From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 1 22:42:53 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:42:53 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO > > ***Name: > David > > ***Nicknames/IDs: > davewitley (long story), sageofgodalming (on LiveJournal) > > ***Age: > 46 > > ***Family: > Recently separated from my wife, we share care of our 3 kids. > > ***Home > Godalming, near Little Whinging, Surrey. > > ***Birthday, Place of Birth: > 11th May, Copenhagen, Denmark > > ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: > BA Mathematics. Now work for a technical consultancy. I have no role in life that I'm aware of. > > ***Other things we might want to know about you: > Attending Accio 2005. More to meet the people than to hear the talks, if truth be told. I spent the early part of my life thinking I knew the answers; I spent a while trying to find the answers; now I would die quite happy if I knew what the question is, but am only moderately hopeful. > > ***First contact with Harry Potter: > Christmas 1998, son asked for 'Harry Potter' for Christmas, and got it. > > ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets > d'Art, general enthusing): > book - POA; character probably still Arthur Weasley, though I like Luna Lovegood, too; ship none really but I expect to enjoy Harry/Ginny in the fulness of time; fic don't read enough to form a view (I enjoyed Caius Marcius' Snape-Specific though I don't know the songs, but I don't know if that counts); objets d'art you wha..? other - I have mixed feelings about jkrowling.com. I can take or leave the films. I don't feel that making the films more faithful to the books would make them better since I have no desire to see my reading experience played out visually: I think my opinion is that while money says any popular book can be filmed to advantage, I don't have to agree. > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > Gradual decline. I was always semi-detached and ironic, careful to identify myself as not a fan. Heavily involved in HPFGU for a while, but always inclined to be more interested in the behaviour of fellow-inmates than the content of the books. If I ever write a fictional work as the result of my involvement with Harry Potter it won't be fanfic but a thinly veiled account of the life of an internet group. > ***Other interests/activities: > Always struggle with this - like Harry's, my mind goes a blank. I have tried to generalise the HPFGU experience by joining a book reading group but it meets only once a month. Compared to what Channel 4 would have you think, it's sadly lacking in sex. > ***Current/recent reading: > best thing I read recently was Neil Gaiman's Stardust, and I intend to try more of his stuff soon. Enjoyed Alexander McCall Smith's No. 1 Ladies (and felt that far from being patronising to Botswanans, he used deceptively simplistic language to get over commentary on quite complex moral and social issues). None of the Book Group books have really caught me. > > ***Current/recent listening: Whatever is on Virgin Radio, I'm afraid. Oh, and the Today Programme. > > ***Current/recent viewing: Hardly watch TV these days. David From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 1 23:20:27 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:20:27 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm really pleased you've rejoined us, David! I have a couple of questions. Please forgive me for baldy stating them rather than cutting your original post: Why do you have mixed reservations about jkrowling.com? Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you think of anything else we might *really* want to know? Why do you see your Potter obsession in "gradual decline"? Is it anything to do with OoP? I have a feeling I've heard the story surrounding the davewitley id before, but I can't remember it - care to repeat it? Catherine From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 2 02:37:41 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:37:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Death Eaters Song In-Reply-To: <20050129125750.GA13084@...> Message-ID: <20050202023741.60676.qmail@...> A Death Eater Song about those not so evil guys in the books. Words by Randy Estes (Sung to the tune of "Goldfinger") Death Eaters ! (trumpet BWA BWAAAA BWA!) Sort of Mean! But they just don't scare us much! Death Eaters ! (BWA BWAAAA BWA !) Beat up kids! And old people who aren't too tough ! They're not too swift! They might give you a lift! But then even if... You'll be okay The very next day Because they're just.... Death Eaters ! (BWA BWAAA BWA !) Voldy's Gang ! They must do his every whim! Death Eaters ! (BWA BWAAA BWA !) Sing "Auld Lang Syne" Their days are all behind them ! Cause Harry's here ! So be of good cheer. He'll kick Voldy's bum And send them all home Put a fork in them They're all Done !!!! --- Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:42:51AM -0600, Smythe, > Boyd T {FLNA} wrote: > > > > Kneasy, another wonderfully soul-staining take on > the "villains" in the > > Potterverse. > > Yes, it's been enthralling. I never cease to wonder > at how many angles you can > look at