russian or with Russian-translated-into-English I think I start 
forgetting how sentences are structured in this language half the time!

--az





From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 04:14:49 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:14:49 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape store memories in the Pensieve?
Message-ID: <ddmgfp+9tjj@...>

While once again contemplating my favorite character, a new question 
occurred to me.  In Book 5, Snape stores some of his memories in 
Dumbledore's pensieve while he gives Harry Occlumency lessons, as a 
means of trying to prevent Harry from seeing them. At the time, this 
seemed to make perfect sense -- the pensieve was the only method of 
storing memories that we had seen.

However, in Book 6, we repeatedly see memories stored in bottles. So, 
why didn't Snape just bottle the memories he wanted to keep Harry 
from seeing, and stick them in his pocket?  Using the pensieve 
required borrowing it from Dumbledore, plus it turned out not to be 
secure at all. 

I can think of two possibilities why Snape might have used the 
pensieve. (Apart from "JKR needed a plot device so that Harry would 
see Snape's memory.")  One is that perhaps memories can be put *into* 
bottles, but can't then be transferred back into one's head.  Perhaps 
the only way the memories can be kept in a form suitable for re-
integration with other memories is to put them directly into the 
pensieve.  

Another possibility is that Snape doesn't know how to put his 
memories into a bottle.  This seems unlikely to me.  Slughorn did it, 
and Snape certainly seems as competent as Slughorn.  Of course, it is 
possible that Dumbledore taught Slughorn the method of putting 
memories into bottles, but didn't teach Snape.  The only reason I can 
see for Dumbledore doing that, however, is if he *wanted* the 
memories to be in the pensieve where Harry might see them -- and I 
don't think Dumbledore would trick Snape that way.


               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

While on the topic of Snape's putting memories in the Pensieve, a 
couple of other thoughts occurred to me.  Back when Book 5 first came 
out, a lot of people questioned the title of the chapter: "Snape's 
Worst Memory."  Snape, being a Death Eater, presumably has worse 
memories than being turned upside and having his mouth washed out 
with soap.  But, since I'm a big LOLLIPOPS [Snape loved Lily] 
supporter, I'm now of the opinion that this was his worst memory 
because, in his rage and humiliation, he referred to Lily as 
a "filthy little mudblood" -- and right after she had helped him, 
too.  (Others probably have mentioned this.)

Also, the first occlumency lesson shows Snape removing precisely 
three strands of memories and putting them into the pensieve. Does 
this indicate he was hiding three specific events?  If so, his 
victimization at the hand of James & Sirius is one -- what are the 
other two?  Would overhearing and revealing the prophecy be number 
two, or would that not need to be protected, since Harry hadn't known 
of the prophecy at the time of the occlumency lessons?  

If the victimization and the prophecy are in fact numbers 1 & 2, then 
number 3 would presumably be Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape, 
whatever it is. I of course favor the idea that it involves Snape 
confessing his love for Lily and begging Dumbledore to save her, 
although it kind of surprises me that this would involve just *one* 
memory -- what, Snape & Dumbledore never talked about it again?  Not 
even the day Lily died?  (Hmmm, well, knowing Snape, maybe not.)


               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

One more point on storing memories.  It was asked before whether 
memories that are put into the Pensieve or a bottle are copies 
(leaving the memory still in the person's head) or originals (thereby 
erasing the memory from the person who had it.) Clearly, it can work 
either way -- it can be "copy" or "cut", as Randy put it.  Snape is 
removing the memories that he stores in the pensieve, and Dumbledore 
talks of siphoning off excess thoughts.  Slughorn, however, must have 
given Dumbledore a (altered) *copy* of the horcrux memory, because he 
still remembered his conversation with Tom Riddle well enough to 
bottle it again for Harry.  

               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My, this is getting long.  Ok, "Snape's Worst Memory" brings me to a 
point discussed here recently.  We see only two people -- James & 
Sirius -- attack Snape. So, at the end of Book 6, why does Snape say 
that James would only attack him when it was "four against one"?  
Like Pippin, I think it was really four against one.  The point that 
Remus was a prefect was a good one, which I hadn't thought of.  Even 
without Remus being a prefect, though, I'd still see it as four 
against one.  Maybe we see Remus and Peter do nothing because, on 
that occasion, they didn't need to do anything; Snape was losing. But 
maybe they would have helped out if Snape were actually winning.  If 
Snape managed to disarm Sirius and James, wouldn't Peter or Remus at 
least hand their wands back to them? Without anyone to help Snape 
that way, he would be at a major disadvantage. 

-- Judy, who somehow can write thousands of words here in the amount 
of time it takes her to write a few sentences of her book





From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 04:18:44 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:18:44 -0000
Subject: Intro Profile
In-Reply-To: <ddmenq+qm4l@...>
Message-ID: <ddmgn4+pg8m@...>

Sharon wrote:
> Nope, I'm American, born in California.  We're only in Kyrgyzstan 
> because the government told us to come here - but I'm very glad
they 
> did because I love it and will be sorry to leave.  

Ooops, I somehow transposed
>>***Home
>>Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
>>***Birthday, Place of Birth:
>>15 September, California
...into Kyrgyzstan being both your place of birth & your current
home. 

Central Asia sounds fascinating, though.  Do you have pictures you
can 
post?

-- Judy, hoping to read more carefully next time








From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 10:13:28 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:13:28 -0000
Subject: Intro Profile
In-Reply-To: <ddmab5+7c4e@...>
Message-ID: <ddn5g8+3fph@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Sharon" <azriona at j...> wrote:
> 
> ***Other things we might want to know about you:
> I'm in Kyrgyzstan for the next year; my husband works for the US 
> Embassy here.  (No, he cannot get you a visa.)  I went to the HP 
> Convention Alley last year where I co-presented a paper on Peter 
> Pettigrew - I'm not the most die-hard fan of his, but I do firmly 
> believe that he is not all he seems to be, and I get rather upset 
> when people dismiss him or write him off as pure evil.
> 
> Not sure who invited me, but thanks - I'm looking forward to some 
> good discussions.
> 
> --az

>I still post occassionally at HPfGU, and I'm involved in FAP as well.
>I've stopped posting at HPfGU because it seems like everytime I get
>into a discussion over there, it turns into a Peter-fest, and I'm
>getting very tired of having to constantly defend him 24-7.

Carolyn:
Hah, gotcha second time round! Noticed you were posting again on main 
and hoped to snare you for this forum.

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to Sharon's paper:

www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew

(See left-hand margin). I thought it was so good that it inspired me 
to write my longest-ever post, comparing conspiracy theories:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115794

Frankly, I think Pettigrew's behaviour in HBP only strengthens the 
case that he is pawn being manipulated by stronger players. Weak, 
culpable, certainly, but of what..? 

Sharon, let's go back to it some time, but not right now. The 
discussion's quieter and much higher quality here than main. Maybe 
we'll get light rather than heat. With the catalogue resources, I am 
working on an updated list of sunk/non-sunk theories.

Cheers, really good to see you..

Carolyn





From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 11:33:13 2005
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:33:13 +0200
Subject: Introduction
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814133252.01fb29f0@...>

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the kind invitation.

Fast resume:

Name: Troels Forchhamer
Age: 38 (changes once a year, though it occasionally feels as more <G>)
Family status: Married, father of four children aged 6 through 14.
Education: Physics (M.Sc.) and Computer Science (B.Sc.)
Work: R&D on mobile phone testing for Nokia
Hobbies (aside Potter): Scouting, Tolkien, Roleplaying . . .

My usual Potter-related haunt is the newsgroup alt.fan.harry-potter, but I 
need a more quiet retreat at times ;-)


Those who attended Accio will no doubt know my position regarding the 
former Potions master and present evil git ;-)
That hasn't changed -- he may be loyal to Voldemort or working for himself, 
but he is evil through and through in any circumstances.  Those who can 
delude themselves to believe he is loyal to Dumbledore are, I'm convinced, 
merely repeating and perpetuating Dumbledore's mistake -- sometimes 
intelligence does that to people >:->

I put this in here, not to insult people, but to explain a priori why I am 
loath to join discussions of Mr Snape in general, though I might comment on 
interpretation of specific (non-essential) issues. Sorry, but I know my own 
temper well enough to stay clear of inflammable subjects :-/



Apart from that?

Well, I do have this thing about time and numbers, which Rowling 
unfortunately doesn't ;-)  I'm a bit strange in that respect -- once I 
realise that 'this cannot be', I need to investigate it in every possible 
detail, convincing myself beyond any reasonable doubt that it doesn't make 
sense, and then I can read on, happily ignoring the inconsistencies (after 
all, now I /know/ it's inconsistent). It's perfectly OK to laugh -- I know 
it's foolish, but I can't help it.

I do run the FAQ section for AFH-P, which, though terribly outdated, is 
located here:
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/library/ref/>


It's better, I think, to stop here for the first post -- you may get to 
hear more from me than you'd prefer ;-)

Once again, thank you for the kindness of inviting me here.

Warm regards,
Troels 




From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 12:47:57 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:47:57 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <ddl1ck+176b@...>
Message-ID: <ddneht+ae72@...>

Randy wrote:
> While scanning the globe via internet, I perused eqyptian mythology 
> sites for clues to Harry Potter concepts.  I stumbled across 
> something that resembles the horcrux theory.  I think it gives the 
> formula for reassembling the soul after dividing into 6 horcruxes.  
<snip>
> http://www.egyptianmyths.net/udjat.htm
> 
> The math formula for adding the 6 parts does not quite equal one.  
> This would imply that you are not quite whole when you finish.  
<snip>

Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered 
whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this 
be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a 
series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is 
not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional 
*something* that must be found to complete the undoing. 

I like it. Perhaps that's what Snape's up to.

Dungrollin





From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 14:52:48 2005
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:52:48 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <ddneht+ae72@...>
References: <ddl1ck+176b@...>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>

At 12:47 14-08-05 +0000, dungrollin wrote:

>Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered
>whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this
>be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a
>series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is
>not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional
>*something* that must be found to complete the undoing.

On the other hand, in traditional folk-lore, you kill or crush all the 
parts containing the soul and that kills the baddie:

     In a Tartar poem two youths cut open the body of an old witch
     and tear out her bowels, but all to no purpose, she still lives.
     On being asked where her soul is, she answers that it is in the
     middle of her shoe-sole in the form of a seven-headed speckled
     snake. So one of the youths slices her shoe-sole with his sword,
     takes out the speckled snake, and cuts off its seven heads. Then
     the witch dies. Another Tartar poem describes how the hero
     Kartaga grappled with the Swan-woman. Long they wrestled. Moons
     waxed and waned and still they wrestled; years came and went, and
     still the struggle went on. But the piebald horse and the black
     horse knew that the Swan-woman's soul was not in her. Under the
     black earth flow nine seas; where the seas meet and form one, the
     sea comes to the surface of the earth. At the mouth of the nine
     seas rises a rock of copper; it rises to the surface of the
     ground, it rises up between heaven and earth, this rock of copper.
     At the foot of the copper rock is a black chest, in the black
     chest is a golden casket, and in the golden casket is the soul of
     the Swan-woman. Seven little birds are the soul of the Swan-woman;
     if the birds are killed the Swan-woman will die straightway. So
     the horses ran to the foot of the copper rock, opened the black
     chest, and brought back the golden casket. Then the piebald horse
     turned himself into a bald-headed man, opened the golden casket,
     and cut off the heads of the seven birds. So the Swan-woman died.
<http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb06600.htm>

The normal version of these tales have the soul located only in one place 
-- very often an egg.

One very interesting difference between the normal folk-tales and Rowling's 
use of the Horcruxes is that Rowling has one fragment remain in the body. 
Traditionally the body is vacated, but still controlled, by the soul that 
has been hidden away in a (supposedly) safe place, and the body becomes 
invulnerable and immortal. It is almost as if leaving the last fragment of 
the soul in the body makes the body vulnerable while the Horcruxes make the 
/soul/ immortal.

There is a strong sense in Rowling's books that the sum of a union is 
stronger than the sum of the consituents, but with respect to the 
Horcruxes, I think that we are seeing the reverse. The sum of the split-up 
soul is less than the sum of the whole (united) soul -- divided he falls!

Troels 




From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 15:50:17 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:50:17 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
Message-ID: <ddnp7p+qqh2@...>

Troels:
> On the other hand, in traditional folk-lore, you kill or crush all 
the 
> parts containing the soul and that kills the baddie:

Ginger:
Welcome Troels, and thanks for the interesting reading.

The thought hit me, though, in the Potterverse why not get the 
Horcruces, toss them to a dementor and let *it* suck the soul out of 
them?

I know, too easy.

Ginger, who can't play the oboe.






From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 18:25:18 2005
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:25:18 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <ddnp7p+qqh2@...>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814202122.01fe7710@...>

At 15:50 14-08-05 +0000, quigonginger wrote:
>Troels:
> > On the other hand, in traditional folk-lore, you kill or crush all
> > the parts containing the soul and that kills the baddie:
>
>Ginger:
>Welcome Troels, and thanks for the interesting reading.

Thank you ;-)

>The thought hit me, though, in the Potterverse why not get the
>Horcruces, toss them to a dementor and let *it* suck the soul out of
>them?
>
>I know, too easy.

A bit more seriously, though, the Dementors would probably find it 'stale 
food' -- they appear to prefer happiness as the best flavour for them, and 
I suspect that the Hurcrux soul-fragment is too mutilated, tormented and 
tarnished for their delicate palates . . .

And of course it would be too easy ;-)

Troels




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 19:36:55 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:36:55 -0000
Subject: F&G->minors / Draco's HoG / Voldemort & the Stone / that Irish Folklore site
In-Reply-To: <ddlu26+d2pt@...>
Message-ID: <ddo6gn+f387@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at w...> > 
> I assume(d) that he would get all his innate powers back by getting
> his body back -- that is, getting a body sufficiently similar to his
> own. The only non-innate power I know he had was immortality, and his
> graveyard speech in GoF said: "But I was willing to embrace mortal
> life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower 
 I
> would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." I
> figured that his 'old strength' 'back again' meant all his other
> magical powers.
> 
> I am not as certain as you that the Stone wouldn't give him a body, a
> body sufficiently similar to his own. The Stone is more powerful than
> a hunk of meat, an old bone, and a vial of blood.
> 


Quick post at the end of the day's play at Old Trafford -

Depends on what one means by 'powerful'.
It isn't a spell, it's the base for a potion.

So far as has yet been revealed in canon, the Stone has one power, one
function - to extend life, indefinitely if one keeps swigging the potion. 
So far as we know, a Fountain of Youth it ain't, nor yet a constructor
of off-the-rack corpuses. If it were I'd think it'd be viewed as some type
of Dark Magic - eternal life plus eternal youth - obviously a no-no, a
temptation for the unthinking. 

Similar real life circumstances loom over my personal horizons - I'm
already a good deal older than one would be expected to live 100 years
ago, and I trust there's a decade or two still to come - but those extra
decades will be in the seventies and eighties, and be rife with aches,
pains and bloody-mindedness. (That last is something to look forward 
to; I'll cast my jaundiced eye over the younger generations and tell them
exactly where they are going wrong.) 

Maybe the best that getting Stoned can achieve is to remain the same
physical age that one had when supping from the cup, stopping  the
clock but not reversing it. If it did have the power to make one youthful
it'd be a mite embarassing if one swallowed a smidgeon too much.... 
Must factor in a bit of human psychology too - living to a great age
can be regarded as admirable - staying young while doing so is likely
to piss off the contemporaries of the lucky bugger who owns the Stone.
Envy is such a nasty emotion, don't you think? 

Mind you, it's quite possible that Jo is cheating again. Perhaps she reads 
Rider Haggard in addition to Aggie Christie.

Kneasy







From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 20:44:18 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape trial:  is there a transcript?
In-Reply-To: <000301c5a04f$0bd69540$0200a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <20050814204418.29275.qmail@...>

BTW,  all weekend I have been feeling guilty because
described certain aspects of the trial in an less than
positive way and forgot to say that it ... was a lot
of fun!  I was just trying to say that ... don't make
too, too, much of the "not guilty" finding.  

On an aside, the expert witness and I had some
disagreement at the round table discussion on
psychoanalytic theory and HP.  She maintained that
Snape falls into a category of high-functioning
Antisocial Personality Disorder, while I disagree.  I
feel that he exhibits sadistic characteristics,  but I
do not feel that he meets criteria for APD.  

Peace,

-Dubya

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 14 23:09:15 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:09:15 -0000
Subject: Horus = Harpocrates = Heru-pa-kehered = Harry Potter
Message-ID: <ddoiur+9p1s@...>

Harry Pocrates? Harry Pakherd?  Harry Potter?

The number of coincidences is growing...

Harpocrates:

"The infant was the younger Horus, who in his youth bore the name of 
Harpocrates, that is, the child Horus."

"Heru-pa-khered (G/R Harpocrates) - "Heru the Child" A specific form 
of Heru-sa-Aset as a youngster, written about profusely during the 
Greco-Roman periods, Heru-pa-Khered is depicted as a child holding 
one finger to his mouth..." 

Harry must stay at the Dursley's for protection until he is of age.


"late myths describe Heru-pa-Khered as being both physically weak 
and incapable of protecting himself, relying upon the power of His 
mother Aset to protect Him until His manhood."

 
Harry has the green eyes of Horus:

"Meaning: In ancient Egypt, color was an integral part of the 
substance and being of everything in life. The color of something 
was a clue to the substance or heart of the matter. 

The color green (wadj) was the color of vegetation and new life. To 
do "green things" was slang for beneficial, life-producing behavior. 

 The Eye of Horus amulet was commonly made of green stone as well."


Voldemort = Seth (or Set) pursues Horus (Harry):

"Seth, the god who stood at the prow of the sun's barque and slew 
the serpent Apep daily, had red eyes and hair. 

Red was also a symbol of anger and fire. A person who acted "with a 
red heart" was filled with rage. "To redden" meant "to die". 

 His red coloration could take on the meaning of evil or victory 
depending on the context in which he is portrayed. Red was commonly 
used to symbolize the fiery nature of the radiant sun and serpent 
amulets representing the "Eye of Re" (the fiery, protective, and 
possibly malevolent aspect of the sun) were made of red stones."

Isis (Lily) protects Horus from Seth with the help of Anubis, a 
black guard dog (Sirius):

"In ancient Egypt, black (kem) was a symbol of death and of the 
night. Anubis, the god of embalming was shown as a black jackal or 
dog, even though real jackals and dogs are typically brown."

To find these quotes use the internet to search for Eye of Horus, or 
Seth myth, or Anubis myth....

In one of these stories, Seth lost his privates, so it's no wonder 
that he is pissed off!

Red <0> Randy







From sherriola at ...  Sun Aug 14 23:16:58 2005
From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:16:58 -0700
Subject: Sherry' intro and profile
In-Reply-To: <ddmab5+7c4e@...>
Message-ID: <004201c5a126$46081090$3421f204@pensive>


***Name:
Sherry 

***Nicknames/IDs:
My yahoo profile and email name and username everywhere is Sherriola.  it
was one of my dad's nicknames for me.  One of the last thing he was trying
to do before he got sick with cancer was to try to find me computer training
that would encompass office programs and access technology.  So, when I
finally got the training, I decided to use his nickname for my email name.
and lo and behold, i've never run into another sherriola, so it's been a
great choice!

***Age:
40 something

***Family:
one black lab guide dog named Bianca, and a cat named Luis.  lots of
siblings, nieces and nephews, too!

***Home
Redmond, Washington

***Birthday, Place of Birth:
October 22, San Jose, California

***Education/Job/Role in Life etc:
administrative assistant, computer instructor for blind adults, writer

***Other things we might want to know about you:
Let's see ... hmmm.  well, a couple years ago, I started college for the
first time in my 40's!  i do it hit and miss because working full time and
school can e tough, but online classes makes it easier.  i love studying
anything.  Would like to visit New York City, Alaska and Europe!  

***First contact with Harry Potter:
A friend of mine asked me to read the first book with him, when it was
suggested to him by a friend who was a school librarian.  We read the
National library Service for the blind's cassette version.  Well, i had been
skeptical at first.  I said something like, "why would I want to read a book
called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone?"  The joke was on me, because
I am the one who became totally head over heels hooked! From the very first
sentence of the very first paragraph.

***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets
d'Art, general enthusing):
mostly, I love the books!  i have mixed feelings about the movies, didn't
like the 3rd one.  A friend hooked me on fan fiction a few months ago.  I
particularly like fics by Katling on Fiction alley,but also liked Resonance
in which Snape adopts Harry after Sirius' death.  sigh.  that one was hard
to finish recently.  i don't collect toys or anything like that.  I do have
a Hedwig stuffed animal, and though I can't see it, I'd like to have a
poster from the first movie with the boats arriving at Hogwarts.

***Extent of Potter obsession:
I own every version of the books I can--commercial audio read by Jim dale
text versions that have been scanned into computers, braille (OOTP is in 13
volumes) and web braille which is a digital braille file a blind person can
read on special note taking devices.  Someday, if I ever get a scanner of my
own, I will also buy the print books.  I'd like to get the UK audio versions
as well someday.  As for other obsessions, well, i am definitely not a night
owl and usually go to bed between 9 and 10 at night, but for the last two
books, I preordered and went to a midnight release party to be with the rest
of the crowd to get my book, took it home and read till nearly dawn.  That
was a true testimony of my addiction, because there's not much else that can
get me to stay up all night!  I'd rather sleep than eat.  LOL.

***Other interests/activities:
reading--almost anything from children's lit to science, history, mystery,
fantasy, sci fi, and everything in between-writing, shopping, movies,
spending time with friends, travel, listening to music, singing 


***Current/recent reading:
Time and Again by Jack Finney

***Current/recent listening:
currently listening to XM radio, a country station playing the top 40
country songs from 1950 to 2004.  But also like rock, Beatles, classical,
standards such as Sinatra, show tunes, jazz, blues

***Current/recent viewing:
Tried watching the Butterfly Effect a few weeks ago but absolutely couldn't
follow it!  Think it was too visual.  Before that, Master and Commander and
Second Hand Lions. Don't like TV much, but did go online for some NASA TV
for the shuttle mission.



I think Kneasy invited me.  Thanks so much!  I've already really enjoyed the
posts I've read. recognize several names here.  It's great to be a part of
it.

Sherry




From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 01:21:21 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:21:21 -0000
Subject: Sherry' intro and profile
In-Reply-To: <004201c5a126$46081090$3421f204@pensive>
Message-ID: <ddoqmh+tl63@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at e...> wrote:
> 
> > ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc:
> administrative assistant, computer instructor for blind adults, writer
> 

Welcome Sherry. In an earlier life I worked at the Western Blind Rehabilitation Center in 
Palo Alto where I devised new nonvisual tests of spatial abilities and provided 
neuropsychological assessments and consultation to the rehab staff, including the 
computer folks. One of the most stimulating and enjoyable places I've plied my wares. 
> 
> I think Kneasy invited me.  Thanks so much!  I've already really enjoyed the
> posts I've read. recognize several names here.  It's great to be a part of
> it.
> 
If Kneasy invited you, then we can "expect great things" --rabble rousing, but great!

Glad to have you on board,

Lyn





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 02:18:53 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:18:53 -0000
Subject: four against one / LV's Stone body
Message-ID: <ddou2d+as86@...>

I suppose everyone immediately noticed that Galpalott (who has at
least three laws) is gulp-a-lott, often not such a wise thing to do
with poisons. 

Judy Serenity wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2883 :

<< Ok, "Snape's Worst Memory" brings me to a
point discussed here recently. We see only two people -- James &
Sirius -- attack Snape. So, at the end of Book 6, why does Snape say
that James would only attack him when it was "four against one"?
Like Pippin, I think it was really four against one. The point that
Remus was a prefect was a good one, which I hadn't thought of. Even
without Remus being a prefect, though, I'd still see it as four
against one. Maybe we see Remus and Peter do nothing because, on
that occasion, they didn't need to do anything; Snape was losing. But
maybe they would have helped out if Snape were actually winning. If
Snape managed to disarm Sirius and James, wouldn't Peter or Remus at
least hand their wands back to them? Without anyone to help Snape
that way, he would be at a major disadvantage. >>

Peter would have been glad to hand James or Sirius back their wand --
he would have been overjoyed with pride at being able to help his
heroes.

Remus was already having a crisis of conscience (shown by the frowny
line between his eyes, not by him taking action) over not doing
anything to stop James and Sirius from misbehaving when he KNEW that
it was his responsibility as a prefect, if not as a human being.
Surely it would give him a much greater crisis of conscience to
actively help his wrong-doers than to merely passively not stop them?

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2891 :

<< So far as has yet been revealed in canon, the Stone has one power,
one function - to extend life, indefinitely if one keeps swigging the
potion. >>

I have only an irrelevant nitpick: canon also says the Stone turns
things into gold: "As much life and gold as you want!" 






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 03:56:56 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:56:56 -0000
Subject: four against one / LV's Stone body
In-Reply-To: <ddou2d+as86@...>
Message-ID: <ddp3q8+g64d@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> Remus was already having a crisis of conscience (shown by the frowny
> line between his eyes, not by him taking action) over not doing
> anything to stop James and Sirius from misbehaving when he KNEW that
> it was his responsibility as a prefect, if not as a human being.
> Surely it would give him a much greater crisis of conscience to
> actively help his wrong-doers than to merely passively not stop
them?
>

Pippin:
"But I always managed to forget my guilty feelings every time we sat
down to plan the next month's adventure. And I haven't changed..."

He was a prefect then, too. If his conscience didn't make him stop
James,Sirius and Peter from involving themselves in dangerous and 
illegal magic, and leading a werewolf into a village, if he even
helped them plan to do these things, why would he draw the line at 
helping  them find ways to torment Snape?

Pippin






From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 20:27:02 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:27:02 -0000
Subject: Introduction and greetings
Message-ID: <ddqtqm+qh29@...>

Greetings from a new member of the group, although, looking through 
the messages  a number of names with whom I have either exchanged 
posts or crossed swords is revealed(!) Here follows a part of my 
story...

I am English and grew up in Burnley, about 35 miles north-east of 
Manchester which was then a cotton town. In 1949, at the tender age 
of 9, my family migrated to South London and I lived either in 
Wandsworth or Wimbledon until 1994 when I moved to West Somerset, 
first Minehead, then Porlock, about 180 miles west of the capital.

I trained as a teacher and spent 32 years in a school in south-west 
London, teaching Maths for the entire period and running the IT 
department for the last 9 years up to taking early retirement in 1993.

A family death, and Inheritance Tax led us to sell up and move west 
the following year as mentioned above.

I married in 1971. My wife and I have three children. My eldest son, 
who is 32, is currently working part-time for a Doctorate in Theology 
at the London School of Theology and we also have a twin son and 
daughter, 30. My younger son is a computer consultant and apparently 
is a leading expert in Unix systems while my daughter has taken a 
less exalted route, having worked with horses, served behind a bar 
and is now training as a children's nurse.

I have been an evangelical Christian since the age of 21 and am a 
member of Minehead Baptist Church, having been involved in work with 
young people here and also in London for something like 35 years. We 
have just stepped down from our work with the boys' club; although I 
claim to be a 25 year old pretending to be 65 I am hoping that 
someone else will feel called to assume the mantle.

I have two border collies, who insist on taking me for an hour's walk 
twice a day and tell me that walking 4-5 miles is good for me. I am 
interested in railways, photography, LOTR, Star Trek and run a 
website about Exmoor: www.aspectsofexmoor.com which you are all 
invited to visit.

I first made the acquaintance of Harry at the end of 2002 when I saw 
the second film while on holiday in South Wales. Having then, in 
short order, having also seen the first film, I rapidly bought and 
read the books and discovered the HPFGU group in July 2003 since when 
I have posted fairly regularly.

I am not sure how much I shall post here at the moment. I think I am 
suffering a little from HBP overkill. There seem to be a large number 
of threads - certainly on HPFGU - which have been done to death, 
including those on Snape and Horcruxes so I shall watch from the 
battlements under my tin hat for the opportunity to snape (oops, 
sorry!) snipe at other contributors to the group.

If you've got this far without moving on to the next message out of 
sheer boredom, I would like to thank Potioncat for inviting me to 
join this illustrious band of ne'er-do-wells.





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 20:31:24 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:31:24 +0100
Subject: Tonks again
Message-ID: <CEB8F3D2-C2EC-4017-ADE6-621A65B5F523@...>

This is a sort of expansion of the Tonks post put up a couple of days  
after HBP publication. Done some brooding and the antennae are still  
twitching. Something smells fishy, though whether the fish in  
question is red herring or a tastier morsel presented for our  
collective delectation is not a foregone conclusion.

A fair few of the multitudes that comprise the Fandom of HP have a  
romantic bent, there's no question of that. A mention of that four  
letter word, a hint of emotional trauma and the most unlikely things  
are suddenly explained to their total satisfaction. Warts, varicose  
veins, athlete's foot, doesn't matter what it is, it can all be  
explained by a rocky relationship. In this instance it's loss of  
magical powers. Yeah, right.

Others are a bit more cynical, believing that Jo would use any ploy  
to throw fans off the scent,  even stooping so low as to pluck their  
heartstrings while surreptitiously putting the finishing touches to a  
custard pie for later application. Has the woman no shame? Not much  
when it comes to plot IMO. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that an  
emotional  set-back causing loss of magical powers has never been  
mentioned in the previous 5 books? There's been enough angst, pinings  
and mental torment to keep a regiment of counsellors fully occupied  
until their pensions are due, but nary a word  that weeping into your  
pillow stunts your wand-work. 'Scuse me - but I'm not convinced.

A Metamorphagus who can't metamorphose, an ability she was born with  
- able to produce a Patronus - but it's the wrong one - no problem  
with other spells - reversing Draino's petrification, fixing Harry's  
nose without  a hitch - seems awfully selective, this loss of powers.  
And those that are up the pictures are those that are personal to  
Tonks. Those that 'remain' are those that could be produced by any  
competent witch, indistinguishable  from what would be expected if  
someone were pretending to be Tonks.

Reasons (or spurious excuses depending on your inclinations) are  
offered, first that she's mourning for Sirius, then it's pointed out  
that she hardly knew him, then that she blames herself for his death,  
though no-one else does, and finally that she's distraught at being  
kept at arms length by Lupin. A likely tale.

Long, long ago, when the world was younger and The Beatles had just  
split, yours truly ran a hospital department staffed, save for  
myself, entirely by females. My office ajoined the microscopy room  
and for hours at a time conversations, diatribes and character  
dissections drifted to my delicate ears as 'girl-talk' proceeded  
barely interrupted by technical/clinical observations. Boy, was that  
educational. It's probably these traumatic years that scarred me  
irrevocably  and caused the transformation of a naive romantic into  
Kneasy. Correction: remove the word 'clinical' from two sentences  
back. Some of the conversations regarding boy-friends and/or husbands  
were extremely clinical. Poor Lupin. Take my advice, mate - and run  
like hell.

There were two reactions to being spurned in the Hearts Desire  
Handicap; either "Bastard! I'll show him!" or cow-eyes, the quivering  
bottom lip, love-lorn remorseful glances and a compulsion to dog the  
footsteps of the poor wretch that was the object of desire like a bad  
smell. Sometimes one'd go missing for hours, wandering the corridors   
hoping for an  'accidental' meeting that usually resulted in floods  
of tears in the lady's loo. But neither paradigm applies to Tonks.  
Very suspicious IMO.

We're expected to believe that an old-looking Auror!Tonks with dodgy  
magic is set to guard Hogwarts, and strangely enough she's the only  
Auror we see there, even though there are supposed to be three  
others. Turns up in unexpected places, too. Lurking in the background  
when Dung is .... is what? Flogging  the Black family silver? (To  
Aberforth? Anyone else have difficulty with that one?) And doing a  
bit of fortuitous 'guarding' outside the RoR. Guarding for whom, I  
wonder? Is it just  rotten luck that she's totally unable to give  
Harry any useful  information about Draino's activities?

Even her reactions in the hospital after DD's death are incongruous.  
Lupin breaks down - and she ignores him completely. This is love?  
True, she gives him a right bollocking soon afterwards, but that too  
would not be incompatible with someone who's fed up with all this  
'love-crossed lovers' crap and decides it's time to intervene. Acting  
in the way Hermione would.

Nope.
Tonks is high on the 'acting suspiciously -  investigate' list.
Just what is she hiding?

Kneasy







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 20:55:47 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <CEB8F3D2-C2EC-4017-ADE6-621A65B5F523@...>
Message-ID: <20050815205547.37499.qmail@...>

Kneasy wrote:
This is a sort of expansion of the Tonks post put up a
couple of days after HBP publication. Done some
brooding and the antennae are still twitching.
Something smells fishy, though whether the fish in  
question is red herring or a tastier morsel presented
for our collective delectation is not a foregone
conclusion.

<snip>

Those that 'remain' are those that could be produced
by any competent witch, indistinguishable  from what
would be expected if someone were pretending to be
Tonks.  

<snip>

We're expected to believe that an old-looking
Auror!Tonks with dodgy magic is set to guard Hogwarts,
and strangely enough she's the only Auror we see
there, even though there are supposed to be three
others. Turns up in unexpected places, too. 

<snip>

Nope.  Tonks is high on the 'acting suspiciously - 
investigate' list.  Just what is she hiding?


SSSusan:
Fishy, indeed, Kneasy.  And while you're
investigating, can you please add this bit of (imo)
strangeness into the mix?  

There's *some* kind of weird connection between the
Tonks we see in HBP and Draco Malfoy as well.  

1)  Draco stomps on Harry's nose and leaves him hidden
under the Invisibility Cloak.  SOMEHOW Tonks happens
by and discovers Harry.

2)  Harry is hanging out, again under the IC, near the
Room of Requirement, trying to catch Malfoy.  Who
happens to come along instead of the expected Draco? 
Tonks... with some lame excuse for her presence about
needing to see DD, who resides in a totally different
part of the castle.

3)  At some point Harry actually notices that Draco
and Tonks have a similar appearance this year -- both
looking ill and tired.  Harry, not one to notice a
whole lot about others' appearances, I wouldn't say,
actually making a connection between the appearances
of these two?

What is this connection?  Is all of it just
happenstance?  Can 1) & 2) really be explained away as
Tonks just keeping an eye on Harry?  Maybe... but
something about it all seems "off" to me.  And 3)
makes me think there is SOMETHING we're supposed to be
noticing.

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 21:05:47 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:05:47 -0000
Subject: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <20050815205547.37499.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddr03b+amek@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Susan Albrecht <susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> Fishy, indeed, Kneasy.  And while you're
> investigating, can you please add this bit of (imo)
> strangeness into the mix?  
> 
> There's *some* kind of weird connection between the
> Tonks we see in HBP and Draco Malfoy as well.  
> 
> 1)  Draco stomps on Harry's nose and leaves him hidden
> under the Invisibility Cloak.  SOMEHOW Tonks happens
> by and discovers Harry.
> 
> 2)  Harry is hanging out, again under the IC, near the
> Room of Requirement, trying to catch Malfoy.  Who
> happens to come along instead of the expected Draco? 
> Tonks... with some lame excuse for her presence about
> needing to see DD, who resides in a totally different
> part of the castle.
> 
> 3)  At some point Harry actually notices that Draco
> and Tonks have a similar appearance this year -- both
> looking ill and tired.  Harry, not one to notice a
> whole lot about others' appearances, I wouldn't say,
> actually making a connection between the appearances
> of these two?
> 
> What is this connection?  Is all of it just
> happenstance?  Can 1) & 2) really be explained away as
> Tonks just keeping an eye on Harry?  Maybe... but
> something about it all seems "off" to me.  And 3)
> makes me think there is SOMETHING we're supposed to be
> noticing.
> 

That's encouraging.
SSS, normally amongst the most trusting of souls is also donating
the icy optic to Tonks.

IIRC there have been two possibilities mentioned for Ringer!Tonks -
Narcissa and Andromeda. Both are blood relations of Draino, which
could explain any physical  similarities as family resemblances.
Every little helps.

Kneasy






From sherriola at ...  Mon Aug 15 21:19:45 2005
From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:19:45 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <20050815205547.37499.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <009c01c5a1df$10b28100$bb3a79a5@pensive>

SSSusan:
Fishy, indeed, Kneasy.  And while you're
investigating, can you please add this bit of (imo)
strangeness into the mix?  

There's *some* kind of weird connection between the
Tonks we see in HBP and Draco Malfoy as well.  

1)  Draco stomps on Harry's nose and leaves him hidden
under the Invisibility Cloak.  SOMEHOW Tonks happens
by and discovers Harry.

2)  Harry is hanging out, again under the IC, near the
Room of Requirement, trying to catch Malfoy.  Who
happens to come along instead of the expected Draco? 
Tonks... with some lame excuse for her presence about
needing to see DD, who resides in a totally different
part of the castle.

3)  At some point Harry actually notices that Draco
and Tonks have a similar appearance this year -- both
looking ill and tired.  Harry, not one to notice a
whole lot about others' appearances, I wouldn't say,
actually making a connection between the appearances
of these two?

What is this connection?  Is all of it just
happenstance?  Can 1) & 2) really be explained away as
Tonks just keeping an eye on Harry?  Maybe... but
something about it all seems "off" to me.  And 3)
makes me think there is SOMETHING we're supposed to be
noticing.

Siriusly Snapey Susan



Sherry now:

I also found Tonks to be suspicious in HBP.  I didn't for one minute believe
it was just that she was love lorn.  Perhaps, Harry's noticing that she and
Draco look similar is just because they are related, but something isn't
right.  She was always there at the right or wrong moment, and not where
you'd expect her to be.  I thought her excuse of how she found Harry, even
though he was immobilized and hidden beneath his cloak on the train to be
weak.  Very fishy indeed.  In fact, by the time she arrived at the ROR, I
wondered if she was either imperioed, poly juicing or some other sinister
activity.  But if so, was it Tonks at the funeral holding hands with Lupin?
What on earth is going on, anyway?

Sherry




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 22:27:09 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:27:09 -0500
Subject: DD on "choice" (was: Tonks again)
References: <ddr03b+amek@...>
Message-ID: <006a01c5a1e8$79baff70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

SSSusan earlier: 
<snip possible connections between Draco & Tonks>
> What is this connection?  Is all of it just
> happenstance?  Can 1) & 2) really be explained away as
> Tonks just keeping an eye on Harry?  Maybe... but
> something about it all seems "off" to me.  And 3)
> makes me think there is SOMETHING we're supposed to be
> noticing.


Kneasy replied:
That's encouraging.
SSS, normally amongst the most trusting of souls is also donating
the icy optic to Tonks.

IIRC there have been two possibilities mentioned for Ringer!Tonks -
Narcissa and Andromeda. Both are blood relations of Draino, which
could explain any physical  similarities as family resemblances.
Every little helps.


SSSusan again:
Heh heh.  Come now, Kneasy, you're being too kind.  You know you *really* wanted to call me "naive," now, didn't you? ;-)

Which brings up something I thought of again last night as I continued my (still-first) re-read.  

Kneasy, one area where you & I discussed -- and disagreed -- over at TOL concerned the degree of "real choice" Harry has had in the books.  This was discussed, iirc, primarily in terms of your view that DD is pretty much Puppetmaster!DD.  And your position, again iirc, was that Harry did not have REAL choice by and large because his range of options was so narrow because of DD's doings & his stress on the prophecy and all.

As I read the section which occurs on US pp. 510-512, where DD & Harry discuss the significance of the prophecy -- esp. its significance to Harry vs. its significance to Voldy, and its significance in terms of Harry's having CHOICE -- I thought back to that and wondered whether you might have been royally displeased with this pronouncement of DD's:

"You see, the prophecy does not mean you *have* to do anything!  But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to *mark you as his equal*....  In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy!  But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy.  He will continue to hunt you... which makes it certain, really, that--"

"That one of us is going to end up killing the other," said Harry.  "Yes."

But he understood at last what DD had been trying to tell him.  It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high.  Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but DD knew -- *and so do I,* thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, *and so did my parents* -- that there was all the difference in the world.  [p.512]


Now, I would never have found the words to have expressed it this way, but this *is* pretty much what my take has been all along regarding the choices Harry has had -- that the range of choice may have been narrow, but that within that range, he has had *real* choice.  I know that that answer did not satisfy you back when, Kneasy.  No obligation to respond now, of course -- but I did think of you when I read this and wondered whether this was a disappointment or felt like a cop-out to you.  (Or to anyone else here, for that matter.)

Siriusly Snapey Susan, a fairly naive & trusting soul ;-)



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




From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 15 23:00:12 2005
From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:00:12 -0000
Subject: Introduction and greetings
In-Reply-To: <ddqtqm+qh29@...>
Message-ID: <ddr6ps+k0at@...>

Hi Geoff -- Welcome to TOC.  I hope you like it here.  I mostly lurk 
here, having pretty much run out of things to say about HP several 
years ago, but I like to hear the old folks chatter.  I think you'll 
find that this old crowd can find something interesting to say about 
even those threads that get beaten to death on HPfGU.

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at t...> wrote:

> website about Exmoor: www.aspectsofexmoor.com which you are all 
> invited to visit.

So, does that mean that we are all invited to visit your website, or 
that we're all invited to visit you in Exmoor?  Do you have a guest 
room?  ;-D

--Joywitch M. Curmudgeon







From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 01:01:55 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:01:55 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <CEB8F3D2-C2EC-4017-ADE6-621A65B5F523@...>
References: <CEB8F3D2-C2EC-4017-ADE6-621A65B5F523@...>
Message-ID: <20050816010155.GE13227@...>

Excellent summary, Kneasy. Let's precis and try to narrow down the likely
culprit:

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:31:24PM +0100, Barry Arrowsmith wrote:

> A Metamorphagus who can't metamorphose, an ability she was born with  
> - able to produce a Patronus - but it's the wrong one - no problem  
> with other spells - reversing Draino's petrification, fixing Harry's  
> nose without  a hitch - seems awfully selective, this loss of powers.  
> And those that are up the pictures are those that are personal to  
> Tonks. Those that 'remain' are those that could be produced by any  
> competent witch, indistinguishable  from what would be expected if  
> someone were pretending to be Tonks.

This points to a PolyJuiced!Someone. There have been several attempts to
excuse the Patronus, but I think JKR's pronouncement on the FAQ poll page
seals it. "Tonks" asks Harry directly about letters between Order members,
which is such a giveaway; "Tonks" doesn't know about the Patronus method.
But she's had to make a Patronus and it sounds rather fudged and excuses can
be made for not-quite-there Patronuses. Hence the Lupin love-story to deflect
suspicion and excuse most un-Tonk-like behaviour.

> Reasons (or spurious excuses depending on your inclinations) are  
> offered, first that she's mourning for Sirius, then it's pointed out  
> that she hardly knew him, then that she blames herself for his death,  
> though no-one else does, and finally that she's distraught at being  
> kept at arms length by Lupin. A likely tale.

More the actions of a rather concerned mother who thinks children are being
used as cannon-fodder methinks. If it is Narcissa, this would explain the
tears and excuses. Heaven forbid it's Bellatrix. But surely an Unbreakable Vow
is enough to guarantee Snape's diligence; an elaborate trick like this can go
wrong easily enough. Then again, it worked with Moody. And Bellatrix is like a
Dark Hermione trying to get into Teach Voldy's good books.

> There were two reactions to being spurned in the Hearts Desire  
> Handicap; either "Bastard! I'll show him!" or cow-eyes, the quivering  
> bottom lip, love-lorn remorseful glances and a compulsion to dog the  
> footsteps of the poor wretch that was the object of desire like a bad  
> smell. Sometimes one'd go missing for hours, wandering the corridors   
> hoping for an  'accidental' meeting that usually resulted in floods  
> of tears in the lady's loo. But neither paradigm applies to Tonks.  
> Very suspicious IMO.

But heart-to-hearts with a no doubt eager Molly and award-winning acting
in company has apparently been enough, even for the bewildered Lupin. I
seriously doubt that a polyjuiced wizard could pull even this off. So it
confirms my view that its another woman. And as long as the conversation went
in this direction, much less the chance of giving herself away. Only Harry has
been unwittingly given a clue.

> We're expected to believe that an old-looking Auror!Tonks with dodgy  
> magic is set to guard Hogwarts, and strangely enough she's the only  
> Auror we see there, even though there are supposed to be three  
> others. Turns up in unexpected places, too. Lurking in the background  
> when Dung is .... is what? Flogging  the Black family silver? (To  
> Aberforth? Anyone else have difficulty with that one?) And doing a  
> bit of fortuitous 'guarding' outside the RoR. Guarding for whom, I  
> wonder? Is it just  rotten luck that she's totally unable to give  
> Harry any useful  information about Draino's activities?

Do you think it likely that Dung knows who Aberforth really is? My impression
is that if half the denizen's of the Hog's Head knew, the pub would be empty.
It's such a golden opportunity to hear what the criminal underground is
saying, Aberforth would be mad to allow a yapper like Dung in on the secret.

But I digress - "Tonks" has apparently been trying to find out about the Order
and sneaking a peek at young Drongo now and then. "She" could not afford to
give away her real ignorance and I imagine kept pretty quiet.


> Even her reactions in the hospital after DD's death are incongruous.  
> Lupin breaks down - and she ignores him completely. This is love?  
> True, she gives him a right bollocking soon afterwards, but that too  
> would not be incompatible with someone who's fed up with all this  
> 'love-crossed lovers' crap and decides it's time to intervene. Acting  
> in the way Hermione would.

I could play devil's advocate here and excuse it on the grounds that JKR
wanted to get some important dialogue over with, but that sounds weak. I note
from Tonks description of the battle however that she seems to have seen a lot
without actually doing anything. 

> Nope.
> Tonks is high on the 'acting suspiciously -  investigate' list.
> Just what is she hiding?

My vote is Narcissa - Bellatrix would not control herself sufficiently around
Harry, and Narcissa is likely to have a more neutral view about children in
danger. Both, particularly Bella, would be keen to be there, but I think
Narcissa has a better chance simply because she hasn't screwed up like Bella.
Yet. And we simply don't know enough about Andromeda.

On another note, have any of you thrillseekers tried out the MuggleCast
podcasts yet? There have been two so far and can be subscribed here:

http://www.mugglenet.com/mugglecast/

It seems promising; they're trying to set up a Skype gateway so listeners can
"ring in" but you can always send them questions via a WAV or MP3. They make
plenty of pronouncements you may find enjoyable to disagree with.


ewe2, in full penguin detective regalia and meersham.

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 02:09:10 2005
From: sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid (Stephanie Dutchen)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <009c01c5a1df$10b28100$bb3a79a5@pensive>
Message-ID: <20050816020910.19567.qmail@...>


> Sherry wrote:

 

> In fact, by the time she arrived at the ROR, I wondered if she was either imperioed, poly juicing or some other sinister activity.  But if so, was it Tonks at the funeral holding hands with Lupin? What on earth is going on, anyway?

 

 

Stephanie writes:

 

I didn?t have a chance to post in your first Suspicious!Tonks discussion because I?d just joined the group and was catching up, but I?ve been following this one with just as much interest.  I agree with Kneasy, SSSusan, Sherry and everyone that there?s more going on here than lovesickness, and they?ve cited the evidence beautifully.  

 

Since the discussion last month I?ve been wondering what it could mean if Tonks isn?t always Tonks in HBP.  For example, does she know that someone -? Narcissa, or Andromeda, who are my two favorite candidates so far -- has been impersonating or controlling her?  But, ever the gun-jumper, the part that I?ve really been mulling over (especially having read Pippin?s Accio paper) is, if Tonks isn?t really Tonks, what does it mean that she and Lupin seemingly get together at the end of the book?

 

This is something I jotted down in my initial response to HBP:

 

Possible combinations ?-

* ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks in league with one another, fudging a love story; 

* ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, each thinking they're fooling the other;

* In-the-Dark!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, who's stringing him along after having seen his behavior toward Real!Tonks, setting him up for yet another betrayal. 

* Of course there?s always the possibility that Not-evil!Lupin had a plain old argument with Real!Tonks in the hospital wing ... but that?s boring.

 

So for me, two other questions to ponder in the Polyjuice theory are, (1) Is Tonks herself in the hospital wing and at the funeral, and (2) If she isn?t, what does the imposter gain by soliciting Lupin in public?

 

-Stephanie


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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




From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 02:42:56 2005
From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:42:56 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
References: <ddl1ck+176b@...> <ddneht+ae72@...>
	 <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a05081519427344f10@...>

Back from vacation, not quite finished reading the hundreds of posts
on this list, and hoping this rambling speculation about Horsecrunches
wasn't already used to wrap last week's fish . . . .

Troels wrote:
> One very interesting difference between the normal folk-tales and Rowling's
> use of the Horcruxes is that Rowling has one fragment remain in the body.
> Traditionally the body is vacated, but still controlled, by the soul that
> has been hidden away in a (supposedly) safe place, and the body becomes
> invulnerable and immortal. It is almost as if leaving the last fragment of
> the soul in the body makes the body vulnerable while the Horcruxes make the
> /soul/ immortal.

Dumbledore seems quite certain of himself when he tells Harry that the
seventh part of Voldemort's soul still resides in his body.  OTOH, we
know that a person can exist without his soul - Lupin tells Harry that
in PoA.  But he also says that a soul-sucked person has no sense of
self, no memory, only an empty existence.   Well, I'd argue that
Voldemort definitely has an empty existence, but he does have a sense
of self, however distorted it may be.

Nevertheless, I don't think canon expressly precludes theorising that
Voldemort could have completely separated soul from body.  We do have
Slughorn's how-to memory on Horsecrutches, but we already know that
Riddle pushed that envelope far beyond what was previously considered
its limit.  I could see him pushing it further in an effort to excise
every bit of soul from his body as a self-defense mechanism.  As
Troels points out, keeping even a small part of soul seems to leave
the body vulnerable to attack.  At the same time, he'd want to keep an
eye on at least one part of his soul at all times, so . . . .

Of all Dumbledore's speculation about the remaining Horsecrutches,
Nagini was the one that didn't seem to fit with Riddle's modus
operandi.  It's not a Founder's relic, and it's not associated with
Hogwarts or his family except for a general connection to Slytherin
House and Parseltongue.  But he already had a Slytherin relic (the
ring) and a testament to his Parseltongue ability (the diary).

Dumbledore's theory on why Nagini would have been chosen as a
Horsecrack didn't seem very convincing to me, but it now occurs to me
that post-rebodification, Voldemort might have decided to deposit his
last bit of soul in Nagini in order to prevent a recurrence of the
body-less state in which he found himself after Godric's Hollow. 
Dumbledore does point out Voldemort's unusual level of control over
her, even for a Parselmouth.  We know from Harry's experience of being
the snake in OOP that Voldemort can simply possess Nagini in order to
do his dirty work.  And he keeps her close by.  I would, too, if that
was my soul.  And he used Nagini's venom as nourishment for his
UglyBaby form, another connection which perhaps imparted some of
Nagini's soul (or whatever substitute a snake may have) to Voldemort.

And one other piece of canon:  Tom Riddle, at 16, figured out how to
preserve a memory in a diary.  Could he have discovered how to remove
his soul while preserving his memories?  After all, there's no reason
why externalizing one's soul in Horcrucii *must* have the same effect
as the Dementor's kiss.

If Voldemort has dispersed every piece of soul, and if Harry is the
repository of one of those pieces (whether intentionally or
inadvertently -- I'm leaning toward the theory that Harry is an
unintentionally created bit of soul, with the possibility that
Voldemort still does not know about it), then there is a possibility
that the last remaining bit of soul keeping Voldemort alive will
repose inside Harry.  Voldemort would be unable to kill Harry without
killing himself.  The irony is that the life of Voldemort, whose
greatest fear is death, will depend on the mercy of Harry, who does
not fear death.  Either must die at the hand of the other, indeed.

Probably a swiss cheese theory, but it was fun, anyway.

Dungrollin wrote:
> >Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered
> >whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this
> >be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a
> >series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is
> >not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional
> >*something* that must be found to complete the undoing.

Troels:
> There is a strong sense in Rowling's books that the sum of a union is
> stronger than the sum of the consituents, but with respect to the
> Horcruxes, I think that we are seeing the reverse. The sum of the split-up
> soul is less than the sum of the whole (united) soul -- divided he falls!

So, are you saying that something is lost in the ripping of the soul
caused by the act of murder, or alternatively in the creation of the
Horcrux?  I submit that that something is the power which Harry has
but which Riddle has not.  While we know Riddle has never loved, we
are not told he never had the capacity to love; the prophecy states
that Voldemort "knows not" the power and not that he "has not" got it.
 Perhaps it was lost through the repeated splitting of the soul and
having never experienced love, Voldemort didn't know what power he was
giving up.

Is it possible to put Riddle's soul back together?  In the Catholic
tradition, sin separates a human being from God's love, and confession
and repentance restores it.  In the Potterverse, murder and the
creation of the Hoarcrunchy separates the evildoer from the power to
love.  Would the destruction of the Horcrunchies, with an added dose
of genuine remorse, make Riddle's soul whole again?  Could Voldemort
repent?  And if so, would it be a satisfying ending or would we be
choking on the treacle?

Debbie
who will believe that Tonks is ESE! as soon as someone posts her HBP
backstory -- I want details!



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 03:06:22 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:06:22 -0000
Subject: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <20050816020910.19567.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddrl7e+tc6p@...>

Stephanie: 
> This is something I jotted down in my initial response to HBP:
> 
>  
> 
> Possible combinations ?-
> 
> * ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks in league with one another, fudging
a love story; 
> 
> * ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, each thinking they're fooling the
other;
> 
> * In-the-Dark!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, who's stringing him along
after having seen his behavior toward Real!Tonks, setting him up for 
yet anotherbetrayal. 
> 
> * Of course there's always the possibility that Not-evil!Lupin
had a plain old argument with Real!Tonks in the hospital wing ... 
but that's boring.

Pippin:
I don't think it can be polyjuice!Tonks. She was definitely on duty
for more than an hour the night DD died, and we didn't see her 
swilling from a flask. It would be cheating for Jo to have her be 
using polyjuice after that.

We have heard before of ways to diminish a wizard's powers. 
Lupin says that contact with dementors can do it, and Petunia
hoped that keeping Harry downtrodden would suppress his powers.
Real!Moody was subdued by Imperius as well.

I certainly don't think all is well.

My vote would be
ESE!Lupin and Imperius!Tonks.  

That would account for Tonks's unwonted agility (Neville lost his
clumsiness  when Fake!Moody put him under Imperius), her odd 
behavior, and the strange look in her eyes. I believe she was being 
used as a messenger between Draco and Bella or whoever was 
running Draco. That's why she was outside the RoR.

 Of course if ESE!Lupin  knows this then he abandoned  another shred
of decency when he agreed to a relationship with her. 

Pippin





From stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 03:54:11 2005
From: stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid (kjirstem)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:54:11 -0000
Subject: Intro post
Message-ID: <ddro13+qija@...>

***Name:
Kjirste 

***Nicknames/IDs:
I haven't been particularly consistent with my user names

kjirstem around Yahoo, 
zephyrious on LJ, 
kcm over at FA.  

***Age:
 43, or thereabouts

***Family:
A husband who likes HP but not to the extent that I do.  Two children,
a three-year old son who is enthusiastic about most things and an
eight-year old daughter who is a fan of Ron Weasley.  

***Home
New Hampshire, US, at least for now.
 

***Birthday, Place of Birth:
13 December,  California

***Education/Job/Role in Life etc:
Despite some education (Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, my research
was in biomechanics), I spend most of my time subject to the quixotic
whim of my kids.   I work as an engineering consultant a few hours a
week on one thing or another, often on control systems, often for
robots.   


***First contact with Harry Potter:
I first heard of Harry Potter on the radio, probably NPR, and knew
immediately that I was doomed to love the books.  Being ornery, I put
off reading them as long as I possibly could (this included closing my
eyes when passing displays in the bookstore), until my best friend
pushed me into borrowing a copy of SS sometime late in 1999 or early
2000.  I was hooked, as I knew I would be, and have been ever since.

***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets
d'Art, general enthusing):
I think I still like POA the best of the books, probably because I
really didn't figure out anything when I first read it.  
I've only read a few fanfics and I've mostly avoided emotional
investment in any ships.  I covet my daughter's "Weasley" sweater,
made for her by my mom.
 

***Extent of Potter obsession:
Oh, not too bad! I only own the US hardbacks and the school books,
though I do have more than one copy of POA and HBP.  I bought mysef
the deluxe edition of HBP, hoping that the binding will hold up better
than usual for Scholastic's books.  Decided I didn't want to
share and didn't want *my* book to go camping with the family, so
I bought the regular edition for my husband and daughter to share.

***Other interests/activities:
If I'm not reading, I like to be outdoors and active, these days
that mostly means that I spend a lot of time digging holes in the
garden (an activity easily shared with my three-year old).  Sometimes
I get a chance to hike, bike, or mess about in boats.  Other than
that, I like chocolate.

***Current/recent reading:
"Rules for Old Men Waiting" by Peter Pouncey
"Paladin of Souls" by Lois McMaster Bujold
"Over the Edge: Death in the Grand Canyon" by Ghiglieri and Myers.

Not sure who invited me, but thanks, I'm glad to be here!  
kjirstem  





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 04:51:41 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:51:41 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05081519427344f10@...>
Message-ID: <ddrrct+kbb1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb <elfundeb at g...> wrote:
> big snip> 
> And one other piece of canon:  Tom Riddle, at 16, figured out how to
> preserve a memory in a diary.  Could he have discovered how to remove
> his soul while preserving his memories?  After all, there's no reason
> why externalizing one's soul in Horcrucii *must* have the same effect
> as the Dementor's kiss.

Lyn now:
Diary Riddle is the only model JKR has given us of an identified working HX (Harry may be 
another, but he isn't identified as such). I think it is going to become very awkward for JKR 
to contend that the Diary is a HX and that it also has some other special features. On the 
other hand, if it is a conventional HX, then why didn't DD recognize it as such from the 
moment Harry described his experience with it in the Chamber. Either way, I think JKR has 
some explaining to do if the she intends for their to be any consistency. 

If we do accept the diary as a working model, then it sets the prototype for the 
potential of the others, that is, they all may represent a "time restricted" fragment of LV, 
and all have the potential to become reimbodied entities of the LV  at the time soul 
fragment was formed.  
> 
> If Voldemort has dispersed every piece of soul, and if Harry is the
> repository of one of those pieces (whether intentionally or
> inadvertently -- I'm leaning toward the theory that Harry is an
> unintentionally created bit of soul, with the possibility that
> Voldemort still does not know about it), then there is a possibility
> that the last remaining bit of soul keeping Voldemort alive will
> repose inside Harry.  Voldemort would be unable to kill Harry without
> killing himself.  The irony is that the life of Voldemort, whose
> greatest fear is death, will depend on the mercy of Harry, who does
> not fear death.  Either must die at the hand of the other, indeed.
> 

Lyn again:
I think this is a quite likely scenario.  Of course it is strange that LV would not be aware of 
Harry's nature, particularly now that he has had access to his mind as well as very being 
during the possession. Yet perhaps this may have been some of what LV was 
communicating (or at least JKR foreshadowing) to DD when he was taunting to DD to kill 
Harry (and thus LV) during the possession. That is, that it is unavoidable that Harry die to 
kill LV.  

To take this a bit farther, and a prelude to the GUT of HX I am working on:
I suggested last year in my email to Kneasy that LV is going to seek to reintegrate some of 
his fragmented parts to increase his strength (and now,perhaps, to safeguard his 
remaining soul fragments). I continue to think that remains highly plausible, if for no other 
reason than that I don't see Harry having the time to acquire the magical capabilities or 
even to search out all the remaining HXs in the one remaining book. Indeed, I am 
suspicious that we have already seen a re-integration occur, and been given an example of 
the complexity that it involves. Indeed, I am sure that it involves more to the process than 
simply scooping up the HX and reintegrating it to the whole.





From stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 05:18:16 2005
From: stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid (kjirstem)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:18:16 -0000
Subject: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <20050815205547.37499.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddrsuo+prb5@...>

Kneasy wrote:
This is a sort of expansion of the Tonks post put up a
couple of days after HBP publication. <
> Something smells fishy,
though whether the fish in question is red herring or a tastier 
morsel presented for our collective delectation is not a foregone
conclusion.

<snip>

A Metamorphagus who can't metamorphose, an ability she was born with
- able to produce a Patronus - but it's the wrong one - no problem
with other spells - reversing Draino's petrification, fixing Harry's
nose without a hitch - seems awfully selective, this loss of powers.
And those that are up the pictures are those that are personal to
Tonks. Those that 'remain' are those that could be produced by any
competent witch, indistinguishable from what would be expected if
someone were pretending to be Tonks.

<snip>

We're expected to believe that an old-looking
Auror!Tonks with dodgy magic is set to guard Hogwarts,
and strangely enough she's the only Auror we see
there, even though there are supposed to be three
others. Turns up in unexpected places, too.

<snip>

SSSusan adds:
There's *some* kind of weird connection between the
Tonks we see in HBP and Draco Malfoy as well.

1) Draco stomps on Harry's nose and leaves him hidden
under the Invisibility Cloak. SOMEHOW Tonks happens
by and discovers Harry.

2) Harry is hanging out, again under the IC, near the
Room of Requirement, trying to catch Malfoy. Who
happens to come along instead of the expected Draco?
Tonks... with some lame excuse for her presence about
needing to see DD, who resides in a totally different
part of the castle.

3) At some point Harry actually notices that Draco
and Tonks have a similar appearance this year -- both
looking ill and tired. Harry, not one to notice a
whole lot about others' appearances, I wouldn't say,
actually making a connection between the appearances
of these two?

kjirstem:
Eeep! I've walked in on a Tonks discussion.  I'm terribly
tempted by this conspiracy theory.

In addition to the points made above, Tonks seems suspiciously
ineffective in the battle scene below the Astronomy tower. The big
blond DE that she is "fighting" is the one creating chaos. 
Why doesn't he aim anything at her and why is she unable to hex
him? Harry manages to get him out of the way on the first try.

When I'm feeling suspicious, I tend to think Andromeda is
impersonating Tonks, probably after being threatened by Mad Momma
Grizzly!Narcissa.  

But, I have to admit that I read this quote from the Leaky/Mugglenet
interview,
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview2.htm 
half-way down the page, as indicating that Tonks was really just Tonks
all through HBP.

"? that there is no place for romance in a  detective story
except that it can be useful to camouflage other people's motives.
That's true; it is a very useful trick. I've used that on Percy and
I've used that to a degree on Tonks in this book, as a red
herring."

Of course, that quote doesn't rule out something else going on,
like ESE!Tonks.

kjirstem





From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 06:34:19 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:34:19 -0000
Subject: OT Re: Introduction and greetings
In-Reply-To: <ddr6ps+k0at@...>
Message-ID: <dds1db+bsae@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_m_curmudgeon" 
<joym999 at a...> wrote:

Joywitch M. Curmudgeon
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
> <gbannister10 at t...> wrote:
> 
> > website about Exmoor: www.aspectsofexmoor.com which you are all 
> > invited to visit.
> 
> So, does that mean that we are all invited to visit your website, 
or 
> that we're all invited to visit you in Exmoor?  Do you have a guest 
> room?  ;-D

Geoff:
Thanks for the welcome.

I do have a guestroom but I don't think we can accommodate 140 
visitors......

:-)






From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 09:00:47 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:00:47 +0200
Subject: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <dds1db+bsae@...>
Message-ID: <000101c5a240$ff639490$0200a8c0@hwin>

OK.

So, I think there's lots of nice, Christiany-ethicy stuff in HBP. All
well and dandy. But honestly, folks:

Is it right to get people (and basically innocent people at that!) drunk
so they'll divulge information they wouldn't other divulge?

If so, is it also right to force turth serum on them? (Which Dumbledore
admits to doing to Horace.)

And, assuming the moral answer is yes but the informational answer is
no, why not take it a step further? Start out by making them listen to
some very loud music for a while. (By the time they've heard that ditty
about "come and stir my cualdron" for the 2843th time, they'll be
singing like pidgeons.) And if that doesn't work, just let them live in
an, umm, nice, politically unplottable little island not too far from an
evil-magical superpower somewhere in the Caribbean. Put them on a bit of
a diet (a little thinning never hurt anybody) and don't let them sleep
too much (sloth is evil too, you know) and play some other harmless
games with their precious wee noggins. 

Oh? Not so nice after all? I agree, very strongly. Moreover, everything
I know about JKR's ethical-social-political leanings tells me she would
too.

So what gives? How far can you slide down the slope of treating people
as Means rathers than Ends until Seriously Bad Stuff starts happening?
Is this a moral oversight on JKR's part or is she consciously steering a
difficult course between ethical idealism and Realpolitik? And if so,
what do her charts looks like?

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) 
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, 
so that may not have been bravery...." 




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 09:06:28 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:06:28 -0000
Subject: DD on "choice" (was: Tonks again)
In-Reply-To: <006a01c5a1e8$79baff70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <ddsaak+8e43@...>

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

Firstly, welcome to the latest batch of inductees to the merry throng
that is toc. It might take a while to get used to the more lesiurely pace
after the frantic floods of posts on other lists, but it does grow on you. 

SSS:
> Heh heh.  Come now, Kneasy, you're being too kind.  You know you
> *really* wanted to call me "naive," now, didn't you? ;-)
> 

Kneasy:
Tut. Would I say such a thing?
Many would regard not being steeped in mendacity or corroded by
suspicion to be a positive trait. On the other hand.....


> SSS:
> Kneasy, one area where you & I discussed -- and disagreed -- over at TOL concerned 
the degree of "real choice" Harry has had in the books.  This was discussed, iirc, primarily 
in terms of your view that DD is pretty much Puppetmaster!DD.  And your position, again 
iirc, was that Harry did not have REAL choice by and large because his range of options 
was so narrow because of DD's doings & his stress on the prophecy and all.
> 

Kneasy:
True. And I still hold to that opinion.
DD probably influenced Henry Ford - "You can have any colour so long
as it's black." Puppetmaster!DD is a devious old swine and well aware of
Ted Sturgeons Second Law - "There are more ways to futter a cat than by
sticking its head in a sea-boot." So there is not only the influence direct,
there're indirect methods too.

