[the_old_crowd] DD / Thestrals / Dragons, Produced and Tickled, and Other Pleasantries

[silmariel]

Heidi:
>For years many argued that Dumbledore couldn't be killed in the books 
>because of the schoolbooks, but I'm afraid it is going to turn into one 
>of JKR's "ew, maths!" inconsistancies. Perhaps she can justify it 
>because he would still have been alive in 1996 when she sold her first 
>book?

I have to agree with Anne on this one, is too big an error or a poetic 
license. You can't kill a character like DD and don't do it well, people has 
cried for him. (Not me :p I was busy being happy for Snape & Draco surviving)

This would be a mayor flaw, imo.

That's why I thought in portraits, pensieves (no way DD's ghost, totally OOC) 
or whatever could justify it, but it's weird nonetheless. (Help!)

Anne:
>I'd forgotten about Albus writing that intro <> As far as I can
>tell, the whole story makes good sense so far with either the DD Lives
>perspective or the DD's Dead perspective.

I had completely forgotten about the intro.

I agree there's an open posibility for DD's return, I think we all know the 
arguments. She wants me to be surprised in the future? Fine, she has laid out 
(in the books) the chance. My main objections are based on JKR's words 
outside the books - but of course, as with Snape, Tonks, and all the family, 
she can't be really clear or she'll spoil the fun.

But I have no problem whatsoever with DD being dead so I had accepted it, 
period. That's why I was kind of shocked while reading the prologue. It had 
turned from a fuzzy future image by our full-discourse-mode (that makes me 
disconnect after a while) DD into a Last Words. 

Those who are convinced that DD lives won't read it in the same way, I think.

Anne:
>And, yeah. If DD's patronus turns out not to actually be a phoenix,
>I'll eat all three of my copies of OoP.  Jo did say it flat out in the
>World Book Day chat.

Thanks. Without this bit, it gets really difficult to construct the rest.

Anne:
>Back to the Thestral patronus... I would think that anyone who might
>have that patronus would actually be able to see thestrals -- that the
>person would almost have to have that intimate connection with death
>before they would ever produce a thestral patronus.

I like it. Theodore Nott being the unfortunate owner.

Talisman:
[Considering suitable boggarts for Snape] 

*cheers up*

>Hebridean Black - wings similar to that of a bat - feeds mostly on 
>stags -ocasionally hunts big dogs *cough**cough**cough*

Let's add that he needs a lot of space for himself.

Talisman:
>Oh, yes ma'am. 
>No reason why a metaphor can't be played out in the plot.
>There is always Harry's little observation that "Deliberately
>causing mayhem in Snape's potions class was about as safe as poking
>a sleeping dragon in the eye." (CoS 186)

Yes, I love that line. 

But a year ago, I didn't know what to do with such images, patronuses were 
non-magical animals, animagi was out of the question, the vampire imagery 
didn't make sense, and JKR sort of puzzled me not knowing why we made the 
vampire-Snape connection. Well, madam, because of the multiple details 
referencing vampire imagery, we had to make /something/ with them.

I rarely have the feeling that I don't need to consider other posibilities, 
but when I found that dragon I could heard the click of the puzzle pieces. I 
was trying to found sense to the dragon bits, and blip, they are tied to 
bats... all that damned references to bats and vampires made sense after all.

It even makes sense in the -arachnid was it?- way he moves. Have you ever seen 
a dragon walking in interiors?

Of all the things you can call a dragon, Harry, did you have to choose 
coward?... <g>

Silmariel, who wants to comment in another post about general chaos and 
mayhem, that is, she owes a reply to Kneasy.