this from! > > > Is anybody else out there actually rooting for > Lord Thingy to finally look > > the part in HBP? Kill a few key adults (DD, > please!) and a couple of > > students, maybe even a treacherous DE for fun? And > all in a *very* foul way. > > And, most importantly, that nothing good happens > to offset those > > deaths--yet. > > > > Otherwise, we're not talking about good triumphing > over evil. > > I have the occasional fear that the rabbit may > refuse to leave the hat...then > Kneasy comes along and reminds me that there's > always an angle an author can > cheat you with. Rowling strikes me as a student of > Christie, in which case the > herring will be very red indeed. > > > Of course, the other option is that LV represents > something larger, such as > > the recurring baddie or the world of magic, as > proposed by others. Running > > out of time on those predictions, though.... > > Whether we like it or not, I feel Rowling will > ignore that unless it justifies > plot. We hear a lot, for example, about the enormous > importance of Harry to > the WW but only because Harry hears that, or perhaps > that he focusses on it, > is a better way to put it. Only because Voldy is > prepared to make use of the > historical tensions of the WW are those tensions > even employed. > > I'd like to know why she is interested in killing > major characters, and what > the whole death theme is leading up to. That's > certainly a theme she has to > stick to. > > -- > Mac OS X. Because re-branding NeXTStep was easier > than fixing Mac OS. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 2 08:12:26 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:12:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT: Intro Profile: Correction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202081226.86966.qmail@...> --- Catherine Coleman wrote: > > I'm really pleased you've rejoined us, David! > > I have a couple of questions. Please forgive me for baldy stating > them rather than cutting your original post: > > Why do you have mixed reservations about jkrowling.com? > Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you think > of anything else we might *really* want to know? > Why do you see your Potter obsession in "gradual decline"? Is it > anything to do with OoP? > I have a feeling I've heard the story surrounding the davewitley id > before, but I can't remember it - care to repeat it? > > Catherine I did, of course, mean "mixed feelings" not "mixed reservations". Sorry. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 2 14:55:33 2005 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:55:33 -0000 Subject: New year, new brooms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Neil Ward" wrote: > > Hi TOC-ers! > > As you know, this list started out as a place to discuss Order of The > Phoenix, around the time of its publication date. It's never been > limited to that alone, but I think we can now officially generalise > to "the works and world of JK Rowling". Hi, Neil. Haven't seen much posting going on here since I joined (or, I'm sorry to say, much posting worth reading over at the main list. Blech!). But I'm anxiously awaiting the frenzy to come in July! Getting some new blood in here sounds like a great idea -- in anticipation of the new book and all of the yummy new theories and analyses. Can't wait! :: Entropy :: From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 05:22:07 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:22:07 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > > > ***Birthday, Place of Birth: > > 11th May, Copenhagen, Denmark > Greetings. A Norseman on the Sceptered Isle? I trust Rowling's reference to Knut did't escape you. No answer necessary. My personal credo: eschew intros and never answer impertinent questions. Talisman From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 12:19:55 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:19:55 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman wrote: > Greetings. A Norseman on the Sceptered Isle? I trust Rowling's > reference to Knut did't escape you. No answer necessary. My > personal credo: eschew intros and never answer impertinent questions. Very wise. Would you like assistance in your patriotic investigation of owl calls? David From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 17:01:40 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:01:40 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: >> Very wise. Would you like assistance in your patriotic > investigation of owl calls? > > David Absolutely. I recommend bringing along an owl-call. The real varmints can be uncooperative, and one must keep up form... Talisman From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 17:05:14 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:05:14 +0000 Subject: A bit on DD Message-ID: Don't answer impertinent questions, says Talisman. A reasonable attitude to take, I think. This, and a couple of other things she's commented on elsewhere today and some ideas I posited over a year ago on the HPfGU board sort of came together this morning. I had a MEGO moment. Sitting in my accountant's office. He'd just told me that if I wasn't careful there'd be no way he could balance my potential tax liabilities against the expenses and allowances I could claim. I heartily approve when anyone tells me that I should work less, so I took him at his word - and switched off. My mind wandered, while with eyes gleaming enthusiastically he itemised the IR rules he was going to utilise to ensure that Kneasy made a minimal contribution to the next bloody brilliant economic and political fiasco the government was dreaming of perpetrating at the public's expense. And for some reason I started thinking about Dumbledore. Sort of appropriate, 'cos DD doesn't quite add up either. 