> As I read the section which occurs on US pp. 510-512, where DD & Harry discuss the 
significance of the prophecy -- esp. its significance to Harry vs. its significance to Voldy, 
and its significance in terms of Harry's having CHOICE -- I thought back to that and 
wondered whether you might have been royally displeased with this pronouncement of 
DD's:
> 
> "You see, the prophecy does not mean you *have* to do anything!  But the prophecy 
caused Lord Voldemort to *mark you as his equal*....  In other words, you are free to 
choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy!  But Voldemort continues 
to set store by the prophecy.  He will continue to hunt you... which makes it certain, really, 
that--"
> 
> "That one of us is going to end up killing the other," said Harry.  "Yes."
> 
> But he understood at last what DD had been trying to tell him.  It was, he thought, the 
difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking 
into the arena with your head held high.  Some people, perhaps, would say that there was 
little to choose between the two ways, but DD knew -- *and so do I,* thought Harry, with 
a rush of fierce pride, *and so did my parents* -- that there was all the difference in the 
world.  [p.512]
> 
> 

Kneasy:
Flim-flam. Harry had about as much choice as a mug punter up against
a three-card monte card-sharp.

DD has not only nurtured Harry much as an horticulturist espaliers a fruit
tree, but he pulls similar stunts on others.

Note that Harry does not discover about the existence of the Prophecy from
DD - he finds out by chance during his awayday excursion with his chums 
to the MoM. Only afterwards does DD deign to tell him what it's all about 
and present him with a choice -  "It's him or you." Some choice. 

The Prophecy was never going to influence Harry's choices,  he had no 
choice to make - not once Voldy made *his* choice. And I detect DD's
fine and subtle hand here too. No tyrant worthy of his salt can afford to
ignore the possibility of the rise of a usurper, it's the one thing all would-be
Rulers of the Universe fear - and that's exactly what the Prophecy 'foretells'. 
Voldy cannot ignore it.

And guess what? 
It leads to his downfall - for a few years at least. 
What a concatenation of coincidences.
DD holds an interview in a pub with a totally ungifted 'seer', who promptly
produces a prophesy that is overheard by someone who lets Voldy know
all about the coming threat to his joyous round of murder and mayhem.
And when he  investigates .... Gotcha! "Oh dear, there seem to be these
unfortunate spells around, just waiting for me to turn up. Now how did
that happen?" Ask DD. He planned it.

But Voldy survives and DD suspects as much - and that "Voldy - The 
Return; and this time it's no more Mr Nice-Guy"  is probable. From that 
point on, or rather from the point Harry re-enters the WW, a showdown 
finale is as sure as death and taxes.  

Walking or being dragged into the arena is window-dressing, because he 
has no choice except the arena.

Where has Harry been safest? Privet Drive. 
Not pleasant but at least nobody was trying to kill him.
So  why bring him back intto the WW? What is the point?
There's only one - Puppetmaster!DD's little plan.








From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 09:22:40 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:22:40 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
Message-ID: <ddsb90+dnm6@...>

May I ask a really stupid question?

The theory that Harry is a Horscrux seems to have widespread support 
and I can see its logic. What I don't understand is why, if Voldemort 
was unable to possess Harry,

"because he could not abide to reside in a body so full of the force he 
detests"

a part of his soul is able to survive in him.

I suppose that if that part of his soul is totally divorced from him, 
it may be that he is immune from the effects of that detested force, 
however, it still seems thematically odd to me that it is possible.

~Eloise





From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 11:34:48 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:34:48 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05081519427344f10@...>
Message-ID: <ddsj0o+og82@...>

Several replies here@

Dungrollin wrote:
>Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered
>whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this
>be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a
>series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is
>not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional
>*something* that must be found to complete the undoing.

Troels replied:
<snip snip snip>
One very interesting difference between the normal folk-tales and 
Rowling's use of the Horcruxes is that Rowling has one fragment 
remain in the body. Traditionally the body is vacated, but still 
controlled, by the soul that has been hidden away in a (supposedly) 
safe place, and the body becomes invulnerable and immortal. It is 
almost as if leaving the last fragment of the soul in the body makes 
the body vulnerable while the Horcruxes make the /soul/ immortal.

Dungrollin:
As a kind of aside, I find the differences between the elixir of 
life and Horlicks rather interesting. The former (it seems to me, 
anyway) renders your body invulnerable, and thus your soul is not in 
danger of passing on. The latter does not protect the body at all, 
but ensures that whatever happens to it, your soul is still stuck in 
this world. Immortality via preservation of the body versus 
immortality via preservation of the soul. 

I suspect there are more contrasts too. That the stone can only be 
made by somebody with good intentions, pure of heart, if you like 
(admission: my only knowledge of alchemy comes from a novel called 
The Chymical Wedding, by Lindsay Clarke ? in which two of the main 
characters are poets, to give you some idea). And that Horlicks can 
only be made by somebody with evil intentions (hence the necessary 
killings). So I think that Tom would never have been able to make a 
PS, and probably never even seriously considered it, whereas someone 
good like Flamel would never have been able to make Horlicks, 
because he would never have been able to kill anybody (and was far 
too nice to inflict any kind of despicable instant malted beverage 
upon the world).


Troels:
There is a strong sense in Rowling's books that the sum of a union is
stronger than the sum of the consituents, but with respect to the
Horcruxes, I think that we are seeing the reverse. The sum of the 
split-up soul is less than the sum of the whole (united) soul -- 
divided he falls!

Dungrollin:
DD says "Without his horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with 
a maimed and diminished soul. Never forget, though, that while his 
soul may be damaged beyond repair, his brain and his magical power 
remain intact.  It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a 
wizard like Voldemort, even without his horcruxes."

So I'm not sure that making Hatboxes has weakened him significantly. 
It's certainly put him beyond redemption (see Anne's excellent 
thoughts here)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2358
- perhaps JKR is of the opinion that with the right attitude, Tom 
could have learned to love (if he'd taken DD's assertion that it's 
the strongest magic there is seriously) before he deliberately put 
himself beyond redemption by creating a hotcake. 

Hmm. Debbie has posted something similar:

Debbie:
While we know Riddle has never loved, we are not told he never had 
the capacity to love; the prophecy states that Voldemort "knows not" 
the power and not that he "has not" got it. Perhaps it was lost 
through the repeated splitting of the soul and having never 
experienced love, Voldemort didn't know what power he was giving up.

<snip>
Would the destruction of the Horcrunchies, with an added dose of 
genuine remorse, make Riddle's soul whole again? Could Voldemort 
repent? And if so, would it be a satisfying ending or would we be 
choking on the treacle?

Dungrollin:
I don't think destroying the hors-taxes would make his soul whole 
again. I think the bits of scattered soul will be very definitely 
destroyed, one by one, until the scrap of soul left in Voldy is the 
last one. He won't notice them being destroyed, and their 
destruction won't materially affect him (until, as DD says, at the 
end, at the point of death we should get a good long rant, and 
possibly some interesting info) his power and intellect are just as 
strong as they always were, according to DD.

Could Voldy repent? Purely hypothetically: of course, anyone can. 
Could he really *mean* it? Hmm... I doubt it.  He's not remotely 
sorry about any of it ? I'm not even sure that he even realises he's 
done anything wrong: "There is no good and evil, only power and 
those too weak to seek it."

Could he ever reverse the damage he's done to his soul? Well, even 
if Horcruxes could be rejoined with the original piece of soul, two 
have already been destroyed, thus his soul is *permanently* 
erm... 'cattle trucked' (to use some technical rhyming slang).  

Ginger wrote:
>The thought hit me, though, in the Potterverse why not get the
>Horcruces, toss them to a dementor and let *it* suck the soul out of
>them?
>
>I know, too easy.

Troels:
A bit more seriously, though, the Dementors would probably find 
it 'stale food' -- they appear to prefer happiness as the best 
flavour for them, and I suspect that the Hurcrux soul-fragment is 
too mutilated, tormented and tarnished for their delicate 
palates . . .

And of course it would be too easy ;-)

Dungrollin:
I'm still not convinced that the difficulty is in destroying them, I 
think the difficulty is in working out where they are, and getting 
through the protections. Chuck them through the veil, feed them to a 
dementor (lots of which are handily hanging around the country at 
the moment), why not? Why should destroying them be difficult? 
Nobody has said that it will be or should be AFAIR. I still reckon 
that DD's hand was nuked by the protections on the ring at the Gaunt 
House, rather than by destroying the hors-d'oeuvres itself; after 
all, Harry didn't lose any appendages when he destroyed the diary.

Dungrollin





From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 12:25:03 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:25:03 -0000
Subject: OT Welcome
Message-ID: <ddsluv+u0of@...>

Nothing intelligent to add here.  I just wanted to welcome the new 
faces to our little hangout.

A special welcome to Geoff and Sherry, with whom I've had the pleasure 
of off-list communication.  

A pleasure to see you all here.

Ginger, back to her breakfast





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 13:28:19 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:28:19 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddsb90+dnm6@...>
Message-ID: <ddsplj+eouc@...>

Eloise:
> The theory that Harry is a Horscrux seems to have widespread support 
> and I can see its logic. What I don't understand is why, if 
> Voldemort was unable to possess Harry, "because he could not abide to
> reside in a body so full of the force he detests "a part of his soul
> is able to survive in him. I suppose that if that part of his soul 
> is totally divorced from him, it may be that he is immune from the
> effects of that detested force, however, it still seems thematically
> odd to me that it is possible.

Jen: That's a good point I haven't read before. 

I'm not a Harry!Horcrux fan, but it's difficult to pin down exactly 
why he couldn't be one. In HBP, JKR really brings home the idea that 
Harry has experienced more direct evil in his short life than an 
entire cadre of junior DE's. He's seen evil, been touched by it, 
cursed by it, possessed by it......yet he's still pure of heart & 
never tempted by it. I guess finding out a sliver of Voldemort's soul 
is inside him would be small potatoes compared to everything else, 
just another example of how he's able to resist evil. Maybe a little 
overkill though? Stretching it a little thin?

Another objection is how it could have happened given Lily's 
sacrifice. Her protection was there before LV cast the AK, and if it's 
as strong as we're led to believe, the cornerstone of Hary's 
protection, I don't see how an evil soul sliver got through that.

I've also heard the term unintentional Horcrux, but don't personally 
believe that's possible. Intention is everything in magic, eh? You 
need to mean the Unforgiveables and focus your intent to apparate and 
all the rest. Accidental magic happens like hair growing back, but an 
accidental Horcrux? Removing your soul from your body seems like a 
slightly bigger deal, not the terrain for an accident to happen.

Having said all that, I still like Deb's idea in #2907 that Voldemort 
might one day find out his life is dependent on Harry's mercy. Hehehe 
<beg>. 

Jen, waving a welcome to Geoff and Sherry!





From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 14:00:32 2005
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:00:32 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <ddrl7e+tc6p@...>
References: <ddrl7e+tc6p@...>
Message-ID: <200508161600.32880.silmariel@...>


I've been wondering not about the person who could have done it, but in Tonks 
herself. I mean, we have been looking at her in terms of an order member (so 
that she can enter Hogwarts) and someone who is near Harry, but I think she 
would still be a target even without the order, or Harry, just by having that 
oh so very rare skill.

It's the same case as Slughorn, Ollivander, Bones, Vance. Those wizards that 
can harm you if they work for the other side, and her innate skill qualifies, 
IMO, not as of vital importance but enought to put her on the list of 
jobs-to-do-if-possible.

I don't doubt something funny is going with Tonks, no idea who could be behind 
her, but somehow I doubt it's polijuiced Cissi or Bella, Cissi may have 
motives but I can't imagine Voldemort giving her orders to go and infiltrate, 
nor her interfering with someone who has been targeted (it's not as messing 
with a no-one), and Bella, well, I doubt she can act. Not that I will enter 
in the discussion, I just wanted to point she is target material.

Pippin:
> My vote would be
> ESE!Lupin and Imperius!Tonks.  

>That would account for Tonks's unwonted agility (Neville lost his
>clumsiness  when Fake!Moody put him under Imperius), her odd 
>behavior, and the strange look in her eyes. I believe she was being 
>used as a messenger between Draco and Bella or whoever was 
>running Draco. That's why she was outside the RoR.

>  Of course if ESE!Lupin  knows this then he abandoned  another shred
> of decency when he agreed to a relationship with her.

Oh well. The relationship could be well stablished by the time he was given 
orders or he heard she was a target, and he might have thought Imperio is 
better than dead or cruciod into madness, but it gives a new light to the 
whole 'I don't deserve you' speech, certainly.

If he is ESE, he shouldn't have started a relationship at all, not if he cared 
about that person. What could he expect? But then, I can see Lupin falling in 
such a trap.

I feel they are doomed ...

Silmariel





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 15:21:25 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:21:25 -0000
Subject: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <000101c5a240$ff639490$0200a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <ddt09l+rmk0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray"
<mikesusangray at y...> 
wrote:
> OK.
> 
> So, I think there's lots of nice, Christiany-ethicy stuff in HBP.
All well and dandy. But honestly, folks:
> 
> Is it right to get people (and basically innocent people at that!)
drunk so they'll divulge information they wouldn't other divulge?
> 
> If so, is it also right to force turth serum on them? (Which
Dumbledore admits to doing to Horace.)
> 

Pippin
Hold on! In the first place Harry doesn't "get" Slughorn drunk. That
was entirely Slughorn's choice. It's not like Harry spiked his punch
or put him under Imperius, or like Slughorn is unfamiliar with the
effects of alcohol.  

Secondly Dumbledore doesn't admit to giving truth serum to Horace

"I would be astonished if he has not carried an antidote to
veritaserum with him ever since I coerced him into giving me this 
travesty of a recollection." HBP-US 372 ch 17. 

Whether Dumbledore tried veritaserum or not, Slughorn would know 
very well that his travesty of a recollection has not fooled 
Dumbledore, who must still be after the memory, and 
*could* resort to veritaserum to get it. 

What Dumbledore admits to is coercion.

Coercion encompasses intimidation as well as outright force, and
we've seen Dumbledore be intimidating.

"On the other hand, I would advise you, Lucius, not to go giving 
out any more of Lord Voldemort's old school things. If any more
of them find their way into innocent hands, I think Arthur Weasley,
for one, will make sure they are traced back to you..." -- CoS-US
337 ch 18.

Dumbledore doesn't threaten Malfoy with manufactured evidence,
he barely hints at  the possibility and lets Lucius's imagination
do the rest.

A word or two from Dumbledore in the wrong ears and Slughorn's 
ability to collect suppliers of velvet smoking jackets and
crystallized pineapple  could well dry up. Dumbledore
wouldn't have to be so crude as to point this out. Sluggy already
knows it.

But  whatever form of coercion Dumbledore tried, he didn't resort 
to a stronger one when it failed.  He put away the stick and offered
a carrot instead; the chance to "collect" Harry Potter.

So why doesn't DD make a moral argument against using VS?
Because he knows that a practical one is likely to carry far more
weight with Harry and his friends. There is a supply of VS
in the potions classroom, and it would be best if team
Harry  is not tempted to use it. Hermione, for one, has a
tendency to judge her means in the flattering light of  her ends.


Pippin





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 15:47:42 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:47:42 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddsb90+dnm6@...>
Message-ID: <ddt1qu+gohv@...>

Eloise:
> The theory that Harry is a Horscrux seems to have widespread
support  and I can see its logic. What I don't understand is why, if
Voldemort  was unable to possess Harry,
> 
> "because he could not abide to reside in a body so full of the
force he  detests"
> 
> a part of his soul is able to survive in him.
> 
> I suppose that if that part of his soul is totally divorced from
him,  it may be that he is immune from the effects of that detested
force,  however, it still seems thematically odd to me that it is 
possible.
> 

Pippin:

If a piece of the soul is lost because murder tears away some of the
murderer's humanity, some of his  potential for goodness, then it
makes sense  that Voldemort's lost potential for good could find 
a home in Harry, and that Voldemort, who had alienated and rejected 
that part of himself, could not abide its presence, even though it
was once his. 

Of course the Diary doesn't work like that, it is full of evil intent.

But the Diary was an intentional horcrux, and Voldemort presumably
placed his intentions into the diary along with his fragment of soul.
But if Horcrux!Harry was unintentional, then perhaps he has
Voldemort's soul but not his intentions.

Pippin






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 17:11:33 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:11:33 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddsplj+eouc@...>
Message-ID: <ddt6o5+d5tb@...>

Eloise wrote:
> May I ask a really stupid question?
> 
> The theory that Harry is a Horscrux seems to have widespread 
support 
> and I can see its logic. What I don't understand is why, if 
Voldemort 
> was unable to possess Harry,
> 
> "because he could not abide to reside in a body so full of the 
force he 
> detests"
> 
> a part of his soul is able to survive in him.
> 
> I suppose that if that part of his soul is totally divorced from 
him, 
> it may be that he is immune from the effects of that detested 
force, 
> however, it still seems thematically odd to me that it is possible.
> 

Neri:
Aside of any metaphysical/thematical considerations, we have *canon* 
that at GH, some of Voldemort's powers did enter baby Harry's mind, 
despite the love protection. Dumbledore believed that this was 
unintentional of Voldy. It also looks as if there were some memories 
passing too, because in CoS Harry thinks that the name T.M. Riddle 
sounds like someone he knew a long time ago. So the question is not 
if some piece of Voldy went into Harry. This is canon. The question 
is only if this piece can be a considered part of Voldy's soul.

Dumbledore also said in HBP that the seventh part of Voldy, that is 
now in his new body, is the one that contains his self. This sounds 
like the other parts (perhaps except for the Diary) don't include a 
self. It seems to me that memories and powers would qualify.

The scar is also a thematic evidence that Harry is damaged. His 
mother's protection could not protect him completely, or he wouldn't 
have a scar.


Jen worte:
> I'm not a Harry!Horcrux fan, but it's difficult to pin down exactly 
> why he couldn't be one. In HBP, JKR really brings home the idea 
that 
> Harry has experienced more direct evil in his short life than an 
> entire cadre of junior DE's. He's seen evil, been touched by it, 
> cursed by it, possessed by it......yet he's still pure of heart & 
> never tempted by it. I guess finding out a sliver of Voldemort's 
soul 
> is inside him would be small potatoes compared to everything else, 
> just another example of how he's able to resist evil. Maybe a 
little 
> overkill though? Stretching it a little thin?


Neri:
The point of Harry as a Hx won't necessarily be a challenge for his 
pureness, although I think this is very possible. What would 
certainly be a point is that Harry will have to contemplate the 
ultimate sacrifice in order to kill Voldy. Considering the theme of 
sacrifice in the books, this would be thematic. 

Jen wrote: 
> Another objection is how it could have happened given Lily's 
> sacrifice. Her protection was there before LV cast the AK, and if 
it's 
> as strong as we're led to believe, the cornerstone of Hary's 
> protection, I don't see how an evil soul sliver got through that.
>

Neri:
As I mention above it is canon that a sliver of Voldy found it's way 
into Harry at GH despite the protection. The only question is if this 
sliver is a soul sliver.

Jen wrote:
> I've also heard the term unintentional Horcrux, but don't 
personally 
> believe that's possible. Intention is everything in magic, eh? You 
> need to mean the Unforgiveables and focus your intent to apparate 
and 
> all the rest. Accidental magic happens like hair growing back, but 
an 
> accidental Horcrux? Removing your soul from your body seems like a 
> slightly bigger deal, not the terrain for an accident to happen.
> 

Neri:
We have Dumbledore's opinion that at GH Voldy was still one Hx short, 
and that he most probably intended to use the killing of Harry for 
his last Hx, so half of the required intention is already there. The 
fact that Voldy tried to spare Lily also suggests he wanted to make 
her the Hx. This means he may have intended to perform the full Hx 
magic that night. In fact, perhaps he had already performed it, and 
everything was ready except for the victim and the Hx herself/himself.

While magic is usually intentional, this intention is frequently 
misdirected, and accidents *do* happen. Intentional magic often goes 
wrong, and the most spectacular example we have for that is Voldy's 
AK rebounding and vaporizing himself that very night. It would hardly 
be very surprising if this wasn't the only piece of magic that didn't 
go as planned that night.  

 
Neri







From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 18:44:36 2005
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:44:36 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05081519427344f10@...>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
 <ddl1ck+176b@...>
 <ddneht+ae72@...>
 <4.3.2.7.2.20050814164352.01fde3e0@...>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050816193800.020dac50@...>

At 22:42 15-08-05 -0400, elfundeb wrote:
>Back from vacation, not quite finished reading the hundreds of posts
>on this list, and hoping this rambling speculation about Horsecrunches
>wasn't already used to wrap last week's fish . . . .
>
>Troels wrote:
> > One very interesting difference between the normal folk-tales and Rowling's
> > use of the Horcruxes is that Rowling has one fragment remain in the body.
> > Traditionally the body is vacated, but still controlled, by the soul that
> > has been hidden away in a (supposedly) safe place, and the body becomes
> > invulnerable and immortal. It is almost as if leaving the last fragment of
> > the soul in the body makes the body vulnerable while the Horcruxes make the
> > /soul/ immortal.
>
>Dumbledore seems quite certain of himself when he tells Harry that the
>seventh part of Voldemort's soul still resides in his body.  OTOH, we
>know that a person can exist without his soul - Lupin tells Harry that
>in PoA.  But he also says that a soul-sucked person has no sense of
>self, no memory, only an empty existence.   Well, I'd argue that
>Voldemort definitely has an empty existence, but he does have a sense
>of self, however distorted it may be.

I quite agree. I tried to point out the differences between how the 
'externalising-the-soul-gives-immortality' motif is used in traditional 
folk-tales (with variants) and how it is used in the Harry Potter books. I 
don't know if it gives any particular added insight into the Potter story, 
although I would claim that one aspect is likely to follow the tradition: 
namely that destroying all the containers will kill the person.

>Nevertheless, I don't think canon expressly precludes theorising that
>Voldemort could have completely separated soul from body.

Well, I am completely satisfied with accepting Dumbledore's guesses as 
incontrovertible fact -- as long, of course, as it isn't within the areas 
where he is prone to make 'emotional mistakes >:->

Since Dumbledore is so specific about this, I  see no basis for theorising 
otherwise.

>We do have Slughorn's how-to memory on Horsecrutches, but we already
>know that Riddle pushed that envelope far beyond what was previously
>considered its limit.  I could see him pushing it further in an effort
>to excise every bit of soul from his body as a self-defense mechanism.

I bet he would have liked to try, but it does seem that this is one aspect 
where the Horcruxes of Potterverse differs from the tradition. In 
Potterverse the soul needs to stay in the body to provide that sense of 
self and the memories that give direction to our actions. When Dumbledore 
says that our choices show who we truly are, we should probably consider 
that this only applies in the presence of a soul: without the soul, the 
body is no-one.

>As Troels points out, keeping even a small part of soul seems to leave
>the body vulnerable to attack.

It was, frankly, a somewhat unwarranted comment implying a causal 
connection between two of the observed differences between the external 
soul in folk-tales and in Horcruxes.  I had no intention of implying that 
it was actually possible in Potterverse to completely externalise the soul.

>Of all Dumbledore's speculation about the remaining Horsecrutches,
>Nagini was the one that didn't seem to fit with Riddle's modus
>operandi.

I agree that it didn't sound quite as convincing as it might have been, but 
I am strongly unwilling to disregard any statement of fact by Dumbledore. 
So far I can recall only one statement of fact made by Dumbledore that has 
turned out to be false (it is in PoA when he called Harry and Hermione two 
thirteen-year-old wizards -- Hermione was actually fourteen at the time, 
but since this relates to math, I am sure we can agree to disregard that as 
'someone' putting wrong words in his mouth <GG>), and consequently I will 
need something far stronger than a bit of weak reasoning to disregard 
Dumbledore's guess. As far as I am concerned Nagini is a Horcrux until 
Rowling directly states otherwise (in book or elsewhere).

>It's not a Founder's relic, and it's not associated with Hogwarts
>or his family except for a general connection to Slytherin House
>and Parseltongue.  But he already had a Slytherin relic (the
>ring) and a testament to his Parseltongue ability (the diary).

It was also with the help of Nagini that he was able to get that 
rudimentary body, and it was possibly symbolic of his re-embodiment. If we 
want to challenge the Nagini theory, I would rather say that Frank Bryce is 
the weakest part -- the first murder he committed after beginning to gain 
strength again was of Bertha Jorkins, and I would agree that her death 
would have been significant for him (again as a sign of Voldemort rising 
back to power), but Frank Bryce's death seemed far more incidental.

I know Jo admits to making continuity errors, and this might indeed be one 
of those, although I guess it is one that could be easily explained away: 
Voldemort was desparate to complete his seven-part soul (he didn't know at 
the time that one of his Horcruxes had been destroyed while he was biding 
his time in Albania as a partial soul), and he didn't have the strength to 
create a Horcrux when Bertha was killed (that might require that he didn't 
use the Avada Kedavra to kill Bertha, which isn't consistent with her 
emerging from his wand in GoF in a manner indistinguishable from known AK 
victims) -- or something of that sort.

Of course the weak argumentation might be read as a sign that Dumbledore is 
wrong, but so far his guesses and suspicions have proven spot on (always 
excepting . . . <GG>)

<snip>

>If Voldemort has dispersed every piece of soul, and if Harry is the
>repository of one of those pieces (whether intentionally or
>inadvertently -- I'm leaning toward the theory that Harry is an
>unintentionally created bit of soul, with the possibility that
>Voldemort still does not know about it),

I have several problems with the 'Harry is a Horcrux' proposition.
Foremost is the objection that it requires a spell to encase a soul 
fragment in a Horcrux, and that wasn't performed when Voldemort attacked 
baby Harry.
Secondly it will require that this, that even the possibility of this, has 
been overlooked by both Dumbledore and Voldemort -- not something I find 
terribly convincing.

And yes, I am completely aware that odd things can occur in unprecedented 
freak magical accidents ;-)

>then there is a possibility that the last remaining bit of soul keeping
>Voldemort alive will repose inside Harry.  Voldemort would be unable to
>kill Harry without killing himself.  The irony is that the life of
>Voldemort, whose greatest fear is death, will depend on the mercy of
>Harry, who does not fear death.  Either must die at the hand of the
>other, indeed.

I hate it when people do this . . .

Post some idea that I have already considered and rejected, and then use a 
turn of phrase that catches on ;-)

In this case I was reminded of Dumbledore saying, 'It is my mercy, and not 
yours, that matters now.'

>Probably a swiss cheese theory, but it was fun, anyway.

That's important anyway :)

>Dungrollin wrote:
> >> Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered
> >> whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this
> >> be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a
> >> series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is
> >> not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional
> >> *something* that must be found to complete the undoing.
>
>Troels:
> > There is a strong sense in Rowling's books that the sum of a union is
> > stronger than the sum of the consituents, but with respect to the
> > Horcruxes, I think that we are seeing the reverse. The sum of the split-up
> > soul is less than the sum of the whole (united) soul -- divided he falls!
>
>So, are you saying that something is lost in the ripping of the soul
>caused by the act of murder, or alternatively in the creation of the
>Horcrux?

Possibly both, but in under all circumstances the second.

The sense in the books is, as both Dungrollin and I noted, that the union 
is stronger than the sum of the individual constituents, but this requires 
that the constituents are united. It would follow, I believe, that the sum 
of the individual constituents, when divided, is /weaker/ than for the union.

>I submit that that something is the power which Harry has but which
>Riddle has not.  While we know Riddle has never loved, we are not told
>he never had the capacity to love; the prophecy states that Voldemort
>"knows not" the power and not that he "has not" got it.

I think Rowling addressed this when she said that she didn't believe that 
anyone were born evil when asked if Voldemort were that. Clearly Riddle 
lost his capacity for love, but I would think that he had long lost any 
capacity for love -- any ability to utilise the power of love -- long 
before he became the Dark Lord.

Oh, and by the way apart from knowing (from the Edinburgh Book Festival 
session) that Tom Riddle has never loved, we also now know that he has 
never been loved (from the TLC/MN interview).

    MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to
       ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
    JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable
       even than Voldemort, who never has. Okay, one more each!
<http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview3.html>

So we know that Tom Riddle has never experienced love in any of its aspects 
-- neither giving or receiving.

>Perhaps it was lost through the repeated splitting of the soul and
>having never experienced love, Voldemort didn't know what power he was
>giving up.

Well, the process would definitely be gradual (no-one are born evil), but I 
suspect that Riddle was pretty much a lost case already when he killed his 
father and paternal grandparents, framing the deaths on his remaining 
Uncle. After that[1], opening the Chamber of Secrets was kiddie stuff ;-)

>Is it possible to put Riddle's soul back together?  In the Catholic
>tradition, sin separates a human being from God's love, and confession
>and repentance restores it.  In the Potterverse, murder and the
>creation of the Hoarcrunchy separates the evildoer from the power to
>love.  Would the destruction of the Horcrunchies, with an added dose
>of genuine remorse, make Riddle's soul whole again?  Could Voldemort
>repent?

That is a /very/ good question, IMO.

Of course there are two aspects of it -- one theoretical and one practical.

I would not like to be the one to deprive Tom of the theoretical, 
hypothetical, possibility of redemption, but I dont' believe he will find it.

>And if so, would it be a satisfying ending or would we be choking on
>the treacle?

I just know that I would not be able to write it in a way that didn't 
become nauseating :-/  -- but then, there is probably more than one very 
good reason why I am writing /about/ these stories and not writing them ;-)

Troels




[1] Speaking mathematically here. 'In the summer of his sixteenth year' 
must be the year between his fifteenth and sixteenth birthday -- think of 
the child's first year. I cannot, however, know if British colloquial usage 
differs from that.




From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 18:45:38 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <000101c5a240$ff639490$0200a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <20050816184538.65853.qmail@...>



--- Abeforth's goat baaa'd:

[regarding the morality of using truth serum to force
info in the context of serving the greater good]

> ... And if that doesn't work,
> just let them live in
> an, umm, nice, politically unplottable little island
> not too far from an
> evil-magical superpower somewhere in the Caribbean.
> Put them on a bit of
> a diet (a little thinning never hurt anybody) and
> don't let them sleep
> too much (sloth is evil too, you know) and play some
> other harmless
> games with their precious wee noggins. 

Waldo Glatisant bays like 20 hounds in return: 
[In a faux Texan twang, with undertones of blueblood,
silver spoons, and New England prep schools]

Well, ah'm gonna make it real simple, see? 
Y'see we're the good guys, see?  Them other guys are
the evil guys, y'see?  They are `evil-doers,' and that
is why they are evil. We fight against them, because
we are *good.*  Now, the answer's obvious, of course
... sticking them boys in chicken wire crates on
Azkaban and hooking 'em up to the jumper cables
while's we give it a little gas ... well ... it's
gotta be *good* right,  see'in as how we're the *good*
guys,  and they're the *evil doers*, right?  Makes
perfect sense, don't it?  
[breaking into evil maniacal laughter "Mmhmm
oowahahahaha ... AAAH Ha Ha ha!!]

- Waldo 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 18:55:51 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050816193800.020dac50@...>
Message-ID: <20050816185552.81916.qmail@...>

Troels and elfundeb are discussing Nagini as a horsecrutch:


Elfundeb: Of all Dumbledore's speculation about the remaining Horsecrutches, Nagini was the one that didn't seem to fit with Riddle's modus operandi.

Troels: I agree that it didn't sound quite as convincing as it might have been, but I am strongly unwilling to disregard any statement of fact by Dumbledore. <snip>

Elfundeb:It's not a Founder's relic, and it's not associated with Hogwarts or his family except for a general connection to Slytherin House and Parseltongue.  But he already had a Slytherin relic (the ring) and a testament to his Parseltongue ability (the diary).

Troels: It was also with the help of Nagini that he was able to get that rudimentary body, and it was possibly symbolic of his re-embodiment. If we want to challenge the Nagini theory, I would rather say that Frank Bryce is the weakest part -- the first murder he committed after beginning to gain 
strength again was of Bertha Jorkins, and I would agree that her death would have been significant for him (again as a sign of Voldemort rising back to power), but Frank Bryce's death seemed far more incidental. <snip>

Now CV:

My problem with Nagini as a Chexmix is that she seems so, well, MORTAL. Unlike the basilisk, it would seem she is subject to real snakeyears. What happens to a soul slice when its host slithers off this mortal coil? Can the slice be recovered and put somewhere else? Or does the slice stay in the corpse? Problems, problems.

I don't doubt Dumbledore's sincerity - I think he does believe that Nagini is a candidate for horse host. I think he is simply wrong.

CV


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 19:10:58 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddt09l+rmk0@...>
Message-ID: <20050816191058.63955.qmail@...>

But seriously, I am glad Abeforth's
cloven-hoofed-friend introduced the dicey topic of
shmethics as it affords me an awkward segue into my
personal reaction to certain events in HBP.

I tend to completely lose a sense of distance ... a
sense of "it's just a story" and "I'm not in it" at
times when I read fiction - and especially in the HP
series. 

So I see myself in the garden of The Burrow walking
with Scrimegeour and I realize just how much more
manipulative and petty I am by nature than our
protagonist. 

My first response to Scrimegeour would have been ...
so what are you offering me?  

OK, that is why I am not a hero. That is why I can see
Harry with the heart of a true hero. But nope, not me.
The heroic epic would have ended in that garden. I
would have started bargaining. I would have asked for
Umbridge to be brought up on charges for sending the
dementors and threatening a child with an
unforgiveable curse.  I would have demanded that Percy
and Fudge be fired immediately ... just for spite.
Then I would have tried to engineer some really big
public gesture on the part of the Ministry whereby
they indirectly made it extremely clear to all that
they had deliberately tried to discredit Harry and DD
for all the petty reasons ... and now recognize the
OOTP as the true vanguard in the struggle against LV.
If I couldn't get all that, I might settle for money,
status, power, and groveling. But definitely, I'd want
Umbridge's head on a platter (metaphorically, of
course), and Percy's walking papers. 

Bottom line is, I am much more petty than little HP
and lack his purity of intention. After all the Shiite
they put him through, I would see what I could milk'em
for ... just to see them sweat. 

Good thing I'm not the chosen one. Someone once told
me if all our wishes came true, there wouldn't be any
of us left.

Peace,

W

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 22:29:37 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:29:37 -0000
Subject: How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050816193800.020dac50@...>
Message-ID: <ddtpch+eu5l@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer 
<troelsfo at y...> wrote:> 

Troels:
 
> [1] Speaking mathematically here. 'In the summer of his sixteenth  
> year' must be the year between his fifteenth and sixteenth birthday --
 > think of the child's first year. I cannot, however, know if British 
> colloquial usage differs from that.

Geoff:
We do make that sort of statement - I could say that I am in my sixty-
sixth year, being currently 65 - but it is a usage which is rarely used 
in speech, more in official reports or perhaps mewsapaper comments.





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 16 22:51:01 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:51:01 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddt6o5+d5tb@...>
Message-ID: <ddtqkl+d96a@...>

Jen wrote: 
> > Another objection is how it could have happened given Lily's 
> > sacrifice. Her protection was there before LV cast the AK, and
> > if it's as strong as we're led to believe, the cornerstone of
> > Hary's protection, I don't see how an evil soul sliver got 
> > through that.

Neri:
> As I mention above it is canon that a sliver of Voldy found it's
> way into Harry at GH despite the protection. The only question is
> if this sliver is a soul sliver.

Jen: His powers found a way inside, some of his powers. Powers 
aren't in and of themselves good or evil. DD confirmed there are 
Parselmouths 'among the great and the good' even if the power has a 
reputation of being dark magic. Do we have any other confirmed 
powers Voldemort passed? I've heard legilimency and possession and 
think we've seen more signs of legilimency (which might come in 
handy for plot purposes if nothing else, to extract memories for the 
Pensieve <g>).

The accidental Horcrux will be an extremely hard sell after HBP, 
where Dumbledore tells us: "If he had not forced your mother to die 
for you {hey, I thought she had a choice?}, would he have given you 
a magical protection he could not penetrate?" (chap. 23, p. 510).

Voldemort could not penetrate the magical protection. Maybe his 
morality-neutral powers could penetrate, but his soul is part of him 
and therefore, should not be able to penetrate Harry either. I'm 
taking the hard-line approach on this one <bg>.

Neri:
> We have Dumbledore's opinion that at GH Voldy was still one Hx
> short, and that he most probably intended to use the killing of
> Harry for his last Hx, so half of the required intention is
> already there. The fact that Voldy tried to spare Lily also 
> suggests he wanted to make her the Hx. This means he may have
> intended to perform the full Hx magic that night. In fact, perhaps
> he had already performed it, and everything was ready except for 
> the victim and the Hx herself/himself.

Jen: Urgh, Neri! That thought never occurred to me, that Voldemort 
wanted to use Lily as a Horcrux. Why, though? A living thing as a 
Horcrux sounded like a last-resort option. And he knows the woman 
who thrice-defied him isn't going to willingly agree to that. 
Wouldn't he guess that she would rather die? Then he's left with 
nothing to put the soul into. But as for intention, you're right the 
intent to seal a Horcrux was there that night, I can't argue with 
that.

About Lily though, as I can't really agree Voldemort wanted to use 
her for a Horcrux (too many risks for failure); and after getting 
Voldemort's psychological profile in HBP, I'd say him saving Lily 
b/c Snape asked him to is out of the question (he's not into the 
saving people thing <g>). So what's left for why he might ask Lily 
to step aside? The only thing that makes sense for me, which would 
answer multiple plot questions, is the idea Lily possessed a power 
he feared might backfire on him. I'm basing it on three interview 
answers or lack of answers:

1) JKR couldn't give details about James & Lily's professions. I'm 
really sold on the idea Lily worked at the DOM.

2) She side-stepped the question of whether some witches and wizards 
can do magic with their eyes. 

3) We're promised to find out the really big thing about Lily in 
Book 7.

Neri: 
> While magic is usually intentional, this intention is frequently 
> misdirected, and accidents *do* happen. Intentional magic often
> goes wrong, and the most spectacular example we have for that is
> Voldy's AK rebounding and vaporizing himself that very night. It
> would hardly be very surprising if this wasn't the only piece of
> magic that didn't go as planned that night.  

Jen: Have we seen an accident with a process though? One of the 
biggies that involves a ritual like a Secret-Keeper or the 
Unbreakable or the re-birthing potion? Something involving 
complicated magic, I mean.

It's possible making a Horcrux isn't complicated, but Riddle 
couldn't find that information on his own, even though he had time 
to search outside of Hogwarts after the murders of his family, and 
before going to Slughorn. And Riddle wasn't asking Slughorn a throw-
away question, Harry noted he had the look and sound of a person who 
spent weeks building up to that one moment. It just sounds like a 
complicated piece of magic, OK? ;) I'm a little light on canon here.

Jen






From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 00:07:29 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:07:29 -0000
Subject: Introduction
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050814133252.01fb29f0@...>
Message-ID: <ddtv41+tmjj@...>

Welcome, Troels!

Troels wrote:
> Those who attended Accio will no doubt know my position regarding 
> the former Potions master and present evil git ;-)
>.... he is evil through and through in any circumstances.  

"We must agree to differ on that, Troels. It so happens that I trust 
Professor Snape..."  

> I know my own 
> temper well enough to stay clear of inflammable subjects :-/

Snape is certainly one of the characters who tends to be 
inflammable.  I know that before Book 6 came out, HPfGU was having 
problems with people arguing back & forth about him.  I think there's 
no point arguing until at least after Chapter 7, which hopefully will 
clear things up one way or the other. 

-- Judy, feeling that it can't be a bad thing to be equally mistaken 
as Dumbledore.






From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 00:29:27 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:29:27 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddtqkl+d96a@...>
Message-ID: <ddu0d7+p0nd@...>

Actually, the question of how a bit of evil!Voldie could stand being 
in Pure!Harry is a very good question, not stupid at all!  Glad you 
brought it up, Eloise.


Neri said:
> > The fact that Voldy tried to spare Lily also 
> > suggests he wanted to make her the Hx. 

> Jen: Urgh, Neri! That thought never occurred to me, that Voldemort 
> wanted to use Lily as a Horcrux. Why, though? A living thing as a 
> Horcrux sounded like a last-resort option. 

I don't think Voldemort would want Lily as a horcrux, either.  Now, 
if Voldemort *knew* that harry would survive the AK, it would have an 
advantage  -- the only way for Harry to destroy Voldemort would be to 
kill his own mother.  But, Voldemort expected Harry to die, so that 
wasn't an issue.

Lily would be a poor horcrux for several reasons.  Firstly, she was 
mortal -- which I'm not certain Nagini is. Nagini does not seem to 
correspond to any actual type of snake; there are no venomous snakes 
anywhere near her size. Also, "Naga" can refer to supernatural snake-
beings in Hindu mythology.

Seconly, Lily was clearly willing to die to destroy Voldemort; she 
was in the Order. So, if she knew she had a bit of Voldemort's soul 
in her, she would likely be willing to die to destroy it.

Jen said:
> I'd say him saving Lily 
> b/c Snape asked him to is out of the question (he's not into the 
> saving people thing <g>). 

Well, I'd like to defend my "teeew ewww to be treewww" theory that 
Voldemort wanted to save Lily for Snape.  Voldemort couldn't care 
less whether Lily died, but Snape had told Voldemort of the only 
person with the power to destroy him -- "and Lord Voldemort rewards 
his helpers." 

Jen hypothesized:
>So what's left for why he might ask Lily 
> to step aside? The only thing that makes sense for me, which would 
> answer multiple plot questions, is the idea Lily possessed a power 
> he feared might backfire on him....

Possible, but I don't think Voldemort ever imagined that killing Lily 
could backfire on him.  Otherwise, he might have avoided using magic 
on Harry -- he could have strangled Harry instead of AKing him.

-- Judy





From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 02:04:54 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:04:54 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
References: <ddu0d7+p0nd@...>
Message-ID: <00e401c5a2d0$0fde95b0$6601a8c0@...>


>From: "Judy"

> Actually, the question of how a bit of evil!Voldie could stand being
> in Pure!Harry is a very good question, not stupid at all!  Glad you
> brought it up, Eloise.
>
>
> Neri said:
>> > The fact that Voldy tried to spare Lily also
>> > suggests he wanted to make her the Hx.
>
>> Jen: Urgh, Neri! That thought never occurred to me, that Voldemort
>> wanted to use Lily as a Horcrux. Why, though? A living thing as a
>> Horcrux sounded like a last-resort option.
>
> I don't think Voldemort would want Lily as a horcrux, either.  Now,
> if Voldemort *knew* that harry would survive the AK, it would have an
> advantage  -- the only way for Harry to destroy Voldemort would be to
> kill his own mother.  But, Voldemort expected Harry to die, so that
> wasn't an issue.
>
> Lily would be a poor horcrux for several reasons.  Firstly, she was
> mortal -- which I'm not certain Nagini is. Nagini does not seem to
> correspond to any actual type of snake; there are no venomous snakes
> anywhere near her size. Also, "Naga" can refer to supernatural snake-
> beings in Hindu mythology.
>
> Seconly, Lily was clearly willing to die to destroy Voldemort; she
> was in the Order. So, if she knew she had a bit of Voldemort's soul
> in her, she would likely be willing to die to destroy it.
>
Judy said :


> Actually, the question of how a bit of evil!Voldie could stand being
> in Pure!Harry is a very good question, not stupid at all!  Glad you
> brought it up, Eloise.
>
>
> Neri said:
>> > The fact that Voldy tried to spare Lily also
>> > suggests he wanted to make her the Hx.
>
>> Jen: Urgh, Neri! That thought never occurred to me, that Voldemort
>> wanted to use Lily as a Horcrux. Why, though? A living thing as a
>> Horcrux sounded like a last-resort option.
>
> I don't think Voldemort would want Lily as a horcrux, either.  Now,
> if Voldemort *knew* that harry would survive the AK, it would have an
> advantage  -- the only way for Harry to destroy Voldemort would be to
> kill his own mother.  But, Voldemort expected Harry to die, so that
> wasn't an issue.
>
> Lily would be a poor horcrux for several reasons.  Firstly, she was
> mortal -- which I'm not certain Nagini is. Nagini does not seem to
> correspond to any actual type of snake; there are no venomous snakes
> anywhere near her size. Also, "Naga" can refer to supernatural snake-
> beings in Hindu mythology.
>
> Seconly, Lily was clearly willing to die to destroy Voldemort; she
> was in the Order. So, if she knew she had a bit of Voldemort's soul
> in her, she would likely be willing to die to destroy it.

Charme:

To Neri's point, I'm not sure about that.  I believe that JKR makes a point 
in one of her interviews that Voldemort lies, and she relates this 
specifically with Tom Riddle's CoS apparently bogus comment to Harry that 
Hagrid kept werewolf cubs under his bed.  Thinking Lily could have been 
intended for a Horcrux might be a red herring. Furthermore, DD makes the 
statement in HBP that even in Nagini's case, it was unusual for even 
Voldemort to have made Nagini a Horcrux and that there's a certain risk in 
that given that you're dealing with a creature that has its own mind and 
you've given it part of your soul. Interestingly, that to me would point to 
if in fact Harry does have a piece of Voldemort in him, that he's capable of 
free will and this could refer back to DD's statement to Harry in CoS that 
it's our choices that determine who we are.

I wonder though, and this is far fetched, if perhaps a sliver of Lily is in 
Harry in some way, if she discovered something if she worked in the DoM as 
some suspect. I'm not sure I'm explaining it properly, and I ask this 
fleetingly as it relates to some of the other revelations in the septology 
about how Lily's sacrifice provided protection for Harry.  Lily's sacrifice 
for Harry and protection thereof would also apply to the piece of 
Voldemort's soul in Harry (if it's there.) Not to be sappy, but how would 
having a protection like a mother's sacrifice (which Riddle never had) 
change the tortured nature of something like that? Would it?

On an unrelated but Lily note, I have weird suspicion some of the potion 
changes in the Snape's Potion Book came from either Lily, or in 
collaboration with her. Note that Sluggy points out how he thought Lily was 
pureblood, she was so good. He does not mention Snape, I don't think? Not 
that that means anything, but there you are.


Charme, hoping I haven't botched what I was trying to say 





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 04:16:51 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:16:51 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <00e401c5a2d0$0fde95b0$6601a8c0@...>
Message-ID: <ddudnj+10668@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" <dontask2much at y...> wrote:
> On an unrelated but Lily note, I have weird suspicion some of the potion 
> changes in the Snape's Potion Book came from either Lily, or in 
> collaboration with her. Note that Sluggy points out how he thought Lily was 
> pureblood, she was so good. He does not mention Snape, I don't think? Not 
> that that means anything, but there you are.
> 
> 
> Charme, hoping I haven't botched what I was trying to say

Lyn Now:
Yes, there is something very interesting going on here, yet as usual, JKR has left us with 
the essential pieces to know what it is. 

It is very interesting that Snape was the same age as Lilly, likely was in the same Potions 
classes, and surely was taught by the same teacher (Slughorn) yet Lilly is discussed in 
isolation as the outstanding Potions student, even though we know the Snape is a potions 
master in far more than title. We almost surely know that Snape's potions abilities exist 
independent of the book. What we don't know is from whence Lilly's abilites derived.  It 
seems as canonically possible that Snape was Lilly's tutor as vice versa. What I'm not sure 
about is for how long Slughorn was their professor. If he entered or left part way through 
their time at Hogworts, he would have developed a view of their abilities for only one 
moment in time, much like he has of Harry's. 

The whole issue of the handwriting is obviously significant. It otherwise seems unncessary 
for Rowling to have Hermione comment on the possible female authorship of the 
annotations. However, I don't recall there being any comment of any inconsistency in the 
handwriting. It seems that the assumption was that it was always written by the same 
person (now I have finished me re-reading, so I may have missed this). If so, and Snape 
has clearly associated himself with the signature, then I would think it is most likely to be 
his. That of course wouldn't preclude that Lilly was the source and Snape was the scribe. It 
is even possible that they collaborated on many of the "recipes" but Snape was the one 
who documented them (of course, wouldn't it be interesting to find Lilly's old Potion's 
book). Which makes me wonder as we write this, if Harry will come to find any of his 
parent's old books.

Ah, so much to consider, so little to know, even now.





From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 07:40:12 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:40:12 -0000
Subject: The Potions Book WAS Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddudnj+10668@...>
Message-ID: <ddupks+j6nf@...>

Lyn wrote:

> 
> It is very interesting that Snape was the same age as Lilly,  
> likely was in the same Potions classes, and surely was taught by 
> the same teacher (Slughorn) yet Lilly is discussed in isolation as 
> the outstanding Potions student, even though we know the Snape is 
> a  potionsmaster in far more than title. 

Pip!Squeak
That's in character for Slughorn though. Firstly, he's trying to 
butter up Harry - and telling Harry of his mother's brilliance at 
this subject was one way to do it. Secondly, Snape is the teacher 
he's replaced, and *no* teacher is going to hint to a class that 
their previous teacher was a brilliant genius. 

Lyn:
> That of course wouldn't preclude that Lilly was the source and 
> Snape was the scribe. It is even possible that they collaborated 
> on many of the "recipes" but Snape was the one who documented them 
> (of course, wouldn't it be interesting to find Lilly's old 
> Potion's book). Which makes me wonder as we write this, if Harry 
> will come to find any of his parent's old books.

Pip!Squeak:
There's a problem with Snape and Lily collaborating on *Advanced* 
potions, though. In the Snape's Worst Memory chapter, the scene 
where he calls her 'mudblood' is during the *OWLS*.

Unless Snape did a profound, sincere, and most-unlike-what-we've-
seen-of-Snape-to-date apology, Lily's rather unlikely to have been 
working with him. She's much more likely to have been considering 
using him as an advanced sample tester.

Of course, that may have been where he learned about the bezoar...

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 07:45:25 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:45:25 -0000
Subject: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddt09l+rmk0@...>
Message-ID: <ddupul+ol7f@...>

Mike:

> > So, I think there's lots of nice, Christiany-ethicy stuff in HBP.
> All well and dandy. But honestly, folks:
> > 
> > Is it right to get people (and basically innocent people at that!)
> drunk so they'll divulge information they wouldn't other divulge?
> > 
> > If so, is it also right to force turth serum on them? (Which
> Dumbledore admits to doing to Horace.)
> > 
> 
> Pippin
> Hold on! In the first place Harry doesn't "get" Slughorn drunk. That
> was entirely Slughorn's choice. It's not like Harry spiked his punch
> or put him under Imperius, or like Slughorn is unfamiliar with the
> effects of alcohol.  

Eloise:

No. but Slughorn was acting under the influence of the Felix Felicis 
that Harry had taken.

Moreover,

"The Felix Felicis gave Harry a little nudge at this point and he 
noticed the supply of drink that Slughorn had brought was running out 
fast. Harry had not yet managed to bring off the Refilling Charm 
without saying the incantation aloud, but the idea that he might not 
be able to do it tonight was laughable: indeed, Harry grinned to 
himself as, unnoticed by either Hagrid or Slughorn (now swapping 
tales of the illegal trade in dragon eggs), he pointed his wand under 
the table at the emptying bottles and they immediately began to 
refill."

That implies some intent on Harry's side to me. ;-)

What *real* choice did Slughorn have, I wonder, when Harry had the 
Felix Felicis on his side. Even if he did have choice, I would argue 
that there are some ethical niceties about the rights and wrongs of 
exploiting others' weaknesses.

One of the things that struck me about this book was that throughout, 
the consumption of alcohol was a much more obvious theme than in 
previous volumes (and even in these I have seen its use questioned). 
Now just to make myself plain, I'm not TT or anything, anything but, 
it's just something I noticed and which was highlighted in particular 
by the session in which Harry encourages Slughorn to get drunk in 
order to extract that memory.

Polishing up my tarnished LOON credentials, I decided to skim the 
book and see if my perceptions were correct. This is what I found. 
I've included everything I could find, even the trivial.

Ch1 Fudge pours two large glasses of the PM's whisky.

Ch2 Snape automatically provides Cissy and Bella with wine.

Ch3 Dumbledore, complaining of the Durseley's lack of hospitality, 
provides the assembled company with some of Madam Rosmerta's finest 
oak-matured mead.

Ch12 The trio indulge in Butterbeer in the Three Broomsticks (I think 
this is the only ref to butterbeer in this book - the rest of the 
refs are to "real" alcohol).

Ch13 (Pensieve memory) Dumbledore drinks gin with Mrs Cole at the 
orphanage.  She drinks *a lot* . Harry is "impressed" that she's 
steady after 2/3 of the bottle is gone. This scene is, I think, a 
reference back to Victorian and earlier images of gin-soaked child-
carers (think Dickens/Hogarth).

Ch15 Romilda's liqueur chocolates. (OK, the fire whisky is presumably 
to disguise the taste of the love potion).

Ch17 Not for the first time, the Fat Lady's been on the bottle with 
Violet, apparently binge-drinking over Christmas.

Ch17 (Pensieve)  Morfin's taken to drink.

Ch17 (Pensieve)  Slughorn is drinking a small glass of wine (and 
eating crystalised pineapple - can't *imagine* what wine you'd pair 
with that!) whilst entertaining the Slug Club.

Ch18  Ron poisoned when he drinks some of the mead offered by 
Slughorn as a "pick-me-up".

Ch20  Dumbledore gives Tom wine when he visits ostensibly in search 
of a post.

Ch22  Harry facilitates Slughorn getting drunk to extract the memory.

Ch23  (Pensieve)  As Ch17.

Ch25  Sybil's sherry problem.

Ch25  Dumbledore apparently routinely uses going for a drink as cover.


Conclusions?

Well, Dumbledore clearly likes a drop and he seems routinely to oil 
his meetings with other adults with a drink. He also must regularly 
drop into the local hostelries for a drink of an evening if his cover 
is to be convincing.

What I found surprising was that Slughorn's little parties (in the 
present action) didn't seem to involve drinking at all. I was quite 
surprised that his luncheon on the train was apparently unaccompanied 
by a nice bottle to wash down the pheasant.

What we do have, however is a continuation of an earlier theme of 
characters with alcohol problems. Sybil's drinking problem is even 
more overt. Morfin is presumably being portrayed as an alcoholic, as 
is Mrs Cole. In the past, we've had hints at least that Hagrid drinks 
too much, even for his size, especially in times of stress and the 
Fat Lady routinely gets smashed at Christmas (OK. Perhaps it's 
because she's not used to it).

To be honest, I'm not sure what I make of it. I'd have no problem 
whatsoever sitting down for a glass with Dumbledore, or going down 
the three Broomsticks for a jar, but there *is* a bit of me that's 
uncomfortable with the way some of it's written, which is partly 
because I come (as does JKR) from a culture which has a growing 
problem with young drinkers and in particular with young people binge-
 drinking. I suppose that in fact we are seeing the dangers of 
alcohol portrayed, but apart from the pathetic Morfin, excess 
drinking is here portrayed as amusing (Sybil, Fat Lady), impressive 
(Mrs Cole) or as a way of exploiting someone else to get what you 
need.

In a book aimed at a young readership, I do wonder about the 
judgement of some of this.

~Eloise








From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 11:38:51 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:38:51 +0100
Subject: Tonks again
Message-ID: <636637D3-13C7-4A52-82FE-DB8C7AC41C34@...>

 > ewe2
 > This points to a PolyJuiced!Someone. There have been several  
attempts to
 > excuse the Patronus, but I think JKR's pronouncement on the FAQ  
poll page
 > seals it. "Tonks" asks Harry directly about letters between Order  
members,
 > which is such a giveaway; "Tonks" doesn't know about the Patronus  
method.
 > But she's had to make a Patronus and it sounds rather fudged and  
excuses can
 > be made for not-quite-there Patronuses. Hence the Lupin love-story  
to deflect
 > suspicion and excuse most un-Tonk-like behaviour.
 >

Kneasy:
Plenty of Polyjuice potion around by all accounts - which raises  
intriguing questions: who made it, where did they get the rarer  
ingredients from and when was it made? Somehow I don't see young  
Drafto stirring a cauldron in the Slytherin Common-Room every day for  
a month, or even in the RoR. Maybe it was provided by an interested  
party or parties, someone willing to let him have some that was  
surplus to the suppliers requirements.

Makes some sort of sense, hardly seems worthwhile to go to the  
trouble of manufacturing something as complicated and time-consuming  
as PP just to disguise Grab and Coyle as pre-pubescent girlies. A  
stray thought - if 'Tonks' is a Polyjuiced somebody-or-other,  that  
somebody need not necessarily be female. C&G are playing with gender  
reassignment, why not the someone else? After all,
hiding in plain sight by changing sex is not the type of subtle  
thinking one would associate with Draino, or any teenage male come to  
that.

But if it is a Polyjuiced!Tonks then the original must have been  
available at some time to have various redundant bits hacked off her  
to add to the potion. Um. That complicates things and tends to  
strengthen the odds that it may be an unPolyjuiced Andromeda that's  
the ringer. A strong physical resemblance would not be unreasonable,   
the appearance of age would be explicable,  she'd be anti-Voldy  
(disowned by family, married to a Muggle),  concerned for Nympho's  
emotional well-being and need to be reminded who she's supposed to be  
by being called 'Nymphodora' rather than the plain 'Tonks' that the  
latter prefers.


 > ewe2:
 > Do you think it likely that Dung knows who Aberforth really is? My  
impression
 > is that if half the denizen's of the Hog's Head knew, the pub  
would be empty.
 > It's such a golden opportunity to hear what the criminal  
underground is
 > saying, Aberforth would be mad to allow a yapper like Dung in on  
the secret.
 >

Kneasy:
Yup. They've been together before - in OoP when Dung was getting the  
low-down on the formation of the DA. And it is interesting that  
Aberforth slides out of the picture as Harry confronts Dung, to be  
almost immediately replaced by 'Tonks', her hair wet with sleet. One  
might almost believe that there's some funny business going on here.


 > Stephanie writes:
 > Since the discussion last month I?ve been wondering what it could  
mean if Tonks isn?t always Tonks in HBP.  For example, does she know  
that someone -? Narcissa, or Andromeda, who are my two favorite  
candidates so far -- has been impersonating or controlling her?  But,  
ever the gun-jumper, the part that I?ve really been mulling over  
(especially having read Pippin?s Accio paper) is, if Tonks isn?t  
really Tonks, what does it mean that she and Lupin seemingly get  
together at the end of the book?
 >
 > Possible combinations ?-
 >
 > * ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks in league with one another, fudging  
a love story;
 >
 > * ESE!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, each thinking they're fooling the  
other;
 >
 > * In-the-Dark!Lupin and Imposter!Tonks, who's stringing him along  
after having seen his behavior toward Real!Tonks, setting him up for  
yet another betrayal.
 >
 > * Of course there?s always the possibility that Not-evil!Lupin had  
a plain old argument with Real!Tonks in the hospital wing ... but  
that?s boring.
 >
 > So for me, two other questions to ponder in the Polyjuice theory  
are, (1) Is Tonks herself in the hospital wing and at the funeral,  
and (2) If she isn?t, what does the imposter gain by soliciting Lupin  
in public?
 >

Kneasy:
Fun speculations, save perhaps for the last one which I agree is a  
bit boring. Always comforting to know that there's still a bunch of  
Bangy fans around, hoping for even more dirty work at the cross- 
roads. We can but hope...

But it'll probably be something more mundane. Sad that. Cuts down on  
the possibilities of confrontations, misunderstandings, violence and  
generalised mayhem ending with exploding eyeballs and the crunch of  
smashed bones. Pity.
Still, I suppose one must rein in one's enthusiasm occasionally. How  
about  this - if Loopy is doing his sheep in wolf's clothing bit,  
then he'll  need a contact, a messenger, a go-between. Who better  
than Nympho who can assume a fake appearance that is not time-limited  
like Poly-Potion? Sensible but not exciting.

 > I feel they are doomed ...
 >
 > Silmariel

Splendid! That's the ticket!
Not an enthusiast of happy endings myself, find them depressing.  
Can't help but extrapolate and imagine the characters 20 years on -  
overweight, balding, flatulent, shrewish ("I should have listened to  
my mother!") and wondering where the excitement went. Nothing more  
useless than a redundant hero, slumped over a pint in the pub, boring  
everyone to tears with tales repeated too often of derring-do long past.

Kneasy


From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 11:48:48 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddupul+ol7f@...>
Message-ID: <20050817114848.77640.qmail@...>

--- eloise_herisson <eloiseherisson at ...> wrote:

> To be honest, I'm not sure what I make of it. I'd
> have no problem 
> whatsoever sitting down for a glass with Dumbledore,
> or going down 
> the three Broomsticks for a jar, but there *is* a
> bit of me that's 
> uncomfortable with the way some of it's written,
> which is partly 
> because I come (as does JKR) from a culture which
> has a growing 
> problem with young drinkers and in particular with
> young people binge-
>  drinking. I suppose that in fact we are seeing the
> dangers of 
> alcohol portrayed, but apart from the pathetic
> Morfin, excess 
> drinking is here portrayed as amusing (Sybil, Fat
> Lady), impressive 
> (Mrs Cole) or as a way of exploiting someone else to
> get what you 
> need.
> 
> In a book aimed at a young readership, I do wonder
> about the judgement of some of this.
>
> ~Eloise

As a former drinker and as a therapist, I always
notice how people drink in books and movies. 

Not to be too prudish, but it does concern me just a
tad that our chronic drunks (Winky and Trelawny) are
sort of just hanging out, drinking their lives away
for our amusement with apparently no hope of recovery.
I am not sure if rehab / recovery from addiction is a
concept that exists in the WW.  

OT aside: anyone want to clue me in to what ESE stands
for? Evil S... E... ? 

Thanks

- Larry Fights

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 12:31:02 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:31:02 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
References: <20050817114848.77640.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <01e001c5a327$87ab9c30$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Waldo:
OT aside: anyone want to clue me in to what ESE stands
for? Evil S... E... ? 

SSSusan:
Ever-So-Evil (often as in, not what one appears to be).



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




From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 12:39:21 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:39:21 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <20050817114848.77640.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...>

> As a former drinker and as a therapist, I always
> notice how people drink in books and movies. 
> 
> Not to be too prudish, but it does concern me just a
> tad that our chronic drunks (Winky and Trelawny) are
> sort of just hanging out, drinking their lives away
> for our amusement with apparently no hope of recovery.
> I am not sure if rehab / recovery from addiction is a
> concept that exists in the WW.  
> 
> OT aside: anyone want to clue me in to what ESE stands
> for? Evil S... E... ? 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> - Larry Fights

Ginger:  As a member of the hard-drinking lower class, I have never 
found the amount of drinking in any of the HP books to be out of 
range.  Hagrid, bless his heart, is pretty much the same social class 
as I, so I've never been put off by his drinking.

Winky, on the other hand, I worry about.  She isn't drinking 
socially.  She is drinking from depression.  (Side thought- Winky at 
a 12-step meeting, would fail on the first step- "Winky has no Higher 
Power!  Winky has clothes!")  Poor thing.  I really pity her.

Trelawney is at least capable of keeping her life in order and doing 
her job (such as she does it) without slipping.  I'd call her a 
functional drinker.  

The rest seem to be social drinkers.  I don't know anything about 
British drinking, but I have gotten the impression that they drink 
socially more than we do here in the US.  Is this correct, British 
friends?  I am, of course talking in broad generalities.  I'm 
certainly not labeling them as slush-hounds and booze-hags.  I 
reserve that title for myself ;o)

As to your other point, ESE means Ever So Evil.  It's used to 
indicate that a person generally portrayed as good is actually evil 
and is hoodwinking us.  I think just about every character has had a 
moment as an ESE person.  Even the giant squid, Trevor, and Bill.

Ginger, today drinking peach/grape juice.  Non-alcoholic.






From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 13:13:52 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:13:52 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <636637D3-13C7-4A52-82FE-DB8C7AC41C34@...>
References: <636637D3-13C7-4A52-82FE-DB8C7AC41C34@...>
Message-ID: <20050817131352.GB13269@...>

Kneasy:

> Maybe it was provided by an interested  party or parties, someone willing to
> let him have some that was  surplus to the suppliers requirements.

Well, as to the PP there's already a handy store in the Dungeon. Either Snape
or Sluggy, and my money's on Snape. And why would "Tonks" ask about letters
between the Order if "she" knows perfectly well they use Patronuses?

> After all, hiding in plain sight by changing sex is not the type of subtle
> thinking one would associate with Draino, or any teenage male come to  that.

Snape's sense of humour...? Certainly, a male isn't out of the question, but
if it isn't the real Tonks, then the Lupin ship story is automatically
suspect, and not one that is likely from males either.

> But if it is a Polyjuiced!Tonks then the original must have been  
> available at some time to have various redundant bits hacked off her  
> to add to the potion. Um. That complicates things and tends to  
> strengthen the odds that it may be an unPolyjuiced Andromeda that's  
> the ringer. 

Andromeda doesn't satisfy the Occam's Razor test for me. But Ms R likes her
little Christie homages, so I can't rule her out. But for me it's more likely
to be someone closer to home, someone with a stronger motive.

> Yup. They've been together before - in OoP when Dung was getting the  
> low-down on the formation of the DA. And it is interesting that  
> Aberforth slides out of the picture as Harry confronts Dung, to be  
> almost immediately replaced by 'Tonks', her hair wet with sleet. One  
> might almost believe that there's some funny business going on here.

Conceded. Perhaps Tonks has an "interesting" past, one that could be used
against her? Blackmailed to save her family? Imperioed!Tonks could still work
then.

Stephanie:
> So for me, two other questions to ponder in the Polyjuice theory  
> are, (1) Is Tonks herself in the hospital wing and at the funeral,  
> and (2) If she isn?t, what does the imposter gain by soliciting Lupin  
> in public?

To answer (2), Imposter!Tonks has to explain a few things: lack of Metamorph,
inexplicable non-clumsiness, curious forgetfulness. What better than
unrequited love? And such a confidence inspires trust, especially from a
romantic like Molly.  "Tonks" was rather eager to avoid Dumbledore, wasn't
she? Unfortunately it also means "she" has to play out the facade with Molly
looking on. And for (1) a mixed Real!Tonks and Imposter!Tonks doesn't work
if Imposter!Tonks has manufactured the Lupin ship, the risk is unacceptable.
But the list of possibilities is fun :)

Kneasy:
> Still, I suppose one must rein in one's enthusiasm occasionally. How  
> about  this - if Loopy is doing his sheep in wolf's clothing bit,  
> then he'll  need a contact, a messenger, a go-between. Who better  
> than Nympho who can assume a fake appearance that is not time-limited  
> like Poly-Potion? Sensible but not exciting.