150 year old wizard, some history though much less than one would expect from the current No.1 in the rankings. Got a bit of an interest in immortality. There's that Stone thing (a partner of old Nick Flamel) though why a mere stripling of 150 should be considered a partner for someone at 600+ who has obviously done all the work centuries back, I don't know. Add in his pet/familiar - a phoenix, plus Jo's coy remark that we should be able to guess his Patronus (let me see - bird? self igniting? immortal?) and a picture begins to emerge. (Hell, he could even *be* Flamel. In which case, who's his missus?) It's not the first time that I've been engaged by DD's role in the Potter saga; just who and what is he? Resurrection seems a good bet; the HP equivalent of Merlin, the wise counselor and leader who returns in time of trouble. Makes even more sense if Possession Theory is valid and the entity of evil currently inhabiting Voldy originated way back when and is given to bouts of recrudescence. Old enemies maybe, in a loooong struggle. Right. Nice idea. I like it. A few loose ends, but with a nudge and a squeeze and we might fit it into canon. Then there was that other thing Talisman said this morning - DD being economical with the truth and yeah, he really wanted a pair of socks. Maybe he did. But it was put in the text before we realised the significance of the words. The Mirror/Socks scene is in PS/SS - seems facile, a joke answer to a possibly impertinent question. But one book later socks are very important indeed. They represent freedom from labour, escape from onerous and unpleasant duty. Plus it's not unusual in fantasy, someone given a charge, a mission ("...this owl will self-destruct in one turn of the egg-timer.") with no release until completion. Alby-baby has to earn his socks. The question may have been impertinent, but the answer may have been accurate, in a metaphorical sort of way. Surely somebody has posited this before? What was the outcome? So I ask again - just who and what is Dumbledore? Amazing what flits across your mind when faced by an accountant. Kneasy From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 17:20:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:20:25 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A bit on DD References: Message-ID: Knesy wrote: So I ask again - just who and what is Dumbledore? Amazing what flits across your mind when faced by an accountant. Potioncat adds: And that is why the Weasleys never discuss their cousin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 19:48:38 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:48:38 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catherine wrote: > I'm really pleased you've rejoined us, David! Thank you. > Why do you have mixed feelings about jkrowling.com? For background, see the thread beginning at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114977 I am not as bothered as some of those posters were: my personal defence mechanism is to consider JKR in those situations as being a reader, a very knowledgable reader, true, of her works rather than the omniscient author. Not because she is not omniscient, but because she can't access all her own thoughts at a time, let alone all their implications. However, she is clearly in a very powerful position to scupper reader interpretations, and on the whole, while I enjoy her little revelations as much as anyone, in the long term I think she would do better to let her books do the talking. Ask Heidi about H/D. > Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you think > of anything else we might *really* want to know? Ah, a very Dumbledorean question. I feel Sirius has the best riposte: "Come on, Catherine, you can do better than that!" > Why do you see your Potter obsession in "gradual decline"? Is it > anything to do with OoP? Not really, no. While I feel it does give less scope than the previous books for speculating on the detective element, which was probably the immediate cause of my involvement in the online fandom, I think it has more to do with the the time of my life that I came across HPFGU: I was, without knowing it, needing to carve out a mental space to inhabit away from my life at the time. That I did, but we move on. In fact, my being here, where you all snooze in your portrait frames after the hurly burly's done, is evidence of that. The space has invaded back, you might say. ;-) > I have a feeling I've heard the story surrounding the davewitley id > before, but I can't remember it - care to repeat it? Oh, it was just that I wanted to join the group, and Yahoo insisted that I pick an identity. The first thing that came to my mind was that I then lived in Witley, and in a fit of originality I tacked 'Dave' on the front. I had some vague thought of trying to conceal my real name: very vague indeed, since my surname is in my email address, and about the first onlist reply to one of my posts was by Catlady, in which she correctly referred to me as David Frankis. It was a mistake anyway, as ever since then people have persisted in calling me Dave though I always sign myself: David From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 20:27:55 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203202755.74324.qmail@...> --- davewitley wrote: > > Why do you have mixed feelings about jkrowling.com? > > For background, see the thread beginning at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114977 > > I am not as bothered as some of those posters were: my personal > defence mechanism is to consider JKR in those situations as being a > reader, a very knowledgable reader, true, of her works rather than > the omniscient author. Not because she is not omniscient, but > because she can't access all her own thoughts at a time, let alone > all their implications. However, she is clearly in a very powerful > position to scupper reader interpretations, and on the whole, while > I enjoy her little revelations as much as anyone, in the long term I > think she would do better to let her books do the talking. Ask > Heidi about H/D. Yes - I feel much the same way about some of the online chats. I don't think I really wanted her to answer questions such as "Is Snape a vampire", for example. I love knowing at the time, but when I think about reading the next book, in my heart of hearts I know that I would rather have waited. > > > Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you think > > of anything else we might *really* want to know? > > Ah, a very Dumbledorean question. I feel Sirius has the best > riposte: "Come on, Catherine, you can do better than that!" Damn! Well, it was worth a try! It was a mistake anyway, as ever since then people have > persisted in calling me Dave though I always sign myself: > > David Hmm, I don't think I've ever done so. I absolutely loathe having my first name shortened in any way, so don't tend to do it to others. Catherine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 21:13:05 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:13:05 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wrote: > >> Would you like assistance in your patriotic > > investigation of owl calls? > > Absolutely. I recommend bringing along an owl-call. The real > varmints can be uncooperative, and one must keep up form... Fair enough. Just like being an OSCE election monitor. I hoot, you respond, I scrutinise... David, always up for OSCElation From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 3 21:17:56 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:17:56 -0000 Subject: A bit on DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > The Mirror/Socks scene is in PS/SS - seems facile, a joke answer to a possibly impertinent question. > But one book later socks are very important indeed. > They represent freedom from labour, escape from onerous and unpleasant duty.,snip> Alby-baby has to earn his socks. > The question may have been impertinent, but the answer may have been accurate, in a metaphorical sort of way. > Surely somebody has posited this before? What was the outcome? Talisman pops her monocle and three corset stays: Could it be? A soft and furry Kneasy? I don't know what to do with it! Peace, love, and the triumph of good? And you're looking for people to aid and abet with this heresy? Er, well there was a sort of misdemeanor about socks representing Freedom and World Peace, perpetrated by one MsBeadsley, I believe. Circa `03? As I recall it was Assumed bodily into one VanderArkian Heaven or another, though I couldn't say just where. Didn't find it in his essay section, nor in Fantastic Posts, for that matter. Perhaps there was a subsequent fall from grace. I did manage to find a Main List thread on Dumbledore, The Giant House Elf, though. For your pleasure at 7650 et seq. For my money the socks-as-freedom metaphor doesn't hold constant enough to start applying it like calamine. By Book Three we see that nasty Vernon-soiled yellow pair Harry's been using to stifle a sneak-o-scope--a sneak-o-scope that's actually got something important to say. (PoA 76) These second-hand jaundiced ensemble-wreckers were foisted off on Harry as one of the Dursley's crappy Christmas gifts. (Harry: "I'll never wear those socks if I can help it...