Ok, but why then the need for tragic love? Bubblegum!Tonks meets Lover!Lupin on a
regular basis, and noone suspects anything? Imperioed!Tonks is forced by
blackmail to report to ESE!Lupin and concoct ficticious love to excuse her
presence? Hmmmmm

Silmariel:
I feel they are doomed ...

Kneasy:
Splendid! That's the ticket!

Yes, doooom!!!

> Nothing more  useless than a redundant hero, slumped over a pint in the pub,
> boring  everyone to tears with tales repeated too often of derring-do long
> past.

"Oh,'im? 'E used ter be 'Arry Potter, the Boy 'OO Lived. Ever since 'e sorted
that You- Know-'OO, 'e ain't never bin the same. They say 'e tried to take up
Auror'ing but 'e reckoned it were nothing to You-Know-'OO so 'e chucked it an'
tried 'is luck with the Chudley Cannons. They threw 'im out after that match
with Puddlemere United. Ain't no Seeker I ever heard of hexing Beaters, it was
unprofessional..."

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 14:04:36 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:04:36 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...>
Message-ID: <ddvg5k+b8i7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" <quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> 
> The rest seem to be social drinkers.  I don't know anything about 
> British drinking, but I have gotten the impression that they drink 
> socially more than we do here in the US.  Is this correct, British 
> friends?  I am, of course talking in broad generalities.  I'm 
> certainly not labeling them as slush-hounds and booze-hags.  I 
> reserve that title for myself ;o)
> 

Kneasy:
As dear old Oscar once put it "Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

Sure, booze plays a fair part in Brit social life - though that's been
tempered somewhat by the drink/drive laws. Fortunately they only
apply to the driver, not the car-full of legless inebriates who spent
the night getting blasted on multi-pints of Old and Nasty. A slight
exaggeration, but you'll get my meaning.

Generally speaking, if visitors arrive at your house in the evening a
drink is offered as soon as they get their coats off - sometimes before.
Visitors around lunch-time are often given the opportunity of popping 
out for a pub-lunch. It's considered quite unexceptional. 

Boozy Brits have been around for a long time;  the Normans were quite
shocked at the unrestrained habit among the locals; monasteries had
enormous booze-ups open to all which used to go on for days, with a
competitive aspect to them - last man standing didn't  have to pay
for what he'd consumed. Then there's Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' - "Drunk for
a penny, dead drunk for twopence, clean straw for free." Strict licensing
laws governing the times that premises could sell drink were introduced
during the First World War - it was found to be the only effective way of
getting munitions workers out of the pub and back to the war effort.

The government currently seems bent on turning the clock back by
allowing premises to serve 24 hours a day; this despite the mayhem
found in town centres now - mostly younger drinkers who have yet to
learn that if a couple of drinks make for a pleasant evening out, five times
as much does not increase the enjoyment proportionally.

The town where I live has (reputedly) more pubs per head of population
than anywhere else in the UK. Even that is a mere pale reflection of its
past - at one time one house in three was an ale-house or wine-shop.
Probably helps explain why those of a puritanical bent upped-sticks
and sailed to America.

Mind you, other places have, or have had, interesting drinking habits too:
the '6 o'clock swill' in New Zealand; any Aussie pub at 5 pm on a Friday, and
why bother waiting 'til Friday? Never go drinking with Finns, Norwegians 
or Swedes, you'll regret it. May be significant that for decades in these 
countries  booze has been a government monopoly, with few outlets 
(comparatively speaking), lots of anti-drink propaganda and it's bloody 
expensive. Doesn't seem to have affected consumption though.

But to answer your question, yes, alcohol is regarded as a social lubricant,
though drunks, habitual or occasional, are regarded as tiresome and 
anti-social.

FYI government stats claim that alcohol related deaths (all categories -
liver failure, binge drinking, road accidents, other accidents, suicide etc)
total about 20,000 a year.  That's approx 0.05% of the adult population.
I've no idea if that's a lot by international comparison.

Kneasy










From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 14:14:42 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ESE
In-Reply-To: <01e001c5a327$87ab9c30$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <20050817141442.3156.qmail@...>

Ever since I saw this ESE logo, it has stuck in my
mind.  I have been looking at jobs related to teaching
and I constantly see ESE teaching positions.  

I think about the ESE Lupin crowd and think that he
must have started a trend.  You can now apply for ESE
positions in the teaching profession.  I guess you
will be expected to miss classes now and then to go
off and do dastardly things!

Red <0> Randy

--- susiequsie23 <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

> Waldo:
> OT aside: anyone want to clue me in to what ESE
> stands
> for? Evil S... E... ? 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Ever-So-Evil (often as in, not what one appears to
> be).
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 15:01:06 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:01:06 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvg5k+b8i7@...>
References: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...> <ddvg5k+b8i7@...>
Message-ID: <20050817150106.GC13269@...>

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:04:36PM -0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote:

> Mind you, other places have, or have had, interesting drinking habits too:
> the '6 o'clock swill' in New Zealand; any Aussie pub at 5 pm on a Friday, and
> why bother waiting 'til Friday?

Speaking as a well-oiled Aussie, the "6 o'clock swill" referred here to the
old mandatory closing time of 6pm; the hour before was therefore a very busy
time. Here is a useful link:

http://www.australianbeers.com/pubs/misc/six.htm

Keith Dunstan (mentioned above) wrote a wonderful book called Knockers which
is a must-read if you can find it. Among other things, he explains why
Canberra is what and where it is - for example, it is midway between Sydney
and Melbourne and exists in its own state precisely because neither Sydney or
Melbourne would allow the other a skerrick of advantage over the nation's
capital.

ewe2, schminking of bourbon

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 15:41:11 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:41:11 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...>
Message-ID: <ddvlqn+fpbd@...>

Ginger:  
> As a member of the hard-drinking lower class, I have never 
> found the amount of drinking in any of the HP books to be out of 
> range.  Hagrid, bless his heart, is pretty much the same social 
> class as I, so I've never been put off by his drinking.
> 
> Winky, on the other hand, I worry about.  She isn't drinking 
> socially.  She is drinking from depression. 


SSSusan:
I'm enjoying the input from the British, Aussie & American 
perspectives on this issue of alcohol consumption.  

Speaking as a former bartender and waitress, I would say there is a 
very vibrant drinking culture here aux Etats-Unis as well.  Some of 
it is, as Ginger notes, a class thing, but social drinking seems to 
me to cross classes -- it's just the what/where of the drinking which 
differs.  That is, are you drinking scotch & water in someone's 
living room or drinking Old Swill in a sports bar?  Are you offering 
Remy Martin apres diner or Jack & Coke & buffalo wings *as* diner?  

There are concerted efforts here in the States, too, to reduce 
underage drinking and drinking & driving, but heaven knows it's not 
(I don't think) really reducing by much the amount of drinking that's 
actually happening (tho I do think people take designated drivers 
much more seriously, thank goodness).  High schoolers are still 
getting wasted in spite of PRIDE chapters, frat parties are still an 
every-weekend phenomenon, drunk drivers are still killing people in 
spite of MADD and SADD, lots of factory workers still hit the bars 
when the shift ends at 3:00pm, and there are still customers 
hearing "last call" at 2:30am.  At least, that's what I still see.

I did notice more drinking/references to alcohol in HBP than in 
previous HPs, but I attributed it to Harry's being 16 now -- that he 
& his mates are more likely to be interested in alcohol and that 
adults are more likely to include him & his mates when drink is 
offered.  Like Ginger, the only characters who've really concerned me 
so far are Winky and Trelawney, who seem to be "problem drinkers."

FWIW.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, suddenly nostalgic for the occasional Flaming 
Jelly Bean and Russian Quaaludes she used to drink while tending bar 
at The Scoreboard.









From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 16:14:30 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:30 -0000
Subject: ESE, was: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...>
Message-ID: <ddvnp6+aalq@...>

--- ginger wrote:

<snipping her entire post, as good as it was, just to get to the part 
where I get to plug my theory>

> As to your other point, ESE means Ever So Evil.  It's used to 
> indicate that a person generally portrayed as good is actually evil 
> and is hoodwinking us.  I think just about every character has had a 
> moment as an ESE person.  Even the giant squid, Trevor, and Bill.
> 

CV: Don't forget my contribution - ESE!Pigwidgeon! Did anybody notice 
that he was not even mentioned in this whole book? WHERE WAS HE? 
<looks around suspiciously>






From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 16:28:05 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:28:05 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvlqn+fpbd@...>
Message-ID: <ddvoil+6s98@...>

Eloise:
> Now just to make myself plain, I'm not TT or anything...

Waldo:
> As a former drinker and as a therapist...

Ginger:  
> As a member of the hard-drinking lower class...

Kneasy:
> The town where I live has (reputedly) more pubs per head of 
> population than anywhere else in the UK...

Ewe2:
> Speaking as a well-oiled Aussie, the "6 o'clock swill" referred... 

SSSusan:
> Speaking as a former bartender and waitress...

Dungrollin:
Well, speaking as a one-time undergraduate, I was quite impressed (? 
la Harry chez Mrs Cole) with Slughorn offering Harry and Ron a drink 
*before breakfast*; albeit on a Saturday. Yers. I don't remember 
ever managing booze before breakfast, though I distinctly remember 
queuing up outside the pub for opening time at 11am (though not much 
afterwards, obviously).

Might be worth bearing in mind that Jo was pregnant while writing 
the last bit of HBP, and her thoughts may have been wandering 
towards that bottle of Ogden's she was really looking forward to.






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 16:34:58 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvoil+6s98@...>
Message-ID: <20050817163458.61376.qmail@...>

Dungrollin:
Might be worth bearing in mind that Jo was pregnant
while writing the last bit of HBP, and her thoughts
may have been wandering towards that bottle of Ogden's
she was really looking forward to.


SSSusan:
That's IT, Dot!  

I know when I was pregnant with my son, I said I
craved Starbucks Java Chip ice cream, but really I
just *wanted* that... whereas I truly *DID* crave
margaritas -- all stinking 9 months of the time I was
pregnant.

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 16:38:00 2005
From: sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid (Stephanie)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:38:00 -0000
Subject: Ever-More-Observant!Harry - was Re: Drinking, Schminking
In-Reply-To: <ddvlqn+fpbd@...>
Message-ID: <ddvp58+57fp@...>

SSSusan wrote:
> I did notice more drinking/references to alcohol in HBP than in 
> previous HPs, but I attributed it to Harry's being 16 now -- that 
he 
> & his mates are more likely to be interested in alcohol and that 
> adults are more likely to include him & his mates when drink is 
> offered.


Stephanie:

On the subject of seeing more because Harry is getting older... IMO 
you're exactly right, and this is a point that applies way beyond 
alcohol.  With the exception of a few chapters, the still-maturing 
Harry is our only guide to the WW, and I think that we haven't seen 
half the stuff that really goes on because he simply hasn't cared 
enough to consciously notice it, or hasn't known enough to recognize 
the signs.  Like alcohol, and also relationships, political 
machinations and the subtleties of other characters such as Snape or 
Draco (if I call him Drake's Cakes would it make sense to non-
Americans?).  In HBP Harry is of legal age to drink (I think?), his 
friends are drinking, and magically (ha ha) alcohol appears all 
around him.  It's like when you learn a new word and it suddenly 
seems to pop up everywhere.  That helps explain seemingly sudden 
revelations, like Tonks pining for Lupin: Those two could have been 
dancing around each other since OotP and the reason we didn't see any 
hints of it was that Harry wasn't thinking much about love until he 
and his schoolmates turned into cauldronfuls of hormones.

So in that sense it's really a shame there will only be seven books, 
because imagine how much more we could learn if our protagonist grew 
to be as curious and observant as his fans. :)

-Stephanie

P.S. You've probably covered all this before, so please excuse the 
overeager newbie.





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 16:45:57 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:45:57 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvoil+6s98@...>
Message-ID: <ddvpk5+9fu0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> Eloise:
> > Now just to make myself plain, I'm not TT or anything...
> 
> Waldo:
> > As a former drinker and as a therapist...
> 
> Ginger:  
> > As a member of the hard-drinking lower class...
> 
> Kneasy:
> > The town where I live has (reputedly) more pubs per head of 
> > population than anywhere else in the UK...
> 
> Ewe2:
> > Speaking as a well-oiled Aussie, the "6 o'clock swill" referred... 
> 
> SSSusan:
> > Speaking as a former bartender and waitress...
> 
> Dungrollin:
> Well, speaking as a one-time undergraduate, I was quite impressed (? 
> la Harry chez Mrs Cole) with Slughorn offering Harry and Ron a drink 
> *before breakfast*; albeit on a Saturday. Yers. I don't remember 
> ever managing booze before breakfast, though I distinctly remember 
> queuing up outside the pub for opening time at 11am (though not much 
> afterwards, obviously).
> 

Before breakfast, that's a single-minded sybarite for sure - no; never done 
that, though one can hardly class Buck's Fizz as alcoholic, can one? 
It's merely a breath-freshener.

"The whole world is two martinis below par" - Humphrey Bogart.

Only two, mind. Remember Dorothy Parker's stricture:

"One martini is plenty,
Maybe two at the most,
For with three I'm under the table
And with four I'm under the host."

Kneasy







From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 17:10:38 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:10:38 -0000
Subject: The Potions Book WAS Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddupks+j6nf@...>
Message-ID: <ddvr2e+v9o@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> Lyn wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It is very interesting that Snape was the same age as Lilly,  
> > likely was in the same Potions classes, and surely was taught by 
> > the same teacher (Slughorn) yet Lilly is discussed in isolation as 
> > the outstanding Potions student, even though we know the Snape is 
> > a  potionsmaster in far more than title. 
> 
> Pip!Squeak
> That's in character for Slughorn though. Firstly, he's trying to 
> butter up Harry - and telling Harry of his mother's brilliance at 
> this subject was one way to do it. Secondly, Snape is the teacher 
> he's replaced, and *no* teacher is going to hint to a class that 
> their previous teacher was a brilliant genius. 

Lyn now:
Yes, good points about Slughorn's nature. Still, if Snape was indeed functioning so far 
ahead of the class, it would seem a little harder for a "mudblood" to have distinguished 
herself so greatly in Slughorn's eyes.
> 
> Lyn:
> > That of course wouldn't preclude that Lilly was the source and 
> > Snape was the scribe. It is even possible that they collaborated 
> > on many of the "recipes" but Snape was the one who documented them 
> > (of course, wouldn't it be interesting to find Lilly's old 
> > Potion's book). Which makes me wonder as we write this, if Harry 
> > will come to find any of his parent's old books.
> 
> Pip!Squeak:
> There's a problem with Snape and Lily collaborating on *Advanced* 
> potions, though. In the Snape's Worst Memory chapter, the scene 
> where he calls her 'mudblood' is during the *OWLS*.
> 
> Unless Snape did a profound, sincere, and most-unlike-what-we've-
> seen-of-Snape-to-date apology, Lily's rather unlikely to have been 
> working with him. She's much more likely to have been considering 
> using him as an advanced sample tester.
> 
> Of course, that may have been where he learned about the bezoar...
> 

Lyn Now:
I remain, on this issue as well as others, very cautious about drawing conclusions from 
that tiny fragment of history presented to us. There are so many reasons to find Snape 
actiing deceptively there, just as he has elsewhere. He may have been wanting to keep Lilly 
out of the battle, perhaps even wanting to make sure their association would not be 
recognized. Not saying this is the case, but I think the "memory" gives us too little 
information to infer much of what when on before and after with respect to Lilly. For as 
you aways end----

> Pip!Squeak
> "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
> known how to act?" - Severus Snape






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 19:02:28 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:02:28 -0000
Subject: The Potions Book WAS Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddvr2e+v9o@...>
Message-ID: <de01k4+t607@...>


> Lyn:
> I remain, on this issue as well as others, very cautious about 
> drawing conclusions from that tiny fragment of history presented 
> to us. There are so many reasons to find Snape acting  
> deceptively there, just as he has elsewhere. He may have been 
wanting to keep 
> Lilly out of the battle, perhaps even wanting to make sure their 
> association would not be recognized. Not saying this is the case, 
> but I think the "memory" gives us too little information to       
> infer much of what when on before and after with respect to Lilly. 
> For as you aways end----
> 
> > Pip!Squeak
> > "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had 
> > not known how to act?" - Severus Snape

Pip!Squeak:

Heh. TeenageOscarWinner!Snape, hey? No wonder Fudge was paranoid in 
OOP; Hogwarts was training SpyKids even unto the previous 
generation. Makes the old-style KGB boarding schools look positively 
unambitious. {g}

But the point I was trying to make is not that Snape might have been 
a child-actor. The point is *Lily*. Lily, who found herself being 
called the Wizarding World's equivalent to the 'N' word. 'Mudblood', 
we are constantly being reminded, is a deeply offensive term. 

Not only does Snape have to be playing a part, Lily has to be 
playing one too. Because Lily would have to recognise that Snape's 
use of a nasty slur on her background wasn't genuine. And still act 
as if she'd just been insulted. And also, she'd have to have some 
reason to be in cahoots with Snape. SpyKids, indeed. 

I think the idea of 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft,Wizardry and the 
Dramatic Arts' is fun, but the big question an actor has to ask 
is 'what's my motivation?' 

[In my case, this translates as 'Are you paying me for this gig?' 
{g}]

If Lily partnered Snape up to OWLS, then heard him call her 
a 'mudblood' - what's *her* motivation for sticking with him after 
that?

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 20:26:47 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:26:47 -0000
Subject: Madonna Lilly: WAS The Potions Book
In-Reply-To: <de01k4+t607@...>
Message-ID: <de06i7+eq0g@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> Pip!Squeak:
> 
> Heh. TeenageOscarWinner!Snape, hey? No wonder Fudge was paranoid in 
> OOP; Hogwarts was training SpyKids even unto the previous 
> generation. Makes the old-style KGB boarding schools look positively 
> unambitious. {g}

Lyn again:
Ah, but one thing Rowling has been pretty consistent on is personality (Sirius being 
perhaps the most notable excetion). It is one of the strenghts of her writing. Just as you 
were right in pointing out how Slughorn acts consistently, I would suggest that Snape has 
also, yes, even into his adolescence.
> 
> But the point I was trying to make is not that Snape might have been 
> a child-actor. The point is *Lily*. Lily, who found herself being 
> called the Wizarding World's equivalent to the 'N' word. 'Mudblood', 
> we are constantly being reminded, is a deeply offensive term. 

Lyn again,
I would quibble that it has the potential to be a deeply offensive term, but offense is 
always in the mind. It holds less impact on Hermione now than it did the first time it was 
applied to her, and it appears from the memory that it had greater impact on James than it 
did on Lilly. It is just a word, like "Voldemort," that can vary in significance and impact.
> 
> Not only does Snape have to be playing a part, Lily has to be 
> playing one too. Because Lily would have to recognise that Snape's 
> use of a nasty slur on her background wasn't genuine. And still act 
> as if she'd just been insulted. And also, she'd have to have some 
> reason to be in cahoots with Snape. SpyKids, indeed. 

Lyn again: 
Exactly, and while I am not wedded to the idea that they shared a bit in the 
communication, I don't think it is excluded as a possibility.
> 
> I think the idea of 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft,Wizardry and the 
> Dramatic Arts' is fun, but the big question an actor has to ask 
> is 'what's my motivation?' 
> 
> [In my case, this translates as 'Are you paying me for this gig?' 
> {g}]
> 
> If Lily partnered Snape up to OWLS, then heard him call her 
> a 'mudblood' - what's *her* motivation for sticking with him after 
> that?

Lyn again:
Perhaps something akin to why Percy met Penolope (or whatever her name was) in the 
dungeons. They seem to provide a model (and not the only one in the books) of couples 
trying to keep their relationship hidden.

But let me go to a wider explanation of why something like this might occur. As I've 
discussed with Kneasy in the past, I find Lilly to be have much too much of a virgin 
madonna image in these books. Early on, it was both James and Lilly that were painted in 
idealized colors, then Rowling went out of her way to strip away the idealization of James 
(something that I suspect will be partially restored in the final volume), but she has still 
left Lilly unflawed. Frankly, I'll be disappointed if the series closes with this flawless image 
of Lilly. I kind of expected some cracks in Lilly's perfection to be shown in this last volume, 
but  instead, through Slughorn, she was lofted even higher. I think Harry is all but certain 
yet to encounter facts about his mother which gives him a more realistic and 
multidimensional view of her. When this happens, I find it quite plausible, if not likely, that 
it will include Snape.






From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 21:01:58 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:01:58 -0000
Subject: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <ddr03b+amek@...>
Message-ID: <de08k6+3ivo@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Susan Albrecht 
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> > Fishy, indeed, Kneasy.  And while you're
> > investigating, can you please add this bit of (imo)
> > strangeness into the mix?  
> > 
> > There's *some* kind of weird connection between the
> > Tonks we see in HBP and Draco Malfoy as well.  

snip> 
> > What is this connection?  Is all of it just
> > happenstance?  Can 1) & 2) really be explained away as
> > Tonks just keeping an eye on Harry?  Maybe... but
> > something about it all seems "off" to me.  And 3)
> > makes me think there is SOMETHING we're supposed to be
> > noticing.
> > 
> 
> That's encouraging.
> SSS, normally amongst the most trusting of souls is also donating
> the icy optic to Tonks.
> 
> IIRC there have been two possibilities mentioned for Ringer!Tonks -
> Narcissa and Andromeda. Both are blood relations of Draino, which
> could explain any physical  similarities as family resemblances.
> Every little helps.
> 
> Kneasy

I have always thought Ever So Odd Tonks was Narcissa with a polyjuice 
cocktail. the only thing I can come up with as to why is Narcissa 
blackmailed Tonks ala I'll get you and yo lil mama too. 

On a side note, if Cissy is described as blond, blue-eyed, almost 
angelic, and Bella is dark and brooding, I wonder what Andromeda 
looks like. Also does anyone think the way Cissy is described in the 
book is a clue, along with Draino's reluctance to kill DD that the 
Malfoys may going to the other side?

Kneasy you did a wonderful job with this!

Regards,
Fran





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 21:51:17 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:51:17 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <ddtqkl+d96a@...>
Message-ID: <de0bgl+mb3v@...>

> Neri:
> > As I mention above it is canon that a sliver of Voldy found it's
> > way into Harry at GH despite the protection. The only question is
> > if this sliver is a soul sliver.
> 
> Jen: 
> His powers found a way inside, some of his powers. Powers 
> aren't in and of themselves good or evil. <snip>
> 
> The accidental Horcrux will be an extremely hard sell after HBP, 
> where Dumbledore tells us: "If he had not forced your mother to die 
> for you {hey, I thought she had a choice?}, would he have given you 
> a magical protection he could not penetrate?" (chap. 23, p. 510).
> 

Neri:
A hard sell? But you've apparently already bought Voldemort's powers 
(or some of them at least) passing to baby Harry, which I had *a lot* 
of difficulty buying until HBP. Why, oh why would a rebounded AK 
result in the transfer of powers??? In six books JKR has never 
supplied us with any possible mechanism for transferring powers from 
one wizard to another, not because of a rebounded AK and not because 
of any other reason. What she *did* supply us with is a mechanism for 
transferring *soul parts*, and then she went and told us that Voldy 
is the world greatest expert in this particular mechanism and that he 
was going to use baby Harry for it. 

And remember, we also have to explain why the rebounded AK "forged a 
connection" between Harry and Voldy. A connection which is so strong 
that they leak emotions and perceptions to one another through it. 
Now, in this case we indeed have been supplied with the mechanism of 
Legilimency/Occlumency, but this still doesn't explain why Harry and 
Voldy can do it from any distance without even consciously 
attempting. It doesn't seem like transferred powers can "forge" such 
a strong connection, but a shared soul part, now this is another 
matter.

So it seems JKR is left with three options for explaining the power 
transfer and the mind connection:

1. "It just happened because of the AK" with no further explanation 
how and why.

2. It was a result of Harry being an intentional or unintentional Hx.

3. JKR is going to present a whole new explanation in Book 7.

It's Option 1 that would be the most hard sell for me. Option 3 is 
likely to feel artificial, presenting the basic mechanisms that 
enable the most important magic in the series only in the last book. 
Option 2 is slightly problematic, but would still be the easiest sell 
for me. The problems of the protection penetrated or the Hx magic 
happening (perhaps) unintentionally aren't crucial because we know so 
little about Ancient Magic mechanics and Hx mechanics, we can hardly 
conclude that something is more likely or less likely. But we do know 
a lose soul part was flying around in GH, we do know there was a 
magical wound in Harry's forehead, and we do know the protection 
allowed powers and apparently also memories to go through it. 

> Jen: 
> Urgh, Neri! That thought never occurred to me, that Voldemort 
> wanted to use Lily as a Horcrux. Why, though? A living thing as a 
> Horcrux sounded like a last-resort option. And he knows the woman 
> who thrice-defied him isn't going to willingly agree to that. 
> Wouldn't he guess that she would rather die? Then he's left with 
> nothing to put the soul into.

Neri:
Voldemort certainly wouldn't guess Lily would rather die ? he can't 
understand that there are things worse than death, remember? The plan 
of Hx!Lily isn't really necessary for the theory of unintentional 
Harrycrux, but it explains several things. Take a look in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2683
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2693 
for my explanations why, and also why it doesn't contradict (actually 
it supports) any version of Tewww Ewww. I'd imagine Voldy thought Hx!
Lily would be Imperio'ed, guarded by his loyal servant, and probably 
also controlled by his soul in a similar way that Ginny was 
controlled by the Diary Hx. In fact, after we very nearly had Hx!
Ginny, a Hx!Lily plan would be the most natural thing.


Neri






From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 22:50:58 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <ddvb5p+s4m9@...>
Message-ID: <20050817225059.36516.qmail@...>


--- quigonginger <quigonginger at ...> wrote:

> Hagrid, bless his heart, is pretty much the
> same social class as I, so I've never been 
> put off by his drinking.

Not really sure that it is a class issue. Of course,
no one in my family ever belonged to a country club,
went to a prep school or an ivy league school. My
parents' generation were the first to go to college.
None of us trace any lineage to nobility or to the
Mayflower. And on the other hand, there is plenty o'
drinking at those country clubs and ivy league
schools. 

Having said that, I tend to agree with regard to
Hagrid (and the Fat Lady). At best, Hagrid is an
episodic drinker, and I am not sure that he is any
less functional than Trelawney. I actually think that
Trelawney has the real problem with booze, not so much
Hagrid. He may drink more, but she seems to drink
because she has to. I am sure she is depressed and has
situational stressors as well, but that doesn't make
her any less of a drunk. She gives every impression of
being a chronic daily drinker, even though her drink
of choice is sherry. She drinks just to get by.
Functional? I don't really know what that would mean
in her case. She is able to function as a "right old
fraud." She's basically hanging on to a vague
semblance of "functional" by a thread, in that she is
still sucking air and is able to find her classroom
where she can prattle on with her fortune telling
quackery. 

> Winky, on the other hand, I worry about.  She isn't
> drinking 
> socially.  She is drinking from depression.  (Side
> thought- Winky at 
> a 12-step meeting, would fail on the first step-
> "Winky has no Higher 
> Power!  Winky has clothes!")  Poor thing.  I really
> pity her.

Yes, that is my fantasy. I want to see Trelawney and
Winky form their own little support group at Hogwarts
and have their meetings in the RoR. 

Peace out,

John Barleycorn

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 17 23:24:15 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:24:15 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de0bgl+mb3v@...>
Message-ID: <de0guv+g5vh@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
Big snip
> I'd imagine Voldy thought Hx!
> Lily would be Imperio'ed, guarded by his loyal servant, and probably 
> also controlled by his soul in a similar way that Ginny was 
> controlled by the Diary Hx. In fact, after we very nearly had Hx!
> Ginny, a Hx!Lily plan would be the most natural thing.
> 
Lyn now:
But we didn't nearly have a HX Ginny, what we almost had was a dead Ginny, drained of 
her life force, to recorporialize a soul fragment which had already begun that process. 

>From the GUT of HX I am working on:

Now part of what diary Riddle describes for us is himself as an intelligent, volitional entity 
that could write back to Ginny with feigned sympathy and kindness. Now comes a very 
significant statement from diary Riddle
"So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be be exactly what I 
wanted. . . . I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest 
secrets, I grew powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to 
start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a little of my soul back 
into her. . . " 

Now I wonder if JKR was careful enough in her wording, in this passage, particularly in 
light of her later identification of this diary as a HX. I don't believe it was really Ginny 
pouring out her soul directly, so much as by sharing inner thoughts and feelings, she 
began to give up her life force with Riddle ?"Percy keeps telling me I'm pale and not 
myself"?but Riddle was correct in that he was using his soul to begin to take over and 
control Ginny.  And I think this interpretation is confirmed in diary Riddle's later 
statement, ""But there isn't much life left in her. . . . . She put too much into the diary, into 
me. Enough to let me leave its pages at last." And again a bit later ""the more life was 
dwindling out of Ginny . . . Riddle's outline was becoming clearer, more solid
."






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 01:37:34 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:37:34 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de0guv+g5vh@...>
Message-ID: <de0oou+bsm4@...>

Neri wrote:
> Big snip
> > I'd imagine Voldy thought Hx!
> > Lily would be Imperio'ed, guarded by his loyal servant, and probably 
> > also controlled by his soul in a similar way that Ginny was 
> > controlled by the Diary Hx. In fact, after we very nearly had Hx!
> > Ginny, a Hx!Lily plan would be the most natural thing.
> > 


> Lyn now:
> But we didn't nearly have a HX Ginny, what we almost had was a dead
Ginny, drained of 
> her life force, to recorporialize a soul fragment which had already
begun that process. 
> <snip>


Neri:
Sorry, I didn't make the point very well. If there was ever a Hx!Lily
plan at all, it obviously never came to be, so I don't see much point
in wondering if we would have got a clone Voldy. I don't think that
was ever Voldy's intention. My point here was different: based on what
we know from the Ginny case, it seems Voldy had reasons to think that
his soul part would be able to control Hx!Lily completely. Therefore,
in Voldy's opinion (although I agree he might have been very wrong in
this) making a Hx!Lily plan wasn't such a risk. 

Neri





From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 04:15:49 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:15:49 -0000
Subject: Filk: Don't Point that Wand at Me! (you may be in this one)
Message-ID: <de121l+cqcu@...>

Don't Point That Wand at Me !

Sung to the tune of
" Don't Stand so Close to me! "
By Sting and the Police

Words by Randy Estes

Old Teacher, the Subject 
Of this book's dastardly deeds.
Harry hates him so badly
Thinks Snape serves Voldy's needs.

Young Draco failed the Dark Lord
So Snape stepped in to kill.
They're fleeing, he's so close now
He blocks all of Harry's spells.

Don't point!  
Don't point that!
Don't point that wand at me!

Harry's friends were so lucky
They dodged curses left and right.
They each drank some Felix Felicis
And none were killed that night!

Hagrid's there now
He helps Harry
He's got a cut under his eye.
Hagrid asks why Snape ran off now
Harry says he watched Dumbledore die.

Don't say 				(Harmony: 
Don't say that		(Please don't say that Dumbledore's dead!)
Don't say that Dumbledore's dead!

They head back to the Astronomy Tower
A crowd formed around its base.
Hagrid sees the lifeless body
Harry wipes blood from the face.
It's no use to deny it
He's dead for all to see
Harry finds a broken locket
With a note from RAB

Don't post			(Harmony:  Dumbledore's dead for all 
to see!)
Don't post that
Don't post that new Theory !

Maybe Dumbledore's not dead yet
And he set the whole thing up!
Snape really works for him now
They'll catch Voldy like a sitting duck!
You're crazy!
We saw him!
Snape's killed the headmaster now.
He had to help young Draco
He made the Unbreakable Vow!

Don't post		(Harmony:  Dumbledore's dead for all to see!)
Don't post that
Don't post that new Theory!	

Hold on now
Wait a minute!
Something does not seem right.
When you get hit by Avada Kedavra
You don't fly off like a kite!
That potion that he drank
Maybe it's the Draught of Death
Maybe Dumbledore is faking
We can't be sure just yet!

Don't post		(Harmony:  Dumbledore's dead for all to see!)
Don't post that			(Dumbledore is History!)
Don't post that new Theory!	

Just ask Kneasy or go find Pippin
I'll call Ableforth's goat!
What do you think really happened?
And who left that mysterious note?
They had a trial at Accio
To determine Severus's guilt
They said that he was innocent
A good defense was built.

Don't post		(Harmony:  Dumbledore's dead for all to see!)
Don't post that			(Dumbledore is History!)
Don't post that new Theory!
	

The Old Crowd's got the answer.
They've read this seven times.
It's obvious it was the butler
He must pay for his crime!
Keep Reading!
Keep Posting!
We'll work together here
We'll have the whole thing solved
We'll post it all this year!

I know you think we're crazy
We're really quite bizarre
To spend so much time discussing
That book by JKR!

Don't post			(Harmony:  JKR is RAB!)
Don't post that			(JKR is RAB!)
Don't post that new Theory!






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 04:32:27 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Sluggy Sluggy Slughorns  Drink Up  Mate!
In-Reply-To: <ddvoil+6s98@...>
Message-ID: <20050818043227.42757.qmail@...>



--- dungrollin <spotthedungbeetle at ...> wrote:

Snip

> Dungrollin:
> Well, speaking as a one-time undergraduate, I was
> quite impressed ( 
> la Harry chez Mrs Cole) with Slughorn offering Harry
> and Ron a drink 
> *before breakfast*; albeit on a Saturday. Yers. I
> don't remember 
> ever managing booze before breakfast, though I
> distinctly remember 
> queuing up outside the pub for opening time at 11am
> (though not much 
> afterwards, obviously).
> 
> Might be worth bearing in mind that Jo was pregnant
> while writing 
> the last bit of HBP, and her thoughts may have been
> wandering 
> towards that bottle of Ogden's she was really
> looking forward to.
> 

Randy replies:
She already had it planned out again!
  
First Harry potter book. On page 139 of US version:

Harry's first Potions Class with Snape:

"He (Snape) was just telling everone to look at the
perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs ..."

Stewed could be used to describe "drunk off your arse"
Horned Slugs or Slughorns?

And off the internet:
slug (definitions) 
 meaning "strong drink" first recorded 1756, perhaps
from slang fire a slug "take a drink," though it also
may be related to Ir. slog "swallow." 

Also mentioned in the first Potions Class by Snape is
Wormwood on p. 138 of US version:

Wormwood, Artemisia Absinthium has been used for
centuries as a moth repellant, general pesticide and
as a tea/spray to repel slugs and snails.

This is the 6th book (ie. the 6th task).  That means
the Potions book for the Potions task.  Evidently per
Dumbledore,  the Potion must be Drunk! Darn it, Drink
Up!

Red <0> Randy


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 07:29:40 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:29:40 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
Message-ID: <de1dd4+jued@...>

These thoughts did arise as a result of the alcohol thread (I was in 
pursuit of a facetious theory that DD dies of Absinthe poisoning, but 
it was a green light, not green liquid). In fact they're unrelated.

On reading through the scene in the cave again I was struck as I was 
the first time by Dumbledore's peculiar ravings as he drinks the 
potion. Now clearly we're meant to think that he's suffering delusions 
brought on by the potion, or that he's simply referring to the way the 
potion's making him feel. But this is JKR and I wonder, I really 
wonder. What better way to slip in some memories and make Harry think 
that it's Dumbledore speaking for himself rather than recalling someone 
else's words?

"I don't want to...don't make me...don't like...want to stop...No...I 
don't want to...I don't want to...let me go...Make it stop, make it 
stop. No, no, no...no...I can't...I can't, don't make me, I don't want 
to..."

So far so good. This could easily just refer to drinking the poison. 
But then...

"It's all my fault, all my fault, he sobbed, "please make it stop, I 
know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll never, never 
again..."

Delusion or memory? And if a memory, who's saying it? Doesn't sound 
like something Dumbledore would say to me.

"Please, please, please, no...not that, not that, I'll do anything...No 
more, please, no more. I want to die! I want to die! Make it stop, make 
it stop, I want to die! KILL ME!"

Now to be honest, it doesn't actually sound like anyone in particular, 
except for perhaps Crouch Sr in his madness. It *does* possibly sound 
like someone being Crucio'd. But again, Dumbledore isn't likely to have 
said such things under Crucio, let alone have administered one (could 
have witnessed one, I suppose). Could he actually be recalling the 
words of someone in a deep emotional turmoil on learning the 
consequences of something they've done? In JKR doublespeak, "Make it 
stop!" could just as easily mean "Prevent this consequence from 
happening!" as "Stop this torture!"

Could this be a continuation of that argument Hagrid overheard? Could 
it be a combination of that and another, similar conversation, sixteen 
odd years earlier?

Is *this* the proof of which Dumbledore has been so reticent? That 
Snape came to him willing to die for what he'd done? 

~Eloise





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 08:09:10 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:09:10 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1dd4+jued@...>
Message-ID: <de1fn6+1i7o@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" <eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> 
> On reading through the scene in the cave again I was struck as I was 
> the first time by Dumbledore's peculiar ravings as he drinks the 
> potion. Now clearly we're meant to think that he's suffering delusions 
> brought on by the potion, or that he's simply referring to the way the 
> potion's making him feel. But this is JKR and I wonder, I really 
> wonder. What better way to slip in some memories and make Harry think 
> that it's Dumbledore speaking for himself rather than recalling someone 
> else's words?
> snip
> 
> Delusion or memory? And if a memory, who's saying it? Doesn't sound 
> like something Dumbledore would say to me.
> 

A possible explanation was offered a few weeks back:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2479

In essence it's Puppetmaster!DD getting his come-uppance for all that
string-pulling. If he did manipulate Voldy into the open by using the 
Prophecy, then he must bear some of the responsibility for the consequences
- the deaths of the Potters, the torture of the Longbottoms as an absolute 
minimum.

The Cave potion (Catherine suggested it might be extract of Dementor - a
pretty neat idea IMO) is dredging up unhappy memories resulting from the
invidious choices he had to make and DD is in the throes of guilt and remorse.

Kneasy






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 08:21:31 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:21:31 -0000
Subject: Drinking, Schminking, was Re: Ethics, Schmethics
In-Reply-To: <20050817225059.36516.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <de1geb+o1vg@...>

Waldo Glatisant:

>I actually think that
> Trelawney has the real problem with booze, not so much
> Hagrid. He may drink more, but she seems to drink
> because she has to. I am sure she is depressed and has
> situational stressors as well, but that doesn't make
> her any less of a drunk. She gives every impression of
> being a chronic daily drinker, even though her drink
> of choice is sherry. She drinks just to get by.

Exactly, poor thing. Sherry is the drink of choice of the respectable 
old-fashioned lady. But it's described elsewhere as "cooking sherry" so 
it's cheap, nasty stuff that you'd only *drink* if either you couldn't 
afford something decent or you are dependent/want to get drunk rather 
than enjoy it. Sherry's also relatively high in alcohol content.

Whether she can function is really neither here nor there (given her 
incompetence in any case). She has problems and has turned to alcohol 
for help. She doesn't just need help for her alcoholism itself, she 
needs help with the underlying causes. She's certainly not doing 
anything for her health. 

BTW, I do wonder why she has to go to lengths to hide the bottles 
(other than it being a convenient plot device!) Surely the house elves 
would just clear them away, no questions asked. It must mean she's so 
ashamed of her problem that she doesn't even want them to know.

~Eloise
Who loves Randy's observation about stewed horned slugs





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 08:45:12 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:45:12 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1fn6+1i7o@...>
Message-ID: <de1hqo+6ht6@...>

Kneasy:

> The Cave potion (Catherine suggested it might be extract of 
Dementor - a
> pretty neat idea IMO) is dredging up unhappy memories resulting 
from the
> invidious choices he had to make and DD is in the throes of guilt 
and remorse.


Thanks for the link, Barry. I remember that post now (I think I 
caught up with it, between washing and repacking for five, on my one 
day at home between the two legs of our holiday, so forgive me for 
not immediately recalling it). It goes without saying that I nearly 
mentioned in what I posted that I knew you'd have a Puppetmaster!DD 
angle on it. 

I still don't think DD would say "I know I did wrong". I think he 
knows he's made *mistakes* and I know the choices he's had to make 
must have involved choosing the lesser of two evils. But that's not 
exactly the same thing. Regrets, I'm sure he has more than a few, but 
the contented look on his dead face surely indicates that overall he 
was at peace with himself.

My theory may be right or it may be wrong, but if I'm right it has 
the advantage of being something that might actually give us a clue 
to a mystery that JKR implies will be solved next book (I don't for 
one minute believe that DD telling Harry about Snape's remorse is 
supposed to be the proof). And of course with DD dead, we have 
practical problems in finding out exactly what that proof was. It 
appeals to me that we will find out that we've already seen the 
proof. Anyway, hypotheses are for tearing apart, so by all means let 
rip!

~Eloise





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 11:46:42 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] ESE
In-Reply-To: <20050817141442.3156.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050818114642.11894.qmail@...>


--- Randy Estes <estesrandy at ...> wrote:

> Ever since I saw this ESE logo, it has stuck in my
> mind.  I have been looking at jobs related to
> teaching
> and I constantly see ESE teaching positions.  
> 
> I think about the ESE Lupin crowd and think that he
> must have started a trend.  You can now apply for
> ESE
> positions in the teaching profession.  I guess you
> will be expected to miss classes now and then to go
> off and do dastardly things!
> 
> Red <0> Randy


Waldo:

Yes, well ol' Red Eye, not familiar with that acronym
but in crosswords it would be "direction between
Oxford and London" : ESE (East by Southeast). O'
course that didn't fit the context of the discussion
(East by Southeast Lupin?). Nevertheless, it is good
to hear that His Lupine-ness has opened new doors in
the teaching profession.  Now if he could only get a
job. 

Waldo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 12:34:41 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:34:41 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Under the influence
References: <de1hqo+6ht6@...>
Message-ID: <01f701c5a3f1$350960a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Eloise:
I still don't think DD would say "I know I did wrong". I think he 
knows he's made *mistakes* and I know the choices he's had to make 
must have involved choosing the lesser of two evils. But that's not 
exactly the same thing. Regrets, I'm sure he has more than a few, but 
the contented look on his dead face surely indicates that overall he 
was at peace with himself.

My theory may be right or it may be wrong, but if I'm right it has 
the advantage of being something that might actually give us a clue 
to a mystery that JKR implies will be solved next book (I don't for 
one minute believe that DD telling Harry about Snape's remorse is 
supposed to be the proof). And of course with DD dead, we have 
practical problems in finding out exactly what that proof was. It 
appeals to me that we will find out that we've already seen the 
proof. Anyway, hypotheses are for tearing apart, so by all means let 
rip!


SSSusan:
Eloise, this is truly freaky.  I re-read that chapter for the first time last night, and I had the SAME thought -- that the words sounded like what Snape might say if he truly felt remorse for Lily & James' deaths.  

Of course, I can't for the life of me figure out how *this* situation -- drinking a potion that Voldemort presumably concocted & left there, trying to retrieve Voldemort's horslut -- would have any connection whatsoever to things Snape would have once said.  And I can't quite hear Snape being so... so... so emotional? forceful? in his expression of remorse and regret.  But the *content* of the words really did strike me as potentially fitting Snape if he's been L2DD!Snape [Loyal to Dumbledore] all along and if it was his role in leading Voldy to he Potters which made him turn away from Voldy.

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 13:49:41 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:49:41 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <01f701c5a3f1$350960a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <de23ll+2kup@...>

SSSusan:

> Eloise, this is truly freaky.  I re-read that chapter for the first 
time last night, and I had the SAME thought -- that the words sounded 
like what Snape might say if he truly felt remorse for Lily & James' 
deaths.  
> 
> Of course, I can't for the life of me figure out how *this* 
situation -- drinking a potion that Voldemort presumably concocted & 
left there....would have any connection whatsoever to things Snape 
would have once said.

Eloise:
I think perhaps you just answered that yourself.
It's a *Potion*. Now I'm not good at time lines, but I assume this 
was brewed before Snape went back to Dumbledore. Perhaps Dumbledore 
realises who concocted it and that is what triggers that precise 
memory. That would add another lovely twist of irony to the scene on 
the Tower.

SSSusan:
>And I can't quite hear Snape being so... so... so emotional? 
>forceful? in his expression of remorse and regret.

Eloise:
Indeed, no. That's a strong contraindication. It doesn't sound like 
him, except that we *have* seen Snape very emotional in other 
circumstances. I'm guessing that someone who represses that side of 
their personality (not the emotional side, the side that recognises 
that sometimes he is *wrong*) to the extent that he does might go to 
pieces to completely once the dam had been breached. I also don't 
believe that Dumbledore is above using magical means to coerce a true 
confession from someone. 

DD apparently believes that he truly felt remorse for betraying the 
Potters. Now Dumbledore does trust where others wouldn't but he's not 
a complete fool. Canon shows us immediate disbelief from other 
characters who knew the situation that he could blindly have trusted 
him in that matter given his enmity towards James. Personally I think 
that's an immediate warning sign that things aren't all that they 
seem and that there *is* additional proof of his trustworthiness. 

Another thought. We haven't seen in canon exactly *how* life debts 
work. If you have a life debt to someone and then not only do you 
fail to pay it back but you actually betray them, what happens?
Is it something like a binding magical contract (however that works?)
Could Snape have been literally suffering the consequences of 
betraying James?

~Eloise
wishing she'd thought to grab the cheese cauldron line for her sig 
file.






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 13:52:39 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1dd4+jued@...>
Message-ID: <20050818135239.20374.qmail@...>



eloise:

What better way to slip in some memories and
> make Harry think 
> that it's Dumbledore speaking for himself rather
> than recalling someone 
> else's words?
> 
> "I don't want to...don't make me...don't like...want
> to stop...No...I 
> don't want to...I don't want to...let me go...Make
> it stop, make it 
> stop. No, no, no...no...I can't...I can't, don't
> make me, I don't want 
> to..."

> "It's all my fault, all my fault, he sobbed, "please
> make it stop, I 
> know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll
> never, never 
> again..."

> "Please, please, please, no...not that, not that,
> I'll do anything...No 
> more, please, no more. I want to die! I want to die!
> Make it stop, make 
> it stop, I want to die! KILL ME!"
> 

CV: I think it is RAB's last words as he is tortured
to death. But more importantly, it is further proof
that Dumbledore is alive. Why? Because only Dumbledore
knows what those words mean and only he can tell us.
If he doesn't ever get back to us, then it remains a
frustrating unresolved plot bunny. I don't think JKR
would do that to us.

So: Unresolved potion-speak plot bunny. AK didn't act
as AK's should. Body found smiling. Body found with
(dragon?) blood on mouth. Dragon blood used earlier in
the book in a deception. We don't know what the 12
uses of dragon's blood are and JKR told us that we
would know (another unresolved plot bunny).
Dumbledore's patronus appears at the funeral. (Who
shot it off if he didn't?) A flash of fire which was
also used in an earlier book for a flashy exit. Per
Nigellus, Dumbledore likes to exit in style. Come on,
folks! How many times does she have to hit us over the
head? Dumbledore is alive!

CV

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 15:28:37 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:28:37 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore is Ever So Dead  (was: Re: Under the influence)
In-Reply-To: <20050818135239.20374.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <de29f5+dsdr@...>

Constance Vigilance:
 I think it is RAB's last words as he is tortured
> to death. But more importantly, it is further proof
> that Dumbledore is alive. Why? Because only Dumbledore
> knows what those words mean and only he can tell us.
> If he doesn't ever get back to us, then it remains a
> frustrating unresolved plot bunny. I don't think JKR
> would do that to us.

Nor do I (and incidentally I had the same initial thoughts regarding 
RAB). But Dumbledore is Ever So Dead. <g>

There are other means by which he can communicate at least that of 
which he was aware up until the time of his death. The portrait, for 
a start. And we have canon for the existence of memories, stored away 
in bottles just ready to pop into that Pensieve. Why shouldn't there 
be more? And the evidence of Snape's trustworthiness should be 
amongst them, if DD truly did believe in him. JKR has written it so 
that DD *is* the only person who can confirm Snape's...well, not 
innocence, but his loyalty. If he did anticipate his own death and if 
he did believe in Snape, then it would be an act of gross 
carelessness not to leave behind the proof that would protect him, 
given that his chances of being captured and tried as a DE would have 
dramatically risen whatever the circumstances.

CV:
> So: Unresolved potion-speak plot bunny.

EH:
Which can, I believe, be resolved in other ways.

CV:
> AK didn't act
> as AK's should.

EH:
I'd argue a) we've never seen an AK cast by an unwilling caster and 
b) JKR was using the visual imagery of the Lightning-Struck Tower 
card.

CV:
> Body found smiling. 

EH:
We've never seen the body of a victim of AK who was ready and willing 
to die.

CV:
> Body found with
> (dragon?) blood on mouth. 

EH:
Slight trickle of blood could be natural. Not clear if this detail is 
supposed to be accurate vis a vis *cause* of death or whether it's 
just a bit of description. It's the end of a sentence in which Harry 
does three things. No signifcance to that, except that sentences just 
sound right when someone "does a, does b and then does c", so it 
*could* just be window dressing.

CV:
>  Dragon blood used earlier in
> the book in a deception. We don't know what the 12
> uses of dragon's blood are and JKR told us that we
> would know (another unresolved plot bunny).

EH:
Good point, though dependent on the blood above being dragon's blood 
(of course I realise you're using this to corroborate that theory).

CV:
> Dumbledore's patronus appears at the funeral. (Who
> shot it off if he didn't?) A flash of fire which was
> also used in an earlier book for a flashy exit. 

EH:
I can't deny that it could be, OTOH, it could be representative of 
DD's spirit flying off to its next great adventure.

CV:
Per
> Nigellus, Dumbledore likes to exit in style. 

EH:
That he certainly did!


CV:
Come on,
> folks! How many times does she have to hit us over the
> head? Dumbledore is alive!

EH:
I think it would be an enormous cheat, personally. Many of us 
predicted that DD *had* to die, because as was discussed in the 
Leaky/Mugglenet interview,

"JKR: Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of 
writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. 
That's the way it is, we all know that, so the question is when and 
how, isn't it, if you know anything about the construction of that 
kind of plot.

ES: The wise old wizard with the beard always dies.

JKR: Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. "

So although just as in his absence in CoS, he will never truly have 
left Hogwarts until there is no-one there loyal to him, I do believe 
he's physically dead. He also said to Harry that he had never once 
left the school without ensuring its security. I imagine that he has 
also enacted some enchantment that would additionally protect the 
school in the event of (and more particularly possibly *by means of*) 
his death.

Given the fact that we've been prepared for this death since the 
first book when he mentioned his feelings regarding the next great 
adventure, I think it would be a tremendous irony if he turned out to 
be alive. All the more so if DD himself didn't expect to survive.

~Eloise

who for an encore will prove that black is white and get herself 
killed on the next zebra crossing. 









From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 15:53:28 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:53:28 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de0bgl+mb3v@...>
Message-ID: <de2ato+qq69@...>

> Neri:
> A hard sell? But you've apparently already bought Voldemort's
> powers (or some of them at least) passing to baby Harry, which I
> had *a lot* of difficulty buying until HBP. Why, oh why would a 
> rebounded AK  result in the transfer of powers??? In six books JKR
> has never supplied us with any possible mechanism for transferring
> powers from one wizard to another, not because of a rebounded AK
> and not because of any other reason. What she *did* supply us with
> is a mechanism for transferring *soul parts*, and then she went
> and told us that Voldy is the world greatest expert in this
> particular mechanism and that he was going to use baby Harry for
> it. 
 
Jen: About Voldemort's intentions at GH: Dumbledore explained his 
belief Voldemort makes Horcruxes after significant deaths, and that 
he 'was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.' Not 
with baby Harry himself, but Harry's death, is how I read that. And 
most critically, Dumbledore stated 'he failed'. 

Also, neither Dumbledore nor Slughorn said a Horcrux can be 
concealed in a human being. Slughorn states it's concealed in an 
object, and Dumbledore answers Harry's question of "you can use 
animals as Horcruxes?" with the statement, "Well, it is inadvisable 
to do so...because to confide a part of your soul to something that 
can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business." 
(chap. 23, p. 506, US). He specifically says 'something', and not 
something or someone. I do think Voldemort is the Horcrux expert and 
it's possible he may know something Dumbledore doesn't, though.

But about the diary. Here we do have evidence a part of Voldemort's 
soul passed into Ginny, but it 'possesses' her. We've seen evidence 
of possession on several occasions, with Quirrell, with Ginny and 
once with Harry. We don't know what was going on inside Quirrell, 
but we do know Ginny spoke of big blank periods in her memory when 
possessed by the soul sliver and Harry descibed possession by full-
bodied Voldemort as pain beyond anything he'd imagined or endured. 
How could Harry have a soul portion encased inside himself and not 
be affected or possessed by it? Nagini is the only other living 
thing who might be encasing a soul portion and she is also described 
as being posssessed by Voldemort, like on the night Arthur was 
bitten. Taken over, used, manipulated. We haven't seen any evidence 
of this in Harry.
 
Neri:
> And remember, we also have to explain why the rebounded AK "forged
> a connection" between Harry and Voldy. A connection which is so
> strong that they leak emotions and perceptions to one another
> through it. 
 
Jen: This process doesn't sound like possession, though. Both can 
perceive things about each other, but possession is a one-sided 
situation. The stronger saps the strength of the weaker. We're not 
seeing evidence either Voldemort's evil or Harry's love is causing 
the other to waste away. ....Oh no...that's a compelling thought, 
isn't it? Reminds me of the Priori Incantatem scene, one grows 
stronger as the other grows weaker, 'neither can live while the 
other survives'...
 
Oh, pfffft. Here's the deal. Horcrux!Harry could explain many 
things, I can't deny. I can argue the subtleties of possession, but 
JKR could turn around and say, "Oh well, it was different in Harry's 
case because of his mother's protection. The soul sliver resided in 
Harry but was unable to actually possess him as a small child." With 
one sweeping statement she can erase all the information we have on 
possession. Neither possessed the other because they have equal 
powers or something of the like.

Just as easily she can erase the Harry!Horcrux with "no chance a 
piece of Voldemort's soul entered Harry after his mother's 
sacrifice, he was protected from that. The transfer of powers had 
never been seen before because we've never seen a failed AK before. 
No one knew that would happen."

So what's a theorizer to do? Make hay while the sun shines? 
 
The most persuading factor to me at this point is that Dumbledore 
doesn't suspect Harry is a Horcrux. He understands more about 
Horcruxes than anyone else besides Voldemort, and he appears to 
understand what happened at Godric's Hollow better than anyone else. 
If he didn't put these two together, and JKR said "his guesses are 
never wide from the mark"....well, I'm going to stick to my hope 
that Harry isn't a Horcrux for now, no matter how convincing you 
are, Neri <g>. Of course, Dumbledore's giant oversight could be 
explained away as the 'flaw in the plan'--he loved Harry too much to 
put two and two together. But it did seem like OOTP was the 
beginning of the end for letting his 'flaw' take the upper hand, he 
knows Harry has to face the future and in HBP Dumbledore seemed to 
be arming Harry for defeating Voldemort. Harry-HC would be a 
critical bit to consider if Dumbledore even *suspected* the 
possibility!
 
Neri:
> But we do know a lose soul part was flying around in GH, we do know
> there was a magical wound in Harry's forehead, and we do know the
> protection allowed powers and apparently also memories to go
> through it. 
 
Jen: I read the links you posted and wonder about the two soul 
pieces flying around GH idea. Voldemort did just commit a double 
murder and therefore his soul was ripped from it, but the pieces 
weren't extracted. So when he lost his body, wouldn't the vapor part 
be the remaining soul, albeit with a few rips in it? I mean, there 
wouldn't actually be a piece taken out until sealing a Horcrux. But 
the idea of an unintentional HC makes anything possible of course, 
because, like the failed AK, we and the WW apparently have no 
infomation about it so all bets are off. 

Actually, that's a good point to make right here. You mentioned 
never understanding how the powers got into Harry, that JKR never 
provided a mechanism for it. I *did* accept the provisional 
explanation we have, that the failed AK was unimaginable and 
therefore caused certain things no one understood. The unintentional 
Horcrux is equally hard for me to grasp, because we know nothing 
about actually extracting the soul piece and sealing it in a 
Horcrux. I imagine it as a ritual that had to take place after a 
murder and therefore, couldn't have been completed at GH. But 
unintentional power transfers or unintentional horcruxes? JKR can 
explain either of those away. 

You know, another thought here: We don't know for sure Voldemort 
killed Harry immediately after Lily. I wonder if the plot twist at 
GH is that he used a Gryffindor item to form his Horcrux from the 
double murder of James and Lily, before killing Harry. It's not what 
he intended, but perhaps with the adults gone he noticed a 'trophy' 
and felt obsessed to complete the process. But then, I suspect Harry 
was screaming and he wanted to shut him up pretty quick, heh.
 
> Neri:
> Voldemort certainly wouldn't guess Lily would rather die ? he
> can't understand that there are things worse than death, remember?
 
Jen: "I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to 
act."  

I think you're probably right. Everything we learned of Voldemort's 
obsessions and tactics indicates he can't ever wrap his mind around 
the idea of something worse than death. 

As a total aside, I really liked the information on how Riddle's 
obsession with defeating death started. That comment he made about 
his mom, 'she couldn't have been magical if she died'--whew! A 
pretty large assumption to make about what magic can do, then to 
find out Merope was a witch, and still didn't do anything to save 
herself.... Also, that scene where Hepzibah showed him the locket 
and said "Burke bought it, apparently, from a ragged-looking woman 
who seemed to have stolen it, but had no idea of his true value--." 
(chap, 20, p. 437) It was at that moment Voldemort's eyes 'flashed 
scarlet' and I wasn't sure what to make of it. Did he just realize 
Burke 'stole' what was rightfully his? Or was he making the 
connection that if Merope was selling heirlooms she wasn't using 
magic to help herself? The first seems more likely, but I'd love to 
see another connection in the series between Merope and Lily, and 
that his mom had something to do with Voldemort giving Lily the 
choice to step aside. But that's wishful thinking *sigh*. The only 
possible canon for it is that Memory!Tom never lambasts his mom, and 
in fact defends her, in his speech denouncing his father. 

Jen, debating with herself today.





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 17:06:52 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1dd4+jued@...>
Message-ID: <20050818170652.57867.qmail@...>



--- eloise_herisson <eloiseherisson at ...> wrote:

> These thoughts did arise as a result of the alcohol
> thread (I was in 
> pursuit of a facetious theory that DD dies of
> Absinthe poisoning, but 
> it was a green light, not green liquid). In fact
> they're unrelated.

Feeling a little Absinthe-minded, eh? (sorry, don't
throw that at me ... I said I was sorry!)

> ... scene in the cave 
...
> "It's all my fault, all my fault, he sobbed, "please
> make it stop, I 
> know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll
> never, never 
> again..."
... 
> Delusion or memory? And if a memory, who's saying
> it? Doesn't sound 
> like something Dumbledore would say to me.
... 
> "Please, please, please, no...not that, not that,
> I'll do anything...No 
> more, please, no more. I want to die! I want to die!
> Make it stop, make 
> it stop, I want to die! KILL ME!"
...
> Could this be a continuation of that argument Hagrid
> overheard? ...
> Is *this* the proof of which Dumbledore has been so
> reticent? ...
> ~Eloise

What about ... could he be re-living RAB's repayment /
torture for stealing the HockeyPux? 

- avoiding_work!Waldo



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 17:12:43 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <20050818135239.20374.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050818171243.82923.qmail@...>


--- Constance Vigilance <constancevigilance at ...>
wrote:
...
> CV: I think it is RAB's last words as he is tortured
> to death. 
...

Damn,  I knew I should have read all the posts before
I replied! You took the words right out of my server. 
- embarrassed!Waldo


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 17:39:30 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:39:30 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de2ato+qq69@...>
Message-ID: <de2h4i+cmvv@...>

Snipping all the is he/isn't he to-ing and fro-ing just to say...

DD must have had the idea about Voldy's hors-d'oeuvres ages ago, 
otherwise why was he so sure You-Know-Who would be back after GH?  
(OotP, somewhere in the explanation at the end)

DD guessed what it must mean (the scar-link with Voldy) the night of 
the attack. (OotP, somewhere in the explanation at the end)

If thoughts leave scars, surely soul-bits do too. (OotP, Mme Pomfrey, 
somewhere in the hospital wing at the end)

How about: Harry was a Hawshucks, but got un-shucked by DD in the 
missing 24 hours?

TooLazyToThinkItThroughProperly!Dungrollin






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 17:54:41 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de2h4i+cmvv@...>
Message-ID: <20050818175441.37674.qmail@...>

dungrollin wrote:

> How about: Harry was a Hawshucks, but got un-shucked

> by DD in the missing 24 hours?

> TooLazyToThinkItThroughProperly!Dungrollin


SSSusan:
And SNAPE helped him!!  Maybe DRIBBLE SHADOWS needs to
be adjusted so that it wasn't the application of
further protection to Harry in those 24 hours but the
removal of a Hawshuck from him??

Actually... nah.  I think DD would've told Harry, if
that were the case.

And now that Dung's done all the snipping work for me
and I don't have to think how to best do that (merci,
dear), I can use this post to say, "I want to issue a
*big* 'Me, too!' to what Jen said!"  Her
disinclination to believe Harry as Horsecrop mirrors
mine, right down to the reasons.  Most especially, for
me, is the belief that creating a horcrux seems so
UNLIKELY to be able to come about unintentionally. 
I'm sold on the process being quite intentional, with
some heavy-duty ritual involved.

However, truth be told, the crux (haw) of the matter
is that Jen is right -- we DON'T know much about
possession, about how a soul sliver gets left behind,
or about how Horsluts are made and whether
accidental/unintentional ones are possible.  JKR has
the power to sweep away the possibilities entirely.
Or, as Jen said:

>>[T]he idea of an unintentional HC makes anything
possible of course, because, like the failed AK, we
and the WW apparently have no information about it so
all bets are off. <snip> But unintentional power
transfers or unintentional horcruxes? JKR can explain
either of those away.<<

We're likely to remain at the place where either you
*like* the idea of Harry!Hx or you do not unless/until
book 7 OR an interview in which JKR takes pity on us
and sheds light on some of the possibilities.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who enjoyed Randy's Don't Point
That Wand at Me very much.


 



From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 18:19:43 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:19:43 -0000
Subject: The proper use of Horcruces
Message-ID: <de2jfv+6ve2@...>

(I think the plural should be -ces, not -cii, if it's Latin.  Third 
declension, I presume.  If English, -xes)

I'm looking forward to Lyn's Grand Universal Theory of Horcruces.  
In the meantime, I think one thing that makes it difficult to know 
how they're supposed to work is the curious incident of Voldemort's 
body.

Where did it go?  If we go with the assumption that Voldemort simply 
intended to kill Harry, and then make a Horcrux based on that, and 
that the AK somehow 'bounced' off Lily's protection, then why wasn't 
there a dead Voldemort body?

Well, presumably, his pre-existing Horcruces prevented him from 
dying - but, had he suffered an ordinary assassination attempt (or 
dragon pox, or whatever), what would have happened?  Would the soul 
(the bit still in his body) have detached and then reattached itself 
to the corpse?  If his body was severely damaged (like head totally 
detached), would the damage heal or what?

Or would it stay a corpse or vanish, requiring the disembodied soul 
to find a new body, as in fact Voldemort had to do?  In effect, was 
Vapourmort the natural consequence of (earlier) Horcrux use, or a 
special product of the combined AK, Lily's protection, and whatever 
Voldemort had done to prepare for this last Horcrux?

David, still trying to think through a coherent sequence of events 
for Godric's Hollow






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 18:59:43 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:59:43 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de23ll+2kup@...>
Message-ID: <de2lqv+7q1b@...>

SSSusan:
> > ...I had the SAME thought -- that the words sounded like what 
> > Snape might say if he truly felt remorse for Lily & James' 
> > deaths.  
> > 
> > Of course, I can't for the life of me figure out how *this* 
> > situation -- drinking a potion that Voldemort presumably 
> > concocted & left there....would have any connection whatsoever to 
> > things Snape  would have once said.
 
Eloise:
> I think perhaps you just answered that yourself.
> It's a *Potion*. Now I'm not good at time lines, but I assume this 
> was brewed before Snape went back to Dumbledore. Perhaps Dumbledore 
> realises who concocted it and that is what triggers that precise 
> memory. That would add another lovely twist of irony to the scene 
> on the Tower.


SSSusan again:
I just ran across a proposition at HPfGU which just might fit here?  
I'm not sure it's appropriate to cut & paste a whole lot of someone 
else's words, so I'll provide the link 
[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137771 ] and 
then say that, essentially, what Carol is suggesting is that the 
locket-bearing basin in the cave is a pensieve which Voldy filled 
with "poisoned thoughts and memories that create both physical agony 
and mental anguish."

Anyhoo, just thought that was a fascinating possibility.  Of course, 
it would take us fully away from the possibility that those were 
Snape's words, but it could at least explain why they didn't seem to 
sound quite like things DD would say either....

Siriusly Snapey Susan









From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 19:07:55 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:07:55 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de2ato+qq69@...>
Message-ID: <de2mab+k8en@...>

Jen wrote:
> Oh, pfffft. Here's the deal. Horcrux!Harry could explain many 
> things, I can't deny. I can argue the subtleties of possession, but 
> JKR could turn around and say, "Oh well, it was different in 
Harry's 
> case because of his mother's protection. The soul sliver resided in 
> Harry but was unable to actually possess him as a small child." 
With 
> one sweeping statement she can erase all the information we have on 
> possession. Neither possessed the other because they have equal 
> powers or something of the like.
> 
> Just as easily she can erase the Harry!Horcrux with "no chance a 
> piece of Voldemort's soul entered Harry after his mother's 
> sacrifice, he was protected from that. The transfer of powers had 
> never been seen before because we've never seen a failed AK before. 
> No one knew that would happen."
> 
> So what's a theorizer to do? Make hay while the sun shines?

Neri:
<deep sigh> No kidding, this is exactly what she did to us with the 
mystery of Voldy's immortality. Two of the main clues were Voldy 
saying that the DEs knew of the steps he took and Voldy becoming 
mortal again after his resurrection (paraphrasing from memory: "I set 
my sights lower. I would settle for my mortal body and my old 
strength before courting eternal life again"). Both of these clues 
don't work with the horwhatisit thing. It could be argued that they 
outright contradict it.

But still, if we look for a theory that we *can* assemble based on 
what we know today, and might explain the mind connection, the 
transferred powers, the "in essence divided" and the gleam, I don't 
see any another candidate but Hx!Harry. It looks like any other 
theory would have to assume that either JKR isn't going to explain 
these mysteries in any satisfying way, or she's going to explain them 
based on completely new information in Book 7. So for me it's either 
Hx!Harry or quitting.  

Jen wrote:
> The most persuading factor to me at this point is that Dumbledore 
> doesn't suspect Harry is a Horcrux. He understands more about 
> Horcruxes than anyone else besides Voldemort, and he appears to 
> understand what happened at Godric's Hollow better than anyone 
else. 
> If he didn't put these two together, and JKR said "his guesses are 
> never wide from the mark"

Neri:
Perhaps Dumbledore did suspect it. Perhaps he meant to tell Harry 
about it but Death got him first. After all, if there's anything in 
The Gleam and in Essence Divided, then we must assume that Dumbledore 
didn't get to tell Harry about all his suspicions, so why wouldn't Hx!
Harry be among them?

Or maybe Dumbledore never suspected. Thinking (but Dumbledore was 
never sure about it) that Voldy meant to use Harry's murder for a Hx, 
and that he finally settled on a living Hx (Nagini) would still count 
as not "wide of the mark", I think. 

Neri







From kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 20:33:57 2005
From: kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid (Kirsty)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:33:57 -0000
Subject: Confuddled thoughts on Horcruces??
Message-ID: <de2rbl+crjs@...>

After reading many of the fabuous posts about these delightful 
horcruces and how they work etc I want to throw something into the 
arena (Please excuse me if: this has already been discussed, it 
sounds ridiculous or you think I'm an idiot - which I am; as it my 
first post on one of these things)

Ok - it was after something one of the speakers said at Accio...got 
me thinking.

Blood? - Highly important thing in HP.

( know I should know more about this, but sadly I do not )

I know in some religious groups the soul is thought to flow with the 
blood, which is why these religious groups disagree with blood 
transfusions and transplants - My thought that I want to throw out 
there is about Voldy using the blood of Harry in the GOF.

I just wondered what people thought about this and the Harry Horcrux 
idea? (OT- sorry just throwing ideas around fro my dissertation and 
wondered what others thought?)

Thanks

Kirsty
 - new to all this discussion business







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 20:40:23 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:40:23 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1dd4+jued@...>
Message-ID: <de2rnn+8ft9@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> These thoughts did arise as a result of the alcohol thread (I was 
in 
> pursuit of a facetious theory that DD dies of Absinthe poisoning, 
but 
> it was a green light, not green liquid). In fact they're unrelated.
> 
> On reading through the scene in the cave again I was struck as I 
was 
> the first time by Dumbledore's peculiar ravings as he drinks the 
> potion. Now clearly we're meant to think that he's suffering 
delusions 
> brought on by the potion, or that he's simply referring to the way 
the 
> potion's making him feel. But this is JKR and I wonder, I really 
> wonder. What better way to slip in some memories and make Harry 
think 
> that it's Dumbledore speaking for himself rather than recalling 
someone 
> else's words?
> 
> "I don't want to...don't make me...don't like...want to 
stop...No...I 
> don't want to...I don't want to...let me go...Make it stop, make it 
> stop. No, no, no...no...I can't...I can't, don't make me, I don't 
want 
> to..."
> 
> So far so good. This could easily just refer to drinking the 
poison. 
> But then...
> 
> "It's all my fault, all my fault, he sobbed, "please make it stop, 
I 
> know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll never, never 
> again..."
> 
> Delusion or memory? And if a memory, who's saying it? Doesn't sound 
> like something Dumbledore would say to me.
> 
> "Please, please, please, no...not that, not that, I'll do 
anything...No 
> more, please, no more. I want to die! I want to die! Make it stop, 
make 
> it stop, I want to die! KILL ME!"
> 
> Now to be honest, it doesn't actually sound like anyone in 
particular, 
> except for perhaps Crouch Sr in his madness. It *does* possibly 
sound 
> like someone being Crucio'd. snip
> ~Eloise

I always thought the liquid in the basin contained the bad memories 
of others such as the people LV tortured, killed and turned into 
inferi to guard the locket.  IIRC, the basin was discribed as as 
penseive-like only the liquid in the bowl is green. Since this is LV 
we are talking about, why couldn't his pensieve liquid be green. 
Its bad enough to die a slow death from poisoning but having to live 
the nightmares or bad memories of others before you kick the 
bucket...yucko!

Fran





From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 22:12:57 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:12:57 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fenrir_Greyback_=96_literary_parallels?=
Message-ID: <de3159+u0f5@...>

When I read HBP after it first came out, I read the name of Fenrir 
Greyback and it jumped out at me from the page. Now, after a month, I 
am finding time to put down a few thoughts about this character and 
parallels to him in other books.

The reason his name initially jumped out at me was an association 
with CS Lewis. In his first Chronicle of Narnia "The Lion, the Witch 
and the Wardrobe" the chief of the White Witch's police in the UK 
version is a wolf named Maugrim but in the early US edition he is 
called Fenris Ulf and the similarity of the names intrigued me.

In the last couple of days, I have had time to look for information 
about this name and there are some interesting parallels and links 
which emerge. The following information is mainly from Wikipedia with 
additional annotations by myself.

In Norse mythology, the Fenrisulfr, Wolf of Fenrir or simply Fenrir 
is a monstrous wolf, the son of Loki and the giantess Angrbo?a. 
Fenrir is bound by the gods, but is ultimately destined to slip his 
bonds and devour Odin during the course of Ragnar?k, before being 
slain by Odin's son, Vi?arr, who will either stab him in the heart or 
rip his jaws asunder according to different accounts.

Maugrim is a powerful wolf and one of the White Witch's servants in 
the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis. His 
name is derived from the words "maw" (meaning mouth), "morgue", 
and "Grim" (a foreboding wolf-like figure from English folklore). His 
name was changed to Fenris Ulf for early American editions of the 
book. More recent American editions have reverted to the original 
British text, with the name Maugrim.

In Harry Potter terms, there seems to be a link between the Grim and 
Maugrim. It is also interesting to note as a side issue that Fenris 
Ulf has a giant mother ? now who does that remind us of?

Fenrir Greyback is the most vicious werewolf alive. It was he who bit 
Remus Lupin and turned him into a werewolf (as Lupin's father had 
offended him). He is on Voldemort's side in the Second War. He is 
named for the wolf Fenrir, whose release in Norse mythology heralds 
Ragnar?k. The mythical Fenrir kills Odin, who is then quickly avenged 
by his son Vi?arr.

Another thought I would like to run past other members is whether 
Fenrir is his real given name or a nickname. Agreed he is a werewolf 
but when did he become one? I can't see anyone naming a child after 
the monstrous wolf of Norse mythology.

If I may now go slightly OT, there are other connections which show 
that writers have been drawing on the same ideas as source material. 
We have already been told that Fenris Ulf is involved with Ragnar?k. 
Ragnar?k ("Doom of the Gods"), also called Gotterd?mmerung (German= 
twilight of the gods), means the end of the cosmos in Norse 
mythology. It will be preceded by Fimbulvetr, the winter of winters. 
Three such winters will follow each other with no summers in between. 
Conflicts and feuds will break out, even between families, and all 
morality will disappear. This is the beginning of the end.

I have in the past on HPFGU referred to a couple of books by Alan 
Garner, which I recommended highly to other members if they can track 
copies down. They are "The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" and "The Moon 
of Gomrath". During the course of the first book, the heroes 
encounter the Fimbulwinter when they are seriously impeded by a 
violent snowstorm before the evildoers of the book are eaten by 
Managarm and thus sent to Ragnarok. In Nordic mythology, Managarm is 
a giant "moon dog" who eats the flesh of the deceased and is 
associated with the coming of Ragnarok.

I am very intrigued by the way in which these various elements have 
been used by the authors I have I have mentioned, not forgetting that 
Tolkien drew on myths such as The Elder Edda for names in "The Lord 
of the Rings". I wonder how far they might have been influenced by 
each others' writings.






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 18 23:01:27 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:01:27 -0000
Subject: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de2h4i+cmvv@...>
Message-ID: <de3407+87t1@...>

Dung:
> Snipping all the is he/isn't he to-ing and fro-ing just to say...
> How about: Harry was a Hawshucks, but got un-shucked by DD in the 
> missing 24 hours?
> 
> TooLazyToThinkItThroughProperly!Dungrollin

SSSusan:
> We're likely to remain at the place where either you
> *like* the idea of Harry!Hx or you do not unless/until
> book 7 OR an interview in which JKR takes pity on us
> and sheds light on some of the possibilities.

Neri:
> <deep sigh> No kidding, this is exactly what she did to us with
> the mystery of Voldy's immortality. Two of the main clues were
> Voldy saying that the DEs knew of the steps he took and Voldy 
> becoming mortal again after his resurrection (paraphrasing from
> memory: "I set my sights lower. I would settle for my mortal body
> and my old strength before courting eternal life again"). Both of 
> these clues don't work with the horwhatisit thing. It could be
> argued that they outright contradict it.

Jen: Thanks guys, all of you reminded me of something: Just as we 
don't know what it's like to read the series with every bit of 
canon, backstory, etc., in place, JKR will never know what it's like 
to read these stories with only her anvil-size (or teeny-tiny <g>) 
clues, the red-herrings and interview tidbits she sparingly doles 
out to us. And thank god--I wouldn't have it any other way! It's 
really cool to be in on this process as it happens, instead of 
reading HP for the first time *knowing* DD dies, knowing Snape's 
motives and allegiance, knowing what Harry does in the end to defeat 
Voldemort (that's the only plot point I'm 100% certain about for 
Book 7, that Voldemort will be no more, hehe). My son asked me 
today, "Who was the Half-Blood Prince, anyway?" I paused before 
answering, realizing if I told him, he would never, ever be able to 
read the books the way I've done, with all the mystery and magic 
unfolding in order. But then he assured me he'll never like Harry 
Potter anyway, so he got the spoiler he deserved. :)
Jen






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 03:27:28 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <20050818175441.37674.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050819032728.22061.qmail@...>


--- Susan Albrecht <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

Snips alot
.
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan, who enjoyed Randy's Don't
> Point
> That Wand at Me very much.
> 

Thanks so much for the compliment!  I often wonder how
many people scream "Not another silly Filk!" every
time they see one of my posts.  The rest of you just
keep quiet while Susan says nice things to the 
songwriter!;0)

Red <0>
Who is on a Police kick at the moment.  I wonder if
JKR like "Synchronicity" since I have read that she
liked Jungian archetypes?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 03:21:34 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] ESE
In-Reply-To: <20050818114642.11894.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050819032134.6716.qmail@...>

I was told by my wife what ESE means in the School
system.  Exceptional Student Education = ESE for
special needs kids with learning problems.

The Ever So Evil Degree has yet to be fully accredited
by the School system in Florida.

--- Waldo Glatisant <waldoglatisant at ...> wrote:

> 
> --- Randy Estes <estesrandy at ...> wrote:
> 
> > Ever since I saw this ESE logo, it has stuck in my
> > mind.  I have been looking at jobs related to
> > teaching
> > and I constantly see ESE teaching positions.  
> > 
> > I think about the ESE Lupin crowd and think that
> he
> > must have started a trend.  You can now apply for
> > ESE
> > positions in the teaching profession.  I guess you
> > will be expected to miss classes now and then to
> go
> > off and do dastardly things!
> > 
> > Red <0> Randy
> 
> 
> Waldo:
> 
> Yes, well ol' Red Eye, not familiar with that
> acronym
> but in crosswords it would be "direction between
> Oxford and London" : ESE (East by Southeast). O'
> course that didn't fit the context of the discussion
> (East by Southeast Lupin?). Nevertheless, it is good
> to hear that His Lupine-ness has opened new doors in
> the teaching profession.  Now if he could only get a
> job. 
> 
> Waldo
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 08:03:05 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:03:05 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <01f701c5a3f1$350960a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <de43np+oceh@...>

> SSSusan:
> Eloise, this is truly freaky.  I re-read that chapter for the first 
time last night, and I had the SAME thought -- that the words sounded 
like what Snape might say if he truly felt remorse for Lily & James' 
deaths.  

Eloise:
There's evidently something in the ether. For the first time in an 
age I strolled over to the main list yesterday evening and guess what 
wa right there on the home page - a discussion of the same topic!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137969

> Saraquel:
> 
> Soon after the list opened on HBP, I posted a theory that what we 
> saw DD talking about was his memories of Snape's repentance, 
> although I speculated the torturers were to do with the 
> repercussions of breaking his life-debt to James. 

This is in reply to another Snape-memory theory which I'll let you 
read for yourselves as it involves hypothetical back story and for 
now I'd rather stick to things of which we have at least some 
canonical evidence. (Clearly we *are* going to get more revelations, 
but...)

Anyway going back to the earlier thread she quoted, there were some 
other interesting ideas. One of these (Caro in 134743) was that the 
basin contained a potion which showed you how you would die so that 
DD was living a premonition of what was about to happen. Another 
(digger in 134203) was that he was witnessing the torture and death 
of the children in the cave. 

Before going any further, I need to 'fess up. I think I accidentally 
missed out a bit from the quote, the bit where DD says,

"Don't hurt them... it's my fault, hurt me instead... "

Which I admit would be an odd thing for Snape to say to Dumbledore.

*But*...(you knew there had to be a but, didn't you?)

I had another thought.

WBD interview:
>>Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor 
Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious.

JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but 
that's because it would give so much away.<<

Did Dumbledore test Snape by facing him with a Boggart when he 
returned to him?

If James and Lily's deaths were the biggest regret of his life and he 
knew in advance that it was likely but not certain to happen, then at 
that point, logically, the anticipation of the threat being fulfilled 
must have been one of his greatest fears. Possibly, given the fact 
that he had a life-debt to James, of which we don't know the 
potential consequences, the biggest.

In any case, it seems that we will find out Snape's worst fear and it 
will be significant.

So too, for Dumbledore (and here, I have to concede ground to Kneasy).

Leaky/Mugglenet interview:
>>ES: What would Dumbledore's boggart be?

JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six 
again. There you go.<<

Perhaps the potion contains not Essence of Dementor, but Essence of 
Boggart, making you live through your worst fear. This could be 
(similar, but subtly different from Kneasy's views, I think) that his 
greatest fear is that he has simply got it all wrong, that his moral 
compass is disorienated and that he is directly responsible for the 
suffering that ensues.

Or, it could be that his worst fear is that his trust in Snape is 
misplaced (and thus, similar to Caro's suggestion above, he sees the 
possible consequences).

Actually, my money *is* on the latter being DD's worst fear though 
whether we are seeing this here, I'm not so sure. 

~Eloise









From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 09:25:09 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:25:09 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's worst fear (was Under the influence)
In-Reply-To: <de43np+oceh@...>
Message-ID: <de48hl+f0k1@...>

Eloise:

> Leaky/Mugglenet interview:
> >>ES: What would Dumbledore's boggart be?
> 
> JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read 
six 
> again. There you go.<<
> 
> Perhaps the potion contains not Essence of Dementor, but Essence 
of 
> Boggart, making you live through your worst fear. This could be 
> (similar, but subtly different from Kneasy's views, I think) that 
his 
> greatest fear is that he has simply got it all wrong, that his 
moral 
> compass is disorienated and that he is directly responsible for 
the 
> suffering that ensues.
> 
> Or, it could be that his worst fear is that his trust in Snape is 
> misplaced (and thus, similar to Caro's suggestion above, he sees 
the 
> possible consequences).
> 
> Actually, my money *is* on the latter being DD's worst fear though 
> whether we are seeing this here, I'm not so sure. 

"I am not afraid, Harry: I am with you"

Surely his worst fear is that Harry will be taken from him?

David





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 10:42:20 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:42:20 +0100
Subject: Further thoughts
Message-ID: <3A463E77-0568-467F-8597-7A49166ABBC4@...>

Right.
It's five weeks since we donned the steel toe-capped boots, sharpened  
the elbows and stormed the bookshops, terrorising small children and  
sluggardly shop assistants in our determination to brook no delay in  
getting the latest volume of HP into our trembling hands. Now comes  
the crunch question: Are we any further forward in the quest to  
determine what it's all about?

Er.... no, not really.
All the old questions remain - GH; the 24 hours; Grindelwald; DD;  
Peter; Snape; Malfoy; Dobby; House Elves in general; the significance  
of green eyes; why young Potter seems eager to throw Crucio! curses  
about; why Hermione is such a pain in the neck, etc., etc., etc. OK,  
the last book is yet to come, but didn't herself say that it was the  
time for answers? Anybody notice any of significance?

Instead it gets worse - new questions and complications have been  
added to the list; Herscluces; Patronus-swapping; Unbreakable Vows  
and old Snapey as the HBP - dunno about you but I'm definitely not  
swallowing that one without a lot more evidence - preferably from  
someone other than Sevvy.

There's been a lot of posts about those hearseclux thingies, and  
brooding in the fastness of Schloss Kneasy I've come to the  
conclusion that I don't like 'em. Too convenient as a plot device  
whilst not having much credibility - whoever heard of 'splitting' a  
soul? A theological impossibility, I'd expect. Bit like splitting a  
fundamental particle or saying that life can be torn along the  
perforations and the separate bits neatly tucked away for use when  
required. Or is what Jo refers to as a 'soul' something different to  
our everyday understanding of the word? Not even any consistency  
regarding them in  the plot so far, either - the Diary bears little  
resemblance to what the other constructs are presumed to be or how  
they function.

According to Jo, the reasoning behind the "He who must not be named"  
bit was the common belief in primitive societies (and by extension  
the WW - otherwise why make a big thing of it) that knowing a  
person's name gave power over them. How does this fit in with off- 
cuts of Voldy scattered hither-and-yon around this sceptred isle? By  
rights one should be able to summon him, or a bit of him by invoking  
his name or by injudicious handling of his artifacts - a variant of  
M.R.James' "Oh whistle and I'll come to you my lad." The Diary can be  
said to fit this pattern but from what we're told  the other horlicks  
probably don't function in a similar fashion. Can't think why not.  
IMO it'd make for some entertaining storylines, OoP could have been  
brightened up no end by an evil artifact or two. (As an aside - just  
imagine what M.R.James would have done with HP. Cor! The mind  
boggles! Untold millions of adolescents afraid to put out the light  
at bedtime.)

With the release of a new book it's natural enough to dive in, pick  
it to pieces, trawling for information that may confirm or refute  
theories that have been suggested by fans.  HBP hasn't been a great  
deal of help  in this respect, about the only suggestion that can be  
scrubbed is Vampire!Snape and that was only even part-way convincing  
to a minority anyway. The rest of it is as uncertain as it ever was.  
So  while the book of  itself was enjoyable it was disappointing in  
the overall scheme of things. It really hasn't helped much at all,  
the number of loose ends  don't diminish and the phrase "too clever  
for her own good" is starting to form at the back of my mind. Hope  
I'm wrong.

Kneasy 



From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 14:34:57 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: whatever happened to Rudolphus?
In-Reply-To: <3A463E77-0568-467F-8597-7A49166ABBC4@...>
Message-ID: <20050819143457.64021.qmail@...>

I apologize if this is a topic that has been beaten to
death, or if it is made clear in the text  - and I
just missed it.  My question is this: Whatever
happened to Rudolphus Lestrange?  I believe that
Sirius tells us in OotP that he is living in Azkaban. 
I assumed that he escaped with Bellatrix, but then we
do not hear anything more about him.  Did I miss
something?  Did he die in Azkaban?  Is he one of the
unnamed DE's in the lightening-struck-tower battle? 

-Waldo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From oppen at ericoppen.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 15:39:30 2005
From: oppen at ericoppen.yahoo.invalid (Eric Oppen)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:39:30 -0500
Subject: Merope's Death
Message-ID: <003601c5a4d4$744925a0$c0570043@hppav>

Reading about Tom Riddle's background, a question occurred to me.

Basically, it's like this:  How do we _know_ that Merope Gaunt Riddle wasn't
murdered?

How long was she able to keep filling TR, Sr. up with love potions?  If her
idyll had lasted a while, it could well be that her rotten father and/or
brother had gotten back out of Azkaban...and once they were out, the first
thing they'd do would be to track down their escaped slave.  They would
_not_ be amused to find that she'd had a "mud-veined Muggle"'s child, now
would they?  Between their attitudes and their precarious-at-best hold on
sanity, I could see either Marvolo or Morfin, or both of them, killing
Merope for having "disgraced the Gaunt family" by her actions.

We know that Muggles can't diagnose the Avada Kedavra curse correctly.  If
Merope was already weak and ill (and, probably, suffering from severe
post-partum depression and emotional anguish) all it would have taken would
be for either Marvolo or Morfin to slip into the room where she was and cast
a quick A-K.  The Muggle medicos wouldn't know what had gone wrong, but
would ascribe Merope's death to her illnesses.  There were no wizards nearby
who would even have suspected the A-K.

Eric Oppen, longtime HP4GU fixture, newcomer to the_old_crowd.




From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 15:51:18 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:51:18 -0000
Subject: Curse of the DADA and the Felix effect
Message-ID: <de4v5m+vp8m@...>

Thinking about the Felix potion, we might use the effect of the 
Felix to study the DADA curse. The ability to make the right choice 
in each instance with Felix could be the opposite effect of the DADA 
curse. The DADA curse is insidious because it binds each teacher to 
his/her weakness to the point of personal destruction. And I don't 
think people are victims in the sense of choice being taking away, 
but a person seems to notice only the *wrong* choice to make at each 
juncture, something which they are pulled to strongly anyway because 
of a personal weakness. So we see each teacher chart his/her own 
downfall by choosing a flawed strategy initially, and then allowing 
personal weakness to complete the destruction.  The curse of the 
DADA aids their destruction by promoting the ability to make wrong 
choices & ultimately each comes face-to-face with their darkest 
moment:

1) Quirrell initial strategy: Ill-advised trip to Albania in hopes 
of learning more about defending the dark arts. Weakness: Moral 
weakness in the sense he was a 'foolish young man... full of 
ridiculous ideas about good and evil'; he held no convictions strong 
enough to willingly join or willingly resist LV's power, though. 
Consequently he is taken over by Voldemort, used and abandoned.

2)Lockhart's inital strategy: Presenting himself as a Dark Arts 
expert. Weakness: Desiring fame at all costs. Lockhart ups the ante 
with each story and each failed bit of magic he performs, to the 
point he's trapped into the COS rescue by the people who understand 
he's a fraud. He's ultimately brought down by his one real strength, 
and cursed to have the memory of his fame erased! (I love the irony 
of this one).

3)Lupin's inital stategy: Denying his past. Weakness: Wanting to fit 
in and above all, seeking Dumbledore's approval. Lupin initially 
hopes to go back to Hogwarts, meet Harry (his past), but not have 
the demons of his past interfere in any way. At each point where he 
might be straightforward and truthful with either Harry or 
Dumbledore, he chooses to remain secretive. Lupin's past slowly 
begins to infiltrate his current life, first with Harry, then the 
map, then finally his remaining old friends. His final undoing is 
the ultimate denial of his alter-ego, the werewolf.

(Moody: Gets locked in the truck for a year--he got the worst of the 
curse, no?!?)

4)Crouch!Moody's initial strategy: Unwavering belief in the Dark 
Lord's power and the power of evil in general. Weakness: Hubris. In 
his belief that Voldemort & evil will always prevail, Crouch 
unwittingly causes Voldemort's downfall in the graveyard by teaching 
Harry and those around him the skills Harry will need to escape LV. 
In the end, his hubris allows him to believe he can outwit 
Dumbledore, and he is ultimately destroyed by the very evil he 
worships.

5)Umbridge: Belief she can defeat Dumbledore and Harry single-
handedly. Weakness: Craving power and desiring approbation from 
those in power (Fudge). As with all the DADA's, we find out her goal 
only in hindsight--to bring down Dumbledore, Harry, and ultimately 
Hogwarts (or reshape it in her own image at any rate). The more she 
tries to control for this outcome, the more her choices mobilize the 
forces against her, until she is defeated by the beings she most 
detests--'half-breeds'.

6)Snape/Voldemort: (I put it this way because I think both were 
involved in this year's decision)
**Initial strategy Voldemort: Defeat Dumbledore; LV presses Snape to 
get the DADA position either covertly or overtly. DD can't deny 
Snape this post if it will further his infiltration with Voldemort.  
**Initial strategy Snape: Desire to teach the dark arts and belief 
he can defeat the DADA curse.
**Weakness Voldemort: his undoing will actually be what he sees as a 
victory: Dumbledore will be more powerful in death than he was 
alive. Don't know exactly how yet, but believe this is true <g>. 
**Weakness Snape: brushing much to close to the dark arts again, 
both in the classroom and in his affiliation with the DE's & 
Voldemort. The Unbreakable was the first of his wrong choices from 
the DADA curse (Carol's thought) and his undoing was being faced 
with the choice to use an Unforgivable and AK Dumbledore. I think he 
made the right choice, did not AK him and in doing so, broke the 
DADA curse. He did lose his greatest advocate though, and his one 
true defender, which will ulitmately lead to his end--but by which 
side?!?

Jen

(This is a slightly re-worked post to a thread on HPFGU, and my 
thoughts are a response to other people's ideas starting here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138059 )







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 20:26:04 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:26:04 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <3A463E77-0568-467F-8597-7A49166ABBC4@...>
Message-ID: <de5f8s+br4s@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Right.
><snip>
 Are we any further forward in the quest to  
> determine what it's all about?
> 
<snip>
> the last book is yet to come, but didn't herself say that it was
the   time for answers? Anybody notice any of significance?
>
Pippin:
Um, yes, actually. We found out that Snape had indeed resumed his
role as double agent, we found out what excuses he had made to
the Death Eaters in order to be accepted back into the fold, we found
out that Voldemort had ordered Snape to join Dumbledore, we found 
out why Dumbledore believed Snape had left the dark side, we 
found out the nature of Lupin's "mysterious business for the Order" 
and we found out how Voldemort had survived the rebound of the 
killing curse. 


It was reconfirmed that Voldemort is misleading in his monologues 
and we should be very careful about believing anything he says. 

We found out (though from interviews not directly from the text) 
that Harry's incompetence at occlumency was not Snape's fault.

Pippin






From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 20:42:29 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:42:29 -0000
Subject: Merope's Death
In-Reply-To: <003601c5a4d4$744925a0$c0570043@hppav>
Message-ID: <de5g7l+lbtv@...>

Eric Oppen wrote:
> Reading about Tom Riddle's background, a question occurred to me.
> 
> Basically, it's like this:  How do we _know_ that Merope Gaunt    
> Riddle wasn't murdered?
 
Pip!Squeak:

Technically, we don't. Currently, we don't know what she died of, 
only that she died within an hour of the birth.

[In a side point, I don't think she'd be called Merope Gaunt Riddle 
in the UK - or in the UK Wizarding World. UK folk use only one 
surname (family name) at a time. If they're well known and female, 
they often keep their maiden name (original family name) for 
professional reasons (J.K. *Rowling*), but normally the family name 
is taken to be the husband's surname. Though in desperation a couple 
might sometimes hypenate the two original family names together to 
make one new surname (Gaunt-Riddle). 

Other countries (including other European countries) are different, 
and it might be possible that the WW has different customs. However, 
Dumbledore refers to Merope as 'Merope Riddle', and Molly Weasley is 
always called Molly Weasley, not Molly Prewett Weasley. So I'd guess 
that the WW sticks to the UK custom, and Merope is called 'Merope 
Riddle' after her marriage to Tom. ]



Eric:
> We know that Muggles can't diagnose the Avada Kedavra curse 
> correctly.  If Merope was already weak and ill (and, probably, 
> suffering from severe post-partum depression and emotional 
> anguish) all it would have taken would be for either Marvolo or 
> Morfin to slip into the room where she was and cast a quick A-K.  
> The Muggle medicos wouldn't know what had gone wrong, but
> would ascribe Merope's death to her illnesses.  There were no 
> wizards nearby who would even have suspected the A-K.

Pip!Squeak
Dumbledore seems to think Merope died because she refused to use 
magic. So he probably doesn't suspect an AK - there's no magical 
defence against it.

And this is the 1930's we're talking about. Women died in 
childbirth, no murder needed. There might have even been no doctor 
in attendance (English law doesn't require a doctor, just a nurse 
qualified in midwifery) - if the Matron, Mrs Cole, was a qualified 
nurse, she'd only *have* to call a doctor when it became clear 
something was going wrong. 

JKR's no doctor, but she's married to one and so presumably has 
basic medical advice on tap. I'm not a doctor either, but dying 
within an hour of birth sounds to me like something got 
ruptured/torn during labour, and Merope died of the resulting 
internal bleeding.

That would fit with Dumbledore thinking Merope died because she 
wouldn't use magic. As we see in HBP, a wizard can *stop* bleeding.

If the Gaunts slipped into the room where she was, Merope would 
really have to be alone in it. If she was suffering from obvious 
post-labour complications, she wouldn't be. Certainly the 
midwife/nurse would have stayed in the room with her - and Mrs Cole 
in her conversation with Dumbledore seems to have been with Merope 
*after* Tom was born. Merope knows the baby is a boy (1930's - no 
pre-birth scans to show a baby's sex). Mrs Cole's told what Tom's 
name should be, she's told Merope hope he looks like his papa. She 
knows Merope didn't say anything else before she died - again, that 
suggests she or someone else stayed with Merope, to know that she 
didn't speak.

That means the Gaunts would have had to slip into a room with a 
muggle in it, Stupefy the muggle (or something), modify her memory, 
AK Merope, not notice the baby (I suspect they would have killed 
this half-blood stain on the family) and leave without doing 
anything to the muggle in the room.

I reckon not. Having Merope murdered makes her an exact copy for 
Lily, yes, but I think Merope is Lily's mirror. Instead of dying to 
save her son, she refused to live to save her son. Mirror image.

> 
> Eric Oppen, longtime HP4GU fixture, newcomer to the_old_crowd.

Hi, Eric! I've seen you around, I think.

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 20:54:42 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Merope's Death
In-Reply-To: <de5g7l+lbtv@...>
Message-ID: <20050819205443.53737.qmail@...>


Pip!Squeak:

Currently, we don't know what she [Merope Riddle] died of, 
only that she died within an hour of the birth.

Dumbledore seems to think Merope died because she refused to use 
magic. <snip>

CV: I've always assumed she died of a broken heart. Like she was sort of "walking dead" already out of sadness, but just stuck around long enough to have her child. When that was completed, she allowed her sadness to take her the rest of the way. Sort of agrees with not wanting to use magic. If she felt she had nothing to live for, why would she save herself? Who knows, there may even be magical suicide.

Anyway that's how I understood it when I read it.

CV, who has been is a similar state of overwhelming dispair and almost died of it herself. You just sort of stop living unless something comes along to rescue you first.


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 20:54:48 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:54:48 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de1dd4+jued@...>
Message-ID: <de5guo+rm9i@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson"
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:

> Is *this* the proof of which Dumbledore has been so reticent? That 
> Snape came to him willing to die for what he'd done? 
> 


Pippin:
This is rather uncanny. I've been having these same thoughts myself
offliist. Great minds...

I'm on travel and haven't got my canon handy. But didn't Dumbledore
say that Voldemort would want to interrogate the drinker of the
potion? 

What if it makes you reveal the thing you least want Voldemort to 
know?

I'm thinking that in order for Dumbledore to use Snape as a spy, he
would have had to increase Snape's occlumency skills to the point
where Snape could hide his remorse from Voldemort. That would 
mean occlumency lessons, with Dumbledore  using all his considerable 
legilimency skills to try  to force the truth out of Snape.

That could be what DD is reliving. That would explain the pleas--
and also that Harry thinks, when he hears Dumbledore pleading on the
tower, that he's never heard Dumbledore plead before. He hasn't,
because what he heard before was Dumbledore's recollection of Snape 
pleading, first,  that he doesn't want to relive that memory again,
then the memory itself, that he doesn't want the Potters killed, that
he would rather die.

On a somewhat related thought, we've seen LV try to use Dumbledore as
his executioner more than once. Consider young Snape, a gifted wizard,
full of drive and intelligence, with a passion for the dark arts, who
is growing out of his adolescent gawkiness into a man who can command
the attention of a room just by walking into it -- could Voldemort
have sent Snape to apply for the jinxed DADA job because he feared
that Snape could become a rival Dark Lord?

In that case, Voldemort wouldn't have seriously prepared Snape to
resist Dumbledore any more than he did Draco, and the reason
Dumbledore thought he had nothing to fear from Snape's occlumency
skills is that he is the one who brought them to their present level.

BTW, what *do* you think all those Christie books are doing on JKR's 
shelves? Hercule Poirot (note his initials) would be perfectly
satisfied with poison as the cause of DD's death.

Pippin
from hot, muggy Peoria, Illinois





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 19 22:32:40 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:32:40 -0000
Subject: Merope's Death as rejection of the WW
In-Reply-To: <de5g7l+lbtv@...>
Message-ID: <de5mm8+c42k@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
<snip of a great analysis>

> Mrs Cole 
> in her conversation with Dumbledore seems to have been with Merope 
> *after* Tom was born. Merope knows the baby is a boy (1930's - no 
> pre-birth scans to show a baby's sex). Mrs Cole's told what Tom's 
> name should be, she's told Merope hope he looks like his papa. She 
> knows Merope didn't say anything else before she died - again, that 
> suggests she or someone else stayed with Merope, to know that she 
> didn't speak.
> 
> snip> 
>  Having Merope murdered makes her an exact copy for 
> Lily, yes, but I think Merope is Lily's mirror. Instead of dying to 
> save her son, she refused to live to save her son. Mirror image.
> 
Lyn now:
I suspect you may be correct that JKR means for her to be a mirror, but I don't actually 
think she is as much as is sometimes assumed.  You note that she lived to give birth to 
her son, lived to know his sex, lived to give him a name, and cared what he would grow up 
to look like. If she were rejecting the son, she couldn't have cared less whether he made it 
to full term, or had a name, or had looks she fell in love with. What I think she was 
rejecting, was the Wizarding World, with all its attention to bloodlines, and tolerance of 
bigotry, tolerance of her own abuse (for was the WW going to intervene in the Gaunt 
household to protect her even after they knew of her condition--the Ministry didn't 
interfere with what wizards were doing to their children (including not sending them to 
school), they only cared about the "outing" of the WW to the Muggles) and emphasis on 
magic over human emotion. She wanted to leave the Wizarding World, and part of leaving 
it was a rejection of all things magical. She attempted to escape her Wizard life through 
magical control of another, and yet it was this magical act which created the tragedy. She 
fell in love with a Muggle,  wanted to escape to a Muggle life (though a priviledged one), 
wanted her son to be a Muggle, to live as a Muggle, and perhaps never meant for him to 
know he was a wizard, which is why she sought out a Muggle orphanage and gave him a 
(mostly) Muggle name.  [As for the Marvolo part, it seems more a matter of literary 
convenience than consistent with the character's other actions).

In the end, I think it was as much her rejection of the WW, as her heartbreak over her 
Muggle husband, that related to her death, and it is those things, rather than any rejection 
of her son, that lead to her death.  Thus, I don't see her as such a perfect mirror to Lilly, at 
least based on what we know of Lilly thus far.

Just a thought.





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 03:18:41 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:18:41 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de5f8s+br4s@...>
Message-ID: <de67eh+46uv@...>

Kneasy wrote:
> > Right.
> ><snip>
>  Are we any further forward in the quest to  
> > determine what it's all about?
> > 
> <snip>
> > the last book is yet to come, but didn't herself say that it was
> the   time for answers? Anybody notice any of significance?
> >

> Pippin:
> Um, yes, actually. We found out that Snape had indeed resumed his
> role as double agent, we found out what excuses he had made to
> the Death Eaters in order to be accepted back into the fold, we found
> out that Voldemort had ordered Snape to join Dumbledore, we found 
> out why Dumbledore believed Snape had left the dark side, we 
> found out the nature of Lupin's "mysterious business for the Order" 
> and we found out how Voldemort had survived the rebound of the 
> killing curse. 
> 
> 
> It was reconfirmed that Voldemort is misleading in his monologues 
> and we should be very careful about believing anything he says. 
> 
> We found out (though from interviews not directly from the text) 
> that Harry's incompetence at occlumency was not Snape's fault.


Neri:
Some more things we found out in HBP (and related interviews):

We found out the origin of the DADA jinx.

We found out who overheard the prophecy at the Hog's Head.

We found out who knows the full prophecy today.

We found out what's "neither can live while the other survives" means.

We found out what's in the locked room (big deal...)

We found out that Voldy still believes he's protected by Harry's blood.

We found out what happened to Kreacher and to Sirius' estate.

We found out James wasn't that much of a bully after all.

We found out Lily was very good at Potions.

We found out Severus was indeed playing with Dark Arts at school.
   
We found out that the gum wrappers don't mean nothin' at all.

We found out the H/H shippers were delusional. 

We found out Draco isn't a killer.

We found out whom Snape really loves.

We found out what is Dumbledore's favorite flavor of jam.


Neri








From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 07:25:56 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:25:56 -0000
Subject: whatever happened to Rudolphus?
In-Reply-To: <20050819143457.64021.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <de6lu4+9ab1@...>

Waldo wrote:
> I apologize if this is a topic that has been beaten to
> death, or if it is made clear in the text  - and I
> just missed it.  My question is this: Whatever
> happened to Rudolphus Lestrange?  I believe that
> Sirius tells us in OotP that he is living in Azkaban. 
> I assumed that he escaped with Bellatrix, but then we
> do not hear anything more about him.  Did I miss
> something?  Did he die in Azkaban?  Is he one of the
> unnamed DE's in the lightening-struck-tower battle?

Ginger:
He and Rabastan were in the DoM at the end of OoP.  Rudy and Trixie 
were sent one direction, Rab (RAB!) astan and someone else (Crabbe?) 
were sent in another.  Drat, why haven't I memorized that book yet?  
I'm at my parents' with no canon.  

At any rate, I'm sure they both went back to Sweet Home Azkabana 
after OoP.

Ginger, writing from cold, rainy Watertown, SD





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 08:28:09 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:28:09 -0000
Subject: Under the influence
In-Reply-To: <de5guo+rm9i@...>
Message-ID: <de6pip+d22n@...>

 
Pippin:
> This is rather uncanny. I've been having these same thoughts myself
> offliist. Great minds...
> 
> I'm on travel and haven't got my canon handy. But didn't Dumbledore
> say that Voldemort would want to interrogate the drinker of the
> potion? 
> 
> What if it makes you reveal the thing you least want Voldemort to 
> know?

Eloise:
Actually, that chimes very well with what Saraquel suggested over on 
the other list (post I linked to) - she suggested that the potion 
contained Veritaserum amongst other things.

Pippin:
> I'm thinking that in order for Dumbledore to use Snape as a spy, he
> would have had to increase Snape's occlumency skills to the point
> where Snape could hide his remorse from Voldemort. That would 
> mean occlumency lessons, with Dumbledore  using all his 
considerable 
> legilimency skills to try  to force the truth out of Snape.

Eloise:
This assumes that his Occlumency *needed* boosting and that it wasn't 
already sufficient to block Dumbledore's legilimency. ;-) But I agree 
it's a likely scenario and it would go nicely with Dumbledore telling 
Harry that Snape was a "superb" Occlumens because it would be one of 
those little pats on the back that Dumbledore is fond of giving 
himself.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Voldemort taught Snape 
Legilimency for precisely the same reason before he sent him to 
Dumbledore (though that sounds far too sensible for the Evil Overlord 
we know and love). And whichever of them did it, it became a two 
edged sword. Dumbledore *had* to trust Snape because as Harry pointed 
out, he can hide the truth from him if he wishes. Unless there's 
something else going on that we don't know about.



Pippin: 
> That could be what DD is reliving. That would explain the pleas--
> and also that Harry thinks, when he hears Dumbledore pleading on the
> tower, that he's never heard Dumbledore plead before. He hasn't,
> because what he heard before was Dumbledore's recollection of Snape 
> pleading, first,  that he doesn't want to relive that memory again,
> then the memory itself, that he doesn't want the Potters killed, 
that
> he would rather die.

Eloise:
Exactly. I had suggested it was by means of a Boggart, but of course 
Legilimency would have the same result. As long as he wasn't able to 
resist it, of course and plant false memories.

Pippin:
> On a somewhat related thought, we've seen LV try to use Dumbledore 
as
> his executioner more than once. Consider young Snape, a gifted 
wizard,
> full of drive and intelligence, with a passion for the dark arts, 
who
> is growing out of his adolescent gawkiness into a man who can 
command
> the attention of a room just by walking into it -- could Voldemort
> have sent Snape to apply for the jinxed DADA job because he feared
> that Snape could become a rival Dark Lord?

Eloise:
Possibly.

Pippin:
> In that case, Voldemort wouldn't have seriously prepared Snape to
> resist Dumbledore any more than he did Draco, and the reason
> Dumbledore thought he had nothing to fear from Snape's occlumency
> skills is that he is the one who brought them to their present 
level.

Eloise:
Quite logical.

Pippin: 
> BTW, what *do* you think all those Christie books are doing on 
JKR's 
> shelves? Hercule Poirot (note his initials) would be perfectly
> satisfied with poison as the cause of DD's death.


Eloise:
Who me? Or the list in general?

On one level I don't think it actually matters *what* killed 
Dumbledore. The more interesting questions are 

*What did Snape *think* was happening (was he curable or incurable, 
how long would death take, how much suffering would it cause, was 
there any advantage to anyone involved, for good or bad in finishing 
him off quickly)? 

*What were his intentions and motives (to act on Dumbledore's 
wishes/orders or Voldemort's or his own)?

*What did he actually do (cast an effective, though somewhat abnormal 
AK, an ineffective AK or only something that looked like one)? 

BTW, I wonder at what point Harry will begin to question his own role 
in Dumbledore's death? Yes he acted on his promise. But he didn't 
*have* to make that promise in the first place (in absolute terms, 
that is; I know he had little choice in the matter, but it would only 
be human nature to say "If only I hadn't..." just as McGonagall did).

~Eloise
from miserable Kent.







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 10:08:56 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:08:56 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de5f8s+br4s@...>
Message-ID: <de6vfo+f8a0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
> > 
> <snip>
> > the last book is yet to come, but didn't herself say that it was
> the   time for answers? Anybody notice any of significance?
> >
> Pippin:
> Um, yes, actually. We found out that Snape had indeed resumed his
> role as double agent, we found out what excuses he had made to
> the Death Eaters in order to be accepted back into the fold, we found
> out that Voldemort had ordered Snape to join Dumbledore, we found 
> out why Dumbledore believed Snape had left the dark side, we 
> found out the nature of Lupin's "mysterious business for the Order" 

Kneasy:
None of which I'd consider particularly significant in terms of "what
it's all about". Snape's double/triple dealing has been the object of
heated discussion ever since I joined an HP board - and *still* there
is no agreement as to which side he's on. The mere mechanics of
his operations may be interesting but they don't definitively tell us
good or bad, nor is it a revelation that both sides think he's working 
for them. Added to which, I don't really trust *ANYTHING* DD has told 
Harry about Snape. IMO what he says is shaded or emphasised in ways 
that will get Harry to think or react in the way DD wants him to.
It's manipulation pure and simple, and one usually finds a few weasel
words like "I wouldn't be surprised if.."  in there. 
But Harry never hears those.

The Lupin explanation falls into the same class of plot business as Hagrid 
and the Giants - but with less detail. Again, unless he comes across with
something more than "the werewolves are on Voldy's side" it's no more 
than background filler, explaining the absence of a major character
without adding anything to the main story threads. 

> and we found out how Voldemort had survived the rebound of the 
> killing curse. 
> 

Kneasy:
Sort of - but it's messy and there are holes all over the place. This is
partly why I don't like this hersclix stuff; it's the subject of what seems 
to be special pleading in the plot construction. Or possibly there's
more to it all than has yet been revealed, in which case what we
think we know doesn't mean much.

If,  as DD speculates, the soul fragments are not connected or aware
of each other, why would the soul-part in a destroyed Voldy not do the
decent thing and slip to 'the other side'? That part in the Diary didn't 
hang around - and it wasn't even attacked by 'magic' but by Basilisk 
venom. Why didn't the other soul fragments ensure it's survival? On the
other hand Voldy at GH is assumed by most to have been zapped by an 
AK - and you can't get a more magical death than that. Yet that fragment
is still around.
Why the difference - except for exingencies of plot?

There's ambiguity in just what Harry and DD have been doing - are they in 
the business of destroying Horseclicks or the soul fragments within them?
If it's Hxs that's one thing - they are after all just protective devices, but what 
happens to the fragment when the protection is stripped away? Does it hang
around like a bad smell, seek a refuge, try to join another bit or vanish
through the Veil? Or is it destroyed? We don't know - the protective devices -
in one case a body, in the other the Diary, are destroyed, yet the fate of the 
soul-fragments differ.

In one passage DD implies that they can be destroyed:-
"However, a withered hand does not  seem an unreasonable exchange for
a seventh of Voldemorts's soul." 
Yet a soul is supposed to be eternal, the one part of an individual that will 
last forever. 

Maybe DD meant something different, maybe he's been collecting the
fragments - a WW version of stamp-collecting. "Swap you a hand for one 
seventh of your soul."

Whatever. But of the 3 fragments tackled so far (GH, Diary, ring) when their
abode/hiding place/protection is destroyed two vanish and one doesn't.
Why? Does one part of a soul differ from another? I doubt it, the implication
is that the seven parts are more or less of equal size and quality. Anyway, for
the bits to differ qualitatively Voldy would have to be able to decide/determine
which section of his soul got ripped off whenever he decided to construct 
another HX.
Like I say, it's messy. 
And it's unlikely to be cleared up until we know exactly what happened at
GH, maybe not even then.
But in the meantime it's getting more and more like Agatha Christie - and 
that ain't a compliment.

> 
> It was reconfirmed that Voldemort is misleading in his monologues 
> and we should be very careful about believing anything he says. 
> 

Kneasy:
Not new. We knew that when Jo blew the gaff about Diary!Tom lying in 
saying that Hagrid reared werewolf cubs under his bed. She said then that 
his words weren't to be trusted.

> We found out (though from interviews not directly from the text) 
> that Harry's incompetence at occlumency was not Snape's fault.
> 

Kneasy:
Only determined Snape-ophobes or blinkered Harry-philiacs denied that
anyway - there was loads of canon that pointed to that in OoP. Harry didn't
try and it was obvious that he didn't, just the opposite, he was determined
to follow the dreams/visions no matter what Snape said or did.
Hardly anything new; just another skirmish in the on-going Harry/Sevvy 
relationship, only this time the consequencies were a bit Bangier than 
previously.






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 18:07:04 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:07:04 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de6vfo+f8a0@...>
Message-ID: <de7rg8+tatt@...>

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

> None of which I'd consider particularly significant in terms of "what
> it's all about". Snape's double/triple dealing has been the object of
> heated discussion ever since I joined an HP board - and *still* there
> is no agreement as to which side he's on. The mere mechanics of
> his operations may be interesting but they don't definitively tell us
> good or bad, nor is it a revelation that both sides think he's working 
> for them. Added to which, I don't really trust *ANYTHING* DD has told 
> Harry about Snape. IMO what he says is shaded or emphasised in ways 
> that will get Harry to think or react in the way DD wants him to.
> It's manipulation pure and simple, and one usually finds a few weasel
> words like "I wouldn't be surprised if.."  in there. 
> But Harry never hears those.

Lyn now;
Yes! A careful reading of DD's words throughout the series repeatedly reveals ambiguous 
and speculating qualifiers to his comments. And you are most right, Harry almost 
invariably misses those.
> 
> The Lupin explanation falls into the same class of plot business as Hagrid 
> and the Giants - but with less detail. Again, unless he comes across with
> something more than "the werewolves are on Voldy's side" it's no more 
> than background filler, explaining the absence of a major character
> without adding anything to the main story threads. 

Lyn now: 
I agree, unless a set up for something significant to come, the entire Lupin presence was 
superfluous and almost egregious given other truly interesting storyline (like another 
DADA class) that could have filled the space. 
> 
> > and we found out how Voldemort had survived the rebound of the 
> > killing curse. 
> > 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Sort of - but it's messy and there are holes all over the place. This is
> partly why I don't like this hersclix stuff; it's the subject of what seems 
> to be special pleading in the plot construction. Or possibly there's
> more to it all than has yet been revealed, in which case what we
> think we know doesn't mean much.
> 
> If,  as DD speculates, the soul fragments are not connected or aware
> of each other, why would the soul-part in a destroyed Voldy not do the
> decent thing and slip to 'the other side'? That part in the Diary didn't 
> hang around - and it wasn't even attacked by 'magic' but by Basilisk 
> venom. Why didn't the other soul fragments ensure it's survival? On the
> other hand Voldy at GH is assumed by most to have been zapped by an 
> AK - and you can't get a more magical death than that. Yet that fragment
> is still around.
> Why the difference - except for exingencies of plot?

Lyn now:
In working on trying to connect the rest of the series to the HXs of this book, the level of 
inconsistency makes me truly question if JKR had a conception of HXs from the beginning 
(though for the integrity of the series, one must assume so). I think one the most telling 
statements the JKR has made is the LV lies.  I take that as her attempt to cover for how 
there are some glaring inconsistencies that can only be "reconciled" if we don't take prior 
LV statements as accurate reflections of the facts. With the exception of LV trying to get 
Harry to give him the Stone in the first book, there really doesn't appear that LV has had 
much need or reason to lie to Harry or his Death Eaters. 

In working on reconciling earlier information with the new information on HXs, I am trying 
to weave a coherent fabric, but I don't have much confidence in its integrity.  
> 
> There's ambiguity in just what Harry and DD have been doing - are they in 
> the business of destroying Horseclicks or the soul fragments within them?
> If it's Hxs that's one thing - they are after all just protective devices, but what 
> happens to the fragment when the protection is stripped away? Does it hang
> around like a bad smell, seek a refuge, try to join another bit or vanish
> through the Veil? Or is it destroyed? We don't know - the protective devices -
> in one case a body, in the other the Diary, are destroyed, yet the fate of the 
> soul-fragments differ.

Lyn now:
A wonderful observation, which is the most serious hurdle I have been facing in trying to 
develop a GUT of HXs. This, to me, must be satisfactorily explained by Rowling to have the 
series have integrity, and I am growing skeptical, based on the cohesiveness of the 
immortality theme to this point,  that Rowling is going to pull it off.  I'll be delighted if she 
does, and find it truly sad if she doesn't. 
> 
> In one passage DD implies that they can be destroyed:-
> "However, a withered hand does not  seem an unreasonable exchange for
> a seventh of Voldemorts's soul." 
> Yet a soul is supposed to be eternal, the one part of an individual that will 
> last forever. 

Lyn now:
That of course could be part of the explanation that JKR could use as the difference 
between the GH soul and the HXs. The former is eternal but remains bound to its original 
life force in the living world by the presence of the soul fragments. The soul fragments are 
not eternal, having been seperated from the life force of the "mother ship" soul, and 
cannot exist independent from it except by aquiring the life force of another (e.g., Ginny). 
Likely a bunch of gobblitygook, but its the sort of things it seems it would take to have 
this come close to hanging together.  
> 
> Maybe DD meant something different, maybe he's been collecting the
> fragments - a WW version of stamp-collecting. "Swap you a hand for one 
> seventh of your soul."

Lyn
Don't think so.
> 
> Whatever. But of the 3 fragments tackled so far (GH, Diary, ring) when their
> abode/hiding place/protection is destroyed two vanish and one doesn't.
> Why? Does one part of a soul differ from another? I doubt it, the implication
> is that the seven parts are more or less of equal size and quality. Anyway, for
> the bits to differ qualitatively Voldy would have to be able to decide/determine
> which section of his soul got ripped off whenever he decided to construct 
> another HX.

Lyn now:
As above, I think one can posit differences, but they begin to seem contrived. I do think 
that it is specific components of the soul that are fragmented. Diary Riddle would suggest 
that it is based on a section of his life, but I suspect Rowling might come up with 
something like the fragment is of the greatest remaining humanity at that time.

> Like I say, it's messy. 

Lyn Now,
Yes, I don't like it for its, at least presently apparent, inelegance. I have been expecting the 
series to be revealed as more elegant in its construction as it concludes, rather than less. 
A shame if it doesn't. Though I still retain some hope, I have less of it with each 
subsequent book.

> And it's unlikely to be cleared up until we know exactly what happened at
> GH, maybe not even then.
> But in the meantime it's getting more and more like Agatha Christie - and 
> that ain't a compliment.

Lyn,
Yep, my feelings exactly.
> 
> > 
> > It was reconfirmed that Voldemort is misleading in his monologues 
> > and we should be very careful about believing anything he says. 

Lyn Now:
Yah, but I'm going to keep plugging away on my GUT of HXs if for no other reason than to 
show just how much she needs for "him" to have "lied."
> > 






From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 20 20:23:48 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <ddr03b+amek@...>
Message-ID: <20050820202348.10324.qmail@...>

> 2)  Harry is hanging out, again under the IC, near the
> Room of Requirement, trying to catch Malfoy.  Who
> happens to come along instead of the expected Draco? 
> Tonks... with some lame excuse for her presence about
> needing to see DD, who resides in a totally different
> part of the castle.


That was one of the moments when I was sure I was reading fanfic: a
character who had no business being somewhere suddenly pops up
without warning and without Harry questioning it (okay, granted,
that's par for the course for Harry).

Then I thought that Draco had polyjuiced himself into Tonks and when
I found out that Crabbe/Goyle were actually those two little girls, I
was sure of it.

Magda (who would love it if Tonks turns out to be evil and the spy in
the Order)


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 09:59:25 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:59:25 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de7rg8+tatt@...>
Message-ID: <de9j9t+vdok@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kumayama at e...> wrote:
> In working on trying to connect the rest of the series to the HXs of 
> this book, the level of inconsistency makes me truly question if JKR 
> had a conception of HXs from the beginning (though for the integrity
> of the series, one must assume so). I think one the most telling 
> statements the JKR has made is the LV lies.  I take that as her attempt
> to cover for how there are some glaring inconsistencies that can only
> be "reconciled" if we don't take prior LV statements as accurate reflections
> of the facts. With the exception of LV trying to get Harry to give him the
> Stone in the first book, there really doesn't appear that LV has had 
> much need or reason to lie to Harry or his Death Eaters. 
> 
> In working on reconciling earlier information with the new information
> on HXs, I am trying to weave a coherent fabric, but I don't have much 
> confidence in its integrity.  
snip
> Yes, I don't like it for its, at least presently apparent, inelegance. I have
> been expecting the series to be revealed as more elegant in its construction
> as it concludes, rather than less. 
> A shame if it doesn't. Though I still retain some hope, I have less of it with
> each subsequent book.
> 

I wish you success in your labours. If you can demonstrate an underlying
coherence it would be praiseworthy indeed. It'd be bloody useful, too. May
even lead to the Holy Grail of The Theory of Everything eventually.

Most of us are hoping for elegance in the completed work, a combining of
important threads to form what in retrospect appears inevitable and deducible
if only we'd kept our wits about us. So much more satisfying than disparate 
story-lines explained away as isolated happenstances with only minor or
coincidental connections to the main plot-arc. Two of the most telling
observations you may hear when a new scientific theory is proposed are:
"It can't be right - it lacks elegance," or "Of course it's right - it's beautiful."
May be unfair to judge HP by these standards but one can always hope.

I agree that while Jo probably had the main characters and plotlines blocked
out from the very start it's highly unlikely that the detailed mechanics of
getting so-and-so from here to there was faultlessly planned. And with the 
mass of detail and the inter-actions of a myriad of characters she presents
us with it'd be unrealistic to expect otherwise. IIRC she's talked of plotting
problems, some major, some minor, before now. And lets face it, if say while
writing book 5 she has second thoughts and sees a neater/more devious line
to take but is hampered by what's in previous books, then it'd be a bit of a
bugger. 

In terms of the plot it'd be expected that Tom would be an habitual liar, he's
set up to do so - a devious, power-hungry, evil little bastard who wants to
manipulate everyone around him.  He's not to be trusted and the canon
reflects this fairly. But why would the adult Voldemort lie, and about what? 
His hench-wizards follow him more or less blindly, not daring to question 
him or his aims, and those on the other side know him for what he is, what
he wants and that he'll stop at nothing to get it. Lies are pointless and 
un-necessary.  Who is going to be fooled?

Plonking down a statement like "You can't trust what Voldemort says" is a
warning flag IMO. Like you I fear that some passage(s) in print have been 
reconsidered and have been found not to be congruent with something yet 
to come - and that something is important. Oh dear, hope it doesn't screw 
up too many of the posted theories.

Kneasy





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 14:50:00 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:50:00 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de6vfo+f8a0@...>
Message-ID: <dea4ao+hnpo@...>

> 
> Kneasy:
> None of which I'd consider particularly significant in terms of
"what it's all about". Snape's double/triple dealing has been the
object of heated discussion ever since I joined an HP board - 
and *still* there is no agreement as to which side he's on. 

The mere mechanics of  his operations may be interesting but 
they don't definitively tell us good or bad, nor is it a revelation 
that both sides think he's working  for them. 

Added to which, I don't really trust *ANYTHING* DD has
told  Harry about Snape. IMO what he says is shaded or emphasised 
in ways  that will get Harry to think or react in the way DD wants
him to.

It's manipulation pure and simple, and one usually finds a few
weasel words like "I wouldn't be surprised if.."  in there. 
 But Harry never hears those.

Pippin:
Trouble is, I don't think Jo is any more interested in Puppetmaster!DD
than she was in H/H. It's a distraction. You could've taken DD at face
value all along, and ended up in the same place. Destroy all
horcruxes, then take out the big guy, and no matter how it looks 
Snape is on your side.

Kneasy: 
> The Lupin explanation falls into the same class of plot business as
Hagrid  and the Giants - but with less detail. Again, unless he comes
across with something more than "the werewolves are on Voldy's side" 
it's no more  than background filler, explaining the absence of a
major character without adding anything to the main story threads. 


Pippin:
Unless Lupin is ESE!, then it's elegant. She can't give us  detail
on Lupin's missions  because it would give him away, so she 
shows us through Hagrid. 


> Kneasy:
> Sort of - but it's messy and there are holes all over the place.
This is partly why I don't like this hersclix stuff; it's the subject
of what seems  to be special pleading in the plot construction. Or 
possibly there's more to it all than has yet been revealed, in which 
case what we think we know doesn't mean much.
> 
> If,  as DD speculates, the soul fragments are not connected or aware
> of each other, why would the soul-part in a destroyed Voldy not do
the decent thing and slip to 'the other side'? That part in the Diary
didn't  hang around - and it wasn't even attacked by 'magic' but by
Basilisk  venom. Why didn't the other soul fragments ensure it's
survival? 

On the other hand Voldy at GH is assumed by most to have been zapped 
by an  AK - and you can't get a more magical death than that. Yet that
fragment is still around.
> Why the difference - except for exingencies of plot?


Pippin:


Consider the  belief that the self is not naturally of this world, but
is bound here by its material container -- usually a body, but in 
Voldemort's case, not only his body but the various horcruxes. That
only one fragment contains the self could be made to fit with the
idea that humans actually have several types of soul within them. 
I think in some  metaphysics there can be as many as seven -- 
and only one of these is the vehicle of the self. 

For example there's an idea that all humanity shares one soul.
Now it could be bits of this human oversoul that Voldemort is losing,
which fits the idea that his self has remained intact but his
humanity has diminished.

Horcruxes bind the torn fragments of the murderer's soul to other 
material objects,  so that when  the body which contains  the self 
dies, the self  cannot leave the world but lingers.

 If the horcruxes are destroyed, liberating the fragments within, 
then when Voldemort's current body is destroyed, the self/soul
within it will have no anchor and will depart.

The separated bits would not have an identity of their own.
The Diary, however, was not only a horcrux, but   an image of the
self, not
unlike the wand shadows or the Sorting Hat. 

Anyway, we saw that the memory of Riddle, though strong enough to 
steal the life from Ginny, was not strong enough to keep that life 
if the diary was destroyed, which suggests that what soul Diary!Riddle
had remained bound to it.

"Destroyed" , then, does not have to be "physically obliterated", only
disrupted enough so that the soul fragment within can escape
 
 
> Kneasy:
> Not new. We knew that when Jo blew the gaff about Diary!Tom lying
in  saying that Hagrid reared werewolf cubs under his bed. She said
then that  his words weren't to be trusted.

Pippin:
As you say, there was reason to think that Voldemort had less reason
to lie than Riddle, so it's important to establish that Voldemort is
(still) a compulsive liar. Haven't you ever met one? They don't need
a reason.
 
> Kneasy: (re the reason for Harry's failure at occlumency)
> Hardly anything new; just another skirmish in the on-going
Harry/Sevvy  relationship, only this time the consequencies were a 
bit Bangier than  previously.

Pippin:
But it's  relevant that this is not something Harry could've learned
if he'd had a more interested or forgiving teacher, which is 
relevant to  the theory  that Snape failed through malice or 
indifference, or that he gave up despite Dumbledore's orders.

More relevant still, I'm afraid the on-going Harry/Sevvy relationship
*is* what it's all about. That it's reached its lowest point ever,
just before the climax, ought to tell you something. 

Pippin





From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 15:53:21 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:53:21 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de9j9t+vdok@...>
Message-ID: <dea81h+687f@...>

Kneasy:
> I agree that while Jo probably had the main characters and 
> plotlines blocked out from the very start it's highly unlikely
> that the detailed mechanics of getting so-and-so from here to 
> there was faultlessly planned. And with the mass of detail and the
> inter-actions of a myriad of characters she presents us with it'd 
> be unrealistic to expect otherwise. IIRC she's talked of plotting
> problems, some major, some minor, before now. And lets face it, if
> say while writing book 5 she has second thoughts and sees a 
> neater/more devious line to take but is hampered by what's in
> previous books, then it'd be a bit of a bugger. 

Jen: I think you're right there. JKR seems to leave the details to 
labor over during the writing of each book. The fact that she 
continues to introduce important characters and plot concepts this 
late in the game makes it impossible not to shunt previous 
characters and plots to the background (or out of the books). Plus 
all the comments about the first thing she plans to do is edit the 
series!

I've been reading old interviews, 97-98, and was struck by the fact 
that even after COS, there was no mention of the plot. I'm curious 
to see if the questions started in 1999, after POA. Deconstructing 
the plot was mostly a fandom phenomenon, right? Not coming from the 
press or JKR, I mean. Most of the talk early on was about her rags-
to-riches story, and JKR didn't hint around about what was to come. 
You don't get the feeling plot construction was uppermost in her 
mind when she started. 

During the interviews this time around, it really struck me there 
can be a disconnect between the hints JKR thinks she's giving and 
what fans may hear. Like in the World Book Day chat:

Q: "What happened to Wormtail?"
JK Rowling replies -> "You'll find out in book six."

Technically JKR was entirely accurate in her answer. We did find out 
Wormtail was alive, and staying at Snape's (during the school year 
too?) and doing...something (spying on him?). I expected a pretty 
complete explanation of Wormtail's activities in Book 6 though, and 
obviously read more into the answer than JKR meant. 

Kneasy:
> But why would the adult Voldemort lie, and about what? His hench-
> wizards follow him more or less blindly, not daring to question 
> him or his aims, and those on the other side know him for what he
> is, what he wants and that he'll stop at nothing to get it. Lies
> are pointless and un-necessary.  Who is going to be fooled?

Jen: I don't know. And being a liar is countered by his obsessive 
need to verbalize his plans to anyone who will listen, so they'll 
realize how clever and scary he is. It's hard to tell the difference.

Kneasy: 
> Plonking down a statement like "You can't trust what Voldemort
> says" is a warning flag IMO. Like you I fear that some passage(s)
> in print have been reconsidered and have been found not to be 
> congruent with something yet to come - and that something is 
> important. Oh dear, hope it doesn't screw up too many of the 
> posted theories.

Jen: Very true. And everything remains pretty open-ended in my mind, 
like you mentioned upthread Kneasy. For every literal answer we got, 
a few more questions opened up: So there IS a DADA curse, but we're 
no closer to knowing how it works or to what end; does the curse 
help explain some of the inconsistencies we have with our DADA 
profs, Lupin and Snape especially? Voldemort IS relying on Horcruxes 
to be immortal, but we have only very scattered clues as to how the 
mechanism works for extracting a piece of the soul and sealing it. 

Jen, not sure what it all means at the moment.






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 17:22:53 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:22:53 -0000
Subject: young Remus's conscience  / Snape / Booze / Maugrim / Not saying the name
Message-ID: <dead9d+f8m0@...>

Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2897 :

<< If his conscience didn't make him stop James,Sirius and Peter from
involving themselves in dangerous and illegal magic, and leading a
werewolf into a village, if he even helped them plan to do these
things, why would he draw the line at helping them find ways to
torment Snape? >>

"We're not hurting anyone. We're just breaking curfew, doing
unauthorized magic, and roaming the Forbidden Forest, like we always
do. This is a victimless crime and those are all arbitrary rules."
Besides, there usually would be witnesses to see him handing James or
Sirius back their wands.

Charme wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2931 :

<< Note that Sluggy points out how he thought Lily was pureblood, she
was so good. He does not mention Snape, I don't think? >>

But at Sluggy's Christmas party, when he is telling Snape how good
Harry is at Potions, he says something about: "You should have seen
that Draught of Living Death he made for me. I've never seen a student
do it better, not even you, Severus." I don't think that was mere
baseless flattery of his conversation partner; I think it relates to
Snape having been a brilliant Potions student and a member of the Slug
Club.

Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2988 :

<< we found out why Dumbledore believed Snape had left the dark 
side >>

No, we didn't. DD may have been about to *tell* Harry and us, but
Harry interrupted him as soon as he mentioned Snape's remorse.