(PoA 226)) They appear again in OoP when Harry disingenuously re-gifts them to the already free Dobby, in what strikes me as a scene which does nothing so much as belie the largess and thoughtfulness Dobby seems to credit the boy wonder. (OoP 408) "Actually old boy, you're not on my gift list. But, here--take these--I don't want them anyway." Socks as inconsiderate pseudo- generosity? Then there's that snappy little skirt set that liberates Winky. (GoF 376-77) `Course you could get around that by considering skirt sets metaphors for *unwanted* freedom. Or as Janice has it, "freedom [that's just] another word for nothing left to lose." Oh, well. At least there's a matching hat. Hats? Well, naturally hand-knit hats will stand henceforth for officious intermeddling. (OoP 255) And just what is that yellow circus tent Hagrid's been running up? (SS/PS 65) Perhaps a poncho for a giant house elf. Oh, but there's definitely a load to figure out about Dumbledore. As I've said in ancient posts, I do think the series participates in the Romantic genre, i.e. it is displaced myth. Dumbledore is a displaced god. Ergo, he has all the prerogatives that come with godhood, including offing people when it's satisfying or expedient. And, no he doesn't let anyone else in on the big picture. Strictly need to know. I owe you a response from Best of Enemies. Now this Dumbledore saga. Unfortunately I got caught up in a response to a Main List thread, which I'm not quite ready to post. It's all about Dumbledore, though. Somehow I've committed myself to hosting a group outing to a primitive cabin in the frozen forest this weekend. And, I'm up for bedside duty at a hospital tomorrow. This is what happens when you break your hermetic vows, you end up being everybody's cupcake. Is there no accountant who can save me? With sleep deprivation there is a slim chance I'll get the main list post out before I go hiking into the Ice Age. But I promise you some thoughts--on Dumbledore AND his baddies--are coming via TOC, soon. I know, you've heard it all before. Talisman, paving the road to Hell, where it's rumored to be good and toasty. From pennylin at plinsenmayer.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 4 18:54:47 2005 From: pennylin at plinsenmayer.yahoo.invalid (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:54:47 -0600 Subject: Various and Sundry replies References: Message-ID: <093501c50aeb$01636290$210110ac@MainDesktop> Hi all -- I've been in radio silence mode for the last 2 months or so but wanted to clear out some emails I've been hoarding. Mostly off-topic ....... BABIES -- Many of you know already, but we had a little birth announcement of our own: our son, David Harry (and we're calling him Harry), arrived in late December. Congrats to Joanna on little Elly's birth ---- I've been meaning to post that for some time now! She's just beautiful, and I didn't think there could be very many babies born with more hair than my Elizabeth had but Elly does have more. :--) OUTLANDER --- Jeralyn, Carole got me and various others hooked on the Outlander series ages ago. I'm about due for a re-read in fact. JKR'S WEBSITE ---- I feel much like David and Catherine. Whilst I'm happy to get some of the niggling details, I'm not pleased when she gives a very off-the-cuff answer to something that lots of people have spent a good bit of time niggling over in the past. I know I need to eat some crow, Ali, on the whole Hermione's age issue, and I'm happy to do that (well, not really *happy* you understand ...... but I'm okay with being wrong). However, I'm not happy that she didn't at least acknowledge that she'd left the whole issue a bit open for interpretation. It would have been nice to see her elaborate on the arguments advanced by those of us formerly in the 1980 crowd. Her answer on the website reads a bit like "Well, you dunces, of *course* she was turning 12 that first year!" By the same token, I'm happy to know that she realizes that we shippers are all a bit rabid and therefore she appears to be taking the course of remaining silent on the whole R/H vs. H/H issue henceforth ..... and I guess she did at least shoot down the Luna/Neville ship with more than just a cursory and abrupt answer. But, all too often, I find myself thinking that her answers are just too glib, given the time and passion that her fans have invested in various theories. I think I too might rather just let the books have the final word, without the commentary from Rowling until the whole series is completed. Not that this stops me from racing over to jkr.com whenever I hear there's been an update, mind you. POTTER OBSESSION LEVELS ----- I found myself agreeing so much with Eloise when she said: <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's where I'm at too. I am looking forward to discussing HBP though, and I'm re-reading the entire series while I'm nursing the baby. I have occasionally had the desire to write another shipping essay ....... but then figured I would just wait until after HBP anyway. But, I've just found it hard to justify the intense online time commitment that I engaged in during years past at the height of my HPfGU involvement. The kids are making that very tough! But obviously, naming my son Harry indicates I haven't entirely lost my passion for the series. :--) Take care all -- Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at fritter_my_wig.