Neri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ol
d_crowd/message/2993 :

<< We found out whom Snape really loves. >>

We did?

Kneasy in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2948
replied to Dungrollin:

<< Before breakfast, that's a single-minded sybarite for sure >>

A Bloody Mary or occasionally a Screwdriver IS breakfast -- the tomato
or orange juice supplies the vitamins while the vodka eases the
hangover.

Eloise wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2961 :

<< But it's described elsewhere as "cooking sherry" so it's cheap,
nasty stuff that you'd only *drink* if either you couldn't afford
something decent or you are dependent/want to get drunk rather
than enjoy it. >>

The Muggle cliche about people drinking cooking sherry is an
ill-considered effort at concealment that they drink, because no one
can witness them buying DRINK or find bottles of it in their house. 

Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_o
ld_crowd/message/2978 :

<<  ["Maugrim"] is derived from the words "maw" (meaning mouth),
"morgue", and "Grim" (a foreboding wolf-like figure from English
folklore). >>

I don't know how Lewis created the name, but I read it as "mau" like
"mauvais", i.e. like "mal" it means "bad", and "grim" as the normal
English language word.

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/2984 :

<< According to Jo, the reasoning behind the "He who must not be
named" bit was the common belief in primitive societies (and by
extension the WW - otherwise why make a big thing of it) that knowing
a person's name gave power over them. >>

If people felt that saying Voldemort's name would give them power over
him, they'd say it all the time (as DD encourages them to do!). Their
behavior is more in line with your suggestion of speaking his name
will summon him. I don't know who is M.R.James, but an old proverb
"speak of the Devil and he will appear" is preserved in the custom (US
custom, anyway) of saying "Speak of the Devil!" when someone arrives
right after being mentioned. It also is supposed to be the reason they
are so many tradition "euphemisms" for Satan, from "Old Scratch" to
"His Satanic Majesty".





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 19:09:59 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:09:59 -0000
Subject: young Remus's conscience  / Snape / Booze / Maugrim / Not saying the name
In-Reply-To: <dead9d+f8m0@...>
Message-ID: <deaji7+kgof@...>

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

> I don't know who is M.R.James, ......

Then you've missed something special.

M.R.James, English, scholar and antiquarian; roughly 1860 - 1930.
Wrote what are probably the scariest ghost stories in print. Very
Victorian High Gothic stuff.
Three collections that I know of - and they're all in print, I think.
"The Ghost Stories of an Antiquary"
"Further Ghost Stories of an Antiquary"
"Reading the Runes".

"Whistle and I'll come to you, my lad" is one of his best known tales -  along 
with "The Mezzotint", "Lost Hearts", "The Stalls at Barchester Cathedral"
and "A Warning to the Curious."

You'll never look at crumpled linen in the same way again.

Kneasy






From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 20:05:37 2005
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:05:37 +0200
Subject: 'Sixteenth year'
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050821220114.020777c0@...>

A question for the British in the group ...

In HPB-17 'A Sluggish Memory', Dumbledore tells Harry about Tom Riddle,

     In the summer of his sixteenth year, he left the
     orphanage to which he returned annually and set off to
     find his Gaunt relatives.

Now, speaking mathematically this must be the summer when Tom was
fifteen years old (think of the child's first year, which is the one
from birth to the first birthday), but I guess there is a possibility
that British colloquial usage is different.

The matter is important since it makes the difference of whether Tom
killed his Riddle family just before or just after he opened the
Chamber of Secrets and caused the death of Myrtle.

So, would the 'sixteenth year' in normal /British/ usage be the year
when the youngster is fifteen or sixteen?

/Troels




From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:01:15 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <de67eh+46uv@...>
Message-ID: <20050821220115.59837.qmail@...>



--- nkafkafi <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
> Neri:
> Some more things we found out in HBP (and related
> interviews):
...

> We found out who knows the full prophecy today.

Other than Harry and the now late DD?  who else? It
seems to me that Harry is now the only living person
who would know.  Trelawney can't remember and Snape
only heard part of the prophecy. Oh, and now of course
Ron and Hermy-oh-ninny now know as well - because
Harry told them. Did this mean we learned something? 
 
> We found out what's "neither can live while the
> other survives" means

I am sorry, what did we learn from HBP about that
phrase that we didn't know before? 
 
> We found out what's in the locked room (big deal...)

In HP6?  We did? From OotP and interviews we learned a
thing or two, but from HBP?

> We found out that Voldy still believes he's
> protected by Harry's blood.

Where did we learn that? What does that mean really? 
He thinks he is protected by Harry's blood?  In HP:GoF
he says he has overcome the inability to touch Harry
because of the blood magic, but what did we learn
about his understanding of this in HBP?

> We found out what happened to Kreacher and to
> Sirius' estate.

What did we learn other than that Harry is the
presumed inheritor? 
 
> We found out James wasn't that much of a bully after
> all.

What did we learn about this in HBP? 
 
> We found out Severus was indeed playing with Dark
> Arts at school.

We already knew that that he was "up to his eyeballs
in the dark arts," no?     

> We found out that the gum wrappers don't mean
> nothin' at all.

>From the book?  I thought that came up in an
interview,  but I don't think it was mentioned in the
book.

> We found out the H/H shippers were delusional. 

Well,  we knew that :)
 
> We found out whom Snape really loves.

We did? 

- flummoxed!Waldo


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:06:12 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:06:12 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <dead9d+f8m0@...>
Message-ID: <deatsk+n06j@...>

Catlady wrote:

> But at Sluggy's Christmas party, when he is telling Snape how good
> Harry is at Potions, he says something about: "You should have seen
> that Draught of Living Death he made for me. I've never seen a student
> do it better, not even you, Severus." I don't think that was mere
> baseless flattery of his conversation partner; I think it relates to
> Snape having been a brilliant Potions student and a member of the Slug
> Club.

Yes, I felt this passage seemed quite significant, and it's clear he
neither flatters nor snubs Snape in this scene - he hauls Snape into
the conversation and then gives him second place to Lily in supposed
influence on Harry's skills.

What JKR seems to be conveying is that Harry's potions expertise
reminds him of Lily, and that he is better than Snape.  Given that he
is actually using the Half-Blood Prince's recipes, this creates
something of a puzzle.

I think the possibilities are:

1) Snape was the pioneer, but passed his knowledge on to Lily.  The
problem here is that they were in the same year ("Snape's Worst
Memory" in OOP established that Lily, the Marauders and Snape all took
OWLs at the same time) so they were presumably doing the same lessons
at the same time, and it's hard to see how Snape could have seemed
inferior to her yet be teaching her.

2) Lily was the pioneer, and passed her knowledge on to Snape.  Either
Snape wrote it down, or she did but he subsequently claimed the book
as his own.  I think this is an interesting possibility as it implies
Lily was dabbling in, if not the Dark Arts, at least some rather
unpleasant magic.  In the worst memory scene Snape would have a
possible motive for her not to intervene as there might be a danger
she would reveal knowledge of spells he was claiming to Slytherin
friends were his alone.

I think the main difficulty with this theory is that Snape's anger at
Harry over 'his' spells seems genuine enough: if he knew that they
came from Lily, would he react that way?

3) They were independently good at Potions, but Snape's knowledge was
passed to Harry.  The weakness is that Harry clearly reminds Slughorn
of Lily, even in a context where Snape's ability is being considered.
 Seems a bit much.

My worry is that the "real" explanation is that, in the context of HBP
only, JKR was trying to misdirect us into thinking Lily was the HBP
(hence Hermione's statements that the HBP could be a woman), and that
despite its weakness, 3) is her resolution and there was no special
connection between Snape and Lily in the context of Potions.

David






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:11:05 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:11:05 -0000
Subject: 'Sixteenth year'
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050821220114.020777c0@...>
Message-ID: <deau5p+rl08@...>

Troels wrote:

> So, would the 'sixteenth year' in normal /British/ usage be the year
> when the youngster is fifteen or sixteen?

I would say fifteen.  But it's not common usage except for very young
children.

David





From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:19:31 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:19:31 -0000
Subject: 'Sixteenth year'
In-Reply-To: <deau5p+rl08@...>
Message-ID: <deaulj+kccs@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> 
wrote:
> Troels wrote:
> 
> > So, would the 'sixteenth year' in normal /British/ usage be the year
> > when the youngster is fifteen or sixteen?

David:
> I would say fifteen.  But it's not common usage except for very young
> children.

Geoff:
Speaking as an English member of the group, I can be described as being 
in my sixty-sixth year because I **have completed** 65. So if you are x 
years old, you can be described as being in your (x + 1)th year.

It's used probably in reporting usage - in a newspaper for example - 
and formal statements, not in everyday conversation. 





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:25:04 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:25:04 -0000
Subject: Kneasy / Snape & Lily
Message-ID: <deav00+pdq1@...>

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3003 :

<< M.R.James, English, scholar and antiquarian; roughly 1860 - 1930.
Wrote what are probably the scariest ghost stories in print. >>

I've never been *fond* of scary stories, and I have become even more
averse to them in my middle-age.

By the way, an HPfGU post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137926 has
independently come up with your theory that Snape's reason for allying
with DD is to get revenge on LV for LV having murdered Snape's wife
and child. This listie uses DD's words while drinking the green goo
instead of using the Occlumency lesson flashback, and postulates that
the Snape baby was born at the same time as Harry and Neville,
therefore a possible Prophecy Baby. 

Dave Frankis wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3006 :

<< What JKR seems to be conveying is that Harry's potions expertise
reminds him of Lily, and that he is better than Snape. Given that he
is actually using the Half-Blood Prince's recipes, this creates
something of a puzzle. >>

Rather than your three suggestions, I like to think that Severus and
Lily worked as partners in Advanced Potions in sixth year, and Severus
wrote down their discoveries in his textbook (Lily may have written
them down in her textbook or in a separate notebook). Some of the
other spells that he wrote in the margins might have been invented by
them together or by Lily separately and taught to him, but surely at
least some (maybe all) of them were invented by him. The only argument
people on the Main List have against this is that Lily couldn't
possibly be friends with Sevvy in sixth year after he called her that
nasty name at the end of fifth year. I don't think it impossible that
they made up.






From Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 22:49:25 2005
From: Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid (S A H Culfeather)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:49:25 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily
In-Reply-To: <deav00+pdq1@...>
Message-ID: <20050821224925.95293.qmail@...>


"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote:

By the way, an HPfGU post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137926
has
independently come up with your theory that Snape's
reason for allying
with DD is to get revenge on LV for LV having murdered
Snape's wife
and child. This listie uses DD's words while drinking
the green goo
instead of using the Occlumency lesson flashback, and
postulates that
the Snape baby was born at the same time as Harry and
Neville,
therefore a possible Prophecy Baby. 



Serena:
I like this theory a lot and paritcualrly as I don't
for one moment believe the lame excuse DD gave Harry
as to why he trusts Snape, there has to be a lot more
to it knowing Snape as we do.
 I've re-read and re-read DD's words as he drinks the
potions and it certainly could be Snape - albeit a
Snape we don't recognise being remorseful, humble etc.

If we assume his child was killed as a potential
"prophecy child" while the other two survived then
that makes even more sense of Snape's behaviour
towards both Harry and Neville. That is, he knows
their birth dates too, their backgrounds etc. and
resents, bitterly, the fact that they both survived
and Snape junior didn't.


(I'll slink back into anonymity now!!)



From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 23:33:58 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:33:58 -0000
Subject: Kneasy / Snape & Lily
In-Reply-To: <deav00+pdq1@...>
Message-ID: <deb316+darl@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> wrote:
> Dave Frankis wrote in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3006 :
> 
> << What JKR seems to be conveying is that Harry's potions expertise
> reminds him of Lily, and that he is better than Snape. Given that he
> is actually using the Half-Blood Prince's recipes, this creates
> something of a puzzle. >>


Kneasy:
> Rather than your three suggestions, I like to think that Severus and
> Lily worked as partners in Advanced Potions in sixth year, and Severus
> wrote down their discoveries in his textbook (Lily may have written
> them down in her textbook or in a separate notebook). Some of the
> other spells that he wrote in the margins might have been invented by
> them together or by Lily separately and taught to him, but surely at
> least some (maybe all) of them were invented by him. The only argument
> people on the Main List have against this is that Lily couldn't
> possibly be friends with Sevvy in sixth year after he called her that
> nasty name at the end of fifth year. I don't think it impossible that
> they made up.

I have to agree with the idea that Severus and Lily worked as
partners. I've had a bit of trouble wondering why a young Severus
would have written all through his textbook, anyway, when I'm sure
there were loads of perfectly good parchment to be taking notes on
like everyone else.  But S & L working together may be a good reason
for this; it was probably a convenient source of shared communication
(note all of the "scribblings" throughout Fantastic Beasts between
Harry and Ron).  

I also got a bit of a thrill when I saw Sluggy mention the Draught to
Snape.  If we go all the way back (yes, kiddies, WAY back to PS/SS),
we find that the three items mentioned by Snape in his now-infamous
questioning of Harry during their very first class were thus: 
"asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known
as the Draught of Living Death. A bezoar is a stone taken from the
stomach of a goat and it will save you from most poisons. As for
monkshood and wolfsbane, they are the same plant..."

Of course, since then we have seen the practical use of both wolfsbane
and a bezoar. And, Dumbledore's last conversation ended with his offer
to Draco to make him *appear* to Voldemort to have died in his attempt
at murder. Both Snape's and DD's speeches were so important to the
story, I would love to see the Draught finally used, in order to round
out the trifecta.

:: Entropy ::





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 21 23:40:08 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:40:08 -0000
Subject: young Remus's conscience  / Snape / Booze / Maugrim / Not saying the name
In-Reply-To: <dead9d+f8m0@...>
Message-ID: <deb3co+ka33@...>

--- 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/2897 :
> 
> << If his conscience didn't make him stop James,Sirius and Peter
from
> involving themselves in dangerous and illegal magic, and leading a
> werewolf into a village, if he even helped them plan to do these
> things, why would he draw the line at helping them find ways to
> torment Snape? >>
> 
> "We're not hurting anyone. We're just breaking curfew, doing
> unauthorized magic, and roaming the Forbidden Forest, like we always
> do. This is a victimless crime and those are all arbitrary rules."
> Besides, there usually would be witnesses to see him handing James
or Sirius back their wands.

Pippin:
"There were near misses -- many of them."  

Snape was never injured that we saw, only bullied and laughed at
-- like the villagers, cowering in terror as they heard the howls of a
werewolf in their streets? Wondering if their children were safe?
Lupin has a perilous lack of concern for those he doesn't like, IMO.

I don't get the comment about handing back the wands?

> Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/2988 :
> 
> << we found out why Dumbledore believed Snape had left the dark 
> side >>
Rita: 
> No, we didn't. DD may have been about to *tell* Harry and us, but
> Harry interrupted him as soon as he mentioned Snape's remorse.

Pippin:
Oops! Sloppy phrasing. I meant, we found out what Dumbledore believes
to be the reason Snape  left the dark side. What we didn't find
out was the reason Dumbledore believes Snape was sincere.

Pippin





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 00:17:58 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:17:58 -0000
Subject: Further thoughts
In-Reply-To: <20050821220115.59837.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <deb5jm+7mdu@...>

> > Neri originally:
> > Some more things we found out in HBP (and related
> > interviews):
> ...
> 
> > We found out who knows the full prophecy today.

> flummoxed!Waldo asked:
> Other than Harry and the now late DD?  who else? 

Neri:
Just them and now Ron and Hermione. But we didn't know that before and
now we have Dumbledore's word for it:

Ch. 4:
"No, they do not," interrupted Dumbledore. "There are only two people
in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy made
about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this
smelly, spidery broom shed."

>  
> > We found out what's "neither can live while the
> > other survives" means

> 
> I am sorry, what did we learn from HBP about that
> phrase that we didn't know before? 
>

Neri:
Ch. 23:
"But," said Harry, bewildered, "but last year, you said one of us
would have to kill the other ?" 

"Harry, Harry, only because Voldemort made a grave error, and acted on
Professor Trelawney's words! If Voldemort had never murdered your
father, would he have imparted in you a furious desire for revenge?
<snip>.

"But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound
argumentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got
to try and kill him, or ?" 

"Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because
of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've
tried!"

  
> > We found out what's in the locked room (big deal...)

> 
> In HP6?  We did? From OotP and interviews we learned a
> thing or two, but from HBP?
> 

Ch. 23:
"Yes, you have," said Dumbledore firmly. "You have a power that
Voldemort has never had. You can ?" 

"I know!" said Harry impatiently. "I can love!" It was only with
difficulty that he stopped himself adding, "Big deal!" 

"Yes, Harry, you can love," said Dumbledore


> > We found out that Voldy still believes he's
> > protected by Harry's blood.

> 
> Where did we learn that? What does that mean really? 
> He thinks he is protected by Harry's blood?  

Neri:
Ch. 2, Snape says: "If I had murdered Harry Potter, the Dark Lord
could not have used his blood to regenerate, making him invincible ?".


> 
> > We found out what happened to Kreacher and to
> > Sirius' estate.

> 
> What did we learn other than that Harry is the
> presumed inheritor? 
>

Neri: 
That 12GP belongs to Harry, that it is still the Order's HQ, that
Kreacher must do what Harry tells him, that Bella is the oldest of the
Black sisters, that the content of Sirius' Gringots vault was
transferred to Harry's vault. All of which may be important clues.

   
> > We found out James wasn't that much of a bully after
> > all.

> 
> What did we learn about this in HBP? 
>

Neri:
Ch. 16, Lupin about Levicorpus:
"Oh, that one had a great vogue during my time at Hogwarts," said
Lupin reminiscently. "There were a few months in my fifth year when
you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle." 

  
> > We found out Severus was indeed playing with Dark
> > Arts at school.

> 
> We already knew that that he was "up to his eyeballs
> in the dark arts," no?     
>

Neri:
We did, but before HBP some people believed it to be only Sirius'
unfair personal views. In HBP it's Snape himself who regards
sectumsempra as "Dark Magic". 

Ch. 24:
"I didn't mean it to happen," said Harry at once. His voice echoed in
the cold, watery space. "I didn't know what that spell did." 

But Snape ignored this. "Apparently I underestimated you, Potter," he
said quietly. "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic? Who
taught you that spell?"
 

> > We found out that the gum wrappers don't mean
> > nothin' at all.

> 
> From the book?  I thought that came up in an
> interview,  but I don't think it was mentioned in the
> book.
> 

Neri:
We found this in the interview, and this is why I wrote in the
original post "and in related interviews".


> > We found out whom Snape really loves.

> 
> We did? 
> 

Neri:
This one is admittedly not so obvious. You need to read between the
lines of "Spinner's End" a bit, and it's useful to know that the HBP
confirmed timeline places Narcissa in the same or similar year as our
Severus. For more details see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/2374

Neri






From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 00:23:03 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:23:03 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <deatsk+n06j@...>
Message-ID: <deb5t7+cqsu@...>



Catlady wrote:

> But at Sluggy's Christmas party, when he is telling Snape how good
> Harry is at Potions, he says something about: "You should have seen
> that Draught of Living Death he made for me. I've never seen a 
student
> do it better, not even you, Severus." I don't think that was mere
> baseless flattery of his conversation partner; I think it relates to
> Snape having been a brilliant Potions student and a member of the 
Slug
> Club.

David's responce:

Yes, I felt this passage seemed quite significant, and it's clear he
neither flatters nor snubs Snape in this scene - he hauls Snape into
the conversation and then gives him second place to Lily in supposed
influence on Harry's skills.

What JKR seems to be conveying is that Harry's potions expertise
reminds him of Lily, and that he is better than Snape.  Given that he
is actually using the Half-Blood Prince's recipes, this creates
something of a puzzle.

I think the possibilities are:

1) Snape was the pioneer, but passed his knowledge on to Lily.  The
problem here is that they were in the same year ("Snape's Worst
Memory" in OOP established that Lily, the Marauders and Snape all took
OWLs at the same time) so they were presumably doing the same lessons
at the same time, and it's hard to see how Snape could have seemed
inferior to her yet be teaching her.

2) Lily was the pioneer, and passed her knowledge on to Snape.  Either
Snape wrote it down, or she did but he subsequently claimed the book
as his own.  I think this is an interesting possibility as it implies
Lily was dabbling in, if not the Dark Arts, at least some rather
unpleasant magic.  In the worst memory scene Snape would have a
possible motive for her not to intervene as there might be a danger
she would reveal knowledge of spells he was claiming to Slytherin
friends were his alone.

I think the main difficulty with this theory is that Snape's anger at
Harry over 'his' spells seems genuine enough: if he knew that they
came from Lily, would he react that way?


3) They were independently good at Potions, but Snape's knowledge was
passed to Harry.  The weakness is that Harry clearly reminds Slughorn
of Lily, even in a context where Snape's ability is being considered.
 Seems a bit much.

My worry is that the "real" explanation is that, in the context of HBP
only, JKR was trying to misdirect us into thinking Lily was the HBP
(hence Hermione's statements that the HBP could be a woman), and that
despite its weakness, 3) is her resolution and there was no special
connection between Snape and Lily in the context of Potions.

David


Snow:

Or if I can make another suggestion:

4) Snape (like Draco to Granger) overheard and fiercely watched Lily 
while she made her potions, writing down all that she had done (which 
is why the notes were in the book) so he could be as good as her. 
Maybe Snape's secret wish was to become an Auror and he needed to 
pass potions (just an aside). 

Anyway the Snape/Lily referencing reminds me very much of the 
Draco/Hermione one. Snape and Draco both call their adversaries 
Mudbloods, of which they both were and both very talented witches. 
But the thing that caught my eye in this book was the fact that 
Draco, unlike Snape, referenced the fact that he stole an idea from 
his adversary:  

"Yeah, I got the idea from them," said Malfoy, with a twisted 
smile. "I got the idea of poisoning the mead from the Mudblood 
Granger as well, I heard her talking in the library about Filch not 
recognizing potions." HBP pg. 589 U.S.

So Draco, even if he does hate Granger, uses her ideas to his own 
means. I can see Snape acting very similar to Lily the Mudblood in 
the same manner. 

Two other thoughts while I'm on the subject of Draco and Mudbloods. 
Why was Draco confiding in and crying to a dead Mudblood, Myrtle, if 
he despises Mudbloods?  

And, why was Draco acting as if he was under truth serum in the 
tower? Did Snape slip him a Mickey before this event at the tower 
with Dumbledore and was Dumbledore aware that Draco had been drugged? 
Just compare the twisted smile of Draco to that of Crouch Jr. under 
Veritaserum. 

Just some random thoughts

Snow  -  still recovering from too many deaths in the family
not on 
much since






From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 00:33:38 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:33:38 -0000
Subject: whatever happened to Rudolphus?
In-Reply-To: <de6lu4+9ab1@...>
Message-ID: <deb6h2+8130@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> Waldo wrote:
> > I apologize if this is a topic that has been beaten to
> > death, or if it is made clear in the text  - and I
> > just missed it.  My question is this: Whatever
> > happened to Rudolphus Lestrange?  I believe that
> > Sirius tells us in OotP that he is living in Azkaban. 
> > I assumed that he escaped with Bellatrix, but then we
> > do not hear anything more about him.  Did I miss
> > something?  Did he die in Azkaban?  Is he one of the
> > unnamed DE's in the lightening-struck-tower battle?
> 
> Ginger:
> He and Rabastan were in the DoM at the end of OoP.  Rudy and Trixie 
> were sent one direction, Rab (RAB!) astan and someone else 
(Crabbe?) 
snip>>

RAB= Rudolphus AND Bella....have another cup o' poison thoughts.

Regards,
Fran
poison thoughts 1st used by justcarol on hpfgu







From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 01:07:47 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:07:47 -0000
Subject: young Remus's conscience
In-Reply-To: <deb3co+ka33@...>
Message-ID: <deb8h3+hrh5@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...>
wrote:

> I don't get the comment about handing back the wands?

IIRC this thread started with someone saying, was Snape accurate to
accuse James of only attacking him four against one, or was it really
only two against one, and someone replied that Peter and Remus would
surely hand James or Sirius back their wands if Snape did a successful
Disarming Charm, therefore they count as attackers and 'four' is
accurate.

Then I said that Peter would be thrilled and ecstatic to be able to
assist his heroes, James and Sirius, by handing back their wands, but
Remus wouldn't do it. I have two reasons why Remus wouldn't do it. His
conscience and his reputation. You don't agree about his conscience.
Even without a conscience, he wouldn't take part in a four against one
attack in front of witnesses because he likes having people think well
of him, and would not like people gossiping about that misbehavior.





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 07:31:26 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:31:26 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <deav00+pdq1@...>
Message-ID: <debv0e+iat4@...>

Catlady:
> By the way, an HPfGU post
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137926 has
> independently come up with your theory that Snape's reason for 
allying
> with DD is to get revenge on LV for LV having murdered Snape's wife
> and child. This listie uses DD's words while drinking the green goo
> instead of using the Occlumency lesson flashback, and postulates 
that
> the Snape baby was born at the same time as Harry and Neville,
> therefore a possible Prophecy Baby. 

Eloise:

Yeah. That was the one I referenced the other day but didn't quote.

It's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Part of it's just a 
gut feeling that it's *wrong*, that although there's clearly more to 
learn about the past, this seems a step too far. I'm certain we'll 
get more about Lily, James and probably almost certainly more about 
Snape in relationship to Lily and James, but I have a feeling we 
won't get much more on Snape individually. Of course I could be 
comptetely wrong as Snape is now taking centre stage in the way that 
some of us always thougt he should. ;-)

Secondly, I believe I'm right in thinking that the part of the 
prophecy which Snape overheard was,

"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 ..."

For this to tie in, it means that Snape and his putative wife must 
already already have defied Voldemort three times (for Snape to think 
the prophecy referred to his chld) and that Voldemort must know this 
(for there to be any danger that LV would interpret it that way) in 
which case I'm very surprised that Snape wasn't AK'd on the spot, 
rather than punished for witholding the information by the death of 
his wife and child as the theory suggests. It certainly seems 
foolish, even by Voldemort's Evil Overlord standards to (apparently) 
put so much trust in one whom he knows has already defied him.

If true, it also means (although of course, this is par for the 
course for Kneasy's DD) that Dumbledore was slightly economical with 
the truth in telling Harry about the prophecy, by telling him there 
were only *two* children to whom this prophecy could refer.

OK, there's a get-out clause. If Snape *had* defied LV, but LV didn't 
know it he might worry that his hearing the prophecy would reveal it. 
or again, he might just be paranoid enough to think that LV might 
*think* it was his child despite his loyalty. But that requires 
adding yet another layer of supposition and again begs the question 
of why Snape didn't suffer Regulus' fate. Voldemort wasn't short of 
supporters back then.

The thing that the theory *would* explain is why there was such a 
long interval before action was taken against the Potters. (In fact, 
I'm rather surprised that Voldemort didn't immediately have every 
wizarding July baby he could find killed, just to cover his options.)

Of course, you *could* take the theory even further and suggest that 
Snape *sacrificed* this wife and child to LV in order to save the 
Potters - that might explain JKR's horror at the idea of being the 
object of Snape's affections! But again, that would be tantamount to 
his confessing to having defied him, which seems an unlikely action.

~Eloise











From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 09:05:33 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:05:33 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <debv0e+iat4@...>
Message-ID: <dec4gt+crm6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" <eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> Catlady:
> > By the way, an HPfGU post
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137926 has
> > independently come up with your theory that Snape's reason for 
> allying
> > with DD is to get revenge on LV for LV having murdered Snape's wife
> > and child. This listie uses DD's words while drinking the green goo
> > instead of using the Occlumency lesson flashback, and postulates 
> that
> > the Snape baby was born at the same time as Harry and Neville,
> > therefore a possible Prophecy Baby. 
> 
> Eloise:
> 
> Yeah. That was the one I referenced the other day but didn't quote.
> 
> It's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Part of it's just a 
> gut feeling that it's *wrong*, that although there's clearly more to 
> learn about the past, this seems a step too far. I'm certain we'll 
> get more about Lily, James and probably almost certainly more about 
> Snape in relationship to Lily and James, but I have a feeling we 
> won't get much more on Snape individually. Of course I could be 
> comptetely wrong as Snape is now taking centre stage in the way that 
> some of us always thougt he should. ;-)
> 
> Secondly, I believe I'm right in thinking that the part of the 
> prophecy which Snape overheard was,
> 
> "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 ..."
> 
> For this to tie in, it means that Snape and his putative wife must 
> already already have defied Voldemort three times (for Snape to think 
> the prophecy referred to his chld) and that Voldemort must know this 
> (for there to be any danger that LV would interpret it that way) in 
> which case I'm very surprised that Snape wasn't AK'd on the spot, 
> rather than punished for witholding the information by the death of 
> his wife and child as the theory suggests. It certainly seems 
> foolish, even by Voldemort's Evil Overlord standards to (apparently) 
> put so much trust in one whom he knows has already defied him.
> 
> If true, it also means (although of course, this is par for the 
> course for Kneasy's DD) that Dumbledore was slightly economical with 
> the truth in telling Harry about the prophecy, by telling him there 
> were only *two* children to whom this prophecy could refer.
> 

Just to clarify:
Although I've repeatedly whittered on ... and on ... and on, boring members
with Snape!Son and Blackwidower, i.e. Voldy was responsible for Mrs and
young Master Snape shuffling off this mortal coil and quitting this vale of
tears, I didn't go so far as to suggest that Snape!Son was a possibility as
Voldy's instrument of doom as foretold in the Prophecy. That's an extension
to the theory I can't take credit for and SFAIK is completely original to whoever
posted it on HPfGU.

Nice idea to play around with - Snape's attitude towards Harry would be 
partly explained by anguish at the thought of his own son dying yet this little
scrote Potter survives. Life just ain't fair. Mind you, it works to a certain
extent even if Snape jnr. wasn't a Prophesy possible, but the Bang factor is
reduced somewhat. 

But somehow I don't see it. As others have pointed out it's difficult to imagine
Snapey defying Voldy three times - once perhaps, and getting his knuckles
severely rapped - his family gets the chop because of something he did/didn't
do or Voldy uses them as an example 'pour encourages les autres' and Sevvy 
decamps to DD's side as a consequence. Might even have been a mistake -
a 'friendly fire' incident. Whatever. It was a devious attempt to tie together
disparate bits of canon (Florence, Snape's memories, Snape's switch and Jo
refusing to comment on the  marital status of Hogwarts staff) into an
entertaining whole. Might even be accurate. Now wouldn't that be a surprise? 

There again there's a lot I don't see - like a Half-blood!Snape as a DE. Doesn't 
seem to match the DE ethic, does it? Why would Half-blood!Snape be Head 
of Slytherin House? That seems a bit odd too,  a bastion of the Pure-blood
conceit headed by an example of what they hate. It's facts like this that cause
me to doubt Snape as HBP.  Bits of the jig-saw seem to be in the wrong place.

Kneasy





From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 11:58:18 2005
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:58:18 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <20050817131352.GB13269@...>
References: <636637D3-13C7-4A52-82FE-DB8C7AC41C34@...> <20050817131352.GB13269@...>
Message-ID: <200508221358.18166.silmariel@...>


Sorry about the delay, I've been a bit ill.

ewe2:
> Well, as to the PP there's already a handy store in the Dungeon. Either
> Snape or Sluggy, and my money's on Snape. And why would "Tonks" ask about
> letters between the Order if "she" knows perfectly well they use
> Patronuses?

My money's on Snape, too, he had bowed to help Draco, after all. I'm a bit 
lost with the letter. Does she know that Harry knows patronus is the method 
of communication for the order? Till last year he received Sirius letters, so 
it might be she won't release information she thinks Harry doesn't have.

ewe2:
> Snape's sense of humour...? Certainly, a male isn't out of the question,
> but if it isn't the real Tonks, then the Lupin ship story is automatically
> suspect, and not one that is likely from males either.

Kneasy:
> > But if it is a Polyjuiced!Tonks then the original must have been
> > available at some time to have various redundant bits hacked off her
> > to add to the potion. Um. That complicates things and tends to
> > strengthen the odds that it may be an unPolyjuiced Andromeda that's
> > the ringer.

Both Male!Tonks and Andromeda!Tonks make me ewww because of the resulting 
pairings. It reminds me too much, but mirrored, of Harry calling Goyle 
pretty. It's fun because it's him, but the surface ship, Harry-11 year old 
girl, is not fun (this is not a manga). In this case, Lupin-Andromeda is 
uncomfortable, for my tastes, and male!Tonks... well, if she is introducing 
same gender pairing, she could have used other means, really. Polijuicing on 
the spot (for example, Draco to get out of RoR) is fine, but long lasting 
polijuice game brings those issues for me.

ewe2:
<snip> Imposter!Tonks has to explain a few things: lack of
> Metamorph, inexplicable non-clumsiness, curious forgetfulness. What better
> than unrequited love? And such a confidence inspires trust, especially from
> a romantic like Molly.  "Tonks" was rather eager to avoid Dumbledore,
> wasn't she? Unfortunately it also means "she" has to play out the facade
> with Molly looking on. <snip>

And inexplicable clumsiness, again I'm a bit lost, I was rereading Tonks few 
appearances and found this:

   <In his eagerness to help her, he knocked the gravy boat flying; Bill waved 
his wand and the gravy soared up in the air and returned meekly to the boat.
     'You are as bad as zat Tonks,' said Fleur to Ron, when she had finished 
kissing Bill in thanks. 'She is always knocking -'>  (Chap 16, Christmas)

I get the reading that the Tonks version Fleur knew was clumsy. It can be said 
that Fleur is only retelling what she has been told, but then I don't find 
that in character for her, more the reaction of loudly stating she isn't 
clumsy (maybe in the lines of not clumsy - not as funny as you said - that 
boring tonks). Is it possible that Fleur hasn't met this new Tonks? I went 
for chapter five and they are not shown together. But then, when did they 
met? 

>From the Lexicon:
Delacour, Fleur (c. 1977  - present)
She is part Veela and was the Beauxbatons champion in the Triwizard Tournament 
(GF16). Fleur is currently living and working at Gringotts in London (OP4). 
In the summer of 1997 (Y17) (HBP5), Fleur became engaged to marry Bill 
Weasley. 

Really, this line doesn't make much sense for me when all other characters 
view Tonks the other way.

> Silmariel:
> I feel they are doomed ...
>
> Kneasy:
> Splendid! That's the ticket!
>
> Yes, doooom!!!

But hey, it's not my bloodlust, I really perceive them as sacrificial lambs, 
too much like Cedric. With an ESE!Lupin, it's easy to call for a doomed pair, 
but even with a WYSIWYG!Lupin, he is too soft, and she is not exactly an 
example of strenght in HBP. Even Narcissa is more scaring.

More that the I'm too old speech, the I'm a spy on people who agree to follow 
a leader whose prime target is children aproach speaks volumes to me. In 
times of peace, if werewolves were not discriminated, with wizards lifespan, 
I wouldn't see a problem with this ship. But as things are... <g>

Kneasy:
> > Nothing more  useless than a redundant hero, slumped over a pint in the
> > pub, boring  everyone to tears with tales repeated too often of
> > derring-do long past.

ewe2:
> "Oh,'im? 'E used ter be 'Arry Potter, the Boy 'OO Lived. Ever since 'e
> sorted that You- Know-'OO, 'e ain't never bin the same. They say 'e tried
> to take up Auror'ing but 'e reckoned it were nothing to You-Know-'OO so 'e
> chucked it an' tried 'is luck with the Chudley Cannons. They threw 'im out
> after that match with Puddlemere United. Ain't no Seeker I ever heard of
> hexing Beaters, it was unprofessional..."

Don't imagine Harry surviving his good looks, I agree heroes don't age well, 
usually. May end being the new Lockhart. Not a fraud, but as boring.

Here enters my bloodlust. I doubt Jo will kill a character that she likes so 
much as Ginny, not being central to the plot, but then, it's nothing new in 
the story of marysueism and Ginny verges it, IMO, so I can always hope she is 
'elevated' by murder - Alchemy interested can cheer too.

Silmariel




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 13:04:55 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:04:55 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tonks again
In-Reply-To: <200508221358.18166.silmariel@...>
References: <636637D3-13C7-4A52-82FE-DB8C7AC41C34@...> <20050817131352.GB13269@...> <200508221358.18166.silmariel@...>
Message-ID: <20050822130455.GA7391@...>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:58:18PM +0200, silmariel wrote:

> My money's on Snape, too, he had bowed to help Draco, after all. I'm a bit 
> lost with the letter. Does she know that Harry knows patronus is the method 
> of communication for the order? Till last year he received Sirius letters, so 
> it might be she won't release information she thinks Harry doesn't have.

Not a reading I want to accept but there it is. No doubt JKR will use it if
she decides to nix Imposter!Tonks. It still seems odd to me. Someone needs to
convince me about that little meeting with Snape over Patronuses too.

silmariel:
> Both Male!Tonks and Andromeda!Tonks make me ewww because of the resulting 
> pairings. It reminds me too much, but mirrored, of Harry calling Goyle 
> pretty. It's fun because it's him, but the surface ship, Harry-11 year old 
> girl, is not fun (this is not a manga). In this case, Lupin-Andromeda is 
> uncomfortable, for my tastes, and male!Tonks... well, if she is introducing 
> same gender pairing, she could have used other means, really. Polijuicing on 
> the spot (for example, Draco to get out of RoR) is fine, but long lasting 
> polijuice game brings those issues for me.

Andromeda!Tonks is unlikely because she doesn't have the kinds of motive
Narcissa and Bellatrix have for this deception. Now if JKR invents a whole
backstory and an Andromeda!Tonks we're all going to be in trouble :)


silmariel:
> And inexplicable clumsiness, again I'm a bit lost, I was rereading Tonks few 
> appearances and found this:
> 
>    <In his eagerness to help her, he knocked the gravy boat flying; Bill waved 
> his wand and the gravy soared up in the air and returned meekly to the boat.
>      'You are as bad as zat Tonks,' said Fleur to Ron, when she had finished 
> kissing Bill in thanks. 'She is always knocking -'>  (Chap 16, Christmas)

Interesting then, that when _we_ see her, "Tonks" is not the least bit clumsy?
I believe we are meant to assume that Tonks has been to the Burrow a few times
while Fleur has been staying there. It feels like some narrative has been cut
and compressed down to Fleur's statement. Sins of omission :)

silmariel:
> Don't imagine Harry surviving his good looks, I agree heroes don't age well, 
> usually. May end being the new Lockhart. Not a fraud, but as boring.

Probably doomed to lecture tours and sponsorship deals "Wizard Express - Don't
face Dark Wizards without it, right Harry? Hehe, absolutely Tom!". But,
haunted by Ginny's appalling self-sacrifice (I too am bloodthirsty), Harry
goes and lives on an island somewhere and teaches advanced flying and DADA
then probably turns into a brilliant white seagull and disappears.

ewe2, who does NOT fly a biplane and is a penguin NOT REPEAT NOT a filthy
seagull

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 13:18:13 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:18:13 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <dec4gt+crm6@...>
Message-ID: <decjal+hklm@...>

Kneasy:

It was a devious attempt to tie together
> disparate bits of canon (Florence, Snape's memories, Snape's switch 
and Jo
> refusing to comment on the  marital status of Hogwarts staff) into 
an
> entertaining whole. Might even be accurate. Now wouldn't that be a 
surprise? 


Eloise:
LOL. 

It could well be true and the most telling bit of evidence, I think 
its the marital status thing. JKR is apparently hiding something and 
what other likely candidate is there? IIRC the only other member of 
staff that has any hint of back history is Flitwick (not that his 
duelling credentials did him much good against Severus). The only ex 
member of staff I can imagine her wanting to hide something about is 
Lupin. *Could* be Sybill, but I doubt it.


Kneasy:
> There again there's a lot I don't see - like a Half-blood!Snape as 
a DE. Doesn't 
> seem to match the DE ethic, does it? 


Eloise:
It doesn't. Like Hermione suggested (re DEs in general) he must have 
hidden his lineage. Calling Lily a Mudblood could have been part of 
that pretence. 

But then, why would he make up that dreadful title? I think it's 
highly significant that Lupin had never heard it - he obviously 
didn't flaunt it. It's one of the reasons I suggested that perhaps it 
was Lily's nickname for him, getting him back for insulting her own 
lineage and that perhaps it was she who wrote it in the book. The 
handwriting could have been forged (even magically).

Kneasy:
Why would Half-blood!Snape be Head 
> of Slytherin House? That seems a bit odd too,  a bastion of the 
Pure-blood
> conceit headed by an example of what they hate. 

Eloise:
Well, I think that's probably down to the fact that the Head of House 
is appointed by Dumbledore, not the Sorting Hat.

Kneasy:
It's facts like this that cause
> me to doubt Snape as HBP.  Bits of the jig-saw seem to be in the 
wrong place.

Eloise:
BTW, regarding that ghastly moniker, I have to share this (which I 
found following links from David's lj):

http://www.livejournal.com/community/snape100/288811.html

~Eloise







From sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 13:33:08 2005
From: sdutchen at sev7snape.yahoo.invalid (Stephanie)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:33:08 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <decjal+hklm@...>
Message-ID: <deck6k+deo2@...>

> Kneasy:
> > There again there's a lot I don't see - like a Half-blood!Snape 
as 
> a DE. Doesn't 
> > seem to match the DE ethic, does it? 
> 
> Eloise:
> It doesn't. Like Hermione suggested (re DEs in general) he must 
have 
> hidden his lineage. Calling Lily a Mudblood could have been part of 
> that pretence. 
> 
> But then, why would he make up that dreadful title? I think it's 
> highly significant that Lupin had never heard it - he obviously 
> didn't flaunt it. 
<snip>

Stephanie:

Although, I think Lupin danced around actually answering the question 
when Harry brought it up.  He said it wasn't James, or Sirius, or 
himself ? "definitely not," IIRC.  (I'm at work without the book or 
I'd check the exact quote.)  And then he conveniently neglected to 
mention other students in his year who were good at potions, like 
Snape, and instead suggested that Harry look at the age of the book, 
which is an odd piece of advice, considering that the scribblings 
could have been made many years later (as, indeed, they were).  So he 
could as likely have been trying to send Harry sniffing down the 
wrong path as confessing his honest ignorance.






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 15:43:38 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:43:38 -0000
Subject: What is the purpose of the green potion?
Message-ID: <decrra+pr8e@...>

So what is the purpose of the potion?

Ostensibly, the potion is there to guard the Horcux. This is beyond 
dispute. But why that method? We don't know exactly how the ring was 
protected, but evidently it was a different method.

Dumbledore tells us that Voldemort would have wanted whoever stole 
the Horcrux to survive long enough  for him to find out how he had 
managed the theft. Speculation amongst various posters that the 
potion forces memories to the surface reinforces the idea of 
interrogation, but there are a couple of problems with this, from my 
POV.

If Dumbledore is correct, then Voldemort needs to be aware *and 
quickly* that the Horcrux has been taken.  If Voldemort knew that the 
original was stolen (leading to RAB's death*) then either 
a) he would have recovered  and re-hidden it or 
b) he would be actively looking for it. 
The latter is quite a significant thing to become aware of only in 
the last book. 

Ostensibly, Voldemort believes that the real Horcrux is in the 
basin.  Is he aware of the violation yet? Wouldn't he have 
immediately sent his minions to bring back Dumbledore alive? If he's 
not aware, then what is the point of a potion that will keep the 
victim alive for just long enough to tell all?

I'm not sure I believe Dumbledore on this occasion. I believe it is a 
convenient fiction foisted on him by the dastardly author.

What does the potion actually do in terms of the book?

1) It provides an obstacle to retrieving the Horcrux
2) It becomes a test for Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore
3) It potentially makes Harry an agent of Dumbledore's death
4) It produces some intriguing dialogue
5) It produces a Dumbledore dependent on Harry's help (and in David's 
view thus enlightens us as to DD's greatest fear)
6) It complicates the issue of what exactly killed Dumbledore

Now JKR could have chosen a different method of protecting the 
Horcrux that would have resulted in 5 and 6 , ending up with a 
debilitated Dumbledore arriving back at Hogwarts in dire need of 
Snape's help. What ever method was chosen, it was bound to be 
something dangerous and involving Harry at all was likely to end up 
with some element of 2 and 3. 

The thing *specific* to the potion is that it evoked Dumbledore's 
strange ramblings. ~And that Harry heard them. What Dumbledore says 
is not secondary to the use of the potion: I believe that JKR used 
the potion specifically to provide a vehicle for what he says. In 
which case the words *are* significant to future plot developments: 
they are not the memories of the Inferi, they are probably nothing to 
do with RAB (whose identity is important only in terms of helping 
Harry to find the locket). I personally doubt, true or not, that JKR 
will ever spend time exposing Puppetmaster!DD so his remorse over 
past decisions will be neither here nor there in terms of the plot 
development.

Which, as all roads inevitably do, leads me right back to Snape.

~Eloise


*I wonder, particularly in view of Dumbledore's opinion that only a 
very great wizard was capable of getting through the enchantments 
guarding that Horcrux, if RAB didn't steal it after it had been 
hidden, but was instead the one sent to place it in the basin in the 
first place.







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 15:48:58 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:48:58 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <decjal+hklm@...>
Message-ID: <decs5a+3n7g@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
 
> It could well be true and the most telling bit of evidence, I think 
> its the marital status thing. JKR is apparently hiding something 
and what other likely candidate is there? > 

Carolyn:
Nah. Her major staff back story secret is about DD, but apparently it 
won't be a wife:

JKR: ...immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional 
mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. Where is his 
equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of 
those things. He's always the one who gives, he's always the one who 
has the insight and has the knowledge. I see him as isolated, and a 
few people have said to me rightly I think, that he is detached. 

JKR: Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more 
profitable than sweet wrappers.

MA: His family? 
JKR: Family, yes.
MA: Should we talk about that a little more?
JKR: No. But you can! [Laughter.]

The one person who might know something about DD's family is 
Professor Marchbanks, who 'examined him personally in Transfiguration 
and Charms when he did NEWTS'. Presumably, (assuming he can read), 
Aberforth would also have been at the school at the same time, and 
the family's history would be known to teachers of that generation.

Neville could pass on this type of info to Harry, since his 
grandmother is a friend of Prof Marchbanks.

But, like others here, I find it frustrating because DD's background 
is crucial data that I doubt that we can work out from clues so far.

Carolyn
Somewhat absent lately due to having to work for a living. Kneasy 
warned me against it.







From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 15:59:56 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:59:56 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <decs5a+3n7g@...>
Message-ID: <decsps+ij4n@...>

Carolyn:
> Nah. Her major staff back story secret is about DD, but apparently it 
> won't be a wife

Perhaps I was being ambiguous. Yes, that stuff about DD's intriguing 
and frustrating, but as you say, it won't be a wife, yet she has point 
blank refused to answer a question about Hogwarts staff being married, 
which implies that someone is.

(CR chat)
Sheila McClearyQuestion68:
 Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? 
 
J. K. Rowling:
 Good question ? yes, a few of them but that information is sort of 
restricted ? you'll find out why. 

~Eloise






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 22 16:32:17 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:32:17 -0000
Subject: Snape's baby (was Re: Kneasy / Snape & Lily)
In-Reply-To: <decsps+ij4n@...>
Message-ID: <decumh+7jjk@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> Carolyn:
> > Nah. Her major staff back story secret is about DD, but 
apparently it 
> > won't be a wife
> 
> Perhaps I was being ambiguous. Yes, that stuff about DD's 
intriguing 
> and frustrating, but as you say, it won't be a wife, yet she has 
point 
> blank refused to answer a question about Hogwarts staff being 
married, 
> which implies that someone is.
> 
> (CR chat)
> Sheila McClearyQuestion68:
>  Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? 
>  
> J. K. Rowling:
>  Good question ? yes, a few of them but that information is sort of 
> restricted ? you'll find out why. 
> 
> ~Eloise

Carolyn:
I'd forgotten that that question was in the past tense: 'had 
spouses'. Gives JKR a fair bit of wiggle room there, if they are all 
conveniently dead. It would help explain why none of the kids knew 
about them.





From kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 01:37:36 2005
From: kakearney at corinthum.yahoo.invalid (corinthum)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:37:36 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <deatsk+n06j@...>
Message-ID: <dedul0+giqt@...>

Dave wrote, re Snape's and Lily's potions abilities:

> 1) Snape was the pioneer, but passed his knowledge on to Lily.  The
> problem here is that they were in the same year ("Snape's Worst
> Memory" in OOP established that Lily, the Marauders and Snape all took
> OWLs at the same time) so they were presumably doing the same lessons
> at the same time, and it's hard to see how Snape could have seemed
> inferior to her yet be teaching her.

It's possible that Snape chose not to excel in that class (or possibly
any other), in the stereotypical
misfit-genious-who-doesn't-give-a-damn sort of way.  The scribblings
in the book struck me as personal, on his own time type research, not
regular class notes.  After all, I doubt Snape just happened to
stumble upon all the shortcuts and improvements written in the margins
during class.  I think it much more likely that he bought the book for
himself when he was younger, and spent his free time experimenting
freely with the potions in it, noting anything that worked in the
margins.  By the time he got to his sixth year, he had already
perfected the potions in the textbook, was already more than prepared
for his NEWTs, and therefore saw no reason to exert any effort in
Potions class.  Slughorn, as his head of house and potions teacher,
may have been the only teacher to notice his talent, but not truly
understand how brilliant he was.

I still don't like the idea that Snape _loved_ Lily, but I could buy
the idea that he liked her and so began helping her in Potions.  The
tutoring could easily have taken place in previous years, prior to the
Snape's Worst Memory incident.  Lily was intelligent, and a year or
two of Snape's tutoring may have been all she needed to excel, even if
they had a falling out later.

-Kelly   






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 02:53:28 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 02:53:28 -0000
Subject: Beauty and the Beast
Message-ID: <dee338+rutf@...>



I was thinking that the disfigurement of Bill allows JKR to make a 
reference to the myth of "Beauty and the Beast" by having Fleur marry 
Bill.

Did anyone else get this impression?

The wedding in  Book 7 also gives her the ability to make reference to 
the Alchemical Wedding that has been brought up before.

I also see her creating the connection that Draco is under Snape's 
wing just like Harry was under Dumbledore's wing.  This brings to mind 
the theme of opposites throughout the books.  Someone else has pointed 
out that Harry's mother died to save Harry while Tom's mother refused 
to live to help her son.

REd <0>





From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 03:43:30 2005
From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:43:30 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry
In-Reply-To: <de2mab+k8en@...>
References: <de2ato+qq69@...> <de2mab+k8en@...>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a05082220434492180e@...>

I know this was *last* week's discussion, but my internet connection
went down before I finished the response I had been drafting.  Better
late than never, I guess.

Pippin:
> If a piece of the soul is lost because murder tears away some of the
> murderer's humanity, some of his  potential for goodness, then it
> makes sense  that Voldemort's lost potential for good could find
> a home in Harry, and that Voldemort, who had alienated and rejected
> that part of himself, could not abide its presence, even though it
> was once his.

I had the same thought (though Pippin is more concise and elegant),
but did a little research on Christian doctrine on the nature of the
soul (well, Catholic doctrine, which is what I know) to support this
explanation, which seemed a good place to look in light of JKR's
comments about Christianity.

According to the CCC (catechism of the Catholic church), "soul"
signifies the spiritual in a human being, i.e., a person's capacity to
do good.  Sin is described as wounding the soul and, so the doctrine
goes, each sin makes on susceptible to further sin.  In other words,
sin diminishes one's capacity to do good, while the capacity to do
evil remains with less restraint than before.
<end of catechism review>  

So, if Hx!Harry is correct, there is reason to believe that Harry
acquired a bit of Voldemort's capacity for good, and none of his
capacity for evil, which raises the question whether the augmentation
of Harry's soul provided additional ammunition for Harry to resist
evil.  On the other hand, no wonder Slughorn is so horrified at the
idea of seven Horcruxes.  If the soul represents our humanity,
Voldemort is barely human, as the snakelike description of
post-resurrection Voldemort suggests.

Jen: 
> Another objection is how it could have happened given Lily's
> sacrifice. Her protection was there before LV cast the AK, and if it's
> as strong as we're led to believe, the cornerstone of Hary's
> protection, I don't see how an evil soul sliver got through that.

In addition to Neri's point that Voldemort seems to have transferred
some of his powers to Harry that night, the scar itself is odd.  Avada
Kedavra usually doesn't leave a mark, so why would a ricochet leave a
scar?  Moreover, Harry's scar symbolizes that Harry is The One:  "the
Dark Lord will mark him as his equal."  So we appear to know how Harry
received whatever he has.

Also, Lily's protection was a life-saving force, though, not overall
protection.   Harry isn't protected against spells in general.  For
example, he is not immune to the Cruciatus Curse.  And though he can
resist Imperius, it does affect him.  As Voldemort's soul fragment
isn't a threat to his life, there would be no reason to deflect it.

Neri:
> <deep sigh> No kidding, this is exactly what she did to us with the
> mystery of Voldy's immortality. Two of the main clues were Voldy
> saying that the DEs knew of the steps he took and Voldy becoming
> mortal again after his resurrection (paraphrasing from memory: "I set
> my sights lower. I would settle for my mortal body and my old
> strength before courting eternal life again"). Both of these clues
> don't work with the horwhatisit thing. It could be argued that they
> outright contradict it.

Not necessarily contradicatory, if you look at what else Voldy says in
the graveyard:

"I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the
meanest ghost . . . but still, I was alive.  What I was, even I do not
know . . . I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that
leads to immortality.  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."

One *or more* of his experiments had worked?  Seven Horcruxes weren't
enough for him to be confident of his immortality?   Sounds like he
had other immortality experiments in the works.  Why, half his Death
Eaters could have been employed in the Dark Lord's Laboratory of
Alchemy and Immortality without even getting a hint that the
Horthingies existed.  They were, as R.A.B. wrote, Voldy's own secret,
something he didn't trust his DEs enough to tell them.

It's arguable that he meant that each Horcrux was a separate
experiment.  But the diary shows just how cocky Tom had become.  He
thought he had the Horcspell down cold ? so cold that he was
improvising ? adding memories and creating dual-purpose Horcruxes.

Neri again:
> But still, if we look for a theory that we *can* assemble based on
> what we know today, and might explain the mind connection, the
> transferred powers, the "in essence divided" and the gleam, I don't
> see any another candidate but Hx!Harry. It looks like any other
> theory would have to assume that either JKR isn't going to explain
> these mysteries in any satisfying way, or she's going to explain them
> based on completely new information in Book 7. So for me it's either
> Hx!Harry or quitting.

I also like Hx!Harry from a thematic POV.  Notwithstanding
Dumbledore's statement about Harry's "furious desire for revenge", and
Harry's own statement that "I'd want him finished . . . and I'd want
to do it," it is very hard for me to reconcile Harry's supposed
destiny to kill Voldemort with his purity of heart.  Harry cannot cast
an effective Unforgivable Curse.  As Bellatrix reminds him, "You need
to mean them, Potter!  You need to really want to cause pain ? to
enjoy it ? righteous anger won't hurt me for long ? ."  OOP, ch. 36. 
Harry's only resource is his righteous anger for what was done to
those that he loved, and it doesn't sound like that will be enough to
make an AK work.

Harry's purity of heart has already saved him from Voldemort twice, so
I can't see Harry even trying Avada Kevadra. He must vanquish
Voldemort in some other way.  If Harry is a Horcrux, he must sacrifice
himself. (Interestingly, in my online soul-searching, I noticed that
only a pure soul can look with confidence toward the Next Great
Adventure.)  Or at least he could try, if Voldemort doesn't stop him.

Debbie
Who has probably solved the internet connection problem, but not the
time-consuming job problem, so will likely be heard from only
occasionally

From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 06:36:35 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:36:35 -0000
Subject: Soul stuff (was: Stupid question about Horscrux!Harry)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05082220434492180e@...>
Message-ID: <deeg5j+bek9@...>

Debbie wrote:
> I know this was *last* week's discussion, but my internet connection
> went down before I finished the response I had been drafting.  
> Better late than never, I guess.

Hey, I'm still hoping to find time to comment on stuff from last 
month! 

Debbie said:
> According to the CCC (catechism of the Catholic church), "soul"
> signifies the spiritual in a human being, i.e., a person's capacity 
> to do good. ...
> So, if Hx!Harry is correct, there is reason to believe that Harry
> acquired a bit of Voldemort's capacity for good, and none of his
> capacity for evil, which raises the question whether the 
> augmentation
> of Harry's soul provided additional ammunition for Harry to resist
> evil.  On the other hand, no wonder Slughorn is so horrified at the
> idea of seven Horcruxes.  If the soul represents our humanity,
> Voldemort is barely human, as the snakelike description of
> post-resurrection Voldemort suggests.

Hmmm... if the soul is one's capacity for good, could Voldemort 
*ever* have had enough of a soul to tear into seven pieces?  It seems 
that JKR has left ambiguous the question of whether Voldemort had any 
capacity for good to start with; he is said to know nothing of love.  
I suspect that JKR's conception of the soul can't fit this Catholic 
one; Voldemort must be ripping something other than just his capacity 
for good. 

While we're on the topic of souls, the question arose as to why the 
soul part that had been in Voldemort's body managed to stay cohesive 
in Albania after Voldemort's body died, while the soul parts in the 
diary and ring seem to have just faded away (or something) when their 
vessels were broken. Here, I agree with Pippin that the "soul" that 
gets divided into horcruxes must be somehow distinct from the self -- 
although the way I was thinking of it was that the soul must be 
distinct from the *mind*.  My thought was that although Voldemort cut 
off bits of his soul and put them in various objects, this didn't 
involve removing any of his mind.  He did not lose any memories or 
knowledge -- presumably -- each time he made a Horcrux. (Actually, 
Dumbledore tells Harry something like this, that Voldemort's soul is 
diminished, but not his skills.)

So, Voldemort's entire mind stayed with his body, along with the bit 
of soul that had been stored there.  When his body was destroyed, his 
mind was not, and was available to force his soul -- sleeplessly, 
endlessly, second by second -- to stay cohesive until he could 
acquire physical form through various means such as possession.  The 
other horcruxes, however, were soul without mind, and therefore 
dissipated (or whatever) when their containers were destroyed. 

Now, the diary is a bit of a special case.  It clearly has some form 
of intelligence, but I assume this is contained somehow in the 
physical object, rather than being a non-corporeal entity the way 
minds apparently are in the Potterverse.  So, when the diary was 
destroyed, that version of Tom Riddle was, too. 

By the way, I don't believe that the ring, locket, etc. could acquire 
a personality and possess someone the way the diary did.  The diary 
contained some of Tom Riddle's memories -- Dumbledore implies that 
Riddle actually wrote an account of opening the Chamber of Secrets in 
the diary, even though the words were no longer visible when Harry 
got the book. The ring, etc., presumably did not contain anything 
like the same amount of information; therefore, they don't have 
enough of Voldemort's memories to create a new version of him.   


-- Judy, who is writing quickly because she should be working






From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 06:59:36 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:59:36 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <deb5t7+cqsu@...>
Message-ID: <deehgo+56g4@...>

David said, regarding Slughorn's comments at the Christmas Party:
> Yes, I felt this passage seemed quite significant, and it's clear he
> neither flatters nor snubs Snape in this scene - he hauls Snape into
> the conversation and then gives him second place to Lily in supposed
> influence on Harry's skills.
> What JKR seems to be conveying is that Harry's potions expertise
> reminds him of Lily, and that he is better than Snape.  Given that 
> he is actually using the Half-Blood Prince's recipes, this creates
> something of a puzzle.

What Slughorn says is, "Never had a student produce finer on a first 
attempt, I don't think even you, Severus..." So, Harry isn't better 
than Snape at potions in general; Harry just has better *first* 
attempts than Snape did. Actually, it appears that the text used in 
Advanced Potions is terrible.  Anyone who follows its instructions 
will mess up on the first try.  So, Snape was able to improve upon 
the instructions and make excellent potions-- but presumably this 
took him multiple tries.  Harry has Snape's final recipes, however, 
and can skip all the earlier, failed tries, thus making his initial 
attempt more successful than Snape's. 

Slughorn's attributing Harry's talent to Lily also makes sense to me, 
even if Snape was better than Lily at potions. We know that Slughorn 
places a lot of stock in heredity.  When Harry seems good at a new 
potion, one he apparently has had no chance to learn, Slughorn 
attributes this primarily to genetically-induced talent, which Harry 
could have only gotten from his parents.

Also, Slughorn's comment "not even you, Severus" -- which is said 
twice, in different forms -- could mean that the only person who came 
close to Harry's "natural" skill in potions was Snape.  After all, 
Slughorn never says, "Not even Lily did this well."  (Of course, it's 
also possible that he made reference to Snape rather than Lily just 
because Snape is the one present during the conversation.)  

David speculated:
> My worry is that the "real" explanation is that, in the context of 
> HBP only, JKR was trying to misdirect us into thinking Lily was the 
> HBP (hence Hermione's statements that the HBP could be a woman), 
> and that despite its weakness, 3) is her resolution and there was 
> no special connection between Snape and Lily in the context of 
> Potions.

Quite possible.  Of course, I favor the idea that there was a special 
connection between Snape and Lily -- but not necessarily in the 
context of Potions. 

Snow said:
> Or if I can make another suggestion:
> Snape (like Draco to Granger) overheard and fiercely watched Lily
> while she made her potions, writing down all that she had done 
> which is why the notes were in the book) so he could be as good as 
> her. Maybe Snape's secret wish was to become an Auror and he needed 
> to pass potions (just an aside).

Oh, my!  I don't think I can handle the idea that Snape needed help 
just to pass potions!  I think canon is pretty clear that Snape -- 
whatever else he may be -- is excellent at potions.  He made the 
Wolfbane potion, which Lupin says few wizards can do.  Lily certainly 
didn't show him this, because it was invented after they left school. 
Snape is also able to to figure out exactly what steps a student did 
wrong just by glancing at their cauldron. Dumbledore hired him to 
teach Potions, and Dumbledore may be implying that only Snape can 
save him from the green goo at the end of HBP. It also seems pretty 
clear that Snape had some special skill (although not necessarily at 
potions) that saved Dumbledore when the Ring Horcrux injured him. 

And remember, this is the evidence that's left even if everything 
Snape wrote in his text and everything Slughorn saw him do was 
actually due to Lily's help -- which so far, we have no canon at all 
to support.
 
> Anyway the Snape/Lily referencing reminds me very much of the 
> Draco/Hermione one. Snape and Draco both call their adversaries 
> Mudbloods, of which they both were and both very talented witches. 

Yes, that I noticed, too.  There are those who think Draco picks on 
Hermione to conceal the fact that he likes her.  Hmmmmm... 
("Lollipops" theme starts playing in background.)

And, while we're on the topic of Snape & his potions book, several 
people asked why Snape wrote the corrections directly into the book.  
To me, it makes perfect sense. JKR seems to model many of her 
characters after typical teachers -- maybe ones she knew when she was 
teaching.  Snape is the type of professor who can't *stand* it when 
people get things wrong.  The textbook is wrong, wrong, wrong! So, he 
has to cross out the mistakes and write in the correct information.  
Er, speaking as a pedantic academic type myself, I tend to do the 
exact same thing.  (As for writing the *spells* in the book -- can 
you say "plot device?")
 
Snow signed off as:
> still recovering from too many deaths in the family
not on 
> much since

Ooo, I am very sorry to hear this.  My condolences, and I hope the 
future brings happier days. 


-- Judy, who should be working, but feels compelled to say nice 
things about Snape






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 07:57:11 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:57:11 -0000
Subject: AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping  (was: Re: Stupid question about...)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05082220434492180e@...>
Message-ID: <deeksn+ma8h@...>

I enjoyed setting this one off and then watching wiser minds than mine 
wrestle with the answer. Reading the responses, I'm still left with 
questions and Debbie takes us right to the crux of the matter. 

Debbie:
> In addition to Neri's point that Voldemort seems to have transferred
> some of his powers to Harry that night, the scar itself is odd.  Avada
> Kedavra usually doesn't leave a mark, so why would a ricochet leave a
> scar?  

1)Voldemort cast some spell at Harry that night. Belief in the WW is 
that that spell was an AK and that Harry is the only person to have 
survived it.

We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody in 
the WW think Harry was subject to one? 

There *must* have been a witness (I think JKR's all but confirmed that 
by refusing to anwer the question). Even that is problematic, for how 
did the news disseminate? Did that witness tell the truth, did s/he lie 
or was s/he mistaken?

What does Diary!Tom *know*? The fact that he knew about Harry's early 
history is intriguing. It could have come from Ginny, OTOH, the diary 
being a Horcrux, it should (perhaps?) also contain Voldemort's own 
knowledge and experience up to the time it was made (as implied by 
the "I am LV's past, present and future" speech). Diary!Tom seems to 
believe that LV tried to *kill* Harry. In fact, Diary!Tom *still* wants 
to kill Harry, so presumably doesn't think that the spell cast at him 
was a Horcruxfacient, (or at the very least that it failed). 

If Dumbledore knows it wasn't an AK, but an attempt at making a 
Horcrux, then we're back to the question of why he's kept it quiet. I 
know it's something Harry hasn't been capable of absorbing until very 
recently, but given Dumbledore's recent urgency and probable awareness 
of impending mortality, he left it a bit late.

2) Dumbledore tells us that using [any] living being as a Horcrux is 
risky. Why would Voldemort want to make a Horcrux out of Harry, 
believing he was the one powerful enough to vanquish him?

Was this simple vanity? A belief that by making him a Horcrux, he could 
control him? Surely the easiest way was to finish the brat off and use 
that particularly significant death to enable the creation of a new 
Horcrux.


3)Dumbledore suggests (as above) that Voldemort uses significant deaths 
to facilitate the making of Horcruxes and that he intended Harry's to 
be the final death in the process.

If Dumbledore is wrong, and he intended Harry to be the Horcrux, whose 
was the significant death he intended to use (James' would seem to pale 
into insignificance next to Harry's)? Is this why Lily didn't need to 
die? Because he had already killed James? Did he want Lily to live to 
care for his living Horcrux? 

So we have a spell that doesn't act like an AK and yet it not being one 
just doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting.

I can only believe with Neri that if Harry *is* a Horcrux, then he is 
an unintentional one and even then...

Well, all this soul-ripping stuff. Souls must get ripped all the time 
without the ripped parts actually dissociating. Granted it's more 
likely if you happen to get disembodied at the time.

But Voldemort's soul apparently got ripped *two* more times at GH, so 
there were potentially three bits of soul floating around (counting the 
one that is now in his body). And throughout his life it must have been 
ripped many more than seven times. I do have problems envisaging how 
then Voldemort gathers up the right quantity of soul to place in a 
Horcrux (but then, like JKR, maths isn't my strong suit). 

And just out of curiosity (and almost certainly irrelevantly) if you 
were not quite as murderous as LV and just wanted to divide your soul 
seven times, how would you control it so the rips came in the right 
places? One would assume that when the soul rips, it divides fairly 
evenly, so that as time went by you would be dividing smaller and 
smaller fractions and that which remained in the body would be a very 
small proportion of the original (no, I'm not going to attempt it and 
show myself up).

Or perhaps it doesn't matter as you can't quantify a soul (though the 
creation of Horcruces suggests you can). 

Do/can the rips heal? Does *any* killing rip the soul? Are those who 
kill in the course of war similarly damaged? And what damage exactly 
does the ripping do? 

~Eloise
 







From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 10:01:26 2005
From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:01:26 +0100
Subject: Pevensie & pensieve
Message-ID: <mailman.16.1576054935.10649.the_old_crowd@archive.hpfgu.org>

Hi All,

The Harry Potter Lexicon has lots of sensible things to say about the word "pensieve".

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/devices/devices_n-r.html#Pensieve

<<< The name "Pensieve" is a play on words. In the first place, "Pensieve" is a homonym for the English word pensive. In the second place, the word "Pensieve" is formed from the Latin pens + English sieve. >>>

I'm a bit confused by the Latin "pens" ("to weigh" or "to ponder"?) but let's not dwell on that.

Recently a friend here at work ( http://research.microsoft.com/users/r.harper/ ) was having an argument with another sociology professor in his study in Kings College Cambridge. To illustrate a point, Richard's friend gestured at the wardrobe in the corner and noted that it was the wardrobe that inspired C.S. Lewis when he wrote "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Later I noticed a post on the Rutgers' kidlit mailing list noting that "the real piece of furniture upon which Lewis fashioned his fantastical wardrobe lives in the Marion Wade Center at Wheaton College". (Don't worry, I will get to my point soon.) That took me to this website about the authenticity of the Lewis Wardrobe:

http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/english/Pages/cs_lewis_wardrobe.html

which in turn reminded me of the family name of the children, Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund, in the Narnia books. It's "Penvensie". I think that the name probably derives from the English town Pevensey, but it is very difficult to read the wardrobe article without noting that "Pevensie" and "pensieve" are acronyms.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.


		
___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 13:48:35 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:48:35 -0000
Subject: AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping  (was: Re: Stupid question about...)
In-Reply-To: <deeksn+ma8h@...>
Message-ID: <def9fj+o787@...>

> 1)Voldemort cast some spell at Harry that night. Belief in the WW
is 
> that that spell was an AK and that Harry is the only person to have 
> survived it.
> 
> We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody
in  the WW think Harry was subject to one? 


Pippin:
Because the ministry has ways of detecting it.
"The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once that this was a
wizard's murder." "They can detect magic but not the perpetrator." 
HBP-US  367,368

Now, Voldemort presumably has ways of interfering with the detection
when he wants a murder to remain secret, as in the case of Frank Bryce
or Bertha Jorkins, but I am sure that if all had gone as Voldemort 
planned, the Dark Mark would have blazed above Godric's Hollow that 
night.  The Potter murder was not supposed to be a 
secret.

BTW, a lack of magical evidence might account for Dumbledore's 
confusion about how Frank Bryce died, though Harry did tell 
Dumbledore that he'd seen an old man emerge from Voldemort's wand. 

Eloise:
> What does Diary!Tom *know*? The fact that he knew about Harry's
early history is intriguing. 

Pippin:
Diary!Tom says he learned about Harry from Ginny :"Well, you see,
Ginnytold me all about you. Your whole *fascinating* history."

Eloise:
> So we have a spell that doesn't act like an AK and yet it not being
one  just doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting.
> 
> I can only believe with Neri that if Harry *is* a Horcrux, then he
is  an unintentional one and even then...


Pippin:
Well, we know that wizards can do unintentional magic, especially if
they're angry or frightened. Voldemort, seeing his own AK bounce
off and come at him would be very angry and frightened indeed, I
would think.

He might have formed a horcrux the same way Harry blew up
Aunt Marge, as a subconscious expression of his rage and fear,
and like Harry, he would have no idea that he'd done it until he
saw the results.


Eloise:
> Do/can the rips heal? Does *any* killing rip the soul? Are those
who  kill in the course of war similarly damaged? And what damage
exactly  does the ripping do? 


Pippin:
Slughorn says "By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." 
It sounds like he is using "killing" as a synonym for murder and that
malice and premeditation are important. And we have this from
Sirius, "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could 
help it. Always brought people in alive where possible." GoF  ch27.
So Moody has killed, and yet he's an order member in good standing.

I don't think Dumbledore would accept someone he considers
to be an unrepentant murderer into the Order. Repentant murderers,
on the other hand, might be allowed. Dumbledore says, "Never
forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged beyond repair,
his brain and magical powers remain intact." --HBP-US 509 ch 23.
That sounds as though a soul could be repaired under certain 
circumstances. 


Pippin





From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 14:03:15 2005
From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:03:15 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] AKs and Horcrux!Harry and soul-ripping (was: Re: Stupid question about...)
In-Reply-To: <deeksn+ma8h@...>
References: <80f25c3a05082220434492180e@...>
	 <deeksn+ma8h@...>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a05082307032680969c@...>

Eloise:
> 1)Voldemort cast some spell at Harry that night. Belief in the WW is
> that that spell was an AK and that Harry is the only person to have
> survived it.
> 
> We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody in
> the WW think Harry was subject to one?
> 
> There *must* have been a witness (I think JKR's all but confirmed that
> by refusing to anwer the question). Even that is problematic, for how
> did the news disseminate? Did that witness tell the truth, did s/he lie
> or was s/he mistaken?

As you wrote in another post, all roads lead to Snape, whose execution
of the double agent game seems to have placed him in the thick of
everything.

But I think the witness, Snape or not, told the truth, as IIRC
Voldemort himself confirms that account in the graveyard.  <will have
to check this later>

> What does Diary!Tom *know*? The fact that he knew about Harry's early
> history is intriguing. It could have come from Ginny, OTOH, the diary
> being a Horcrux, it should (perhaps?) also contain Voldemort's own
> knowledge and experience up to the time it was made (as implied by
> the "I am LV's past, present and future" speech). Diary!Tom seems to
> believe that LV tried to *kill* Harry. In fact, Diary!Tom *still* wants
> to kill Harry, so presumably doesn't think that the spell cast at him
> was a Horcruxfacient, (or at the very least that it failed).

JKR describes Diary!Tom as a 'memory' so his knowledge would be
limited to Riddle's experience up to then.  Although Diary!Tom would
have known about the Horcrux plan, he presumably only knew what Ginny
told him about Godric's Hollow.  Thus, he wouldn't know whether or not
the future LV had attempted to make a Horcrux when he killed Harry.
 
> If Dumbledore knows it wasn't an AK, but an attempt at making a
> Horcrux, then we're back to the question of why he's kept it quiet. I
> know it's something Harry hasn't been capable of absorbing until very
> recently, but given Dumbledore's recent urgency and probable awareness
> of impending mortality, he left it a bit late.

As I wrote above, I think it was an AK, but I think Dumbledore may
have good reason not to conclude that Voldemort was simultaneously
trying to make a Horcrux.  Under his reconstruction of the timeline
for Riddle's murder of his parents, Dumbledore assumes that Riddle
first murders his parents, then returns to Morfin and steals the ring
*after* the murder.  So clearly Dumbledore believes that they are not
simultaneous actions.
 
> 2) Dumbledore tells us that using [any] living being as a Horcrux is
> risky. Why would Voldemort want to make a Horcrux out of Harry,
> believing he was the one powerful enough to vanquish him?

I think the logic would be this:  Voldemort fears death more than
anything, and he cannot comprehend love and sacrifice.  By making
Harry a Horcrux, he thought he was protecting himself from defeat at
Harry's hands, since Harry could not kill Voldemort without destroying
himself.  Therefore, he went to Godric's Hollow with the intention of
killing James to tear out the soul fragment he needed (which is why
Lily needn't have died)   He tells the DEs in the graveyard that he
had not foreseen Lily's sacrifice, but maybe he forged ahead with the
Horcrux, thinking perhaps that a mother's love is unique.

The problem with this logic is that it doesn't really make sense to be
simultaneously trying to kill Harry and make a Horcrux out of him.  So
either the AK was aimed at someone else, or Hx!Harry was
unintentional.  Since it doesn't appear that magical powers transfer
to an ordinary Horcrux, it's possible that the destruction of
Voldemort's body released a package of soul and magical powers that
hit Harry on the forehead.  In this scenario, the need for Harry to
sacrifice himself to destroy Voldemort is simply a fortuitous
consequence of the failed AK.

> 3)Dumbledore suggests (as above) that Voldemort uses significant deaths
> to facilitate the making of Horcruxes and that he intended Harry's to
> be the final death in the process.

> If Dumbledore is wrong, and he intended Harry to be the Horcrux, whose
> was the significant death he intended to use (James' would seem to pale
> into insignificance next to Harry's)? Is this why Lily didn't need to
> die? Because he had already killed James? Did he want Lily to live to
> care for his living Horcrux?

I already answered most of this, but one possibility is that he was
still two Horcruxes short.  We don't know if he ever found a Ravenclaw
object.

> Well, all this soul-ripping stuff. Souls must get ripped all the time
> without the ripped parts actually dissociating. Granted it's more
> likely if you happen to get disembodied at the time.
> 
> But Voldemort's soul apparently got ripped *two* more times at GH, so
> there were potentially three bits of soul floating around (counting the
> one that is now in his body). And throughout his life it must have been
> ripped many more than seven times. I do have problems envisaging how
> then Voldemort gathers up the right quantity of soul to place in a
> Horcrux (but then, like JKR, maths isn't my strong suit).

I find it hard to get my arms around this one, too, but think that
maybe the answer is that in the normal course the key to the Horcrux
spell is extracting the soul fragment (ripping apart doesn't
necessarily mean that the ripped fragment has left the body).  At
Godric's Hollow perhaps some fragments were released because of the
destruction of Voldemort's body.

But what happened to the other ripped soul bits?  Voldemort killed
enough people to make an army of Inferi, but they're just bewitched,
right?  I didn't get the sense that Voldemort had to dispatch his soul
to the Inferi to make them do his bidding.  I think he must still have
them.

> And just out of curiosity (and almost certainly irrelevantly) if you
> were not quite as murderous as LV and just wanted to divide your soul
> seven times, how would you control it so the rips came in the right
> places? One would assume that when the soul rips, it divides fairly
> evenly, so that as time went by you would be dividing smaller and
> smaller fractions and that which remained in the body would be a very
> small proportion of the original (no, I'm not going to attempt it and
> show myself up).

My thinking was that each murder ripped off a piece of soul, but that
it was not ripped into two equal halves.  However, by this time,
Voldemort has precious little soul left.

> Do/can the rips heal? Does *any* killing rip the soul? Are those who
> kill in the course of war similarly damaged? And what damage exactly
> does the ripping do?

Well, I'm falling back on my old catechism again, but I think that in
the ordinary course, genuine remorse combined with some sort of
recompense, or penance if you will, could mend some of the damage,
though the scars would always remain.  There are all kinds of examples
of how good actions (Lily's sacrifice, Harry's sparing of Pettigrew)
create magical benefits.  I don't see why this can't be the same.  For
example, perhaps Wormtail could repair his soul by making good on his
life-debt to Harry.

What makes creating a Horcrux so horrifying is that the soul bit has
been separated permanently from the body, making repair impossible.

Debbie
who must turn to the paying work now



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 14:47:42 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:47:42 -0000
Subject: The Chosen One_ Police Filk
Message-ID: <defcue+t6cr@...>

Someone sent me an email to request a Harry Potter filk sung to the 
tune of "King of Pain" by Sting and the Police.

Here it is.

The Chosen One

Sung to the tune "King of Pain" by Sting and the Police

Words by Randy Estes

There's a Death Eater's mark in the Sky today.
It's a symbol that Dumbledore has gone away.
There's a teacher that's caught in a spinner's web.
Cause his job is now done and his headmaster's dead.

I have stood here before when I first used my wand
And faced a man in a turban with the Sorcerer's stone
I guess I'm always hoping that this battle is done
But it's my destiny to be the Chosen One!

There's a lightning bolt scar on my aching head.
That's my soul's despair.
It's the one that I got on the night I dread.
That's my soul's despair.
There's a flash of green light and my mother's dead.
That's my soul's despair.
Because she yelled at her foe: "to just take her instead!"
That's my soul's despair.

I have stood here before with my best friend Ron.
Against Tom Riddle's Diary whose memory is now gone.
I guess I'm always hoping that this battle is done
But it's my destiny to be the Chosen One!

There's a Man and a Dog who just fell through the veil
That's my soul's despair.
And he'd already suffered twelve long years in jail
That's my soul's despair.
He was wrongly accused of both my parents' deaths
That's my soul's despair.
And it seems I lost him too soon after we first met
That's my soul's despair.

I have stood here before with all my loved ones gone
And now I'm staring blindly at the setting sun
I guess I'm always hoping that this battle is done
But it's my destiny to be the Chosen One!



There's a basilisk corpse with his eyes torn out
There was a Mad Eye Moody who was Barty Crouch
There's a rich man sleeping in a prison cell
And his son's afraid to cast the AK spell.

There's a werewolf who has now lost his three best friends.
That's my soul's despair.
There are a lot of us wondering how the story ends.
That's my soul's despair.

There's a Death Eater's Mark in the Sky today
It's a symbol that Dumbledore has gone away!

I have stood here before to hear the Phoenix song
But I think he flew off now that Dumbledore's gone
I guess I'm always hoping that this battle is done
But it's my destiny to be the Chosen One!

Chosen One
I must fight on! Chosen One!
I`ll always be the Chosen One!

Red <0> Randy

Hey, you asked for it!






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 14:55:10 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:55:10 -0000
Subject: Pevensie & pensieve
Message-ID: <defdce+nqhh@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" <dumbledad at y...>
wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> The Harry Potter Lexicon has lots of sensible things to say about 
the word "pensieve".
> 
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/devices/devices_n-r.html#Pensieve
> 
> <<< The name "Pensieve" is a play on words. In the first place, 
"Pensieve" is a homonym for the English word pensive. In the second 
place, the word "Pensieve" is formed from the Latin pens +
 English sieve. >>>
> 
> I'm a bit confused by the Latin "pens" ("to weigh" or "to ponder"?)
 but let's not dwell on that.
> 

Pippin:
I'm amazed that the lexicon entry doesn't mention the French pensee
(sorry, I don't know how to make the accent mark). It means
"thought". 

Pippin





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 15:49:03 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Chosen One_ Police Filk
In-Reply-To: <defcue+t6cr@...>
Message-ID: <20050823154903.48104.qmail@...>

--- Randy <estesrandy at ...> wrote:
---------------------------------
Someone sent me an email to request a Harry Potter
filk sung to the tune of "King of Pain" by Sting and
the Police.

Here it is.



"Oh, oh!!" ::waves hand frantically in the air a la
Horshack [y'all remember him?]::

"That was me, Randy.  Thanks -- this is *great*!"

SSSusan





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 18:55:49 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:55:49 -0000
Subject: AKs and Horcrux!Harry and soul-ripping (was: Re: Stupid question about...)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05082307032680969c@...>
Message-ID: <defrfl+glgq@...>

Debbie wrote:
> either the AK was aimed at someone else, or Hx!Harry was
> unintentional.  Since it doesn't appear that magical powers transfer
> to an ordinary Horcrux, it's possible that the destruction of
> Voldemort's body released a package of soul and magical powers that
> hit Harry on the forehead.

Neri:
I don't think it would be needed to send the soul and powers in two 
different packages. In the Potterverse the soul seems to include also 
the magical powers. Otherwise Hx!Diary!Ginny wouldn't know 
parseltongue, and he/she wouldn't be able to open the Chamber and 
call the basilisk.

Or maybe the powers of the Hx!Diary came from the memoriesthat were 
recorded in the diary. However, it seems that Harry got some 
Voldemort memories too, because in CoS he felt the name R.M. Riddle 
sounded familiar. Moreover, according to Lupin Potterverse souls do 
include memories, because in PoA he says:

"You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and 
heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self any more, 
no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. 
You'll just ... exist. As an empty shell."

These "no... anything" and "empty shell" make me think that the 
Potterverse soul also includes the "mind". You can exist without it 
but you'll be a kind of vegetable. My feeling is that "soul" here 
includes both memories and powers, and therefore Harry can be a 
living Hx.

Another interesting addition to our very meager knowledge about 
Horthingies is that, when Dumbledore suggests the theory of Hx!
Nagini, he mentions that Voldemort seems to have a lot of control 
over her, even for a parselmouth. Dumbledore uses this as an argument 
that Nagini might indeed be a Hx. This suggests that if you create a 
living Hx it may generate a mind connection between you. This would 
explain the mind connection between Voldy and Harry, although in this 
case Voldy got less control than he would want to. This also makes 
the idea the Voldy had originally meant to make Lily his living Hx 
more likely. Voldy had reason to think that Hx!Lily would be then 
under his complete control, and therefore quite safe to use. 

Neri







From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 20:23:10 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:23:10 -0000
Subject: Pevensie & pensieve
Message-ID: <deg0je+lggt@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" <dumbledad at y...> 
wrote:
> Hi All,

Dumbledad:

<snip>

That took me to this website about the authenticity of the Lewis 
Wardrobe: 

http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/pages/departments/english/Pages/cs_
lewis_wardrobe.html
 
> which in turn reminded me of the family name of the children, 
Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund, in the Narnia books. 
It's "Penvensie". I think that the name probably derives from the 
English town Pevensey, but it is very difficult to read the wardrobe 
article without noting that "Pevensie" and "pensieve" are acronyms.
> 
> Cheers,
 		
Geoff:
Now you've got me confused - or confunded. Can you expand on your 
line of thought? They can't be acronyms; these are words made up from 
initials like Laser, AIDS or BASIC. 





From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 21:09:41 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:09:41 -0000
Subject: Pevensie & pensieve - Anagrams? [NO TEXT]
In-Reply-To: <deg0je+lggt@...>
Message-ID: <deg3al+i9co@...>







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 22:24:52 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:24:52 -0000
Subject: Anagrams; Soul & Mind
In-Reply-To: <deg3al+i9co@...>
Message-ID: <deg7nk+2bts@...>

Penvensie & pensieve are almost anagrams -- Penvensie has an 
extra "N".

I think "pensieve" is an absolutely brilliant name, a fantastic play 
on words. I don't think any other explanation for the name is needed, 
other than the combination of "pens" (or pense) and "sieve" 
making "pensive."

Sigh -- how did the same woman who came up with this brilliantly 
named, elegant device also come up with "horcrux"?  Not only is the 
name awful, there doesn't seem to be any way for horcruxes to 
actually *work*.

On the topic of why Voldemort's last "soul piece" was able to come 
back to life, while the ring and diary pieces seemed to vanish, I 
thought that Voldemort's body contained not just a piece of his soul, 
but also his mind. 

However, Neri pointed out the effects of The Dementor's Kiss, as 
described by Lupin:
"You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and
heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self any more,
no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance at all of recovery.
You'll just ... exist. As an empty shell."

Well, Lupin definitely seems to be saying that the soul and the mind 
are the same thing.  But then, how can Lord Voldemort retain all his 
powers and memories, as Dumbledore says he does, if his has ripped 
his soul into small pieces and has hardly any of it left? 

The only way I can reconcile Lupin's statement with Dumbledore's is 
to assume that the word "soul" is being used differently by each of 
them -- that what dementors suck out isn't exactly the same as what 
gets put into a horcrux.  Certainly, we muggles sometimes use "soul" 
to mean mind, and sometimes use it as something distinct from the 
mind, so maybe wizards do, too.

Unfortunately, I think the more likely explanation is that JKR just 
didn't think through all the implications of making a horcrux.

-- Judy 





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 23 23:55:36 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:55:36 -0000
Subject: Anagrams; Soul & Mind
In-Reply-To: <deg7nk+2bts@...>
Message-ID: <degd1o+4l5m@...>

Judy wrote:
> Well, Lupin definitely seems to be saying that the soul and the 
mind 
> are the same thing.  But then, how can Lord Voldemort retain all 
his 
> powers and memories, as Dumbledore says he does, if his has ripped 
> his soul into small pieces and has hardly any of it left? 

Neri:
Well, the memories can be duplicated. You can write a memory in a 
diary and it doesn't eliminate the copy you have in your, er... soul. 
Apparently the powers can be duplicated too, since both Voldy (what's 
left of him, anyway) and his ripped soul part in Hx!Diary can speak 
parseltongue. Presumably what cannot be duplicated (and thus suffers 
when the soul is ripped) is the moral part and the self (I suspect 
the self *can* actually be duplicated, but then the second self will 
diverge from the original one, so as a copying process it's, erm... 
self-defeating). Anyway, Voldy can split the moral part of his soul 
and the memories and powers part just get duplicated. It's a bit 
complicated but it seems to work.

And I too suspect JKR didn't thought it through, but this doesn't 
hurt Unintentional Harrycrux. There's a Jewish saying: "if God so 
desires, even a broom can shoot". In the Potterverse, if JKR so 
desires, then a just-ripped piece of soul, complete with (at least 
some) duplicated powers and memories, can be released when the body 
is destroyed and find its way into another body through an AK-
inflicted wound. It's magic.

Neri

      






From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 00:15:47 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:15:47 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <deehgo+56g4@...>
Message-ID: <dege7j+kf8c@...>







Snow said (previously):
> Or if I can make another suggestion:
> Snape (like Draco to Granger) overheard and fiercely watched Lily
> while she made her potions, writing down all that she had done
> which is why the notes were in the book) so he could be as good as
> her. Maybe Snape's secret wish was to become an Auror and he needed
> to pass potions (just an aside).

Judy replied:
Oh, my! I don't think I can handle the idea that Snape needed help
just to pass potions! I think canon is pretty clear that Snape --
whatever else he may be -- is excellent at potions. He made the
Wolfbane potion, which Lupin says few wizards can do. Lily certainly
didn't show him this, because it was invented after they left school.
Snape is also able to to figure out exactly what steps a student did
wrong just by glancing at their cauldron. Dumbledore hired him to
teach Potions, and Dumbledore may be implying that only Snape can
save him from the green goo at the end of HBP. It also seems pretty
clear that Snape had some special skill (although not necessarily at
potions) that saved Dumbledore when the Ring Horcrux injured him.

 
Snow:

Very good point about the Wolfsbane buttttttt
what if Lily were 
already working on that particular potion before her demise? Lily 
would be someone I would think would attempt to make a potion to help 
her boyfriend/husband's best bud more so than Snape. This is not to 
say Snape actually invented the potion but if anyone had been 
interested in making a potion to `help' poor Lupin I would think it 
would have been someone who really cared two sickles for Any person 
who had been bitten by a werewolf and would want to help them. So far 
Lily has two up on Snape; Lily has been referred to as very good at 
potions and she has a friend in a great deal of need for such a 
potion as Wolfsbane. Snape is a Potions Master who, according to 
Lupin, is better at potions than himself (not saying much) and claims 
to be the Prince who wrote in an old Potions book (and yet his name 
is Snape
where did that come from, shouldn't his last name be 
Prince?) All too suspect for me. 

Judy:
And remember, this is the evidence that's left even if everything
Snape wrote in his text and everything Slughorn saw him do was
actually due to Lily's help -- which so far, we have no canon at all
to support.

Snow:
Canon, did you say Canon? You wouldn't be referring to the fact that 
Tom Riddle's Mother had a brother that was imprisoned for murders he 
didn't commit? Canon can only take us so far with this Wondrous 
Woman, and then you're on your own. >bg<

Me again previously:
Anyway the Snape/Lily referencing reminds me very much of the
> Draco/Hermione one. Snape and Draco both call their adversaries
> Mudbloods, of which they both were and both very talented witches.

Judy:
Yes, that I noticed, too. There are those who think Draco picks on
Hermione to conceal the fact that he likes her. Hmmmmm...
("Lollipops" theme starts playing in background.)

Snow:

Eww
No not romantically, even Herself put an end to that ship, T.G. 
I simply think that Draco like Snape would do anything to obtain the 
glory to achieve their end result. Snape, IMO, really needs that 
Order Of Merlin for some reason to lift whatever plight is upon him 
but I'm not so sure what end Draco needs to obtain, although we can 
see that he is not above using Granger or the late great Moaning 
Myrtle to achieve his goal
both Mudbloods whom he claims he despises. 

Judy:
And, while we're on the topic of Snape & his potions book, several
people asked why Snape wrote the corrections directly into the book.
To me, it makes perfect sense. JKR seems to model many of her
characters after typical teachers -- maybe ones she knew when she was
teaching. Snape is the type of professor who can't *stand* it when
people get things wrong. The textbook is wrong, wrong, wrong! So, he
has to cross out the mistakes and write in the correct information.
Er, speaking as a pedantic academic type myself, I tend to do the
exact same thing. (As for writing the *spells* in the book -- can
you say "plot device?")

Snow:

But wouldn't this be true if the book was wrong and Lily was right? 
Snape, sitting beside Lily notices that she is always right even 
though he does everything the book says and Yet his potion never gets 
the better grade as Lily even though he explicitly follows the books 
directions (I think I remember that with Draco, Harry and Hermione).

Snape (being very observant) continues to watch Lily and copies 
everything she does and gets the better grade. Wouldn't he then start 
to make notations of proper procedure in his book? Wouldn't Snape 
then many years later, after being the book-secured-person that he 
once was, before Lily taught him otherwise, make comments to Hermione 
Granger such as an inferable know-it-all, when books aren't always 
right. (Snape always teaching just not obviously) 

Snow (Previously) signed off as:
> still recovering from too many deaths in the family
not on
> much since

Judy:
Ooo, I am very sorry to hear this. My condolences, and I hope the
future brings happier days.

Snow:
Thanks very much for your thoughts. Just wanted to let everyone know 
that I wasn't intentionally being rude, simply overwhelmed. 


-- Judy, who should be working, but feels compelled to say nice
things about Snape

Snow:

I really like him too
which took me awhile to get to where Snape was 
coming from until JustCarol on the `main' allowed my thickhead to 
truly go beyond the obvious, until then I was a fence-sitter. 

I still don't think Snape was ultimate in Potions till the Lily 
influence :-)

Snow






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 02:49:21 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:49:21 -0000
Subject: What is the purpose of the green potion?
In-Reply-To: <decrra+pr8e@...>
Message-ID: <degn7h+tjb9@...>

Eloise:
> Dumbledore tells us that Voldemort would have wanted whoever stole 
> the Horcrux to survive long enough  for him to find out how he had 
> managed the theft. Speculation amongst various posters that the 
> potion forces memories to the surface reinforces the idea of 
> interrogation, but there are a couple of problems with this, from
>  my POV.

> If Dumbledore is correct, then Voldemort needs to be aware *and 
> quickly* that the Horcrux has been taken.  If Voldemort knew that 
the 
> original was stolen (leading to RAB's death*) then either 
> a) he would have recovered  and re-hidden it or 
> b) he would be actively looking for it. 
> The latter is quite a significant thing to become aware of only in 
> the last book. 

Jen: Voldemort's arrogance is at work here, too. Dumbledore doesn't 
say "Voldemort will want to know who stole his Horcrux" 
but "Voldemort will want to know who penetrated so far into his 
defenses and why they were intent on emptying the basin." Implying 
LV is certain his Horcrux will not be stolen no matter how far 
someone penetrates, and he believes his protections are fail-safe. 

So the potion doesn't kill instantly, but either the potion or most 
likely the basin collects the intentions of the intruder, probably 
as the potion is being drunk. Voldemort assumes any person drinking 
the potion will either drink the water in the lake, maybe a fast-
acting posion, or be dragged down by the Inferi in a weakened state. 
Then Voldemort can leisurely study the basin when he next visits the 
cave.

Eloise: 
> I'm not sure I believe Dumbledore on this occasion. I believe it
> is a convenient fiction foisted on him by the dastardly author.

Jen: Hehehe-this explanation works, too.

Eloise: 
> What does the potion actually do in terms of the book?
> 1) It provides an obstacle to retrieving the Horcrux
> 2) It becomes a test for Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore
> 3) It potentially makes Harry an agent of Dumbledore's death
> 4) It produces some intriguing dialogue
> 5) It produces a Dumbledore dependent on Harry's help (and in
>    David's view thus enlightens us as to DD's greatest fear)
> 6) It complicates the issue of what exactly killed Dumbledore

Jen: There's another reason. The potion also tells us about the 
psychology of LV, his weaknesses and obsessions, as well as the ways 
he overestimates himself and underestimates the enemy. No one should 
have penetrated his defenses, no one should be willing to drink the 
unknown poison (or even figure out it needs to be drunk in the first 
place!) and no one should know about the Horcruxes. Dumbledore was 
capable of all three. Talking Harry through that potion business 
helped Harry see Voldemort isn't *only* interested in killing 
people, that he is meticulous about his protections, and that Harry 
will probably need the help of someone like a Hermione to decode the 
protections <g>.....

(The only other explanation I can come up with is that the cave was 
a trap specifically set up for Dumbledore by Voldemort. But that 
still leaves the problem of the fake Horcrux to account for. *sigh*.)

The way Dumbledore deconstructed Voldmemort's magical style in the 
cave will serve Harry in the future, I think. Hopefully JKR won't 
just drop the idea she spent so much time on in HBP, that Harry 
needs to understand where Riddle came from and how he evolved into 
Voldemort if he hopes to track down the Horcruxes. I'd find it 
disappointing if Harry *never* remembered or used what he learned in 
all the lessons with Dumbledore. 

Someone suggested on the main list maybe Dumbledore's way of seeing 
invisible magic will be something Harry realizes he can do, too. 
Maybe this skill will even be the mystery of Lily's and Harry's 
eyes? I keep thinking of that interview where JKR side-stepped the 
issue of doing magic with eyes instead of a wand:

Lizo: "Are there any special wizarding powers in your world that 
depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like
"
JKR: "Why do you want to know this?" 
Lizo: "I just vaguely wondered."
JKR: "Why?" 
Lizo: "Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got 
Lilly Potter's eyes?"
JKR: "Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about 
that. I'm going to say no more. Very clever."

Eloise:
> The thing *specific* to the potion is that it evoked Dumbledore's 
> strange ramblings. ~And that Harry heard them. What Dumbledore
> says is not secondary to the use of the potion: I believe that JKR
> used the potion specifically to provide a vehicle for what he
> says. In which case the words *are* significant to future plot
> developments: they are not the memories of the Inferi, they are
> probably nothing to do with RAB (whose identity is important only
> in terms of helping Harry to find the locket). I personally doubt,
> true or not, that JKR will ever spend time exposing Puppetmaster!
> DD so his remorse over past decisions will be neither here nor
> there in terms of the plot development. Which, as all roads 
> inevitably do, leads me right back to Snape.

Jen: All that's very true. I don't like any of my roads to lead to 
Snape <g>, so here's a possible alternative.

Dumbledore's greatest fear must be important or JKR wouldn't have 
hedged about it in the interview.  I think that's what we're seeing 
while Dumbledore drinks the potion, a boggart-type experience which 
affected him severely. Wouldn't an extremely clever wizard have a 
correspondingly huge fear that something will bring down everything 
he's worked for? Something really Big. Like dying before he tells 
Harry everything he needs to know :). Maybe David's idea fits, that 
losing Harry would be his biggest fear. I'm not sure how that would 
play out in the next book with DD gone, though. Will have to think 
about this part a bit more....






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 07:47:01 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:47:01 -0000
Subject: Anagrams
In-Reply-To: <deg7nk+2bts@...>
Message-ID: <deh8ll+9249@...>

Judy:
> Penvensie & pensieve are almost anagrams -- Penvensie has an 
> extra "N".

I think you'll find that Penvensie is a typo (something with which I'm 
initimitely acquainted). The name is correctly spelled Pevensie later 
in the same post.

~Eloise





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 08:04:50 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:04:50 -0000
Subject: Wolfsbane potion (was; Re: Snape and Lily - school connections?)
In-Reply-To: <dege7j+kf8c@...>
Message-ID: <deh9n2+t407@...>

> Snow:
> 
> Very good point about the Wolfsbane buttttttt
what if Lily were 
> already working on that particular potion before her demise? Lily 
> would be someone I would think would attempt to make a potion to help 
> her boyfriend/husband's best bud more so than Snape. This is not to 
> say Snape actually invented the potion but if anyone had been 
> interested in making a potion to `help' poor Lupin I would think it 
> would have been someone who really cared two sickles for Any person 
> who had been bitten by a werewolf and would want to help them. 

Eloise:

Appealing theory, but we have canon <g> for who invented it. In HBP Ch 
7 we learn that Marcus Belby's Uncle Damocles received the Order of 
Merlin for doing so. However, it's very tricky to brew and Snape is one 
of the few skilled enough to do so (probably Lily could have, had she 
lived, which would have been all the better for Lupin).

~Eloise

who wonders what little story is lurking there as she can't believe 
that anyone in the Potterverse called Damocles doesn't have an 
interesting history.






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 08:53:33 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:53:33 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <def9fj+o787@...>
Message-ID: <dehcid+uncr@...>

Eloise:
> > We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody
> in  the WW think Harry was subject to one? 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Because the ministry has ways of detecting it.
> "The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once that this was a
> wizard's murder." "They can detect magic but not the perpetrator." 
> HBP-US  367,368


Eloise:
Fair cop.
And I guess on the evidence of Dobby's Hover Charm that they can tell 
*what* spell is used. Otherwise I'd be tempted to suggest that they 
knew magic had been used, but not what magic.

However, I'm not entirely happy with this because the implication (in 
Dumbledore's answer re Morfin) although not spelled out, is that 
Tom's magic in the Riddle House was picked up because it was underage 
magic in a property not inhabited by adult wizarding folk, whereas 
his spell on Morfin wasn't, for the opposite reason. If it weren't 
for that, I would read "The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once 
that this was a  wizard's murder," to mean that they recognised the 
signs of an AK in the unexpected, apparently injury-free deaths and 
the look of horror on the faces (which would beg the question of how 
they got involved in these Muggle murders at all). 

That there had been magic at Godric's Hollow was presumably easily 
detectable; that Harry had been specifically subject to an AK, on the 
evidence available, I should have thought less so.  The AK's aimed at 
the Potters were performed in a magical household and moreover one 
that was protected by the Fidelius. I wonder if the MOM radar would 
have picked them up at all? But, then perhaps it was able to 
penetrate the protections on GH and sense three separate AKs. My 
PS/SS has just disappeared into the black hole that is my youngest 
one's bedroom. Does Hagrid suggest it was MOM officials that were 
swarming over the place, or the Muggle authorities?

How far does the MOM go to detect magic? Are they just on the look 
out for certain spells, or magic performed under certain 
circumstances? Or both? As you implicitly acknowledge below (though 
elegantly explaining it away) there's a potential inconsistency here 
with the Bryce murder. 
 
Pippin:
> Now, Voldemort presumably has ways of interfering with the detection
> when he wants a murder to remain secret, as in the case of Frank 
Bryce
> or Bertha Jorkins, 


Eloise:
If so, despite mastering the "complex" magic he needed to implant a 
false memory in Morfin's mind (and also, presumably, to create a 
Horcrux), he hadn't discovered how to interfere with detection when 
he murdered his family. Dumbledore didn't think of that one, but put 
the MOM's lack of in interest in the Bryce murder down to a lack of 
interest in Muggles. 

An alternative for the Bryce inconsistency is that the Riddle house 
is now registered as a Wizarding property and therefore not monitored 
for untoward magical activity. I don't think  Tom's name can be on 
the title deeds, though. I always had my suspicions that the absentee 
owner was Malfoy.

But then why didn't all the stuff in the graveyard register (lucky 
for Harry, that, or he'd have been hauled up for underage magic out 
of school again)?

And why didn't the MOM detect that Cedric died from an AK, either 
from detecting the spell being cast (presumably Voldemort somehow 
shielded the graveyard from detection) or at the least from the post 
mortem evidence? 

And there's another thing here that I'm not quite getting my head 
round. The MOM detected Harry's Patronus in OoP, even though it was 
performed out in the open. 

How did they know it was *Harry* and how did they know the spell was 
cast in the presence of a Muggle? Sure he's the only wizard recorded 
as living in the area, but that's hardly proof that it was him and 
the Owl he received was very specific (unlike the Hover Charm letter, 
IIRC, which I think just said that they knew the charm had been 
performed at his home).

Simple answer
 they detected it because it was underage magic
..but 
then they would know that the magic performed in Morfin's home was 
done by a minor, which they don't because they can only detect magic, 
not the perpetrator and here we are back at the beginning.

(I guess we can get round this one by saying that there was a 
witness. However, within the action of the book, I don't think the 
MOM's detection of the charm is questioned. I could be wrong as my 
grasp of OoP canon isn't the securest.)


Pippin:
> but I am sure that if all had gone as Voldemort 
> planned, the Dark Mark would have blazed above Godric's Hollow that 
> night.  The Potter murder was not supposed to be a 
> secret.


Eloise:
Although I doubt that Voldemort would have wanted anyone to know the 
reason for the murder, viz that there was *anyone*, let alone a baby, 
whose potential power he feared and therefore he might not have 
advertised it.

> Eloise:
> > What does Diary!Tom *know*? The fact that he knew about Harry's
> early history is intriguing. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Diary!Tom says he learned about Harry from Ginny :"Well, you see,
> Ginnytold me all about you. Your whole *fascinating* history."


Eloise:
Thanks for that. My COS has gone AWOL, which has been very 
frustrating recently.


> Eloise:
> > So we have a spell that doesn't act like an AK and yet it not 
being
> one  just doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting.
> > 
> > I can only believe with Neri that if Harry *is* a Horcrux, then he
> is  an unintentional one and even then...
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Well, we know that wizards can do unintentional magic, especially if
> they're angry or frightened. Voldemort, seeing his own AK bounce
> off and come at him would be very angry and frightened indeed, I
> would think.
> 
> He might have formed a horcrux the same way Harry blew up
> Aunt Marge, as a subconscious expression of his rage and fear,
> and like Harry, he would have no idea that he'd done it until he
> saw the results.

Eloise:
What I was trying to say, really.

> Eloise:
> > Do/can the rips heal? Does *any* killing rip the soul? Are those
> who  kill in the course of war similarly damaged? And what damage
> exactly  does the ripping do? 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Slughorn says "By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." 
> It sounds like he is using "killing" as a synonym for murder and 
that
> malice and premeditation are important. And we have this from
> Sirius, "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he 
could 
> help it. Always brought people in alive where possible." GoF  ch27.
> So Moody has killed, and yet he's an order member in good standing.


Eloise:
This is something I've found difficult. The AK is "the killing 
curse", yet it's hard to imagine there's only one magical means of 
killing someone, even just one curse that is specifically a killing 
curse. It works both ways. Calling it the "killing" curse, in a way 
makes it sound more neutral than *murder* which led me to ask before 
whether it was in fact possible to perform it without malice (but 
obviously with intent). OTOH, it's Unforgivable. 


Debbie:
<Snipped all that went before as it made perfect sense>

>Therefore, he went to Godric's Hollow with the intention of
>killing James to tear out the soul fragment he needed (which is why
>Lily needn't have died)


Eloise:
Except that why would he leave an enemy alive when he had the 
opportunity to get rid of them? And what more vengeful enemy could 
there be that a mother whose son had just had Dark Magic performed on 
him?

~Eloise








From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 12:17:03 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:17:03 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
Message-ID: <dehofv+d1j3@...>

I just had a very bad thought.  What if RAB wasn't successful?  What if 
(s)he got into the cave, and replaced the locket, slipping the original 
Mucklux into a pocket, but was then killed by the potion/water from the 
lake/Inferi/whatever, and is now an Inferus dwelling in the lake?

LV's Chunk-o'-soul is now better guarded than he intended!

How would Harry get it back?  Pick an Inferius' pocket?  EEEEEWW!

Ginger, wishing pleasant dreams to those who are on their way to bed.





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 13:47:30 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <degn7h+tjb9@...>
Message-ID: <20050824134730.91692.qmail@...>

I am afraid to post this item (possible flint from
HP5?) to this crowd, because you folks are so sharp
and ... er, let's say attentive to detail. And, I am
almost sure some folks will have debated this into
oblivion, but I searched the HP-Lexicon (Hi Steve!)
and didn't see any reference to this passage:

Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you before
he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
parents, ever achieved." (OP37)

Now my question is this: Is it *four* or *five* times?


Arguably, Harry escaped LV:

(1) in October, c1981 - Godric's Hollow
(2) In the PS, when LV was sticking out of the back of
Quirrell's head and demanding that Quirrell kill
Harry. Seems to me that would count as facing LV and
escaping - Hey, for that matter he also faced LV and
escaped while in the dark forest. 
(3) CoS: Does LV not attempt to kill Harry with the
basilisk? Doesn't Harry escape? 
(4) GoF - graveyard scene: I'd say this one counts for
sure, no?
(5) OotP - DoM scene: The speech from DD occurs after
this scene. 

Thus, it seems to me that DD would have been more
accurate in saying that Harry had faced LV and escaped
5 or 6 times.  I do apologize if this is old, old
news. 

-Waldo


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 14:16:02 2005
From: kirsty.hiseman at foxy_kirsty.yahoo.invalid (Kirsty)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:16:02 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
In-Reply-To: <dehofv+d1j3@...>
Message-ID: <dehvf2+uge1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> I just had a very bad thought.  What if RAB wasn't successful?  What 
if 
> (s)he got into the cave, and replaced the locket, slipping the 
original 
> Mucklux into a pocket, but was then killed by the potion/water from 
the 
> lake/Inferi/whatever, and is now an Inferus dwelling in the lake?
> 
> LV's Chunk-o'-soul is now better guarded than he intended!
> 
> How would Harry get it back?  Pick an Inferius' pocket?  EEEEEWW!
> 
> Ginger, wishing pleasant dreams to those who are on their way to bed.

Nice thought - that way it would be impossible to find.

However if we are to believe that the locket is back at the Black 
house then this would suggest that RAB was successful!  (That's of 
course if you believe RAB to be Regulus Black?)

Kirsty

New to this discussion business





From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 15:19:33 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Possible flint from HBP (was OotP)?
In-Reply-To: <20050824134730.91692.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050824151933.51985.qmail@...>

--- Waldo Glatisant wrote:

> possible flint from
> HP5?

> Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you
> before
> he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
> scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
> you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
> escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
> something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
> parents, ever achieved." (OP37)
> 
> Now my question is this: Is it *four* or *five*
> times?
> 
> 
> Arguably, Harry escaped LV:
> 
> (1) in October, c1981 - Godric's Hollow
> (2) In the PS, when LV was sticking out of the back
> of
> Quirrell's head and demanding that Quirrell kill
> Harry. Seems to me that would count as facing LV and
> escaping - Hey, for that matter he also faced LV and
> escaped while in the dark forest. 
> (3) CoS: Does LV not attempt to kill Harry with the
> basilisk? Doesn't Harry escape? 
> (4) GoF - graveyard scene: I'd say this one counts
> for
> sure, no?
> (5) OotP - DoM scene: The speech from DD occurs
> after
> this scene. 
> 
> Thus, it seems to me that DD would have been more
> accurate in saying that Harry had faced LV and
> escaped
> 5 or 6 times.  I do apologize if this is old, old
> news. 
> 

CV: I suppose one could argue that the escape in CoS
didn't really count because that wasn't LV, only
Reconstituted!Horcrux!LV. Although, as you point out,
it does seem a bit flinty.

CV, wondering if LV knows that his horcruxes could
gain a life of their own, re: Diary!Tom. Having your
horcruxes come back to challenge your Ultimate Evil
Supremacy - oh, the things you don't find in the Evil
Overlord instruction manual. http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 15:41:11 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:41:11 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dehcid+uncr@...>
Message-ID: <dei4en+9f31@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" <eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
> Eloise:
> > > We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody
> > in  the WW think Harry was subject to one? 
> > 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Because the ministry has ways of detecting it.
> > "The Ministry, on the other hand, knew at once that this was a
> > wizard's murder." "They can detect magic but not the perpetrator." 
> > HBP-US  367,368
> 
> 
> Eloise:
> Fair cop.
> And I guess on the evidence of Dobby's Hover Charm that they can tell 
> *what* spell is used. Otherwise I'd be tempted to suggest that they 
> knew magic had been used, but not what magic.
> 

Kneasy:
Yep. Because Harry wasn't murdered.
Lily was, James too, probably - but not Harry.

I suspect that this "the Ministry sees all, knows all" has got a bit out of 
hand from Jo's viewpoint and that we've been drawing conclusions we
weren't meant to.
What was a useful bit of plot business in CoS just doesn't stand up when
applied to the wider WW. Given the resources available no criminal is safe;
spell-tracking identifies the place, spell identification identifies the spell
used, Prior Incantato identifies the wand, and veritaserum puts the tin lid 
on it. Everybody can sleep secure in their beds. 
Too neat.

SFAIK only in Harry's case have the actual spells used been identified. As
you point out, they even know that a Muggle was present when he produced
a Patronus. Now really, is this likely? Not unless it was a Ministry set-up 
from the start - which it was.

Dobby and the floating cake - if they can't tell the difference between 
wand magic by a minor and non-wand magic from a House Elf then the
identification system can't be trusted. Though there is the outside possibility
that that was a contrived set-up as well.

Personally I've never believed that Voldy threw an AK at Harry, all the evidence
is against it. He cast something for sure, but it probably wasn't with his wand,
nothing shows on the replay in the graveyard and the destruction of Voldy's
body and of the house can't be glossed over as a non-physical result of a
cast spell that wasn't worth recording. 
This is probably where someone chimes in with "maybe it was a non-verbal 
AK". So show me one in canon; until you do it's whistling in the dark.

It gets much more manageable if one assumes that it wasn't an AK but
something else. Yeah, Possession Theory again - or a variant that would
place some of Voldy's soul plus powers inside Harry. Interesting that Harry's
scar is 'S' shaped - just like a serpent.  Wonder if Voldy marks all his Hxs?








From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 16:33:28 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:33:28 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dehcid+uncr@...>
Message-ID: <dei7go+tdvh@...>

> 
> Eloise:
> If so, despite mastering the "complex" magic he needed to implant a 
> false memory in Morfin's mind (and also, presumably, to create a 
> Horcrux), he hadn't discovered how to interfere with detection when 
> he murdered his family. Dumbledore didn't think of that one, but
put  the MOM's lack of in interest in the Bryce murder down to a lack
of interest in Muggles. 

Pippin:
If framing Morfin was part of his plan, Voldemort would want the
murder discovered. Morfin didn't fit with Voldemort's little fantasy
of being descended from a great wizarding family any more than  the 
Riddles, Sr. did. Ergo, he had to be eliminated. It's the same sort
of  impulse that led Mrs. Black to blast inconvenient relatives off
the family tree, only Voldemort wasn't satisfied with vicarious 
obliterations.

The Riddles were a wealthy and prominent family, and their bodies 
were discovered, making ministry involvement more or less mandatory.
The prime directive is preventing the discovery of the magical
world, after all.

But Bryce was an old man, friendless and unconnected, who simply 
disappeared, no doubt devoured by Nagini after he was dead. The
Ministry could barely bestir itself to take an interest in the absence
of Bertha Jorkins, a witch.  Why would they care if some old Muggle
man disappears?

Eloise:
> But then why didn't all the stuff in the graveyard register (lucky 
> for Harry, that, or he'd have been hauled up for underage magic out 
> of school again)?

Pippin:
Voldemort's servants have risen high in the ministry, and are
presumably better able to  shield themselves from detection
than when they were all Hogwarts students.

Eloise: 
> And why didn't the MOM detect that Cedric died from an AK, either 
> from detecting the spell being cast (presumably Voldemort somehow 
> shielded the graveyard from detection) or at the least from the
post  mortem evidence? 

Pippin:
Wasn't the official line was that he'd died of a freak accident?
Voldemort's supporters would be perfectly happy with that, 
along with the ostrich brigade. Dumbledore's supporters were 
insisting he was murdered by Voldemort, but would they press 
too hard for a change in the official cause of death unaccompanied 
by an admission of Voldemort's return?

That could only point the finger at Harry, since he was the only
one in the maze. No good.

BTW, now that we know JKR's real opinion of spectator sports, the
spectacle of an arena full of fans raptly looking on as nothing much
happens (in the 2nd and 3rd tasks)  sounds less like an oversight 
and more like a sly joke. 

Eloise: 
> And there's another thing here that I'm not quite getting my head 
> round. The MOM detected Harry's Patronus in OoP, even though it was 
> performed out in the open. 
> 
> How did they know it was *Harry* and how did they know the spell
was  cast in the presence of a Muggle? 

Pippin:
Umbridge knew it was Harry because she'd sent the dementors to
attack him. They probably reported what had happened, including
the presence of a Muggle, straight to her, and she in turn told 
Mafalda Hopkirk exactly what to put in the owl,
implying, if necessary,  that it would have a negative impact on 
Mafalda's job security if she asked too many questions.

That was, of course, Plan B. Plan A would have had Harry
soul-sucked by 'rogue' dementors. 

> 
> Eloise:
> This is something I've found difficult. The AK is "the killing 
curse", yet it's hard to imagine there's only one magical means of 
killing someone, even just one curse that is specifically a killing 
curse. It works both ways. Calling it the "killing" curse, in a way 
makes it sound more neutral than *murder* which led me to ask
before  whether it was in fact possible to perform it without malice 
(but obviously with intent). OTOH, it's Unforgivable. 
> 

Pippin:
I don't think any of the Unforgivables can be performed without
malice and intent, and that's why they are unforgivable. We know
there are curses that accomplish the same things that don't require 
as much of either. Sectum sempra could easily kill, yet Harry had
no idea at all of the damage it could do. 

Merope could have used imperius instead of a love potion to 
ensnare Tom Riddle, and we've seen that love potions can have
unintended results, too. 

Potions can also cause agony or death, regardless of
the brewer's intention. Hermione certainly didn't mean to become
a catgirl, and Neville's potion might have poisoned Trevor.

In a way the lesser curses are more  dangerous, though seemingly 
less powerful.  Doesn't Dumbledore say that indifference often does 
more damage than hate? That the ministry is so much more concerned 
about the unforgivables just proves that they are foolish compared to 
Dumbledore. But we knew that.

Pippin





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 17:23:33 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:23:33 -0000
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <20050824134730.91692.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <deiael+9a82@...>

Waldo:
Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you before
> he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
> scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
> you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
> escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
> something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
> parents, ever achieved." (OP37)
> 
> Now my question is this: Is it *four* or *five* times?
> 
> 
> Arguably, Harry escaped LV:
> 
> (1) in October, c1981 - Godric's Hollow
> (2) In the PS, when LV was sticking out of the back of
> Quirrell's head and demanding that Quirrell kill
> Harry. Seems to me that would count as facing LV and
> escaping - Hey, for that matter he also faced LV and
> escaped while in the dark forest. 
> (3) CoS: Does LV not attempt to kill Harry with the
> basilisk? Doesn't Harry escape? 
> (4) GoF - graveyard scene: I'd say this one counts for
> sure, no?
> (5) OotP - DoM scene: The speech from DD occurs after
> this scene. 
> 
> Thus, it seems to me that DD would have been more
> accurate in saying that Harry had faced LV and escaped
> 5 or 6 times.  I do apologize if this is old, old
> news. 


Pippin:
I think it's only the Godric's Hollow escape that counts in 
Book One. The other two times, Harry did not defeat Voldemort
by his own power. He was rescued, first by Firenze and then
by Dumbledore himself. 

Pippin





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:07:15 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:07:15 -0000
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <deiael+9a82@...>
Message-ID: <deid0j+7ed7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Waldo:
> Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you before
> > he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
> > scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
> > you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
> > escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
> > something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
> > parents, ever achieved." (OP37)
> > 
<snip> 
> Pippin:
> I think it's only the Godric's Hollow escape that counts in 
> Book One. The other two times, Harry did not defeat Voldemort
> by his own power. He was rescued, first by Firenze and then
> by Dumbledore himself. 
> 
> Pippin

Now Lyn:
But defeat or rescue, he escaped LV's harmful intent. DD directly references the number of 
times Harry has been able to "escape." It's just another example of JKR's sloppiness, which 
I hope she adds to her "must edit" list.

There is another tidbit in the DD comments that Waldo references. DD says the neither 
Harry's or Neville's parents "ever achieved" an escape from LV. This seems to make clear 
that whatever the two couples seperate three acts of defiance were, they never involved a 
direct confrontation of any magnitude with LV. Kind of puts a limit on just how strong a 
defiance was involved, IMO.








From jrwahlund at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:07:42 2005
From: jrwahlund at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid (JoAnna Wahlund)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:07:42 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <deiael+9a82@...>
References: <20050824134730.91692.qmail@...>
	 <deiael+9a82@...>
Message-ID: <a63632460508241107186fbf7e@...>

By that logic, the DoM scene in OotP also doesn't count.

On 8/24/05, pippin_999 <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
> 
>  Waldo:
> Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you before
> > he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
> > scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
> > you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
> > escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
> > something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
> > parents, ever achieved." (OP37)
> > 
> > Now my question is this: Is it *four* or *five* times?
> > 
> > 
> > Arguably, Harry escaped LV:
> > 
> > (1) in October, c1981 - Godric's Hollow
> > (2) In the PS, when LV was sticking out of the back of
> > Quirrell's head and demanding that Quirrell kill
> > Harry. Seems to me that would count as facing LV and
> > escaping - Hey, for that matter he also faced LV and
> > escaped while in the dark forest. 
> > (3) CoS: Does LV not attempt to kill Harry with the
> > basilisk? Doesn't Harry escape? 
> > (4) GoF - graveyard scene: I'd say this one counts for
> > sure, no?
> > (5) OotP - DoM scene: The speech from DD occurs after
> > this scene. 
> > 
> > Thus, it seems to me that DD would have been more
> > accurate in saying that Harry had faced LV and escaped
> > 5 or 6 times. I do apologize if this is old, old
> > news. 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> I think it's only the Godric's Hollow escape that counts in 
> Book One. The other two times, Harry did not defeat Voldemort
> by his own power. He was rescued, first by Firenze and then
> by Dumbledore himself. 
> 
> Pippin
> 
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
> 
>    - Visit your group "the_old_crowd<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd>" 
>    on the web.
>     - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com<the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
>    Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. 
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------
>  



-- 
~JoAnna~

Proud mother of Elanor Mary
born 01/13/05

Elanor's website:
http://www.geocities.com/j_wahlund


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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:08:58 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:08:58 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily and the HBP
Message-ID: <deid3q+dp47@...>

Not in response to any particular thread, but my own thoughts
on the subject.

I don't think young Snape was a member of the Slug Club. He
was unconnected, socially awkward, physically unattractive, 
openly interested in the Dark Arts -- I just don't see him as
the sort of Slytherin Sluggy would be proud of.

I can see Lily and Snape being friends, however, very platonic
friends, before the blow up in the pensieve. They would 
have kept it secret, because Slytherins and Gryffindors
are supposed to detest one another on sight. 

I think that most of the HPB notes were written before 6th year.
The book is old enough, and certainly the levicorpus spell was 
worked out (or rediscovered) in the fifth year, before NEWT level 
courses.

And as we know, people with a flare for potions often don't wait
till 6th year to try their hand at advanced work. Hermione
certainly didn't, and I think ton-tongue tofees and canary
creams are probably potions in essence, like the drugged
cakes that Hermione prepared for Crabbe and Goyle.

Maybe Snape and Lily met while raiding the restricted section <g>.
It's interesting that Snape recommends Most Potente
Potions, not Advanced Potion Making, as the source
of the recipe for polyjuice.

But it definitely would have made Snape jealous if 5th
year Lily had been picked for the Slug Club and not him, 
because I think what Snape really wants is *recognition.*

Of course, that's just what he can't have, as long as he's
a spy. But it fits -- with all the I am the potions master,
half blood prince, yes that is my job, craving the order
of merlin, and so on. 

"Very gratifying," said Dumbledore. "We all like appreciation
for our own hard work, of course."  

It may have been to get that appreciation that he joined
the DE's. 

But what I'm getting at is, suppose Lily and Snape were
helping each other in secret, studying potions,  but Snape 
started to feel jealous of her, the way Hermione started being
jealous of Harry in HBP. And then, in the pensieve, Lily breaks
their compact by trying to help him in public, and we 
know, if there's one thing Snape can't stand, it's being helped
in public by someone he's jealous of.

So he says, "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods
like her!"

and she says, "Fine. I won't bother in future."

And she means it, not only the help she tried to give
him just then, but help with potions, too.

And that's the end of their friendship,  so that
by the time they are having classes together, in sixth
year, Slughorn doesn't observe them collaborating.

Slughorn doesn't notice they have a similar style, maybe
because Snape isn't the kind of student he pays attention to,
and maybe because Snape resolved that he wasn't going to
use anything he worked out with Lily if he could possibly
help it.  

So Snape threw the book away or abandoned it at
the back of the cupboard and did his best to forget it
ever existed.

And of course, it's Snape's worst memory because he
never got to make it up with her, and worse than that,
he feels responsible for her death.

What do you think?

Pippin





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:38:08 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:38:08 -0000
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <a63632460508241107186fbf7e@...>
Message-ID: <deieqg+2b68@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, JoAnna Wahlund <jrwahlund at g...>
wrote:

> By that logic, the DoM scene in OotP also doesn't count.
> 

Pippin:

Harry was not rescued from possession at the DoM. He saved himself. 
The times that Harry saved himself are what count toward establishing
Harry as a powerful person in his own right, which is what Dumbledore
is talking about. 

Pippin





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:45:12 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:45:12 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dei4en+9f31@...>
Message-ID: <deif7o+prvg@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
<snip of lots of illustrations of JKR's sloppiness>
 
> Personally I've never believed that Voldy threw an AK at Harry, all the evidence
> is against it. He cast something for sure, but it probably wasn't with his wand,
> nothing shows on the replay in the graveyard and the destruction of Voldy's
> body and of the house can't be glossed over as a non-physical result of a
> cast spell that wasn't worth recording. 
> This is probably where someone chimes in with "maybe it was a non-verbal 
> AK". So show me one in canon; until you do it's whistling in the dark.

Lyn now.

Yes, yes and another yes. Rowling has had six books of umpteen pages, not to menton 
interviews, to reconcile her facts  on the "killing" curse that was suppused to be 
delivered than night, and she has never done so. She was quite willing to be brutally 
specific with regards to "ships," yet chooses not to be straight forward and definitive about 
this point. 
> 
> It gets much more manageable if one assumes that it wasn't an AK but
> something else. Yeah, Possession Theory again - or a variant that would
> place some of Voldy's soul plus powers inside Harry. Interesting that Harry's
> scar is 'S' shaped - just like a serpent.  Wonder if Voldy marks all his Hxs?

For me, there will be no satisfactory ending of this series if it does not logically reconcile 
the outstanding discrepancies between Possession, Immortality and HXs--all of which 
relate to her conception and charaterization of the soul/self. My reading of what she has 
provided us so far is that Possession is the soul (actually mind/soul as she seems to 
integrate the two) of one entering into the body/soul of another and exerting dominance. 
Apparently one does not require a body to perform possession as neither diary Riddle or 
disembodied LV required one for their possessions. Indeed, no LV body was present 
during the possession of Harry at the Ministry.  

Now let me go one step farther with this, which is surely a little freaky, but perhaps a 
momentary amusement. By all appearances from the canon to date, the AK that killed Lilly 
was the last wand spell prior to GH blowing up. What if there were two separate events 
occuring at the end. One where LV AK's Lilly's body, and another where he attempts to 
possess Harry (still likely a prelude to later intentions to kill Harry), but what if when his 
soul attempted to possess/enter Harry, it encounted all or some fragment of Lilly's soul 
there as well, prepared to struggle for dominance of Harry's soul. Lilly's soul would seek 
temporary benificent dominance (knowing it can withdraw later, as usually happens in 
possession), to prevent LV's more destructive dominance. The scar results not from the AK 
attempt on Harry, but the violent expulsion of LV's soul (possession) from Harry. This 
expulsion occured as both Lilly's and LV's bodies die by means of the rebounding curse 
(but a curse that rebounded from Lilly, not Harry), and as both Lilly and LV's souls fail to 
maintain a grasp on Harry's body. The end result is not only powers that LV leaves behind, 
but powers that Lilly leaves behind within Harry (and related to the significance of the 
Green eyes, which may in part represent the soul fragement of Lilly that exists in Harry). It 
may be that this remains part of the reason why LV was not able to maintain possession of 
Harry at the Ministry. As for why LV's fragmented soul would survive GH and Lilly's didn't, 
that may well fall back on his many measures to achieve immortality. Anyway, I just 
wonder if we won't come to find that a portion of Lilly currently resides with Harry, and 
that it may be this portion that leaves Harry's body at the end.

Interesting, by the way, that some consider their progeny to provide a certain form of 
immortality for themselves, while LV appears never to have sought this as one of his many 
measures. 

I'm not really advocating for all this gibberish, but it made for a personally amusing 
meants to spend a few moments.





From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:53:18 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:53:18 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily and the HBP
In-Reply-To: <deid3q+dp47@...>
Message-ID: <deifmu+iiho@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
< minor snip> 
> I can see Lily and Snape being friends, however, very platonic
> friends, before the blow up in the pensieve. They would 
> have kept it secret, because Slytherins and Gryffindors
> are supposed to detest one another on sight. 
><another snip> 
> But what I'm getting at is, suppose Lily and Snape were
> helping each other in secret, studying potions,  but Snape 
> started to feel jealous of her, the way Hermione started being
> jealous of Harry in HBP. And then, in the pensieve, Lily breaks
> their compact by trying to help him in public, and we 
> know, if there's one thing Snape can't stand, it's being helped
> in public by someone he's jealous of.
> 
> So he says, "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods
> like her!"
> 
> and she says, "Fine. I won't bother in future."
> 
> And she means it, not only the help she tried to give
> him just then, but help with potions, too.
> 
> And that's the end of their friendship,  so that
> by the time they are having classes together, in sixth
> year, Slughorn doesn't observe them collaborating.
> 
> Slughorn doesn't notice they have a similar style, maybe
> because Snape isn't the kind of student he pays attention to,
> and maybe because Snape resolved that he wasn't going to
> use anything he worked out with Lily if he could possibly
> help it.  
> 
> So Snape threw the book away or abandoned it at
> the back of the cupboard and did his best to forget it
> ever existed.
> 
> And of course, it's Snape's worst memory because he
> never got to make it up with her, and worse than that,
> he feels responsible for her death.
> 
> What do you think?


Lyn Now:
I think that is almost exactly it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I do think it very likely 
that they had a clandestine, but at least overtly platonic, relationship well before the 
Penceive scene, and that the events of that scene did change the character of that 
relationship. 






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 18:56:54 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:56:54 -0000
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <deieqg+2b68@...>
Message-ID: <deiftm+9eu3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, JoAnna Wahlund <jrwahlund at g...>
> wrote:
> 
> > By that logic, the DoM scene in OotP also doesn't count.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Harry was not rescued from possession at the DoM. He saved himself. 
> The times that Harry saved himself are what count toward establishing
> Harry as a powerful person in his own right, which is what Dumbledore
> is talking about. 
> 
> Pippin

Lyn Now:
There were actually multiple escapes at the DOM. DD uses the Statues to block the LV AK 
directed at Harry. Harry saves himself from the Possession. Makes one wonder how it 
would have proceeded if Harry hadn't been able to.






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 21:09:16 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:09:16 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dei7go+tdvh@...>
Message-ID: <deinls+ku4r@...>

 Pippin:
> If framing Morfin was part of his plan, Voldemort would want the
> murder discovered. 

Eloise:
Very good point. Although the alternative was that it was a belts and 
braces approach, given that he might have been (*was*, in fact) seen 
in the vicinity and he was a blood relative who could potentially be 
traced.

 Pippin:
<snip>
> 
> The Riddles were a wealthy and prominent family, and their bodies 
> were discovered, making ministry involvement more or less mandatory.
> The prime directive is preventing the discovery of the magical
> world, after all.

Eloise:
Except that the Muggle authorities were just mystified and there's 
not really much danger that they would have made the jump to assume 
that they were magical murders, was there? If the MOM simply kept 
their distance, then  what harm could it do? If they got involved, 
then on canon evidence so far, that involvement would presumably mean 
making the PM (who is the only member of government, save any 
individuals who might have family connections, with knowledge of the 
existence of the WW) aware and hushing the thing up. That doesn't 
seem to have happened.

However Tom's action presupposes that the MOM *would* detect the 
murder and get involved and that therefore a fall man had to be 
found. That it was his uncle was an added bonus.

 Pippin:
> But Bryce was an old man, friendless and unconnected, who simply 
> disappeared, no doubt devoured by Nagini after he was dead. The
> Ministry could barely bestir itself to take an interest in the 
absence
> of Bertha Jorkins, a witch.  Why would they care if some old Muggle
> man disappears?

Eloise:
They wouldn't care, which is what Dumbledore said. And I don't think 
they'd care about the Riddles, either, unless they were much more 
prominent than canon suggests.  As far as I can make out, they were 
just the local toffs, folks that the locals would be interested in, 
but not the public at large. They may have been relatively wealthy, 
but there's no evidence they were famous.


> 
> Eloise:
> > But then why didn't all the stuff in the graveyard register 
(lucky 
> > for Harry, that, or he'd have been hauled up for underage magic 
out 
> > of school again)?
> 
> Pippin:
> Voldemort's servants have risen high in the ministry, and are
> presumably better able to  shield themselves from detection
> than when they were all Hogwarts students.

Do we have any evidence for current DEs in the MOM? Or do you mean 
that the past, people like Rookwood facilitated anti-detection 
methods? Or do you believe in ESE!Fudge? ;-)


> 
> Eloise: 
> > And why didn't the MOM detect that Cedric died from an AK, either 
> > from detecting the spell being cast (presumably Voldemort somehow 
> > shielded the graveyard from detection) or at the least from the
> post  mortem evidence? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Wasn't the official line was that he'd died of a freak accident?

Yes. But what kind of a freak accident? Muggle authorities wouldn't 
just accept a freak accident as cause without some kind of 
investigation. If you and Dumbledore are right, then magic always 
leaves a mark, so there must have been evidence that Cedric's death 
was magical. Fudge was already wary of Harry. I'm surprised the 
Hogwarts mutterings didn't turn into something more substantial in 
the hands of the MOM. Lord knows, they tried to libel him enough 
(through the Prophet) in OoP.

 Pippin:
> Voldemort's supporters would be perfectly happy with that, 
> along with the ostrich brigade. Dumbledore's supporters were 
> insisting he was murdered by Voldemort, but would they press 
> too hard for a change in the official cause of death unaccompanied 
> by an admission of Voldemort's return?

Eloise:
Probably not, but it's still an inconsistency. Why didn't Cedric's 
parents press for an investigation?

 Pippin: 
> That could only point the finger at Harry, since he was the only
> one in the maze. No good.

Eloise:
No good for Dumbledore's supporters, but obvious for the MOM.

<snip>
> 
> Eloise: 
> > And there's another thing here that I'm not quite getting my head 
> > round. The MOM detected Harry's Patronus in OoP, even though it 
was 
> > performed out in the open. 
> > 
> > How did they know it was *Harry* and how did they know the spell
> was  cast in the presence of a Muggle? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Umbridge knew it was Harry because she'd sent the dementors to
> attack him. They probably reported what had happened, including
> the presence of a Muggle, straight to her, and she in turn told 
> Mafalda Hopkirk exactly what to put in the owl,
> implying, if necessary,  that it would have a negative impact on 
> Mafalda's job security if she asked too many questions.
> 
> That was, of course, Plan B. Plan A would have had Harry
> soul-sucked by 'rogue' dementors. 

Eloise:
Yes.  Of course.

The inconsistency is that the charge was capable of being brought. If 
the charge was dependent on there being a witness, then Dumbledore 
was negligent in not demanding prosecution evidence. That he didn't 
suggests that he accepted that the MOM was capable of detecting  a 
specific individual doing magic in the presence of a Muggle. It would 
have been far easier to demolish the case by demanding the testimony 
of a witness for the prosecution than to bring on his own  rather 
dubious and risky defence witness to perjure herself.

> Pippin:
> I don't think any of the Unforgivables can be performed without
> malice and intent, and that's why they are unforgivable. 
<snip> 
> In a way the lesser curses are more  dangerous, though seemingly 
> less powerful.  Doesn't Dumbledore say that indifference often does 
> more damage than hate? That the ministry is so much more concerned 
> about the unforgivables just proves that they are foolish compared 
to 
> Dumbledore. But we knew that.

Eloise:
We did. And I agree that in normal circumstances, one must need 
malice to perform the Unforgivables. It's hard to envisage 
circumstances under which one would wish to hurt another without 
malice, but there are perhaps circumstances under which one might 
wish to control or kill someone without malice. I might really *mean* 
to stop that child running out in front of that lorry by Imperioing 
them. I might really *want* someone to die rather than to suffer any 
longer and AK is instant and potentially merciful. Now whether what 
one wants is *right* in those circumstances is debatable, but it's 
indisputable that one might have the same intent 
(controlling/killing)  in terms of action without the same intent in 
terms of motive.

~Eloise







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 21:57:27 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:57:27 -0000
Subject: Anagrams
In-Reply-To: <deh8ll+9249@...>
Message-ID: <deiqg7+he7o@...>

I said:
> > Penvensie & pensieve are almost anagrams -- Penvensie has an 
> > extra "N".

> I think you'll find that Penvensie is a typo ...The name is correctly 
> spelled Pevensie later in the same post.


Whoops! My mistake.

Actually, I wasn't sure if it was spelled "penvensie" or "pevensie" so 
I Googled "penvensie" and got quite a few links to the Narnia books, 
making me think that was the correct spelling.  In retrospect, I should 
have Googled "pevensie" as well.  

I think "pensieve" is brilliant name even without being a literary 
reference, but a link to the Narnia books would make it even better.

-- Judy






From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 22:10:40 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:10:40 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily - school connections?
In-Reply-To: <dege7j+kf8c@...>
Message-ID: <deir90+35qd@...>

Snow proposed that perhaps Snape had trouble in Potions until Lily 
helped him.

I said: 
>> don't think I can handle the idea that Snape needed help
>> just to pass potions! I think canon is pretty clear that Snape --
>> whatever else he may be -- is excellent at potions.  He made the
>> Wolfbane potion, which Lupin says few wizards can do....

And Snow replied:
> Very good point about the Wolfsbane buttttttt
what if Lily were
> already working on that particular potion before her demise? 

My internet connection was down last night, so I was working on a 
post about this while offline.  Now I see that many of the points I 
planned to make have been made for me!

Eloise pointed out that we now know that neither Snape nor Lily 
invented this potion; it was Marcus Belby's Uncle Damocles.  I must 
confess I was disappointed to learn that Snape hadn't invented the 
potion -- but as not as disappointed as I bet Snape would have been, 
if he were a real person and someone else came up with Wolfbane 
Potion.

Pippin brought up that Snape had been writing potions recipes in his 
Advanced Potions book since at least 5th year, before he would have 
been assigned that book as a text.  This also suggests that he was 
quite good with potions  - why would he be using a textbook from a 
more advanced school year, if he were bad at the subject?

Also, in CoS Snape says he will make the potion to cure 
Petrification, using the school's precious supply of mandrakes that 
Professor Sprout has been growing for months.  I don't think 
Dumbledore would want Snape to use the mandrakes unless Snape was 
very good at potions.  (We don't actually know whether the Mandrake 
Restorative Draught is hard to make, although given that Lockhart 
brags about being supposedly able to make it, it probably is.)    

I also think that, to be good at teaching potions, Snape would have 
to be very skilled with them.  Copying from a friend back in one's 
teens just isn't going to give the type of knowledge Snape would need 
to be a successful potions professor. Now, we do know that Dumbledore 
sometimes hires incompetent teachers -- Lockhart, for example.  But, 
everything indicates that Snape is not in this category.  Even 
Umbridge can finding nothing to condemn in Snape's teaching -- other 
than that she feels the potions he is teaching students are too 
powerful and advanced. 

In regards to my general claim that canon states Snape is good at 
Potions, Snow said:
> Canon, did you say Canon? You wouldn't be referring to the fact that
> Tom Riddle's Mother had a brother that was imprisoned for murders he
> didn't commit? Canon can only take us so far with this Wondrous
> Woman, and then you're on your own. >bg<

But Morfin as the murderer of the Riddles was never part of canon.  
The *reader* is never led to believe that Morfin killed the Riddles; 
it is just the incompetent fools at the Ministry of Magic that ever 
believed this. Yes, JKR likes red herrings and misleading 
clues, but IMO, it's not her style to have Snape look brilliant at 
potions for 6 books and then in the last book suddenly spring on us 
that he isn't.  She usually drops hints much sooner than that, and 
typically resolves those sorts of minor mysteries within one book. 

-- Judy, seemingly under an Imperatus Curse that forces her to defend 
Snape








From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 22:46:51 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:46:51 -0000
Subject: The witness in Godric's Hollow (was: AKs and Horcrux!Harry )
In-Reply-To: <deeksn+ma8h@...>
Message-ID: <deitcr+c0tk@...>

Eloise wrote:
> We Muggles have problems with this AK. *Why the heck* does anybody 
> in the WW think Harry was subject to one? 
> There *must* have been a witness (I think JKR's all but confirmed 
> that by refusing to anwer the question). Even that is problematic,
> for how did the news disseminate? Did that witness tell the truth, 
> did s/he lie or was s/he mistaken?

When was JKR asked about a witness?  Anyone know the quote? 

Regardless of what JKR is or isn't hinting at, we do know for a fact 
that there was at least one witness to Voldemort's murders of James 
and Lily -- Harry.  Now, Harry was an infant at the time,   and 
couldn't describe the event, but some of it presumably was stored in 
his memory because he has what appears to be rather accurate 
flashbacks when he encounters the Dementors.  (If he was a real-world 
kid, these memories would probably just be unintentionally fabricated 
from things he'd heard about the murders. In the book, though, 
Harry's memories cause him to faint, suggesting that JKR intends them 
to be more than just fabrications.  Also, JKR has said she believes 
that everything one sees is stored in one's memory -- research 
strongly shows that memory doesn't work that way in the real world, 
but she can have it work however she wants in her world.) 

So, it's safe to assume that Harry had a memory of his parent's 
murders when he was rescued right after their deaths.  He was too 
young to tell anyone, but Dumbledore, being a skilled Legilimens, 
presumably could see the memory -- after all, Dumbledore saw what 
really happened between Morfin & Tom Riddle, even though Morfin 
himself didn't know the truth. Pulling a memory out of an infant 
seems easy by comparison.  So, Harry could well be the source of the 
information on what happened that night.

As for there being another witness to the murders -- if there is one, 
I don't see how it could be Snape. Standing idly by while Voldemort 
murdered the Potters would hardly fit with Dumbledore's testimony to 
the Wizengemot that Snape risked his life opposing Voldemort. It also 
wouldn't fit well with Dumbledore's claim that Snape deeply regretted 
giving Voldemort the prophecy information, and returned to 
Dumbledore's side as a result of his regret over the danger he had 
caused to the Potters.  

-- Judy






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 24 23:38:50 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] The witness in Godric's Hollow (was: AKs and Horcrux!Harry )
In-Reply-To: <deitcr+c0tk@...>
Message-ID: <20050824233850.58557.qmail@...>

>From the third piece of the Mugglenet/TLC interview in July http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm:
 

MA: Was there anyone else present in Godric?s Hollow the night Harry?s parents were killed?

JKR: No comment.


Judy <judy at ...> wrote:
When was JKR asked about a witness?  Anyone know the quote? 


		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

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




From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 02:57:30 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:57:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's worst fear (was Under the influence)
In-Reply-To: <de48hl+f0k1@...>
Message-ID: <dejc2q+aa30@...>

> 
> "I am not afraid, Harry: I am with you"
> 
> Surely his worst fear is that Harry will be taken from him?
> 
> David

Jen: I ran across this quote in PS: "Not the Stone, boy, you--the 
effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment, I was 
afraid it had." Maybe his greatest fear *is* Harry dying. Dumbledore 
uses the word 'terrible' to speak of really momentous things, like the 
Truth, and the Power in the Locked Room. Maybe his love for Harry is 
terrible, too <g>. 






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 03:18:50 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:18:50 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's worst fear (was Under the influence)
In-Reply-To: <dejc2q+aa30@...>
Message-ID: <dejdaq+pv24@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
> > 
> > "I am not afraid, Harry: I am with you"
> > 
> > Surely his worst fear is that Harry will be taken from him?
> > 
> > David
> 
> Jen: I ran across this quote in PS: "Not the Stone, boy, you--the 
> effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment, I was 
> afraid it had." Maybe his greatest fear *is* Harry dying. Dumbledore 
> uses the word 'terrible' to speak of really momentous things, like the 
> Truth, and the Power in the Locked Room. Maybe his love for Harry is 
> terrible, too <g>.

Lyn now:

Perhaps some component of love, but to the extent that DD believes in the prophecy, the 
loss of Harry would be far more devastating than any personal emotional attachment, it 
would me the loss of the person with the power to defeat LV. 

Personally, I think DD's greatest fear is the loss of his most powerful weapon, a weapon 
which can be used to save the entire WW, for whatever that is worth. He was willing to 
sacrifice himself to insure that the weapon would remain operable.





From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 06:47:32 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:47:32 -0000
Subject: Pensieves, Pevensies and  anagrams
In-Reply-To: <deiqg7+he7o@...>
Message-ID: <dejpi4+t4ai@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at j...> wrote:
  
Judy:
> I think "pensieve" is brilliant name even without being a literary 
> reference, but a link to the Narnia books would make it even better.

Geoff:
I'm inclined to the view that an anagram link between the Pevensie 
family and the Pensieve is purely a coincidence.

JKR may know the Narnia books well but I don't see any reason for a 
link or a play on words. I am a long time Narnia fan but had to go 
and check my copies for the name of the family; it's not one of those 
pieces of trivia which jump out at you immediately.

I believe that "Pensieve" is another of Jo Rowling's clever 
wordplays. We have pensive, which means "thoughtful" and Pensieve, 
which is an object full of thoughts.

This is very much in the tradition of Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, 
Grimmauld Place and Umbridge.

Harking back for a moment to Pensieve, another thought which I have 
had in the past is whether there is a second level here because the 
word "riddle" has an older and less frequently used meaning 
of "sieve"; I still hear local people using it in the rural area 
where I now live.

There's one for the conspiracy theorists to play with when they want 
a break from Horcruxes and Snape....





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 08:11:43 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:11:43 -0000
Subject: The witness in Godric's Hollow (was: AKs and Horcrux!Harry )
In-Reply-To: <deitcr+c0tk@...>
Message-ID: <dejufv+114ku@...>

Judy:
> As for there being another witness to the murders -- if there is one, 
> I don't see how it could be Snape. Standing idly by while Voldemort 
> murdered the Potters would hardly fit...

Eloise:

Constance provided the quote I alluded to (thanks <g>).

Now I'm just playing with ideas, mind. I don't know who the witness 
was, but it looks like there was one. But if it were Snape, he wouldn't 
have been idly standing by, no. ESE!Snape would have been assisting 
Voldemort. But can we fit Loyal!Snape in?

Hmm.

Remember way back over on the other list, when this first (I think) 
came up, there was speculation that Lupin was there, because he 
questioned Harry about hearing his father's voice? The idea was that 
under the influence of the Dementor!Boggart, Harry actually heard 
*Lupin*, not James, warning of Voldemort's arrival. 

What if, in fact, it was Snape? A problem with this scenario is that he 
would have had to stay out of Voldemort's sight/be in disguise ( <sigh> 
Polyjuice?) or he'd be dead by now.

Or else having overheard Voldemort's plans, he could have rushed to GH 
only to arrive a fraction too late, able only to witness, not fight.

I wonder what would have happened if Voldemort had demanded that he 
accompany him? I know that Voldemort obviously chose to kill the 
Potters personally, but it's not unlikely that he took DEs with him. 
And the one who had alerted him to the danger posed by Harry in the 
first place might have been "rewarded" by the privilege of being 
present at the event.

Snape might have been in a postion where there was nothing that he 
could do other than watch or wind up dead too (which Sirius no doubt 
would say he should have.)

Something else led me to wonder a long time ago, if he were there and 
that's Harry's dream just after he arrives at Hogwarts. My PS?SS still 
hasn't come to light, so I'm quoting from the Lexicon.

>>After his first trip on the Hogwarts Express, his introduction to 
school, and the Sorting, Harry had a strange dream. He was wearing 
Quirrell's turban, which spoke to him, telling him to transfer into 
Slytherin. The turban got heavier and heavier and tightened on his 
head. He saw Malfoy laughing at him, who turned into Snape, whose laugh 
became high and cold. He awoke after a flash of green light. <<

Now this may mean very little in this particular context however it is 
interesting that he witnesses the flash of the curse, accompanied a 
vision of both Malfoy and Snape. Was Malfoy (sr) there, too, 
accompanying his master and later retrieving his wand?

~Eloise





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 15:10:43 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:10:43 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <deinls+ku4r@...>
Message-ID: <dekn1j+42m9@...>

> Eloise:
> Except that the Muggle authorities were just mystified and there's 
> not really much danger that they would have made the jump to assume 
> that they were magical murders, was there? If the MOM simply kept 
> their distance, then  what harm could it do? If they got involved, 
> then on canon evidence so far, that involvement would presumably
mean  making the PM (who is the only member of government, save any 
individuals who might have family connections, with knowledge of
the existence of the WW) aware and hushing the thing up. That doesn't 
seem to have happened.

Pippin:
The Riddle murder did attract some attention, due to its
sensational circumstances. Three people, apparently
frightened to death? Sounds like a tabloid headline to me.
Surely the London authorities (that would be Scotland
Yard, right?) would be involved.

But any wizard who heard about it would guess at once  
that a wizard murderer was on the loose. That would 
put pressure on the MOM to act. But the Bryce disappearance did not 
attract attention from anybody and there was no evidence, even for 
wizards, that magic was involved. As far as the MOM was concerned, 
Morfin was the Riddle murderer, and since he was long dead, there was 
no reason to think that the Bryce disappearance, fifty years later,
had anything to do with wizards.

 
> > Pippin:
> > Voldemort's servants have risen high in the ministry, and are
> > presumably better able to  shield themselves from detection
> > than when they were all Hogwarts students.

Eloise: 
> Do we have any evidence for current DEs in the MOM? Or do you mean 
> that the past, people like Rookwood facilitated anti-detection 
> methods? Or do you believe in ESE!Fudge? ;-)
> 

Pippin:
"and it's very important for us to have spies in the Ministry, because
you can bet Voldemort will have them." -- OOP ch 5
and no, I don't think Fudge is ESE.

 
> > Pippin:
> > Wasn't the official line was that he'd died of a freak accident?

Eloise:
> Yes. But what kind of a freak accident? Muggle authorities wouldn't 
> just accept a freak accident as cause without some kind of 
> investigation. If you and Dumbledore are right, then magic always 
> leaves a mark, so there must have been evidence that Cedric's death 
> was magical. Fudge was already wary of Harry. I'm surprised the 
> Hogwarts mutterings didn't turn into something more substantial in 
> the hands of the MOM. Lord knows, they tried to libel him enough 
> (through the Prophet) in OoP.
> 

Pippin:
The TWT was a highly dangerous, at your own risk activity, and
participants had been warned they would be risking their lives.
Most people didn't know what kind of hazards were inside the
maze. It would be at least plausible that Cedric had died by 
misadventure. But if the MoM tried to prosecute Harry, then they'd 
be granting Dumbledore a forum to present his version. As we've
seen, he can mount quite an effective defense.

So they went with the whisper campaign and let people draw their 
own conclusions. Anyway, Amos Diggory is a ministry employee. If 
he started pressing for an investigation, he'd lose his job, and as 
Sirius was saying above, the Order needs all the friends in the 
Ministry it can get. It would be a poor way to honor
Cedric's memory, if Amos was expelled from the ministry and could
no longer pursue justice on behalf of the living.

> Eloise:

> The inconsistency is that the charge was capable of being brought.
If  the charge was dependent on there being a witness, then
Dumbledore was negligent in not demanding prosecution evidence. 
That he didn't suggests that he accepted that the MOM was capable of 
detecting  a specific individual doing magic in the presence of a
Muggle. It would  have been far easier to demolish the case by
demanding  the testimony  of a witness for the prosecution than 
to bring on his own  rather  dubious and risky defence witness 
to perjure herself.


Pippin:
There were two charges -- underage magic
doesn't depend on a Muggle being present. Assuming
the Ministry detected the  patronus charm independent
of Umbridge's meddling, they would have a reasonably 
solid case. The other one, violating the
Statute of Secrecy, is more serious, and would require the
prosecution to prove the presence of a Muggle. But that the 
wizard was in danger of his life is a defense against both charges.

Realistic courtroom procedures would be far too tedious for a Harry
Potter book, thank goodness! But supposing there were such things,
it would make sense for the defense to stipulate that Dudley was
present, even though it would moot the point of how the MoM learned
he was there. Pig tail, flying car, ton-tongue toffees, highly
irregular and possibly illicit connection of a Muggle fireplace to
the floo network, the destruction of his parents' living room, oh
dear!  Dudley is aware of a number of things which would be better 
left quiet, I should think. 

And Dudley, even if he were brought into court, could not have
testified that there were dementors present of his own knowledge. He
thought Harry was attacking him, and would have said so.

Mrs. Figg, despite her unfortunate decision to embroider her
testimony, actually  did know of her own knowledge that they were 
there.  "And now look! Dementors!" - OOP ch 2
 
> Eloise:
> We did. And I agree that in normal circumstances, one must need 
> malice to perform the Unforgivables.

Pippin:
I'm not sure there are any exceptions -- I don't think they work
without some malicious intent. You might, purely out of the goodness 
of your heart, want to use Imperius on someone -- to get them to quit
drinking, for example. Or you might attempt to use Crucio as Harry
did,  purely out of righteous anger.

 But I think Bella's right. I don't think the magic would work.
There's some malice evident  even  in Fake!Moody's demonstrations of 
Imperius-- all the students are made look ridiculous  in some way,
even Neville, because   it was *him* doing extraordinary gymnastics.

It'd be interesting to know if it was AK that the real Moody used
when he sometimes had to kill.

Pippin





From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 16:00:20 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:00:20 -0000
Subject: New book - The Serpent Grail
Message-ID: <dekpuk+k425@...>

I noticed this upcoming new book in a recent catalogue. Seems to 
offer a possible link between some of the ideas in the WW, maybe. I 
wondered if Voldie had used Helga's cup for mixing snake blood/venom 
in one of his many experiments to achieve immortality ?

Carolyn


The Serpent Grail
The Truth Behind the Holy Grail, The Philosophers Stone and the 
Elixir of Life
Philip Gardiner and Gary Osborn

Some brief details are on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1842931296/qid=1124984637/sr=
2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-5608053-8739024#product-details

My catalogue additionally said:

What connects the Holy Grail, the Elixir of Life and the 
Philosopher's Stone? Why does the serpent motif continually recur 
throughout history? Based on extensive research, this highly 
controversial investigation claims to reveal the ultimate secrets of 
the world's most enigmatic mysteries.

Travelling from Scotland to the Middle East in search of the truth, 
the authors have visited mosques, synagogues, Christian churches, 
witches' covens and Templar rituals. They trace the extraordinary 
story of a snake cult that was prevalent all over the ancient world 
and which has influenced every major religion. 

The book demonstrates how a central rite in which snake venom was 
mixed with snake blood in a ceremonial mixing bowl came to be 
called `The Grail'. It also shows that the `serpent beings' of 
ancient myth were real people who had attained a state of advanced 
awareness. Ultimately, the Holy Grail, the Elixir of Life and the 
Philosopher's Stone are revealed as one single metaphor for spiritual 
enlightenment.






From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 18:24:48 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:24:48 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dekn1j+42m9@...>
Message-ID: <del2dg+4nkr@...>

 Pippin:
> The Riddle murder did attract some attention, due to its
> sensational circumstances. Three people, apparently
> frightened to death? Sounds like a tabloid headline to me.
> Surely the London authorities (that would be Scotland
> Yard, right?) would be involved.
> 
> But any wizard who heard about it would guess at once  
> that a wizard murderer was on the loose. That would 
> put pressure on the MOM to act. 

Eloise:
I think Dumbledore suggests that his interest in Muggle news is 
unusual. I doubt many ordinary wizards would have heard of it as they 
would have to go out of their way to read the Muggle press or listen 
to the Muggle wireless (I suppose they might have gone to the cinema 
and seen a news reel).

Pippin:
But the Bryce disappearance did not 
> attract attention from anybody and there was no evidence, even for 
> wizards, that magic was involved. As far as the MOM was concerned, 
> Morfin was the Riddle murderer, and since he was long dead, there 
was 
> no reason to think that the Bryce disappearance, fifty years later,
> had anything to do with wizards.

Eloise:
Oh, agreed, but that still leaves some ambiguity (IMO) of why the MOM 
detects magic in some circumstances and not others, assuming, as 
seems to be implied in the text, that there is some way that the MOM 
has of remotely sensing when magic happens.
  
>  
Pippin:
> > > Voldemort's servants have risen high in the ministry, and are
> > > presumably better able to  shield themselves from detection
> > > than when they were all Hogwarts students.
> 
> Eloise: 
> > Do we have any evidence for current DEs in the MOM? Or do you 
mean 
> > that the past, people like Rookwood facilitated anti-detection 
> > methods? Or do you believe in ESE!Fudge? ;-)
> > 
> 
Pippin:
> "and it's very important for us to have spies in the Ministry, 
because
> you can bet Voldemort will have them." -- OOP ch 5

Eloise:
Not *exactly* canon evidence that they have risen high. <g>

Pippin:
> and no, I don't think Fudge is ESE.

Eloise:
Couldn't resist that one.
> 
>  
 Pippin:
> The TWT was a highly dangerous, at your own risk activity, and
> participants had been warned they would be risking their lives.
> Most people didn't know what kind of hazards were inside the
> maze. It would be at least plausible that Cedric had died by 
> misadventure. 

Eloise:
I accept your reasons for why there might not have been an enquiry. 
But *magic always leaves traces*. And his death, which therefore bore 
traces of magic also thus bore the marks, or rather the lack of 
marks, of an AK.

> 
> > Eloise:
> 
> > The inconsistency is that the charge was capable of being brought.
> If  the charge was dependent on there being a witness, then
> Dumbledore was negligent in not demanding prosecution evidence. 
> That he didn't suggests that he accepted that the MOM was capable 
of 
> detecting  a specific individual doing magic in the presence of a
> Muggle. It would  have been far easier to demolish the case by
> demanding  the testimony  of a witness for the prosecution than 
> to bring on his own  rather  dubious and risky defence witness 
> to perjure herself.
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> There were two charges -- underage magic
> doesn't depend on a Muggle being present. Assuming
> the Ministry detected the  patronus charm independent
> of Umbridge's meddling, they would have a reasonably 
> solid case.

Eloise:
If they detected this independent of Umbridge's meddling, they must 
also have been able to detect who did it, or at least that a minor 
did it (in order to know it was underage) which Dumbledore tells us 
they can't do. Otherwise they would have detected Tom's AKs and known 
either who did them or that they were performed by an underage wizard 
in which case they wouldn't have gone after Morfin.

Pippin:
 The other one, violating the
> Statute of Secrecy, is more serious, and would require the
> prosecution to prove the presence of a Muggle. But that the 
> wizard was in danger of his life is a defense against both charges.
> 
> Realistic courtroom procedures would be far too tedious for a Harry
> Potter book, thank goodness! But supposing there were such things,
> it would make sense for the defense to stipulate that Dudley was
> present, even though it would moot the point of how the MoM learned
> he was there. Pig tail, flying car, ton-tongue toffees, highly
> irregular and possibly illicit connection of a Muggle fireplace to
> the floo network, the destruction of his parents' living room, oh
> dear!  Dudley is aware of a number of things which would be better 
> left quiet, I should think. 
> 
> And Dudley, even if he were brought into court, could not have
> testified that there were dementors present of his own knowledge. He
> thought Harry was attacking him, and would have said so.

Eloise:
I wasn't suggesting for a minute that Dudley should be brought into 
the proceedings. (What value would a Muggle's testimony be anyway, 
not to mention that Petunia and Vernon for different reasons would 
have forbidden it, supported by Dumbledore.)

What I'm saying is that if the prosecution themselves couldn't bring 
forward the witness who had informed the MOM that they had, err,  
witnessed magic being performed in front of a Muggle, then they 
hadn't a leg to stand on. 


> > Eloise:
> >  And I agree that in normal circumstances, one must need 
> > malice to perform the Unforgivables.
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm not sure there are any exceptions -- I don't think they work
> without some malicious intent. You might, purely out of the 
goodness 
> of your heart, want to use Imperius on someone -- to get them to 
quit
> drinking, for example. Or you might attempt to use Crucio as Harry
> did,  purely out of righteous anger.
> 
>  But I think Bella's right. I don't think the magic would work.

Eloise:
Bella probably is, but I don't think the case for exactly what she 
meant is cast iron yet. Righteous anger is different from really 
wanting to hurt someone, I think. And really wanting someone to die 
because, for example, the alternative is much to bear is different 
again IMO. At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we find there's 
some inconsistency/get out here when it comes to explaining Snape's 
AK. The insistence on the intent smacks too much of *wanting* us to 
believe that Snape's intent was evil on the Tower. Which, I admit, it 
might have been. 

~Eloise





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 19:42:00 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:42:00 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <del2dg+4nkr@...>
Message-ID: <del6u8+ivvk@...>

> Eloise:
> I think Dumbledore suggests that his interest in Muggle news is 
> unusual. I doubt many ordinary wizards would have heard of it as
they  would have to go out of their way to read the Muggle press or
listen  to the Muggle wireless (I suppose they might have gone to the
cinema  and seen a news reel).

Pippin:
Um, the business of the MoM is to look into unusual events before
the Muggles start suspecting magic. 

 In the course of this, if they uncover what seems obviously to be a
wizard's murder, moreover one which they can easily solve so that it 
looks like they are doing their jobs, why would they even try to keep
it out of the Daily Prophet?

OTOH, Cedric's death, supposedly on the Hogwarts grounds, was 
not something that would attract any Muggle attention. Frank Bryce's 
disappearance did not attract much attention from anybody either.

Maybe there were traces of magic in the graveyard that Dumbledore
could detect. But unless they were independently detected by
the ministry, that wouldn't help  any more than Snape's showing
off his dark mark.


> Eloise:
> Oh, agreed, but that still leaves some ambiguity (IMO) of why the
MOM  detects magic in some circumstances and not others, assuming, 
as  seems to be implied in the text, that there is some way that the
MOM  has of remotely sensing when magic happens.
>   

Pippin:
I agree. But I think it's easily explained by the vagaries of
enforcement and the cunning of the Order and the DE's, who seem to be 
able to hide some kinds of magic but not others.

The Order isn't afraid to use various charms as they prepare Harry to
depart from the Dursleys, but they don't think they can hide a portkey
charm. And the whole point of using the TWT seems to have been to
get Harry to touch a portkey whose creation had been authorized.

Dumbledore might be able to hide the creation of a portkey while he's
at Hogwarts, but not elsewhere. A good question might be whether
a portkey has to be created close to one of its termini, so that
it wouldn't be possible for Dumbledore, while at Hogwarts, to 
create a portkey to transport people from Privet Drive to GP.


> Eloise:
> I accept your reasons for why there might not have been an enquiry. 
> But *magic always leaves traces*. And his death, which therefore
bore traces of magic also thus bore the marks, or rather the lack of 
marks, of an AK.
> 

Pippin:
But if there's no enquiry, they're not going to be discovered, are
they?

Eloise:
> What I'm saying is that if the prosecution themselves couldn't
bring forward the witness who had informed the MOM that they had, 
err,   witnessed magic being performed in front of a Muggle, then 
they  hadn't a leg to stand on. 

Pippin:
They had the Muggle himself, so why would they need to produce
the witness who told them the Muggle was there? The MoM's
methods of evidence collection aren't on trial.

Dumbledore might raise the issue, and they'd blow him off, just
like they did about what the dementors were doing there in the
first place.

Anyway, I'm sure Umbridge could have found a way around that one. 
There must be  lots of people who owe her favors and could have 
been "just passing through when they saw what happened."

That wouldn't have to undermine their case against Harry, either.
 As the patronus is not a charm any wizard can produce, it
would be possible for Umbridge to introduce a "witness" who claimed
to have informed the Ministry about the Muggle, but couldn't have 
produced a patronus himself.

Pippin





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 20:47:29 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:47:29 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <del6u8+ivvk@...>
Message-ID: <delap1+117sn@...>

> > Eloise:
> > I think Dumbledore suggests that his interest in Muggle news is 
> > unusual. I doubt many ordinary wizards would have heard of it as
> they  would have to go out of their way to read the Muggle press or
> listen  to the Muggle wireless (I suppose they might have gone to 
the
> cinema  and seen a news reel).
> 
> Pippin:
> Um, the business of the MoM is to look into unusual events before
> the Muggles start suspecting magic. 

Eloise:
Presupposing they know about the unusual events to begin with.
You seemed to be suggesting that members of the general wizarding 
populace would know about this murder and press the MOM to 
investigate and that was what I was addressing.

If they have other ways of detecting it, then fine. But it leaves us 
with problems.

Pippin:
>  In the course of this, if they uncover what seems obviously to be a
> wizard's murder, moreover one which they can easily solve so that 
it 
> looks like they are doing their jobs, why would they even try to 
keep
> it out of the Daily Prophet?

Eloise:
Sorry, where did the Daily Prophet come into it? 
Yes, I can see that if for some reason they became aware of a set of 
Muggle murders and decided that it was worthy of their attention and 
convicted the fall guy then they would trumpet it. But that wasn't 
the point I was answering, which was to do with why they would get 
involved *in the first place* and the MOM's apparent ability to 
detect underage magic except in a wizarding household, or the (Muggle)
Riddle House.
 
Pippin:
> OTOH, Cedric's death, supposedly on the Hogwarts grounds, was 
> not something that would attract any Muggle attention. Frank 
Bryce's 
> disappearance did not attract much attention from anybody either.
> 
> Maybe there were traces of magic in the graveyard that Dumbledore
> could detect. But unless they were independently detected by
> the ministry, that wouldn't help  any more than Snape's showing
> off his dark mark.

Eloise:
I accept  that Dumbledore's ability to detect the traces of magic 
were probably greater than anyone else's.
> 
> 
> > Eloise:
> > Oh, agreed, but that still leaves some ambiguity (IMO) of why the
> MOM  detects magic in some circumstances and not others, assuming, 
> as  seems to be implied in the text, that there is some way that the
> MOM  has of remotely sensing when magic happens.
> >   
> 
> Pippin:
> I agree. But I think it's easily explained by the vagaries of
> enforcement and the cunning of the Order and the DE's, who seem to 
be 
> able to hide some kinds of magic but not others.

Eloise:
Whilst I think that it's explained by the vagaries of the author who 
isn't always as consistent as she might be.

> > Eloise:
> > I accept your reasons for why there might not have been an 
enquiry. 
> > But *magic always leaves traces*. And his death, which therefore
> bore traces of magic also thus bore the marks, or rather the lack 
of 
> marks, of an AK.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> But if there's no enquiry, they're not going to be discovered, are
> they?

Eloise:
Well, if those present at the time weren't competent to see them, 
then no.

Pippin:
I suppose that I find it incomprehensible that there were *no* 
formalities. In the Muggle world you'd have a post mortem even if it 
didn't proceed to an inquest (which, at least over here, it would 
*have* to).

> 
> Eloise:
> > What I'm saying is that if the prosecution themselves couldn't
> bring forward the witness who had informed the MOM that they had, 
> err,   witnessed magic being performed in front of a Muggle, then 
> they  hadn't a leg to stand on. 
> 
> Pippin:
> They had the Muggle himself, so why would they need to produce
> the witness who told them the Muggle was there? The MoM's
> methods of evidence collection aren't on trial.

Eloise:
Because in the WW, Muggles are less than nothing and their testimony 
would be worthless. If challenged, they ought to be able to produce 
evidence, or wizarding law enforcement is even more corrupt than I 
thought.

As I said, Vernon would never have given permission for Dudley to 
testify. He could have been threatened into it, perhaps, but not 
Petunia, who would have been supported by Dumbledore.

Pippin:
> Dumbledore might raise the issue, and they'd blow him off, just
> like they did about what the dementors were doing there in the
> first place.

Eloise:
Because at that point there was no witness that there were Dementors 
there .

Pippin:
> Anyway, I'm sure Umbridge could have found a way around that one. 
> There must be  lots of people who owe her favors and could have 
> been "just passing through when they saw what happened."

Eloise:
Perhaps she would have done. But Dumbledore didn't even try. OK, 
perhaps it would have made the hearing too long for the book, but it 
leaves a lot of unstated reasoning to get to the point where 
Dumbledore decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Which is better? "Produce the prosecution witness who saw this", 
or "Here's my potentially unreliable witness who might well say the 
wrong thing and fatally injure my case"? If the MOM *did* have an 
independent witness, even a false one, why didn't they produce 
him/her to challenge Figgy? If they didn't feel the need to produce 
one, then it implies that they have (generally known) automatic ways 
of detecting specific spells and who performs them outside of magical 
households, in which case they should have known that Morfin didn't 
perform the Riddle murders.

Perhaps all this tells us is that the MOM is corrupt, one way or the 
other. As if we didn't know.

~Eloise





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 25 21:37:50 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:37:50 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <delap1+117sn@...>
Message-ID: <deldne+4u49@...>


> Eloise:
> Sorry, where did the Daily Prophet come into it? 
> Yes, I can see that if for some reason they became aware of a set of 
> Muggle murders and decided that it was worthy of their attention and 
> convicted the fall guy then they would trumpet it. But that wasn't 
> the point I was answering, which was to do with why they would get 
> involved *in the first place* and the MOM's apparent ability to 
> detect underage magic except in a wizarding household, or the (Muggle)
> Riddle House.
>  

 Pippin:

They get involved in the first place because it's their job, which, thanks
to gadflies like the DP, they do occasionally. If Rita had been on the loose,
there probably would have been an inquest over Cedric, and Harry 
probably would have been indicted, it being the editor's judgement that
crazy!Harry would sell more papers than unconfirmed rumors of Voldemort's 
return, which according to Ron in Book One, are old hat.

The MoM detected magic in the Riddle house  when it was young Tom
Riddle, who (apparently) expected the murder to be discovered, and
in fact arranged for someone to take the fall. There was 
already someone in the area that the MoM had pegged as a trouble
maker.

They didn't detect magic in the Riddle house when it was 
uglybaby!Voldemort, greatest Dark Wizard of all time, who didn't want 
to be discovered. I don't think it's inconsistent that Voldemort has ways 
of  hiding his magic from the MoM. Harry says they can't find him, and
yet he uses crucio and AK with abandon.

But if you want to peg it as a Flint instead...shrugs.

As I've said, I don't think we've seen that they have a way of
remotely detecting when a spell is performed by an underaged 
wizard. Dumbledore says they don't. What they 
might have, if Voldemort's boat is a clue, is a way of detecting
traces of a mature wizard. So if they detect a spell, and they
don't detect a mature wizard, then they could conclude it was an
underage wizard, if they bothered to be logical at all and didn't
throw the first likely suspect into Azkaban, which is more their
style.

Would uglybaby!Voldemort register
as a mature wizard? I wonder.

> Eloise:

> I suppose that I find it incomprehensible that there were *no* 
> formalities. In the Muggle world you'd have a post mortem even if it 
> didn't proceed to an inquest (which, at least over here, it would 
> *have* to).

Pippin:
Formalities? in the WW? Look at what happened to Sirius!
The WW government is sort of an English-speaking banana republic,
IMO.

> Eloise:
> Because in the WW, Muggles are less than nothing and their testimony 
> would be worthless. If challenged, they ought to be able to produce 
> evidence, or wizarding law enforcement is even more corrupt than I 
> thought.

Pippin:
The wizarding world is even loopier than I thought if the best evidence
of a Muggle having witnessed magic is not the testimony of said Muggle.
Anyway, they certainly used evidence from Muggles in Sirius's case.

Is there some provision  that children can't be subpoenaed
without their parents' consent? 

Pippin





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 26 08:55:03 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:55:03 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <deldne+4u49@...>
Message-ID: <demld7+a7aa@...>

You'll be glad to know I'm going away for a few days. ;-)

> > Eloise:
> > the point I was answering... was to do with why they would get 
> > involved *in the first place* > >  
> 
>  Pippin:
> 
> They get involved in the first place because it's their job, which, 
thanks
> to gadflies like the DP, they do occasionally. 

Eloise:
I wasn't asking a question there, just clarifying what my previous 
answer had been about. That I didn't think the MOM was under pressure 
from the general wizarding populace to deal with this Muggle murder 
because the general wizarding populace would have no knowledge of it 
unless the MOM chose to let them know about it.

Pippin:
> The MoM detected magic in the Riddle house  when it was young Tom
> Riddle, who (apparently) expected the murder to be discovered, and
> in fact arranged for someone to take the fall. 

<snip>
I don't think it's inconsistent that Voldemort has ways 
> of  hiding his magic from the MoM. Harry says they can't find him, 
and
> yet he uses crucio and AK with abandon.
> 
> But if you want to peg it as a Flint instead...shrugs.


Eloise:
No, it's not inconsistent with the evidence in HBP. But then if this 
is the case... forgive me, but aren't we back to where we started? 
How did the MOM know that Harry had been AK'd at GH?



Pippin:
> As I've said, I don't think we've seen that they have a way of
> remotely detecting when a spell is performed by an underaged 
> wizard. Dumbledore says they don't. What they 
> might have, if Voldemort's boat is a clue, is a way of detecting
> traces of a mature wizard. So if they detect a spell, and they
> don't detect a mature wizard, then they could conclude it was an
> underage wizard, if they bothered to be logical at all and didn't
> throw the first likely suspect into Azkaban, which is more their
> style.
> 
> Would uglybaby!Voldemort register
> as a mature wizard? I wonder.

Eloise:
This does seem to lead to their monitoring every spell cast in the 
country. Which I suppose, in a magical world might be possible. It 
could certainly provide some of that employment we've found hard to 
identify. ;-)

> 
> > Eloise:
> 
> > I suppose that I find it incomprehensible that there were *no* 
> > formalities. In the Muggle world you'd have a post mortem even if 
it 
> > didn't proceed to an inquest (which, at least over here, it would 
> > *have* to).
> 
> Pippin:
> Formalities? in the WW? Look at what happened to Sirius!
> The WW government is sort of an English-speaking banana republic,
> IMO.

Eloise:
I know. Depressing, isn't it? I suppose there are low expectations in 
the WW.

> Pippin:
> The wizarding world is even loopier than I thought if the best 
evidence
> of a Muggle having witnessed magic is not the testimony of said 
Muggle.

Eloise:
It's not the *best* testimony - it's not independent. Also, Dudley 
wasn't any old Muggle, but a family member who already necessarily 
knew that Harry was a wizard, so in fact there arguably wasn't even a 
breach of the Statute of Secrecy (Hmmm. We have lots of mixed 
marriages in the WW. Wonder how they fit into all this. A lot of 
wedding night surprises, I guess.) 

And it doesn't alter the case that.... well, OK we're talking about a 
banana republic as you say....but as Dumbledore reminded Snape once, 
there s a principal of "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is 
normally on the prosecution to prove guilt and they seemed to be 
prepared to offer no proof whatsoever. Of course, Harry admitted what 
he'd done almost immediately (great preparation he had!), but there 
was no witness for the prosecution present at the proceeedings. And 
Dumbledore played the game, offering defence for something which was 
merely unsubstantiated allegation unless it went without saying that 
the MOM had some cast iron way of detecting such spells. I felt his 
acquiescence supported this, though admittedly the water is muddied 
by it being a frame up.

Pippin:
> Anyway, they certainly used evidence from Muggles in Sirius's case.

Eloise:
True.
Well, Fudge said there were eye-witnesses who saw Sirius blast 
Pettigrew, which of course he didn't. And their memories were 
conveniently wiped (I should imagine at the scene, as soon as they'd 
been interviewed). But then Fudge is Ever So Evil and framed Sirius 
anyway. <beg>


Um...thinking about witnesses...Mrs Figg, as I think you pointed out 
did seem to know independently that Harry was fighting off Dementors, 
although she "came panting into sight" after they had left. I think 
Mr Tibbles had only warned her that Mundungus had left. Just a 
curious detail. I wonder how she knew if she couldn't see them and 
wasn't close enough to feel them? Perhaps it was the lights failing.

~Eloise





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 26 15:59:34 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:59:34 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
In-Reply-To: <dehvf2+uge1@...>
Message-ID: <dene96+f9ph@...>

Ginger wrote:
> > I just had a very bad thought.  What if RAB wasn't successful?  
What 
> if 
> > (s)he got into the cave, and replaced the locket, slipping the 
> original 
> > Mucklux into a pocket, but was then killed by the potion/water 
from 
> the 
> > lake/Inferi/whatever, and is now an Inferus dwelling in the lake?
> > 
> > LV's Chunk-o'-soul is now better guarded than he intended!
> > 
> > How would Harry get it back?  Pick an Inferius' pocket?  EEEEEWW!
> > 
> > Ginger, wishing pleasant dreams to those who are on their way to 
bed.
>
Kirsty wrote: 
> Nice thought - that way it would be impossible to find.
> 
> However if we are to believe that the locket is back at the Black 
> house then this would suggest that RAB was successful!  (That's of 
> course if you believe RAB to be Regulus Black?)
> 

Potioncat:
Ginger's bad thought is the very reason I don't think RAB came in and 
replaced the hot-cross-bun. As difficult as it was for DD and HP, I 
don't see how RAB did it. My first theory was/is that RAB was charged 
with placing the horcrux into the cave in the first place, but that 
he made a switch before hand. That allows the real one to be at 12GP, 
the fake one in the cave, and RAB in the lake.

My second theory is just the beginning of an idea. We do know of 
another wizard who is well versed in Dark Arts. It's possible he was 
able to get in and make a switch and at least make it back home. 
However, I'm still not sure how it would happen that LV wouldn't know 
about it. My nominee (and I'm most likely the 3rd or 4th to come up 
with the name) is Mr. Black senior, who would have done this in 
revenge for Regulus's death.






From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 27 22:56:11 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Mead in HBP
Message-ID: <20050827225611.14355.qmail@...>

Not to resurrect discussion of the presence of demon
rum in our canon, corrupting the innocent youths who
trustingly follow this pied-piper blissfully down the
path to perdition [tee hee], but I keep thinking that
the role of mead in the tale seems to have some mythic
import. 

Mead (Rosmerta's Oak matured, in particular) seems to
be DD's favorite and I wonder if it is intended as
part of his Odin-like persona. The wise, old bearded
guy seems to try (rather persistently) using mead to
seal an agreement with the sad mortals on Privet
drive, although they were ... unreceptive. Mead seems
to be the drink of heroes in the Norse tradition (as
well as Odins elixir of poetic inspiration), and it
may also be a fitting toast as one "step[s] out into
the night ...[to]pursue that flighty temptress,
adventure."  

Discussions of Rosicruxes and how many soul fragments
it takes to screw in a light bulb seemed to have
tapered off for the moment, so I figured I'd throw
this out and see if anyone has any thoughts on the
topic.  

Peace, -W


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 01:40:02 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:40:02 -0000
Subject: Half-blood/soul-mind-Diary!Tom/SpectatorSports/DE MoMemployee/Sieve/PS-dream
Message-ID: <der4li+cpcn@...>

Why did Dumbledore tell Harry to tell only Ron and Hermione about the
Horcruxes, not Ron, Hermione, and Ginny? Did he not know about H/G
ship, did he think Ginny is too underage to be involved, did he
think Ginny retains a link to LV from CoS? 

I, too, like Randy's King of Pain filk.

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3018 :

<< like a Half-blood!Snape as a DE. Doesn't seem to match the DE
ethic, does it? Why would Half-blood!Snape be Head of Slytherin House?
That seems a bit odd too, a bastion of the Pure-blood conceit headed
by an example of what they hate. >>

I'm usually wrong about everything, but I still think that the Death
Eaters and other pure-bloodist snobs of recent centuries have nothing
aagainst Half-bloods. It is *Muggleborns* whom they hate. When JKR
answered the question about Snape's blood-status, she said
"Snape's ancestry is hinted at. He was a Death Eater, so clearly
he is no Muggle born, because Muggle borns are not allowed to be 
Death Eaters, except in rare circumstances."
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80

I can't imagine circumstances in which a known Muggle-born would
*want* to be a Death Eater.

It seems to me that the blood-snobs of the wizarding world have a
strict social hierarchy, like a caste system: the top is pure-bloods
with old money, followed by other pure-bloods, followed by what Steve
bboymin calls "full-bloods" (people who can't *prove the purity of
their ancestry for the set number of generations, but no one else has
proved that one of their ancestors was a Muggle), followed by people
with admitted Muggle ancestry (ranked by their percentage of Muggle
ancestry, as Americans once categorized people with partially African
ancestry into 'a touch of the tar brush', octaroon, quardroon,
mulatto). It differs from the fortunately discarded American system 
by where it puts the 'color line': only the Muggle-borns are the
Untouchables, everyone who is part-pureblood is, umm, allowed to be a
Slytherin racist. 

While this is not the view that Binns attributed to Salazar, that
magical teaching should be kept in all-magic families, Binns could
have been a bit wrong or Salazar's intellectual heirs could have
modified their beliefs. 

Judy agreed with Neri in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3042 :

<< Lupin:
"You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and
heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self any more,
no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance at all of recovery.
You'll just ... exist. As an empty shell."

Well, Lupin definitely seems to be saying that the soul and the mind
are the same thing. But then, how can Lord Voldemort retain all his
powers and memories, as Dumbledore says he does, if his has ripped
his soul into small pieces and has hardly any of it left? >>

I think Lupin meant that the mind and the sense of self cannot survive
without a support-system, normally a soul, but possibly a mind could
be transferred to a magical device like the diary without transferring
a bit of soul with it. And that memories cannot survive without their
support-system, normally a mind, but we have seen them survive in
Pensieves and bottles. But it a Dementor sucks out your soul, there is
no time to transfer your mind and memories to a magical artifact
before they die for lack of their support-system.

Constance Vigilance wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3052 :

<< wondering if LV knows that his horcruxes could gain a life of their
own, re: Diary!Tom. Having your horcruxes come back to challenge your
Ultimate Evil Supremacy -  >>

JKR didn't think it would be bad for Voldie:
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=17
<<Q: In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had
died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
A: I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished,
but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort
considerably.>>

I don't agree that the other Horcruces could regenerate. I agree with
Judy in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3030 :
<< Here, I agree with Pippin that the "soul" that
gets divided into horcruxes must be somehow distinct from the self --
although the way I was thinking of it was that the soul must be
distinct from the *mind*. My thought was that although Voldemort cut
off bits of his soul and put them in various objects, this didn't
involve removing any of his mind. He did not lose any memories or
knowledge -- presumably -- each time he made a Horcrux. (Actually,
Dumbledore tells Harry something like this, that Voldemort's soul is
diminished, but not his skills.)

So, Voldemort's entire mind stayed with his body, along with the bit
of soul that had been stored there. When his body was destroyed, his
mind was not, and was available to force his soul -- sleeplessly,
endlessly, second by second -- to stay cohesive until he could
acquire physical form through various means such as possession. The
other horcruxes, however, were soul without mind, and therefore
dissipated (or whatever) when their containers were destroyed.

Now, the diary is a bit of a special case. It clearly has some form
of intelligence, but I assume this is contained somehow in the
physical object, rather than being a non-corporeal entity the way
minds apparently are in the Potterverse. So, when the diary was
destroyed, that version of Tom Riddle was, too.

By the way, I don't believe that the ring, locket, etc. could acquire
a personality and possess someone the way the diary did. The diary
contained some of Tom Riddle's memories -- Dumbledore implies that
Riddle actually wrote an account of opening the Chamber of Secrets in
the diary, even though the words were no longer visible when Harry
got the book. The ring, etc., presumably did not contain anything
like the same amount of information; therefore, they don't have
enough of Voldemort's memories to create a new version of him. >>

Sorry, that was too good to snip. 


Pippin Wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3054 :

<< now that we know JKR's real opinion of spectator sports,  >>

Excuse me, what did I miss?

Eloise wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3063 :

<< Do we have any evidence for current DEs in the MOM? >>

Macnair is a current Death Eater and a current Ministry employee. I
think executioner is not a very high rank in the Ministry, but he's a
proof of concept. Btw how did he avoid being convicted of Death
Eating?

Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_o
ld_crowd/message/3070 :

<< the word "riddle" has an older and less frequently used meaning
of "sieve"; I still hear local people using it in the rural area
where I now live. >>

Which is now commonly used in a verb and adjective form e.g 'riddled
with wormholes' or 'bullet-riddled'

Eloise wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3071 :

<< Now this may mean very little in this particular context however it
is interesting that he witnesses the flash of the curse, accompanied a
vision of both Malfoy and Snape. Was Malfoy (sr) there, too,
accompanying his master and later retrieving his wand? >> 

Altho' I'm almost always wrong about everything, I've always thought
that PS/Ss dream was a clue that Snape and Lucius were present with LV
at Godric's Hollow. But Pettigrew was there, too, as JKR said
somewhere (I can't find it in Quick Quote Quill) that the way Lord
Voldemort got his wand back was that Pettigrew picked it up from the
wreckage and hid it somewhere and picked it up on his way out of the
country to Albania. I always thought Pettigrew was there because LV
was afraid that Pettigrew was a fake traitor, leading him into a trap,
and he was going to make Pettigrew enter the house in front of him to
make the trap, if there was one, would catch him. But the revelation
that LV really is an excellent Legilimens screwed that -- he could
tell Pettigrew was an honest traitor by looking into Pettigrew's
mind. 





From kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 14:01:36 2005
From: kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid (Kirstini)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:01:36 -0000
Subject: Detecting  magic
Message-ID: <desg40+g0kl@...>

Kneasy wrote:
>>>>I suspect that this "the Ministry sees all, knows all" has got a 
bit out of hand from Jo's viewpoint and that we've been drawing 
conclusions we weren't meant to.
What was a useful bit of plot business in CoS just doesn't stand up 
when applied to the wider WW. Given the resources available no 
criminal is safe; spell-tracking identifies the place, spell 
identification identifies the spell used, Prior Incantato identifies 
the wand <snip> [the Ministry] even know that a Muggle was present 
when he 
produced a Patronus. Now really, is this likely? Not unless it was a 
Ministry set-up from the start - which it was.

Dobby and the floating cake - if they can't tell the difference 
between  wand magic by a minor and non-wand magic from a House Elf 
then the identification system can't be trusted.>>>>

Kirstin: 
Not to mention the use of (at least) Alohomora, Scourgify, the Packing 
Charm(!) and yet another Hover (Locomoter Trunk) by Tonks/other 
members of the Order at Privet Drive in OoP. Surely in the wake of a 
breach of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery decree, the 
Ministry sensors would be charged and pointed on young delinquent 
Potter. 

You know, scratching around for flints always leaves me feeling 
slightly sordid.

Kirstini





From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 15:28:24 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:28:24 -0000
Subject: PS-dream/Peter theories
In-Reply-To: <der4li+cpcn@...>
Message-ID: <desl6o+5v2m@...>

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

Eloise wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/3071 :

<< Now this may mean very little in this particular context however it
is interesting that he witnesses the flash of the curse, accompanied a
vision of both Malfoy and Snape. Was Malfoy (sr) there, too,
accompanying his master and later retrieving his wand? >>

CatLady:
Altho' I'm almost always wrong about everything, I've always thought
that PS/Ss dream was a clue that Snape and Lucius were present with LV
at Godric's Hollow. But Pettigrew was there, too, as JKR said
somewhere (I can't find it in Quick Quote Quill) that the way Lord
Voldemort got his wand back was that Pettigrew picked it up from the
wreckage and hid it somewhere and picked it up on his way out of the
country to Albania. I always thought Pettigrew was there because LV
was afraid that Pettigrew was a fake traitor, leading him into a trap,
and he was going to make Pettigrew enter the house in front of him to
make the trap, if there was one, would catch him. But the revelation
that LV really is an excellent Legilimens screwed that -- he could
tell Pettigrew was an honest traitor by looking into Pettigrew's
mind.

Carolyn:
JKR confirmed last summer in an aside to a child at the Edinburgh 
chat, that Pettigrew hid Voldy's wand until it was needed, but she 
didn't say where he picked it up. 

The plain vanilla reading would indicate that Voldy made Pettigrew 
show him the way to GH, with a wand in his back so to speak, right up 
to the front door and inside the house. Flitwick said that 'You-Know-
Who could....never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed 
against their sitting room window!', so Peter would have to take him 
right in, face to face with James and Lily. Having forced Pettigrew 
to do this, we are lead to assume that he picks up the pieces after 
the AK goes wrong. But, as usual, there can be other interpretations. 
For a start, at 12GP we have seen that a secret keeper could reveal 
the whereabouts of a hidden location by means of a written note, so 
Pettigrew didn't actually have to be at GH.

So, psychologically, would Voldy have chosen Pettigrew to accompany 
him?  He certainly likes an audience for his deeds, but would 
pathetic little Wormtail, hopeless at duelling, be enough? Not only 
would he know that Wormtail would be struggling with massive guilt at 
his betrayal and be an unknown quantity if ordered to attack, but 
James and Lily are formidable enough to have defied LV three times so 
far. Surely, LV would have taken along tougher back up?

Like an Aggie-mystery, the group of suspects gets ever smaller as you 
near the end. None of the current bunch of DEs seem to have a clue 
what happened that night, so it has to be either a DE that has 
subsequently died/been soul-sucked (eg Barty Crouch Jr, Regulus), or 
it has to be Snape or Lupin or Sirius. I suppose it could be an 
unconsidered unknown (such as Pa Black etc - originally it was a 
white-gloved Voldy DE called Pyrites, IIRC), but she'd have some 
explaining to do, methinks. So, to review the suspect list:

- Both the dead DEs were very young at the time, not ideal henchmen, 
even if keen to be tested. Very doubtful.

- Sirius. JKR seems determined to protect him in her interviews. 
OTOH, we have further evidence that DD could have visited him any 
time he liked in Azkaban (since DD had no trouble getting to see 
Morfin), and could have found the truth of the so-called muggle 
murders with no trouble at all. But he didn't. Or maybe he did, and 
we'll be getting to see a little bottle of pickled Sirius thoughts in 
the next book. Did he betray Pettigrew to Voldy?

- Lupin. Well, over to Pippin! I've never known her concede a point. 
OTOH, there could also be a reading that he's not intrinsically ESE! 
but perhaps he knew about the switch to Peter via Lily, and was no 
stronger than Peter in standing up to LV's pressure to betray.  
Perhaps he went to GH that night in order to try and warn them of 
what he had done, but only got there in time to hear James dying, 
hence Lupin's odd tone of voice when Harry tells him of his memories 
of that night. He then scarpers in case he's blamed for what has 
happened. It's a classic detective story technique to have the murder 
scene cluttered up with people with multiple motives.

- Snape. Appears to be the more and more obvious choice, whatever 
side he's on. A powerful, ruthless wizard with an apparent deeply-
held grudge against James that Voldy has reason to trust (in as far 
as he trusts anyone) because Snape told him about the first half of 
the prophecy. It would be like Voldy to inform Snape of the mission 
without necessarily telling him where he'd got his information from. 
Whether Snape knew it was Peter depends on whether you've signed up 
to MD or not. Personally I'm with Pip on OSCAR-winner!Snape on the 
evidence so far.

But what of Pettigrew in all this? If we assume that he wasn't part 
of the official seek-and-destroy mission, at the same time it would 
be risky for Voldy to leave him unattended at such a critical 
juncture. His legilimency skills would easily pick up Peter's 
vacillating allegiances, guilt and fear of being found out, but it 
would appeal to LV to demonstrate to Peter his invincible power. I 
think he was ordered to follow, but in rat form and to stay out of 
the action until commanded otherwise. 

And so we have the potential perps assembling from different 
directions, all with different motives and expectations. Bang. Bang. 
Flashes of green light. It all goes horribly wrong, but who sees 
what? 

- Snape potentially sees the whole action, including any special 
spells needed to create the hoxbags, *if* they were cast. He may, or 
may not, have tried to save Lily or Harry by attempting to intercept 
one of the curses, causing it to deflect in some way. Either way, he 
sees LV blasted to smithereens leaving just a heap of robes and his 
wand on the ground. As Harry is apparently safe, his best option is 
to get the hell out and inform DD, in order to maintain his cover. 
This is why Harry has the dream recollection of Snape - he was there.

- Lupin, if guilty, may only have got to the house in time to stumble 
in and see James dead and hear more noise and bangs upstairs. He is 
not strong enough to take on LV and flees. Subsequently, he feels 
safer when he thinks Peter is dead, but after finding he is still 
alive, tries to execute Peter with Sirius to try and prevent his 
betrayal coming out years later.

- Sirius apparently arrives sometime later after all the action. If 
you take a more suspicious view, and believe he betrayed the secret 
swap by telling LV to target Peter, this would fit with his cover 
story although, of course, he would be looking round in disbelief and 
wondering what the hell had gone wrong. Either way, he would not have 
seen any of the spells used, nor would he have seen Snape or Lupin. 
Either way, he has a reason to chase Pettigrew -  to avenge his 
friends or kill a witness.

And Peter? 

Option (1) he was the only betrayer, was the only person with LV as 
right hand man, witnessed it all, picked up robes and wand and 
scarpered, subsequently taking the whole kit to Albania for his 
master. May have seen hoxpox spell go wrong if LV was trying to 
create one on the spot. Question - would Peter know anything about 
that level of deep black magic, and what plot purpose would it 
advance if he did? Maybe he would know where the final bit of V's 
soul was tucked away and this is his final role in helping Harry. 
Problem - we have no evidence that it is necessary to create a 
hoxpocket at the time of a murder; you seem to be able to create them 
later judging by the timing evidence with the Diary and ring.

Option (2) As in the classic detective story, he is crouching in the 
bushes watching a lot of bewildering activity, people coming and 
going, being blown up:

- he sees Snape arrive with LV but not leave (Snape disapparates from 
scene of murder); Peter was not aware that Snape was a DE and stores 
fact away for later; fascinated to see him teaching at Hogwarts; 
thinks he has one over on him when he finds himself in his house in 
HBP, especially when he overhears promise to Narcissa. Like the rest 
of us, he is not sure what side Snape is really on.

- he sees Lupin come and go very briefly; he can see that Lupin 
didn't do the murders, but wonders why he is there and ponders if 
Lupin betrayed his SK status to LV. Reason for him staying hidden and 
frightened at Hogwarts.

Option (3)  ....at some point, he creeps into the house to see what 
has happened. Carnage. Nothing alive but Teflon!Harry chortling in 
his cot, and LVs robes and wand lying on the ground. Mystified, Peter 
reaches to pick up them up, but hears Sirius's motorbike roar 
overhead. Panic-stricken he throws some destructive curses around and 
disapparates with what he is holding and subsequently stuffs the 
evidence away somewhere, prior to the duel with Sirius, whom he also 
suspects of betraying him to Voldy. 

His eventually reason for taking the wand to Albania with him to try 
and find LV is prompted by a visit by DD to Hagrid's hut whilst Peter 
is hiding in the milk jug. Hagrid and DD discuss ways of killing LV 
and DD makes clear that LV has to be brought back to 'human' form for 
this to be achieved.

Like two other conversations in that hut, the people doing the 
talking are perfectly aware they are being overhead, and by whom.

Carolyn
Always fascinated by Peter theories










From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 16:06:37 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:06:37 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
In-Reply-To: <dene96+f9ph@...>
Message-ID: <desned+tkp2@...>

> Ginger wrote:
> I just had a very bad thought.  What if RAB wasn't successful?  What
> if (s)he got into the cave, and replaced the locket, slipping the
> original Mucklux into a pocket, but was then killed by the
> potion/water from the lake/Inferi/whatever, and is now an Inferus
> dwelling in the lake?

> Potioncat:
> My second theory is just the beginning of an idea. We do know of 
> another wizard who is well versed in Dark Arts. It's possible he was 
> able to get in and make a switch and at least make it back home. 
> However, I'm still not sure how it would happen that LV wouldn't 
know 
> about it. My nominee (and I'm most likely the 3rd or 4th to come up 
> with the name) is Mr. Black senior, who would have done this in 
> revenge for Regulus's death.


Jen: I like this idea, Potioncat, it makes more sense than wet-behind-
the-ears Regulus working through the protections like DD (not) or 
somehow switching the locket prior to the protections without 
Voldemort knowing (doubtful). And I *really* like the motive--REVENGE. 
The story could use a person who defies Voldemort for completely 
personal reasons and not for the Good of Society and all that. Maybe 
it will be Snape yet, but Mr. Black getting revenge for Regulus is 
juicy, too. (My personal favorite for the Dark Avenger is still Amy 
Benson from the cave, but she would need a little backstory.) 

A couple of things if it's Black, Sr.:

1)We have suspiciously little information about him since he was 
slightly overshadowed by Mrs. Black in OOTP. Either he's completely 
unimportant to the story or we were supposed to be drawn away from him.

2) JKR said a bad father relationship can be a breeding ground for 
evil. Since Sirius was never tempted by Dark magic even though he was 
surrounded by it, and Regulus started down the path but tried to get 
out, there's some evidence Black Sr. had a positive influence to 
counter Mrs. Black's fanaticism. Sirius includes both of them when 
speaking about their 'pureblood mania', but after seeing Mrs. Black in 
action, it's easy to imagine her talking for both of them and Mr. 
Black just going along with the program.

3)Someone on one of the lists mentioned a wizard using Dark arts could 
dismantle the cave protections more easily than DD did. The arch was 
pretty straighforward, but a person could use Dark magic to fool the 
boat and perhaps get around drinking the potion. Or poor Kreacher was 
involved whether it was Mr. Black or Regulus!

Jen








From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 16:13:09 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:13:09 -0000
Subject: Mead in HBP
In-Reply-To: <20050827225611.14355.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <desnql+5fjb@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Waldo wrote:

> Mead (Rosmerta's Oak matured, in particular) seems to
> be DD's favorite and I wonder if it is intended as
> part of his Odin-like persona. The wise, old bearded
> guy seems to try (rather persistently) using mead to
> seal an agreement with the sad mortals on Privet
> drive, although they were ... unreceptive. Mead seems
> to be the drink of heroes in the Norse tradition (as
> well as Odins elixir of poetic inspiration), and it
> may also be a fitting toast as one "step[s] out into
> the night ...[to]pursue that flighty temptress,
> adventure."  

Pip!Squeak
Heroic imbibing of mead is in the Norse tradition, but also in the 
English tradition - the Anglo-Saxon and Danish people have something 
of a mixed relationship, the Danes being the last successful 
invaders before William the Conqueror. [Google 'Jorvik' for more 
details]. 

Actually, most Northern European countries have an ancient tradition 
of mead drinking. The reasons behind this can be briefly summarised 
as: 'Grapes don't grow in this climate, dammit!' {g}

Anyway, the first mention of mead in England that I know of is in 
Beowulf (which while set in Denmark is a 7th Century Anglo-Saxon 
poem - told you the Anglo-Saxons and Danes had a mixed relationship 
{g}). 

I wouldn't associate Dumbledore with Odin, myself. He might be old, 
wise and bearded, but he's lacking in the only one eye department - 
and Ravens are associated with Odin, not phoenixes. Also it's Snape 
who gets to hang upside down, which was another Odin thing. But JKR 
may well be intending a reference to heroes who drink mead. The 
other possible reference is that mead used to be more expensive than 
beer in the days when honey was the *only* European sweetener; so it 
was drunk in large quantities only by gentry, nobility and royalty. 
So she might be punning on Dumbledore's 'nobility'.

Other reasons JKR might pick mead? Well, while it is commercially 
produced on a small scale (and is indeed matured in oak barrels), 
most English mead is home-brew. Mead is right up there in the 
amazing list of alcoholic things English home-brewers will make  (I 
did mention the thing about grapes not really growing here, didn't 
I? You haven't lived until you've drunk English Parsnip Wine. And 
you may not live *after* you've drunk the Parsnip Wine ...). So she 
may be joking that, yes, Madam Rosemerta's pub is basically a home-
brew/Real-ale sort of place, and a truly superb mead is one of the 
home brews supplied.

Sounds a heck of a lot better than my grandmother's mead, anyway. My 
chief memory of that is the tendency it had to make the bottles 
explode...

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 17:23:07 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:23:07 -0000
Subject: Half-blood/soul-mind-Diary!Tom/SpectatorSports/DE MoMemployee/Sieve/PS-dream
In-Reply-To: <der4li+cpcn@...>
Message-ID: <desrtr+tfdr@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> Why did Dumbledore tell Harry to tell only Ron and Hermione about
the Horcruxes, not Ron, Hermione, and Ginny? Did he not know about 
H/G  ship, did he think Ginny is too underage to be involved, did he
> think Ginny retains a link to LV from CoS? 

Pippin:
There was no H/G ship as yet when Dumbledore advised Harry to share
his secrets with his friends, Ron and Hermione.

Catlady:
> I'm usually wrong about everything, but I still think that the Death
 Eaters and other pure-bloodist snobs of recent centuries have
nothing against Half-bloods. 

Pippin:
Half-bloods are the children of blood-traitors. It's the reason
Kreacher won't take orders from Tonks, and that Andromeda's 
line was blasted from the family tree. Voldemort accepts them
as DE's, after all he himself is one. But they aren't top drawer.

Another reason for me to think that the too eww to be true DE is
Lupin. No pureblood or halfblood would dare cast doubt on his
loyalty to the cause by asking  Lord Voldemort for a Muggleborn 
witch as a prize. But a werewolf...

> 
> Pippin Wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/3054 :
> 
> << now that we know JKR's real opinion of spectator sports,  >>

Catlady:
> Excuse me, what did I miss?

Pippin
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/070
5-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm

 To be honest with you, Quidditch matches have been the bane of my
life in the Harry  Potter books. They are necessary in that people 
expect Harry to play Quidditch, but there is a limit to how many ways 
you can have them play Quidditch together and for something 
new to happen. And then I had this moment of blinding 
inspiration. I thought, Luna's going to commentate, and that was 
just a gift. It's the kind of commentary I'd do on a 
sports match because I'm ? [laughs]. Anyway yeah, it was that.

> Eloise wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/3071 :
 
> << Now this may mean very little in this particular context however
it is interesting that he witnesses the flash of the curse,
accompanied a vision of both Malfoy and Snape. Was Malfoy (sr) there, 
too, accompanying his master and later retrieving his wand? >> 

Catlady:
> Altho' I'm almost always wrong about everything, I've always thought
> that PS/Ss dream was a clue that Snape and Lucius were present with
LV at Godric's Hollow. But Pettigrew was there, too, as JKR said
somewhere (I can't find it in Quick Quote Quill) that the way Lord
Voldemort got his wand back was that Pettigrew picked it up from the
wreckage and hid it somewhere and picked it up on his way out of the
country to Albania.

Pippin:
Madame Scoop's classifies this as an uncorroborated fan report.

http://www.madamscoop.org/hoaxes.htm

Second-hand report: Jo said that Peter Pettigrew took Voldemort's 
wand and robe and hid them
This may be true, but we have no way to corroborate it. Here's the
source: just after the 2004 Edinburgh Book Fair, an 11-year-old 
named "Chris"  posted to The Leaky Cauldron (22 Aug 2004) that 
he had the following interaction with Jo (the italics are mine):

Chris: It was sooooo cool that we just have to show off and brag 
about it im afraid (sorry). Not only is JK Rowling the best Author 
EVER !!, but she is such a nice lady. It was so nice to get to meet 
her, shake her hand, say thanks for writing such brilliant stories 
AND have all our things signed!
We got there late, about an hour, which was really sad because 
we missed the book reading, but once we were inside it was 
awesome. JK Rowling even asked to see us last because she 
had been told about all the problems my Dad had had with 
his car (the engine blew up!) before we got to Edinburgh and said 
she would spend an extra 5 minutes with us at the end! - WOW, 
We think not that she would have even spent longer but we just 
didnt know what to ask her - all the questions got muddled up!
The ladies that helped get us to the book festival were really nice 
too, we were taken through to where JK Rowling was, given our 
wristbands, then we went to meet her. We said hello and she told us 
'she was really glad we could make it'. I told her I was really glad
tobe there and her books were the best, I said I wish I could have 
asked her a question and so she told me to 'go on then, ask away!'.
I asked JK Rowling would Professor Lockhart get out of St Mungos, 
get his memory back and be in any of the next books?, she said no 
to all of these questions.
I also asked when Harries parents were killed by Voldermort,
 Wormtail turned into a rat and pretended to be dead. How then 
did he give Voldermort his wand and robe back once he found 
him and helped give him back his body ?, she told me (after tapping 
her nose!) 'he hid them'.

We have included this information here at Madam Scoop's because 
it was so widely reported that we have assumed that one of the 
reporters had a way to corroborate Chris's story. But we admit 
it's a little iffy =).

--
I thought that the dream was showing us the birth of a prejudice.
Harry subconsciously associated Snape and Draco Malfoy with the
loss of his parents, though Draco can hardly have been involved,
and Harry's idea that Snape was linked to the pain in his scar was
a misapprehension.

Pettigrew may have been there, but I continue to think that it
was Lupin, polyjuiced as Sirius, who was still there when Hagrid
arrived. The real Sirius arrived later, after Hagrid and Harry were
already gone.

Catlady:
 I always thought Pettigrew was there because LV
> was afraid that Pettigrew was a fake traitor, leading him into a
trap, and he was going to make Pettigrew enter the house in front of
himto make the trap, if there was one, would catch him. But the
revelation that LV really is an excellent Legilimens screwed that -- 
he could tell Pettigrew was an honest traitor by looking into 
Pettigrew's mind.

Pippin:
Then it doesn't make sense that Pettigrew eluded Dumbledore's
hunt for the spy who was close to the Potters. 
Only  a superb occlumens and a very talented actor  could have 
brought it off.  There is no canon that Peter was either, of 
course, which is why I believe that Lupin was and is the spy.


Lupin is the person to whom Dumbledore granted a third chance,
the one he blindly and foolishly trusted, as I am sure we will
all see in Book Seven. I could be wrong, of course. But...

I've unearthed another piece of evidence that Snape is no longer
a loyal DE. JKR has steadfastly denied all attempts to ID the real
name of the negatively portrayed Gilderoy Lockhart, though
she's admitted he was based on a real person. She's labelled one
of them as a toxic rumor on her website. But she has freely
admitted that one of Snape's models is her high school chemistry 
teacher Mr. Nettleship. I don't think she would do that if she
was planning to have him be evil in the end.

Pippin





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 17:32:32 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:32:32 -0000
Subject: Mead in HBP
In-Reply-To: <desnql+5fjb@...>
Message-ID: <dessfg+rkim@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Waldo wrote:
> 
> > Mead (Rosmerta's Oak matured, in particular) seems to
> > be DD's favorite and I wonder if it is intended as
> > part of his Odin-like persona. The wise, old bearded
> > guy seems to try (rather persistently) using mead to
> > seal an agreement with the sad mortals on Privet
> > drive, although they were ... unreceptive. Mead seems
> > to be the drink of heroes in the Norse tradition (as
> > well as Odins elixir of poetic inspiration), and it
> > may also be a fitting toast as one "step[s] out into
> > the night ...[to]pursue that flighty temptress,
> > adventure."  
> 
> Pip!Squeak
> Heroic imbibing of mead is in the Norse tradition, but also in the 
> English tradition - the Anglo-Saxon and Danish people have
something  of a mixed relationship, the Danes being the last 
successful  invaders before William the Conqueror. [Google 'Jorvik' 
for more  details]. 
> 
<snip fascinating mead facts...thanks, Pip!>

Pippin:
iMO, JKR needed a drink that was rare and distinctive enough that
Draco could assume it was meant for Dumbledore, (and that the 
reader would remember) and picked mead because of its heroic, 
noble and antique associations. 

Pippin






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 17:52:44 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:52:44 -0000
Subject: Sharing Secrets
In-Reply-To: <desrtr+tfdr@...>
Message-ID: <destlc+b3cm@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
> <catlady at w...> 
> wrote:
> > Why did Dumbledore tell Harry to tell only Ron and Hermione about
> the Horcruxes, not Ron, Hermione, and Ginny? Did he not know about 
> H/G  ship, did he think Ginny is too underage to be involved, did he
> > think Ginny retains a link to LV from CoS? 
> 
> Pippin:
> There was no H/G ship as yet when Dumbledore advised Harry to share
> his secrets with his friends, Ron and Hermione.
> 
Lyn Now:
I find the whole matter of sharing secrets to be an underlying theme of the series. 

We have, as just a partial list:
DD recommending himself as secret keep for the Potters.
The Potters, as well as Sirius, having their own ideas about who should be secret keeper
Petter revealing the secret
The Dursely's keeping multiple secrets from Harry
Harry attempting to keep secret from LV/Quirrel that he had retreived the stone from the 
Mirror.
Dobby struggling with maintaining the Malfoy secrets.
Of course we have the Chamber of Secrets
DD telling Harry to keep some things secret from others, such as revealing Neville's secret.
Yet at other times DD telling Harry to share major secrets with only Ron and Hermione.

Obviously the list could be expanded ten times.

Now part of this is just the workings of real life, and part of this is inherent to a mystery 
(though she doesn't entirely subscribe to the genre), but it seems to me that the 
pervasiveness of secrets has greater meaning both to JKR and for the series. With respect 
to the latter, as the entire series is basically put into play by one breaking a secret, I can't 
help but wonder if the series will end with the maintaining of a secret.  

Any takers for this as a topic of discussion?








From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 18:42:15 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:42:15 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <demld7+a7aa@...>
Message-ID: <det0i7+dh6c@...>

> Eloise:
> No, it's not inconsistent with the evidence in HBP. But then if
this  is the case... forgive me, but aren't we back to where we 
started?  How did the MOM know that Harry had been AK'd at GH?

Pippin:
Because Voldemort had no  reason to hide the murder of a family
of blood traitors and Dumbledore supporters who had already
defied him three times. 

But I suppose the larger question is why JKR leaves all these 
perceived inconsistencies in the text. Is she 
unconsciously imitating the sloppiness of pulp fiction, or is she 
doing so consciously and does it then serve some thematic 
purpose?

Now her website portrays her as, er, organizationally challenged,
so it could be that she simply doesn't perceive them. (My fellow
slobs will know exactly what am I talking about, while all you
neatniks will be shaking your heads incredulously.) But I think,
especially when it comes to the uneven application of wizarding
justice, that they are  too obvious for even a born slob  to  
overlook. So, could the uneven enforcement of wizarding law, 
and the apparent inconstancy of the rules of magic be related? 
I think they could.

In the ancient world, one rationale for the RL belief in magic was
that we live in a catastrophic, chaotic world. There is no natural
order and no natural law -- it is all imposed on the fundamental
chaos by the action of supernatural  beings, themselves
sprung from chaos, who have wrested power from the universe
and from one another, and used it to enforce their will. 

These  beings  imposed order on the world  but they could be 
constrained or persuaded to make exceptions (or to stop making 
exceptions and make things proceed 'normally') on behalf of the 
magician. 

Where belief in a disorderly universe was succeeded by a belief
in omnipotently divine or  natural law and order, the rationale 
for magic changed. It was then believed that operating alongside 
the laws of God and/or nature that had been revealed  
(or discovered) to man, there were secret, or "occult" laws, 
which only the adept could use. 

Modern fantasy writers have generally used the more modern
rationale for  magic in their stories. But I think JKR,has gone
 back to the older rationale, with the subversive purpose of 
showing us that if we really wanted  magic to work  it
might mean giving up the belief that  both natural and human 
law should be logically consistent and no human should
be above it.

No wonder Hermione, who understands the theory of magic
much better than Harry does, is terrifed by the idea of working
out spells on one's own. 

Now I don't think that JKR believes that the real world actually *is* 
chaotic, or that the magical world is in 'reality' underlain by
chaos, but if her wizards, with the exception of radicals like 
Dumbledore, don't have the idea of natural order even as an
underlying 
myth, it might explain why they are so tolerant of inconsistency.

It wouldn't bother them that some spells can be hidden and others
can't, or that some seem to require intent while others don't, and
so on. 

It also might be, for example, that Dumbledore applies "innocent
until proven guilty" at Hogwarts, but that the WW's justice
system as a whole is based on the Roman/continental 
standard of "guilty until proven innocent"  and that most wizards
don't think that one or the other has to be the *right* way to 
do things. It could even explain why they've put up for so 
long with Slytherin House even though most non-Slytherins seem to
feel that blatant self-interest is bad form if not morally
dangerous.


Eloise:
> Um...thinking about witnesses...Mrs Figg, as I think you pointed
out  did seem to know independently that Harry was fighting off
Dementors,  although she "came panting into sight" after they had 
left. I think  Mr Tibbles had only warned her that Mundungus had
left. 

Just a  curious detail. I wonder how she knew if she couldn't see 
them and  wasn't close enough to feel them? Perhaps it was the 
lights failing.
> 

Pippin:
Do we know that she wasn't close enough to feel them? Her manner is
much more confident as she describes what she felt. Harry could
certainly feel them before he saw them in PoA.

Pippin





From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 28 20:09:11 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:09:11 -0000
Subject: Detecting  magic
In-Reply-To: <desg40+g0kl@...>
Message-ID: <det5l7+h3v0@...>

Kirstini mentioned magic that the Ministry should have detected, but 
didn't: 
> Not to mention the use of (at least) Alohomora, Scourgify, the 
> Packing  Charm(!) and yet another Hover (Locomoter Trunk) by 
> Tonks/other members of the Order at Privet Drive in OoP. Surely in 
> the wake of a breach of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage 
> Sorcery decree, the Ministry sensors would be charged and pointed 
> on young delinquent Potter. 
> You know, scratching around for flints always leaves me feeling 
> slightly sordid.


Yes, I fear this is one of those areas where JKR has painted herself 
into a corner by making magic too strong.  

About the only non-flint explanation I can see is if the ministry 
doesn't have nearly enough resources to detect all magic, and most 
just does random spot-checking to deter underage wizards.  In this 
case, they might have just happened to be checking Privet Drive when 
Dobby did the Hover Charm.  However, there would also have to be some 
way for the Ministry to know about Aunt Marge.  It would be too much 
of a coincidence for the Ministry to also catch this with a random 
spot check. Perhaps some wizard saw her drifting by and notified the 
Ministry?

As for Harry being caught making a Patronus, Umbridge set Harry up in 
the beginning of Book 5, so she could have made sure that the 
Ministry saw everything.

On the related topic of detecting traces of past magic, we've seen 
just one wizard do that - Dumbledore.  It's possible that he is the 
only one who can.  It's also possible that even Dumbledore can only 
detect past magic if there's been a *lot* of it.  He said that the 
cave had "known magic," but  the cave had been exposed to tons of 
magic; think of all the spells on the inferi alone.  True, Dumbledore 
was also able to detect the chain that raised the boat, but this may 
mean just that the chain was an invisible enchanted object, rather 
than Dumbledore needing to detect traces of *past* magic to find it. 

-- Judy





From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 02:43:22 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:43:22 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
In-Reply-To: <desned+tkp2@...>
Message-ID: <detsoa+amcs@...>

> Jen: (My personal favorite for the Dark Avenger is still Amy 
> Benson from the cave, but she would need a little backstory.) 

Ginger:

Your thought got me thinking.  (Chain reaction or something.)

Of the 7 Porksausages, we know 2 (ring and diary) are done, 1 is in 
Snakeman, 3 have been identified, but need finding (cup, locket and 
Nagini-I'm going with that for the time) and 1 is a total unknown.

Which means that somehow Harry has to find out what it is, where it 
is, and how to destroy it.  Methinks there has to be a clue somewhere.

So what if little Amy is the clue?  Perhaps Mrs Cole and staff called 
her Amy because her given name was a bit odd, and they thought that 
her middle name better suited a little girl.  After all, who would 
call a child Rowena?  Or maybe there was an Edwina there and they 
kept getting them mixed up...whatever, they decided on Amy.  

So if little Amy is indeed Rowena Amy Benson, it fits that she would 
have some item that belonged to her family.  I'm not suggesting 
Rowena Ravenclaw's mouth organ, but perhaps something that was kept 
in storage for her until she was of age.

At least Harry has a lead on the missing Floorpolish and can find 
it.  Maybe he goes back to the orphanage to look over Tommy's file 
and looks at Amy's and Dennis Bishop's files as well.

If Amy is the last decendant of Rowena, and Tom knew Amy's real name 
and associated it with Rowena after he went to Hogwarts, he could 
have "befriended" her on summer holidays and found out what she had 
that was Rowena's.  If it was being held for her by the orphanage, 
there might be a record of it. 

The only problem is that Amy would need to be a witch to get to the 
basin in the cave, in which case she'd have gotten a similar 
scholarship, but I think DD would have known about that.

Another possibility would be that she hooked up with a magical person 
and she was the one who wrote the note, accompanied the magical 
person into the cave (undetected by the boat's magic sensor) and 
drank the goo herself.  Perhaps she was seeking revenge on Tom for 
stealing her family heirloom.

There was a silver thimble in the box in Tom's wardrobe.  Were we 
drawn to the mouth organ so we would forget the thimble?  Is there a 
myth/legend that associates wisdom with sewing?  

Ginger, amazed at what enters the mind of one who has a nearly 
completed project and can't access the website needed to finish it, 
but has been checking every few hours in the hopes that it is up 
again as She Who Must Not Be Made Cranky is certainly getting there.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 12:38:45 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:38:45 +0100
Subject: Further thoughts
Message-ID: <A9CE1FC1-682C-4292-909F-D430D57E0F71@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...>  
wrote:
 > I think you're right there. JKR seems to leave the details to
 > labor over during the writing of each book. The fact that she
 > continues to introduce important characters and plot concepts this
 > late in the game makes it impossible not to shunt previous
 > characters and plots to the background (or out of the books). Plus
 > all the comments about the first thing she plans to do is edit the
 > series!
 >
 > I've been reading old interviews, 97-98, and was struck by the fact
 > that even after COS, there was no mention of the plot. I'm curious
 > to see if the questions started in 1999, after POA. Deconstructing
 > the plot was mostly a fandom phenomenon, right?
snip

A few days late with this one - the Fourth Test intervened and  
nothing was going to drag me away from that. Commiserations to any  
lurking Aussies - the idea of using neutral umpires hasn't really  
worked. I can't see that Shepherd or Willey would have made some of  
those decisions, even though they are Brits.

Back to business.
Highly likely.
Fans are pretty good at jumping to conclusions -- both internally to  
the plot and in the broader take on HP. After all the opinions  
offered over the years about literary influences it was quite  
surprising that in her latest big interview it was pointed out that  
she'd never finished LoTR nor the Narnia books - in fact she seems to  
have an antipathy towards the latter. Not only is it unlikely that  
she'll follow where others have already trod, it seems this is a
deliberate choice - she wants to "break the genre".

I'm all for that. Fantasy has never figured much in my choice of  
reading, or not after I'd reached the age of having to face cold  
steel in the mornings. (Mind you, that was abandoned once the whisker  
production reached a density that was sufficient to allow for the  
growth of a respectable beard. Ten minutes scraping every morning -  
about 3 months over a lifetime - and there are better things to do  
with that time than gaze bleary eyed into a mirror while blood drips  
into the basin. A bit more zizz in your scratcher, for a  start. Life  
is mostly about getting your priorities right.)

Whatever.
Fantasy is a genre where all too often stereotypes cover the pages  
like a cheap suit. Plots are limited, too - baddies threaten the  
world, goodies band together, and after distressing (but entirely  
predictable) reverses  eventually cast down the maleficent monsters.  
Ho hum. Many of the writers try to make up for this ineluctable theme  
by introducing one or more substantial sub-plots.  Even here the  
choice is limited and invariably involves the hero(s) in pain,  
suffering or misery so dire that it's difficult to keep from laughing  
out loud. Then, in a desperate attempt to elicit engagement by the  
reader their leading character is written into a situation so  
impossibly terminal that it requires the intervention/introduction of  
a hitherto unknown (to the reader) magical device or bit of magic to  
enable them to survive to the climax of the book or books. Usually  
It's a trilogy - never in the field of imaginary conflict is so much  
written containing so very, very little so often.

Jo does break the genre - sort of. And too often for comfort.
Instead of "Ah! Only the Widget of Wonder can save me!" resulting in   
a 'with one bound our hero was free' type-scenario, what we get  
instead is what appears to be a credible bit of magical usage which  
falls apart later, or seems to. Certainly there are occasions where  
it isn't applied or doesn't work where one would expect it to, or an  
explanation doesn't quite hack it. (See below.)


 > During the interviews this time around, it really struck me there
 > can be a disconnect between the hints JKR thinks she's giving and
 > what fans may hear. Like in the World Book Day chat:
 >
 > Q: "What happened to Wormtail?"
 > JK Rowling replies -> "You'll find out in book six."
 >
 > Technically JKR was entirely accurate in her answer. We did find out
 > Wormtail was alive, and staying at Snape's (during the school year
 > too?) and doing...something (spying on him?). I expected a pretty
 > complete explanation of Wormtail's activities in Book 6 though, and
 > obviously read more into the answer than JKR meant.
 >



That editing is gonna be necessary, I think.
It's not the first time that (in the eyes of the readers) Jo's  
promise of more information hasn't been fulfilled. If you remember,  
Book 5 was going to give us important background on Lily - yet all we  
had was one measly memory from Sevvy.

The situation with Peter is somewhat worse - round about Christmas a  
question re: Peter's whereabouts was in the FAQ ballot, didn't win,  
but Jo said the answer was interesting. Somehow I'd feel happier if  
we had a few international observers to monitor these count these  
ballot counts .... not that I'm casting aspersions, but it would  
remove a few niggling suspicions that the question that wins is the  
one Jo wants to answer.

Even the assumption that Peter has spent the last year at Spinner's  
End engaged in a little light dusting and raising a shine on Sevvy's  
tancrements is a bit iffy - the place is described "as if it hadn't  
been occupied for some time" or some such words. In other words even  
if by some chance that question had won the poll we'd still have  
gained bugger all.

Admittedly someone who has all the answers cribbed on their shirt  
cuff has a very different perspective on what is or is not important  
- something denied to us poor devils groping around in the dark.  
Allowing for that - and this is to be whispered down a well at  
midnight in case innocent ears are abroad - there are some dodgy bits  
in the HP plot-lines. Mostly they're easy to slide over, usually it  
involves a bit of business explaining what's happening or why. Hardly  
earth-shattering stuff, but once you notice them they rankle.  
Irritating. Little gristly bits that take some swallowing, plot  
devices that either contradict canon or fall as flat as a lead  
souffle occur on average once a book by my reckoning.

The recent discussion on the ability of the Ministry to monitor  
spells is an example of the sort of thing I'm on about. When it turns  
up in CoS it seems quite reasonable - until the number of times it  
doesn't happen in response to spells in and around Privet Drive start  
to pile up. There's Dung apparating almost outside the door;  there's  
the members of the Order splashing spells all over the place in OoP;   
there's DD conjuring drinks in HBP. Hmm. Can it be that the author  
ignores the rules when it suits her purposes?
Surely not.

One thing's for sure. There's something  wrong when fans have to  
invent extra-canon magic in an attempt to explain away the  
inconsistencies - if indeed it turns out that there is an  
inconsistency. (Shielding spells and the like - actually they're  
probably counter-canon; DD whitters on in the Cave about magic always  
leaving traces - or is this another inconsistency? And wouldn't the  
putative Shielding spell be detected even if it successfully hid the  
spell being obscured? SFAIC fans inventing spells not in canon to  
explain away plot holes merely highlights the writer's failings.)

There's always a chance that some of the internal contradictions will  
be resolved, indeed that was what I hoped would happen - and that  
perhaps a few of them would turn out to have been clues to important  
or interesting aspects of the story, but since the publication of the  
last book I'm not so sure. It seems more likely that at the end we'll  
have a lumpy carpet under which inconvenient bits of canon have been  
hastily swept -  and it'll need a bit of nifty editing to flatten out  
the unsightly bulges.

PS/SS - that damn Mirror. According to DD only someone who wanted
to find the Stone but not use it could see it in the Mirror. Yet  
Quirrell!Mort
states "I see myself handing it to my Master." Not use - give it away,
presumably exactly what Harry was intending to do in giving it to DD.
Yet Harry can see it and Quirrell can't. Bollocks.

CoS - Dobby. He zips round the countryside like he's got a season  
ticket -
yet House Elves can only do what their masters instruct them to do.
Lucius ain't Sirius and Dobby ain't Kreacher; no way is Malfoy going to
issue a succession of stupidly ambiguous orders to his House Elf -  
and at such convenient times, too.
The whole "Dobby is free!" palaver is damn dodgy too. Deus ex machina  
in the form of a sock. No thank you. 3/10. Must do better.
I had great hopes that a Dobby thread was going to be critically  
important somewhere along the line, and that these 'lapses' would  
have meaning. Still possible, but expectations are fading.

PoA. Did a few posts on this one - Sirius. His escape from Azkaban has
more holes than last years exports of Swiss cheese.

GoF - the 'magical contract' - it's not credible or logical that one  
can be
bound by a personal contract that one
a) never knew about, and
b) never agreed too.
Never believed that DD wouldn't suss Crouch!Moody as a fake. They've  
known each other for years, shared experiences etc. Crouch!Moody  
might fool a casual acquaintance but never someone who really knows him.
And why did none of the competitors try "Accio egg!" in the first  
task? KISS.

And in the latest we have Patronus-producing Tonks. In her interview  
Jo strongly hints that 'emotional' distress is the cause of the  
change of form. This I would consider a major cheat given the mental  
torture that some characters have been through in the books without  
the slightest hint of it having an effect on magical powers or  
abilities. If it did turn out this way IMO it'd be a plot perversion  
merely to introduce an unnecessary and yuck-inducing love-interest in  
a way that wouldn't pass muster at Mills and Boon.
Then there's the Hosscuts. Those could go horribly wrong so far as  
internal logical consistency is concerned. Need more info to reach  
final conclusions, but it wouldn't be surprising to see a few more  
bulges in that carpet.

No doubt others have passages/plot devices/dialogue where they wince
and squint sideways at the page. I've kept hoping that at least some of
these were part of a cunning plan that would be revealed in due  
course, but
it's never happened. Now I just assume it's careless writing or she just
got stuck. Depressing. It does take the gilt off the gingerbread,  
more so since it was the plotting in HP that first attracted my  
interest. Not much bothered by who wins, who dies - Hairy MacBoons  
could end up ruling the earth for all I care, just so long as Jo  
doesn't cut corners getting there. For all that I enjoyed HBP there  
do seem to be some rickety bits  becoming evident in the overall  
construction.

The proof of the pudding will be in book 7.
Dunno  about you, but I'm not feeling super-confident.

Kneasy







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 13:02:02 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:02:02 -0000
Subject: Detecting  magic
In-Reply-To: <det5l7+h3v0@...>
Message-ID: <dev10a+c8gh@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at j...> wrote:
> Kirstini mentioned magic that the Ministry should have detected,
but 
> didn't: 
> > Not to mention the use of (at least) Alohomora, Scourgify, the 
> > Packing  Charm(!) and yet another Hover (Locomoter Trunk) by 
> > Tonks/other members of the Order at Privet Drive in OoP. Surely
in 
> > the wake of a breach of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage 
> > Sorcery decree, the Ministry sensors would be charged and pointed 
> > on young delinquent Potter. 
> > You know, scratching around for flints always leaves me feeling 
> > slightly sordid.
> 
Judy:
> Yes, I fear this is one of those areas where JKR has painted
herself 
> into a corner by making magic too strong.  
> 
> About the only non-flint explanation I can see is if the ministry 
> doesn't have nearly enough resources to detect all magic, and 
most  just does random spot-checking to deter underage wizards. 

Pippin:
Not to mention Mundungus's disapparation.
Privet Drive is supposed to be closely watched, too, which means
Judy is probably right about magic done elsewhere.

I haven't got all my books with me  but weren't all the charms 
Kirstini mentioned  done by the auror Tonks or ex- auror Moody? 
Jo has said that no magic is foolproof, and I suppose if anybody 
knows how to defeat the Ministry's magic detection, it would be 
aurors, like Moody and Tonks, and career criminals like Dung, 
not to mention Voldemort and his DE's. Just like in the real world 
both cops and criminals know how to defeat burglar alarms.
 
Pippin





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 14:04:20 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:04:20 -0000
Subject: Possible flint from OotP?
In-Reply-To: <deid0j+7ed7@...>
Message-ID: <dev4l4+cfac@...>

> > Waldo:
> > Dumbledore to Harry: "... He saw himself in you before
> > > he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that
> > > scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave
> > > you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to
> > > escape him not once, *but four times* so far --
> > > something that neither your parents, nor Neville's
> > > parents, ever achieved." (OP37)
> > > 
> <snip> 
> > Pippin:
> > I think it's only the Godric's Hollow escape that counts in 
> > Book One. The other two times, Harry did not defeat Voldemort
> > by his own power. He was rescued, first by Firenze and then
> > by Dumbledore himself. 
 
> Now Lyn:
> But defeat or rescue, he escaped LV's harmful intent. DD directly 
references the number of 
> times Harry has been able to "escape." It's just another example 
of JKR's sloppiness, which 
> I hope she adds to her "must edit" list.

Certainly he was able to hold off Quirrell/Voldemort for long enough 
for Dumbledore to rescue him, as Dumbledore himself admits.

I think the issue here is context.  I agree with Constance (not 
quoted here) that it was the encounter with Voldemort's diary 
manifestation that doesn't count.  Remember, at this stage - the end 
of OOP - Dumbledore is still concealing his belief that Voldemort is 
making Horcruxes.  He may privately feel that the encounter in the 
chamber counts, but won't want to draw Harry's attention to it as 
yet.

David






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 14:51:33 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:51:33 -0000
Subject: A Very Bad Thought
In-Reply-To: <detsoa+amcs@...>
Message-ID: <dev7dl+qfjv@...>

Ginger:
> So what if little Amy is the clue?  Perhaps Mrs Cole and staff 
> called her Amy because her given name was a bit odd, and they
> thought that her middle name better suited a little girl.  After
> all, who would call a child Rowena?  Or maybe there was an Edwina
> there and they kept getting them mixed up...whatever, they decided
> on Amy.  

Jen: Hehe, I like the way you think Ginger. Someone on HPFGU 
suggested Rosmerta Amy Benson, but that would make her 70+ years old 
and even by WW standards, it's a little hard to imagine Ron lusting 
after someone older than his mom ;). So we'll go with little Rowena 
for now.

Ginger: 
> The only problem is that Amy would need to be a witch to get to
> the basin in the cave, in which case she'd have gotten a similar 
> scholarship, but I think DD would have known about that.
> 
> Another possibility would be that she hooked up with a magical
> person and she was the one who wrote the note, accompanied the
> magical person into the cave (undetected by the boat's magic
> sensor) and drank the goo herself.  Perhaps she was seeking
> revenge on Tom for stealing her family heirloom.

Jen: Now this doesn't work for Tom getting Rowena's family heirloom, 
but it's entirely possible Amy was adopted out by a family and went 
to another wizarding school in Europe. That way DD wouldn't know 
what happened to her, and it might explain why she was on a solo 
Horcrux search instead of casting her lot with DD & Co. 

A darker theory I like at the moment is the cave incident did some 
permanent damage to Amy. It forced the magic out of her much like 
Neville's uncle throwing him out the window, but she also got a 
little twisted, too. Since her name wasn't down for Hogwarts for 
whatever reason (born in another country perhaps), she didn't show 
up on the MOM radar and was never treated at St. Mungos. So she grew 
up obsessed with the idea of getting back at Tom Riddle and thus 
followed his life very closely, especially once he left Hogwarts. 
And if the potion didn't kill her, she may be working at Hogwarts 
right now, using her adopted name. <beg>

ginger:
> There was a silver thimble in the box in Tom's wardrobe.  Were we 
> drawn to the mouth organ so we would forget the thimble?  Is there
> a myth/legend that associates wisdom with sewing?  

Jen: Hey, that thimble caught my eye too. Didn't really fit in with 
the yo-yo and mouth organ. And the fact that Harry wondered about 
the mouth organ, too. The thimble reminded me of an elementary 
school exercise: "Look at this picture of three items and decide 
which one doesn't belong." Dumbledore said he would know if Tom 
didn't return the items, but he would he know if Tom took one back?

Jen, speculating wildly under the radar of the Humor Control 
Division of the MOM, currently attempting to infiltrate HPFGU.





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 15:23:51 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:23:51 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <det0i7+dh6c@...>
Message-ID: <dev9a7+k817@...>

> > Eloise:
> > No, it's not inconsistent with the evidence in HBP. But then if
> this  is the case... forgive me, but aren't we back to where we 
> started?  How did the MOM know that Harry had been AK'd at GH?
> 
> Pippin:
> Because Voldemort had no  reason to hide the murder of a family
> of blood traitors and Dumbledore supporters who had already
> defied him three times. 

Eloise:

He had no reason to hide it after the event, just as he had no reason 
to hide any of his other murders, after he became feared as Lord 
Voldemort. No doubt had it not gone so wrong, the Dark Mark would 
have been fired over GH just as elsewhere.

I understood your reasoning to be that the immature Tom did not have 
the ability, which he later developed and potentially used when he 
murdered Frank Bryce, amongst others, to hide his magic when he 
murdered the Riddles.

And I think that's good reasoning. After all, although he wanted his 
murders and those of his DEs to be known about after the event, it's 
less helpful if the MOM can detect you *in the act* so that you end 
up ambushed by a horde of Aurors. And hiding Bryce's murder, in fact 
all the magic going on in the Riddle House, would be sensible.

And I also agree that there was good reason for him to want the 
Riddle murders to be discovered, if he wanted revenge on Morfin. 
OTOH, he needed to frame someone if the murders were likely to be 
discovered as surely his ancestry was recorded and if the MOM knew 
there was a Riddle at Hogwarts and three Riddles had died under 
strange circumstances that they knew at once to be magicical...

OK, they wouldn't expect a schoolboy to be AKing his family.
But at what point did Dumbledore put two and two together?  

I digress.

If Voldemort had the ability to cloak his activity, would really have 
broadcast to the MOM radar that he was AKing the Potters one by one?
Would GH, which we know was protected by Fidelius and where the 
Potters had hidden with the full knowledge of Dumbledore (err, well, 
at least before the Fidelius) not be protected by other charms? 

I find it very hard to believe that the MOM radar could both 
penetrate the defences of GH and that Voldemort was happy to be 
(albeit remotely) watched at work. And if that's *not* how it works, 
then, as I said, on the surviving evidence, what led them to believe 
Harry had survived an AK? I believe there *was* a witness.

> But I suppose the larger question is why JKR leaves all these 
> perceived inconsistencies in the text. Is she 
> unconsciously imitating the sloppiness of pulp fiction, or is she 
> doing so consciously and does it then serve some thematic 
> purpose?

<snip thought provoking discussion>

On the basis of my own limited attempts to write about the 
Potterverse, I think the reality is that creating a consistent 
magical world is nigh well impossible. At least, JKR's kind of 
magical world. Becasue the trouble with this kind of magic is that 
there is (as with my youngest) an answer for everything.

It's very difficult to set up magical devices or spells without 
obvious counter-devices and spells jumping out at you so you have 
arbitrarily to draw the line in certain places: this curse cannot be 
blocked; it is impossible to Apparate in this area, etc., etc.. I 
think there are too many i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed and 
sometimes plot devices just accidentally clash with each other.

I got roundly told off for suggesting JKR was inconsistent over on 
the other list, but I'm afraid sometimes she just is. I don't 
criticise her for it, at all - in fact on the whole she manages it 
remarkably (that sounds so patronising and it's not meant to be at 
all) - I just think that it's almost inevitable, given the nature of 
the magic she writes about.

~Eloise






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 17:00:32 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:00:32 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the shipper/flint-searching/JKR's consistency
In-Reply-To: <der4li+cpcn@...>
Message-ID: <devevg+ret6@...>

Catlady wrote:

> Why did Dumbledore tell Harry to tell only Ron and Hermione about the
> Horcruxes, not Ron, Hermione, and Ginny? Did he not know about H/G
> ship, did he think Ginny is too underage to be involved, did he
> think Ginny retains a link to LV from CoS? 

Delusional, my dear, delusional.  Those anvil-sized bat-bogey hexes 
totally passed him by.

The way he encouraged Harry and Hermione to go hippogriff-riding at 
night showed that he was a danger to the fandom who had to be got rid 
of.  No doubt Snape is an R/H man to the core, hence that expression 
of loathing.

Kirst wrote:

> You know, scratching around for flints always leaves me feeling 
> slightly sordid.

Indeed.  No doubt that's the attraction.

--

There has been considerable discussion of the extent to which JKR's 
world is consistent.  I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has 
yet been able to write a consistent description of our *own* world, 
despite the collective effort of thousands of well-funded scientists, 
let alone an invented one of realistic complexity.

David





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 29 18:00:04 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:00:04 -0000
Subject: Detecting magic (was: re AKs and Horcrux!Harry  and soul-ripping )
In-Reply-To: <dev9a7+k817@...>
Message-ID: <devif4+mkfn@...>

Eloise:

> If Voldemort had the ability to cloak his activity, would really
have  broadcast to the MOM radar that he was AKing the 
Potters one by one?

Pippin:
That depends on how quickly he thought the MoM would respond. 
Not instantly, to judge by other cases. It could be that the
magical detection involves some processing time. To judge by
Harry's memories, the events at GH didn't take that long in the
first place.

I can't imagine that James, however skilled a wizard he was, could
hold off Voldemort even  as long as Dumbledore did at the MoM. 
All Voldemort had to do was believe he could finish the job before
the MoM or Dumbledore showed up. He might have arranged a
diversionary action, as well.


Eloise:
> Would GH, which we know was protected by Fidelius and where the 
 Potters had hidden with the full knowledge of Dumbledore (err,
well,  at least before the Fidelius) not be protected by other
charms? 

Pippin:
Maybe, but Voldemort would have had to disable them to get
through himself. 

Eloise:
> I find it very hard to believe that the MOM radar could both 
> penetrate the defences of GH and that Voldemort was happy to be 
> (albeit remotely) watched at work. And if that's *not* how it
works,  then, as I said, on the surviving evidence, what led them to
believe  Harry had survived an AK? I believe there *was* a witness.

Pippin:
Well, of course there were at least three. There was Harry himself, 
whoever abstracted the wand and the robes, and Voldemort.
We know that Harry remembered the green flash, and probably
remembers more than that in his Potterverse-enhanced 
subconscious. Dumbledore needed only to extract Harry's memories
and plop them into the pensieve to see *exactly* what happened,
including things Harry himself didn't see.

Maybe the Ministry directly detected the AK and maybe it didn't,
but  I doubt that Crouch Sr. would be willing to believe that anything
*but* a killing curse could have got rid of Voldemort. He had 
authorized its use, and it wouldn't have looked so good if there
were a way to get rid of LV without it. 

Pippin





From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 30 06:46:22 2005
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:46:22 -0000
Subject: New Information on  R. A. B.
Message-ID: <df0vbu+ovu5@...>

Our very own Lexicon Steve seems to have scored a scoop!  The Lexicon 
is saying that Regulus Black's middle name is Arcturus, which means 
bear watcher: "It is the fourth brightest star of the entire sky, 
following only Sirius, Canopus, and Alpha Centauri."  The Lexicon is 
also saying that R.A.B. is indeed Regulus, and that this information
is from a reliable source. 
See: www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/regulus.html

I YM'ed Steve, who said he can't name the source, at least not yet.
The Leaky Cauldron says, "It should be noted that this, while it comes
from a reliable source, is still rumor until confirmed or denied by
Jo & Co. It is, however, strong enough of a rumor to bring to your 
attention."
 
Yes, indeed!

-- Judy, who, believe it or not, found out about this while checking 
Wikipedia to make sure that no one had changed my Snape entry.  How 
dare the previous wiki writer say that Snape is "certinly [sic] evil, 
and only a few [ha!] fans think he's loyal to Dumbledore." 





From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 30 11:38:32 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Dumbledore the shipper/flint-searching/JKR's consistency
In-Reply-To: <devevg+ret6@...>
Message-ID: <20050830113832.83246.qmail@...>

--- davewitley <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
> There has been considerable discussion of the extent
> to which JKR's 
> world is consistent.  I think it's worth pointing
> out that nobody has 
> yet been able to write a consistent description of
> our *own* world, 
> despite the collective effort of thousands of
> well-funded scientists, 
> let alone an invented one of realistic complexity.
> 
> David

I couldn't agree more. Further, how likely or possible
is it that any of us could create a magical fantasy
world that significantly deviates from the rules of
physics in our world; supports a complex storyline;
yet remains internally consistent throughout?  This
would require god-like powers. Magical fantasy worlds
in general are not internally consistent because they
are *make believe*.  If they could exist according to
the laws of our world, they would be a part of our
world.  I forget who said it / wrote it, but some
clever person I read recently wrote that one of JKR's
"subversions of the genre" is that the understanding
of the magic and the magical world is not explicated
as an integral part of the plot. It (the magic) rests
upon the characters and plot, without being interwoven
and we are not pushed to try to understand the magic
as anything other than ... *magic.*

HOWEVER ... (g), I still find it fun to notice the
flint like occurrences.  The location(s) of
inconsistencies may be meaningful as indices of our
author's basic assumptions about the story and about
life.  


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 30 14:11:19 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:11:19 -0000
Subject: New Information on  R. A. B.
In-Reply-To: <df0vbu+ovu5@...>
Message-ID: <df1pe7+pvmp@...>

Judy wrote:

> The Lexicon is 
> also saying that R.A.B. is indeed Regulus, and that this information
> is from a reliable source. 
> See: www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/regulus.html

Dang!  There goes Roland Aristobulus ("Stubby") Boardman, then.

:D





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 30 20:09:40 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:09:40 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
Message-ID: <df2ee4+3usv@...>

SSSusan:
I'm forwarding this from another HP list I'm on... but since just 
about every HP list is discussing Good!Snape vs. ESE!Snape, it seemed 
to fit here, too.  It's quite amusing.

> Did anyone read Get Fuzzy today? It's about the very
> thing we're discussing. :) Here's the link:
> 
> http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/
 


SSSusan:
Bit disappointed, I am, to hear about RAB being revealed for (almost) 
certain to be Regulus.  I mean, at the time I finished the book, it 
was truly exciting to have thought, "Oh, I think I KNOW!"  But once I 
realized almost everyone had come to the same conclusion, well, you 
know... it wasn't so much fun anymore.  

Personally, I'd been hoping for the perhaps somewhat outlandish, but 
still highly interesting, possibility of R_____ Amy Benson as RAB.

I guess, assuming RAB is truly Regulus, the remaining question for me 
is how/when he did it.  I've leaned all along to his never actually 
having placed the true horslut in the basin, and having exchanged it 
before dropping the fake locket in.  But I've not really seen a 
compelling argument for why Voldy would've entrusted him with 
depositing the hoxchox there alone.  Can't imagine, really, anyone 
other than Voldy himself placing & protecting them.

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 11:28:33 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:28:33 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df2ee4+3usv@...>
Message-ID: <df4491+jbv8@...>

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

> Bit disappointed, I am, to hear about RAB being revealed for (almost) 
> certain to be Regulus.  I mean, at the time I finished the book, it 
> was truly exciting to have thought, "Oh, I think I KNOW!"  But once I 
> realized almost everyone had come to the same conclusion, well, you 
> know... it wasn't so much fun anymore.  
> 
> Personally, I'd been hoping for the perhaps somewhat outlandish, but 
> still highly interesting, possibility of R_____ Amy Benson as RAB.
> 

An understandable reaction.
One assumes that this nugget of info (if true -remember the Pillar of 
Storge debacle) could only have one origin - Jo, unless there has 
been an outbreak of the literary equivalent of industrial spying.

It's obvious that Jo loves interacting with her fans; webcasts, question
and answer sessions, her website, but part of me wishes she wouldn't.
Selfish, I know - but when I'm pondering a crossword puzzle or deep
in a who-dunnit, I hate it when someone sidles up, peers over my 
shoulder and spoils the fun by whispering answers in my shell-like.
It makes me even grumpier than usual.

But - and there's always a but, this 'answer' raises another question,
namely - why tell?

Two immediate possibilities that occur to a twisted mind:

1. It's not important. It's just an isolated fact that has no real bearing on 
anything else in the plot - rather like Lupin's middle name.

2. It is important and will have/has had as yet unknown repercussions 
elsewhere in the story, but unless the fans can have confidence that
RAB is the unfortunate Regulus, they won't have a  firm foundation on
which to base some tricky theorising.

Guess which option I'd prefer. 
Happily it seems that option 2. is a pretty good bet, as you go on with:-

> I guess, assuming RAB is truly Regulus, the remaining question for me 
> is how/when he did it.  I've leaned all along to his never actually 
> having placed the true horslut in the basin, and having exchanged it 
> before dropping the fake locket in.  But I've not really seen a 
> compelling argument for why Voldy would've entrusted him with 
> depositing the hoxchox there alone.  Can't imagine, really, anyone 
> other than Voldy himself placing & protecting them.
> 

Exactly.
What happened and why?
Why would Voldy trust a neophyte DE?
How could a probationary DE get his hands on something so important?
Were others involved and if so how?
And to repeat myself: is there a link to Bella's words in HBP chap.2?
"The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious - 
if Lucius hadn't -"

Ah, Lucius. Combine a devious trimmer like him with a hard-line nutter
like Bella, add a naive Voldy supporter having second thoughts, a Macguffin
with seriously high-end protective magic that should  be beyond the 
capabilities of someone so young as Regulus, stir in a hint of a monumental
cock-up by the nasties - well, it makes for an interesting mix, no? 

And that's just one possibility. Lucius and Bella may not be involved in
the RAB vignette at all, but in something equally interesting.

So unless Jo drops more hints regarding the RAB aspect, it's not too
massive a spoiler SFAIC; just narrows the scope for theorising by a fraction,
allowing a concentration on established and known characters.

Kneasy







From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 12:52:36 2005
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:52:36 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df4491+jbv8@...>
References: <df4491+jbv8@...>
Message-ID: <200508311452.36115.silmariel@...>


Kneasy:
> Exactly.
> What happened and why?
> Why would Voldy trust a neophyte DE?
> How could a probationary DE get his hands on something so important?
> Were others involved and if so how?
> And to repeat myself: is there a link to Bella's words in HBP chap.2?
> "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious -
> if Lucius hadn't -"

The thing is I have no idea of where in the past the Hx could be vulnerable 
but it seemed to me that DD's corpse was alone for an awfully long time, so 
if by any chance the locket was the real one, it could have been replaced. 
Kreacher, on long time orders -if you have the oportunity, do it- (we know he 
is loyal to dead members of the family). He had to discover it by chance, but 
it's a domestic elf that iirc had orders to watch for Draco and had plenty of 
time to have a look at DD (as he hated him, I don't see it difficult to 
happen). Regulus failed but planted a seed.

I know, I know... but still I think Jo is able to pull a trick as cheap as 
this one, a simple explanation for the Cave puzzle that you could buy or not.

Silmariel



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 13:29:30 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:29:30 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df4491+jbv8@...>
Message-ID: <df4bbq+54p9@...>

SSSusan earlier:
> > Bit disappointed, I am, to hear about RAB being revealed for 
> > (almost) certain to be Regulus.  
> > 
> > Personally, I'd been hoping for the perhaps somewhat outlandish, 
> > but still highly interesting, possibility of R_____ Amy Benson as 
> > RAB.

Kneasy:
> An understandable reaction.
> One assumes that this nugget of info (if true -remember the Pillar 
> of Storge debacle) could only have one origin - Jo, unless there 
> has been an outbreak of the literary equivalent of industrial 
> spying.

SSSusan:
Precisely.  When I first saw the announcement that Steve had placed 
this information at the Lexicon, I headed straight for jkrowling.com 
to see whether she had updated her site.  You know, allowing a scoop 
and then confirming it.


Kneasy:
> It's obvious that Jo loves interacting with her fans; webcasts, 
> question and answer sessions, her website, but part of me wishes 
> she wouldn't. Selfish, I know - but when I'm pondering a crossword 
> puzzle or deep in a who-dunnit, I hate it when someone sidles up, 
> peers over my shoulder and spoils the fun by whispering answers in 
> my shell-like.
> It makes me even grumpier than usual.
> 
> But - and there's always a but, this 'answer' raises another 
> question, namely - why tell?
> 
> Two immediate possibilities that occur to a twisted mind:
> 
> 1. It's not important. It's just an isolated fact that has no real 
> bearing on anything else in the plot - rather like Lupin's middle 
> name.
> 
> 2. It is important and will have/has had as yet unknown 
> repercussions elsewhere in the story, but unless the fans can have 
> confidence that RAB is the unfortunate Regulus, they won't have a  
> firm foundation on which to base some tricky theorising.
> 
> Guess which option I'd prefer. 
> Happily it seems that option 2. is a pretty good bet....


SSSusan:
YES.  I think you're absolutely correct that this kind of leak/juicy 
tidbit/"Damn! Why did she spoil THAT?" comes out of JKR's true 
interest in her fans.  I really do think that sometimes she starts to 
feel a bit sorry for us, or concerned for the time we're "wasting," 
once she realizes we're starting to go too far afield in an area.  I 
mean, if she's aware of the effort & investment some people put into 
developing their ideas, and she knows they're wrong, isn't it just 
possible that Jo's a wee bit concerned that she doesn't want a whole 
slew of majorly disappointed fans out there at the end, if the truth 
is that there's nothing at all quite so elaborate as the theory 
proposes?  

Take the DROOBLES Best Blowing Gum as an example.  If she'd 
*waited* 'til the series concluded to show the fans that there was 
nothing to that beyond a poignant scene between mother and son, 
several handfuls of fans might've been seriously disappointed.  
Telling us *now,* before it's all over and while we're still trying 
to guess where we're going and figure out the series' mysteries, 
might bring about a little disappointment, but it also prevents the 
*major* letdown at the end.

Maybe Herself saw the theories about RAB as Amy Benson or Stubby 
Boardman or Mr. Black or a member of the Bones family as potentially 
major disappointments and wanted to let us know not to waste time 
there?

Perhaps I give her too much credit for:  1) keeping up with fan 
discussions; and 2) caring; but I do wonder.

'Course, if this were true, I'd have expected Jo to have personally 
called Pippin by now over ESE!Lupin. ;-)  (Kidding, Pippin!  I'm 
*kidding*!)

The good news as I see it, though, is that you may well be right, 
Kneasy, about your option 2, above:  we *need* to know it's Regulus 
for some important reason.


SSSusan earlier: 
> > I guess, assuming RAB is truly Regulus, the remaining question 
> > for me is how/when he did it.  I've leaned all along to his never 
> > actually having placed the true horslut in the basin, and having 
> > exchanged it before dropping the fake locket in.  But I've not 
> > really seen a compelling argument for why Voldy would've 
> > entrusted him with depositing the hoxchox there alone.  Can't 
> > imagine, really, anyone other than Voldy himself placing & 
> > protecting them.

Kneasy: 
> Exactly.
> What happened and why?
> Why would Voldy trust a neophyte DE?
> How could a probationary DE get his hands on something so important?
> Were others involved and if so how?

SSSusan:
I cannot imagine; I just can't.  Weren't we told that the Black 
family weren't DEs (besides Regulus)?  I mean, they were into the 
Dark Arts and supporters of some of Voldy's views, but it wouldn't be 
like Voldy would necessarily think that one (very young) Regulus 
Black would be totally trustworthy simply because his last name was 
Black.


Kneasy:
> And to repeat myself: is there a link to Bella's words in HBP 
> chap.2?
> "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most 
> precious - if Lucius hadn't -"
> 
> Ah, Lucius. Combine a devious trimmer like him with a hard-line 
> nutter like Bella, add a naive Voldy supporter having second 
> thoughts, a Macguffin with seriously high-end protective magic that 
> should  be beyond the capabilities of someone so young as Regulus, 
> stir in a hint of a monumental cock-up by the nasties - well, it 
> makes for an interesting mix, no? 

SSSusan:
A *very* interesting mix.  But I can't make it come together into a 
whole.  That line -- that *interruption,* which is so often a DING-
DING-DING! LOOK AT ME! kind of thing with JKR -- is definitely going 
to be significant, imo.  What did she have?  With what did he entrust 
her?  How did Lucius foul it up for her?  Is it simply that, after 
Lucius Seriously Disappointed Voldy with the diary!hoxchox fiasco, 
Voldy no longer trusted *any* of his followers with precious 
objects/horsechows?


Kneasy: 
> And that's just one possibility. Lucius and Bella may not be 
> involved in the RAB vignette at all, but in something equally 
> interesting.
> 
> So unless Jo drops more hints regarding the RAB aspect, it's not too
> massive a spoiler SFAIC; just narrows the scope for theorising by a 
> fraction, allowing a concentration on established and known 
> characters.

SSSusan:
Yes, I'm trying to see it this way as well.  Not trying to spoil our 
fun, really.  Just steering us a little, focusing our hunt for clues 
and connections.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 16:09:06 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:09:06 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df4bbq+54p9@...>
Message-ID: <df4kn2+gf5o@...>

SSSusan:
> YES.  I think you're absolutely correct that this kind of 
leak/juicy 
> tidbit/"Damn! Why did she spoil THAT?" comes out of JKR's true 
> interest in her fans.  I really do think that sometimes she starts 
to 
> feel a bit sorry for us, or concerned for the time we're "wasting," 
> once she realizes we're starting to go too far afield in an area.  
<snip>.
> 
> Maybe Herself saw the theories about RAB as Amy Benson or Stubby 
> Boardman or Mr. Black or a member of the Bones family as 
potentially 
> major disappointments and wanted to let us know not to waste time 
> there?
> 
> Perhaps I give her too much credit for:  1) keeping up with fan 
> discussions; and 2) caring; but I do wonder.


The interesting thing about this one, I think, is that she positively 
leapt on Melissa and Emerson's question about it:

...................................................
MA: R.A.B.

JKR: Ohhh, good.

[All laugh.]

JKR: No, I'm glad! Yes?

MA: Can we figure out who he is, from what we know so far?

[Note: JKR has adopted slightly evil look here]

JKR: Do you have a theory?

MA: We've come up with Regulus Black.

JKR: Have you now?

MA: Uh-oh.

[Laughter.]

JKR: Well, I think that would be, um, a fine guess.

...........................................................

This is the very same interview in which she talks about how some 
lines of enquiry are profitable and some. For some reason, she 
*wants* us to enquire about RAB, so surely it can't be fruitless, 
must be more than not wanting us to go tracking down theories about 
other possible candidates. The initials are surely too obvious for 
her to assume that wilder speculation would take place and the 
interview was too early for her already to be aware of any, I think. 
It seems more in line with her telling us that Dumbledore's ancestry 
would be a profitable line of enquiry, though how we're supposed to 
start on that I don't know.

~Eloise





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 16:58:19 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:58:19 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df4bbq+54p9@...>
Message-ID: <df4njb+iefg@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> SSSusan earlier:
 
> SSSusan:
> YES.  I think you're absolutely correct that this kind of
leak/juicy  tidbit/"Damn! Why did she spoil THAT?" comes out 
of JKR's true  interest in her fans.  I really do think that
sometimes she starts to feel a bit sorry for us, or concerned for 
the time we're  "wasting,"  once she realizes we're starting to go
too far afield in an area. 
I  mean, if she's aware of the effort & investment some people put
into  developing their ideas, and she knows they're wrong, isn't it
just possible that Jo's a wee bit concerned that she doesn't want a
whole  slew of majorly disappointed fans out there at the end, if the
truth  is that there's nothing at all quite so elaborate as the
theory proposes?  
<snip>
> 'Course, if this were true, I'd have expected Jo to have personally 
called Pippin by now over ESE!Lupin. ;-)  (Kidding, Pippin!  I'm 
*kidding*!)

Pippin:
Well, if I weren't sworn to secrecy...(Kidding. I'm *kidding*!) Of
course the other reason she might not debunk ESE!Lupin is that it's
true...<veg>

But I like Susan's idea about Bella having the locket, combined with
mine about Voldemort discovering the theft. Suppose that Voldie
entrusts the locket to Bella. She throws her tongue a bit (she is,
after all, Draco's auntie) and Regulus guesses what it is. He steals
it,putting a magically disguised fake in its place, and conceals the
orginal at GP. He tries to destroy it, but only succeeds in grinding 
off the Slytherin mark before the henchmen of doom catch up with 
him.

The theft goes undiscovered until after Voldemort's return, when he 
discovers that Lucius has blown the Diary, and decides he'd better see
whether Bella's horcrux is okay. Well, it isn't. But Voldemort is
confident that a pup like Regulus couldn't manage to destroy a
horcrux in  the little time he had. The greater danger is that someone
besides Bella will realize that he's made more than one and go 
hunting. So he uses the fake to set a trap, which Dumbledore walked 
into. 

Of course it won't do to punish Bella openly, since he doesn't want
anyone to know that the locket's a fake. But she finds that Master
doesn't seem to have the confidence in her that he once did, and
attributes this to Lucius's failures. 

This has the desirable side effect, from my point of view, of
exonerating Severus. If there's no antidote to the green goo, then
his action on the Tower, whatever it was, is pardonable. 

This fits with the whole Snape Harry jigsaw -- on the one hand, we
have Harry, pure of heart and sound of soul, but who isn't going to be
bringing home the All Wizard Dueller's Cup any time soon. On the 
other, we have Snape, who could well have a shelf of them concealed 
behind the slimy things floating in jars (just learned that these were
traditionally found in doctors' offices -- the specimens, that is,
not the trophies), but whose heart is MIA and whose soul is tattered 
if not torn.


Anyway, you get the picture. What Harry's going to need, if he ever
does dispose of the horsecluckses and proceed to battle with LV, is
backup. Which, as I said in a post over on TOL, explains the Gleam.

When Dumbledore heard that Voldemort had used Harry's blood, he
knew that a major obstacle to  his plan to reinsert Snape  had been
removed. Voldemort would not be so annoyed over Snape's intervention 
to save Harry three years before that he would kill Snape out of hand,
without ever listening to the carefully spun excuses Snape had
prepared. 

Snape's action would seem instead fortuitous -- saving Harry's
precious blood for his master even  before Voldemort himself had 
realized its  value. Another example of fortune favoring Lord 
Voldemort.

I don't think Dumbledore planned to die. But he might well have
planned to fake his death. He would know that eventually Voldemort
would demand that Snape *who knows the prophecy*,  do 
*something* to prove he did not see Team Dumbledore as stronger.
Merely sniping away at Harry in classes would not be enough.

The plan was not to prove Snape's loyalty to LV -- as Dumbledore 
says, nothing could do that. The plan was to demonstrate thoroughly
and unconditionally that Snape was *not* loyal to Dumbledore or
Harry. IMO, Dumbledore didn't die the way he did to secure Snape's 
position as a spy. He did it to secure Snape's position as  Harry's 
backup in the final showdown. 


Pippin





From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 18:04:06 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:04:06 -0000
Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB)
In-Reply-To: <df4njb+iefg@...>
Message-ID: <df4rem+gt3l@...>

Pippin:

> This has the desirable side effect, from my point of view, of
> exonerating Severus. If there's no antidote to the green goo, then
> his action on the Tower, whatever it was, is pardonable. 

Sorry. I still really don't get this.

What Snape did may well be pardonable, because we don't fully 
understand the circumstances or motivation behind it yet, but I don't 
see that the green goo having no antidote *on its own* makes it so. 
At the very least, Snape would have to know the situation. If he 
didn't and he cast that curse with malice with intent to kill, then 
by all the standards I was brought up to believe in he was morally 
wrong. He can be *forgiven*. Dumbledore probably *would* forgive him, 
whatever his intent. He might not be convicted in a court because of 
a legal nicety (though in the WW I doubt it), but the fact that 
Dumbledore was doomed anyway (if he was) cannot of itself justify 
Snape's action.

The only other way I can excuse it is by viewing him solely as an 
enemy killing under orders in the course of war. Of course, how 
anyone not under Imperius could possibly justify promoting 
Voldemort's cause is another matter.

~Eloise






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 31 20:31:33 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:31:33 -0000
Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB
In-Reply-To: <df4njb+iefg@...>
Message-ID: <df5435+pkdh@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

But I like Susan's idea about Bella having the locket, combined with
mine about Voldemort discovering the theft. Suppose that Voldie
entrusts the locket to Bella. She throws her tongue a bit (she is,
after all, Draco's auntie) and Regulus guesses what it is. He steals
it,putting a magically disguised fake in its place, and conceals the
orginal at GP. He tries to destroy it, but only succeeds in grinding
off the Slytherin mark before the henchmen of doom catch up with
him.

Carolyn:
I think this theory suffers from many of the original objections to 
RAB being Regulus. 

- Even though a junior DE and brought up in a household obsessed with 
the Dark Arts, it stills seems unlikely that he would have acquired 
enough of a thorough-going knowledge of hxs to understand what the 
locket was. Even 16 year old Tom had to ask Sluggy about the theory, 
and he was deeply immersed in evil by that stage.

- Further, we know that Tom trusts no one. Would he really have been 
stupid enough to give Bella enough hints as to what she was holding 
in her hands? We have been told he has never loved, so he can't even 
have been blinded by her rabid charms.

- And how could Regulus create a fake item that would fool Voldie? 
This would take very advanced magic, surely?

- And why was Voldie hiding the locket in the lake this late in the 
day (1980s)? As far as we can work out, he'd got hold of the trinket 
a year or so after leaving school. Why put it in the birdbath of doom 
some thirty-odd years later?

- Finally, surely the hxed locket would be alarmed in some way, and 
efforts to destroy it would not only damage Regulus in the same way 
that DD got his hand blasted, but would alert Voldie to the theft?

Pippin:
The theft goes undiscovered until after Voldemort's return, when he
discovers that Lucius has blown the Diary, and decides he'd better see
whether Bella's horcrux is okay. Well, it isn't. But Voldemort is
confident that a pup like Regulus couldn't manage to destroy a
horcrux in the little time he had. The greater danger is that someone
besides Bella will realize that he's made more than one and go
hunting. So he uses the fake to set a trap, which Dumbledore walked
into.

Carolyn:
Surely LV would have realised by now that DD knew about the multi-
hxs, what with the diary and the ring destroyed? I agree that he 
would then see it as a race against time against DD finding the rest, 
and protect the locket accordingly. But surely, if he left this 
elaborate trap, he would have also taken steps to find the original?

If he had read the note, he'd know instantly to check at 12GP - and 
who better to 'force' (hardly) to do this, but Kreacher? Simplicity 
itself to get Bella or Narcissa to instruct him, if for some reason 
he could not gain access to 12GP himself. [And I can't see why he 
couldn't - it didn't become the Order HQ immediately after the 
graveyard scene, LV could have apparated there any time in the 
intervening few days or weeks]. Kreacher could have been hording all 
those items on direct orders right from the beginning, and it wasn't 
just misplaced sentiment for his dead family.

<snip>

Pippin:
I don't think Dumbledore planned to die. But he might well have
planned to fake his death. He would know that eventually Voldemort
would demand that Snape *who knows the prophecy*, do
*something* to prove he did not see Team Dumbledore as stronger.
Merely sniping away at Harry in classes would not be enough.

The plan was not to prove Snape's loyalty to LV -- as Dumbledore
says, nothing could do that. The plan was to demonstrate thoroughly
and unconditionally that Snape was *not* loyal to Dumbledore or
Harry. IMO, Dumbledore didn't die the way he did to secure Snape's
position as a spy. He did it to secure Snape's position as Harry's
backup in the final showdown.

Carolyn:
There certainly has to be some really good explanation for DD's 
ludicrous actions in the cave. As I said in earlier posts, there 
wasn't the faintest need for him to sacrifice himself on the spot, 
possibly endangering Harry's life by leaving him to get out on his 
own. The pair of them should have just left, and had a think about 
how to get the thing out some other way - possibly consulting Snape 
on the nature of the potion and its antidote, if it transpired there 
was no other way to get it out than drink it. Also, if they'd left 
sooner, they'd have got back in time to foil Draco's plan. Ok, it 
risked Voldie removing and hiding the locket someplace else, but 
since there are at least four other hidden hxs, big deal.

So, I'm being a spoilsport. JKR wanted a nice brave dramatic scene to 
kill off DD, but it really creaks if it has to be taken at face 
value. I am doubly suspicious because DD made no effort to take Harry 
on the ring-destruction outing - why not?

The whole cave scene is so bloody stagey, with laughable explanations 
as to why LV might want to keep people alive for a short while after 
they drank the goop and so on - only a prat like Harry would believe 
any of it, and to give him credit, he did think it was dumb.

The only explanation that makes sense to me was that DD knowingly 
engaged in the charade for some reason - a double, double bluff for 
LV to think his plan had worked, whilst the real locket was safe 
somewhere with Aberforth, having been lifted from 12GP by Dung. DD 
just didn't think the poison would be that effective. Hubris.

But that still leaves how the real locket was removed, and how a fake 
was substituted apparently by a frightened teenager and the pilfering 
of a crucial chunk of his soul was not spotted by the greatest evil 
wizard of all time.

Gloom. We're back to GOF-portkey explanations...that is, we'll just 
have to accept it, because She Said So.

And she apparently spent three months working on the fine details of 
this book's plot.

Carolyn