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 4 19:39:41 2005 From: eloiseherisson at fritter_my_wig.yahoo.invalid (fritter_my_wig) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:39:41 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Profile (amended) Message-ID: First an apology to anyone on email/digest who gets this twice with small amendment and especially an apology to David. I don't know *why* I called him Dave (except for having just deleted the Yahoo attribution). I missed David's return when it was announced. Perhaps it's time to admit that I returned myself some time ago, not that I ever got round to posting - even an intro - the last time. Here goes. > THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO > ***Name: Elizabeth > ***Nicknames/IDs: Eloise_Herisson (Yahoo and lj); I seem to have managed to sign up here under yet another Yahoo id. > ***Age: 47 > ***Family: Husband, four children 8-14 yrs, various animals. > ***Home Kent, England > ***Birthday, Place of Birth: 22nd March, Sale, Cheshire. > ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: BMus, which we don't really talk about, followed by PGCE which we certainly don't. RGN, specialising in ophthalmics before becoming Health Visitor. Gave up work with advent of children. Now two thirds of the way through a degree in archaeology which is what I always wanted to study in the first place. > ***Other things we might want to know about you: Not a lot. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Erm...Read the books to children/listened to tapes shortly before release of first film, IIRC. > ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Book: PoA Character: Snape (of course) Ships: Don't do ships Fics: Ditto Objets d'Art: Are there any?? > ***Extent of Potter obsession: Like David's, really a bit in decline. I've always felt a bit embarassed about the fan thing and don't much admit to it. This of course meant it was rather difficult to explain where my time went when I was more heavily involved in HPfGU admin than I am now. I don't think I've ever been obsessed as such, though musing on a certain character has taken up quite a lot of my time. And still does from time to time. ;-) I used to know the first four books backwards. I've never got to grips with OoP to the same extent. I occasionally look at JKR's website, keep up to date with the info she gives, but I can't be bothered with working out the clues these days. I find it difficult to balance doing the things I really need to/want to in real life against doing my bit for admin and getting involved in on-list discussion. I'd love to get into long involved discussions like I used to, but they are just so time consuming and I find it hard to justify it. When I do, it's normally a kind of essay avoidance (did I mention I have this huge excavation report to read and analyse?) ***Other interests/activities: Trawling eBay and going to live auctions. Riding my horse, somwhat reluctantly on occasion, though enthusiasm growing again. Collect blue and white transferware and antiquarian prints of local/archaeological subjects. > ***Current/recent reading: Power and Island Communities: Excavations at the Wardy Hill Ringwork, Coveney, Ely. Before that, The Lake Villages of Somerset. I recently read the first few pages of Madame Bovary, but feel too guilty about what I should be reading to get on with it. Also my eyesight isn't what it used to be, so reading in bed is a bit of a pain unless I remember to take up my specs and the light's good. Oh, the joys of aging. ;-) > ***Current/recent listening: Radio3/Radio4. Or silence. ***Current/recent viewing: Desperate Housewives, Tribe, trashy antiques programmes, North and South (and I missed the last episode!!!!! :-( ) Recently saw both The Aviator and Lemony Snicket at the cinema and loved both. ~Eloise From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 04:53:14 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:53:14 -0000 Subject: OT: Intros, Owls, Babies, Files/Photos/etc. Message-ID: Talisman: > ...never answer impertinent questions. Funny; impertinence comes in many forms, eh? Such as: guess we'll not get an Intro Profile from you, Talisman? ;-) Talisman on owl lore: > However, modern-day Scottish Muggles continue to consider it bad > luck to see an owl in daylight. Lucky I'm not in Scotland; some time back I had the opportunity to see an off-white owl soar (quite low, maybe 30 - 40 feet up) through my front yard in the late afternoon. Don't recall any worse-than- usual luck following...though maybe the effects have worn off as my luck's taken an upturn recently. Catherine: > > Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you > > think of anything else we might *really* want to know? David: > Ah, a very Dumbledorean question. I feel Sirius has the best > riposte: "Come on, Catherine, you can do better than that!" Ah, playful banter between old friends -- how I love it! (This should not be seen as a veiled request to be brought into the teasing myself, though.) :-D Welcome out to both David and Eloise! My congrats to JoAnna, too; Elly is just *gorgeous*! Btw, is Collin still into HP? He needs to join us here! :-) Penny, my congrats again on adorable little Harry; bet Elizabeth is crazy about her little brother now he's here. Y'all know, we have a big, empty Photo (and Files and Polls, etc.) section here... (Hint, hint to everyone!) --Kelley From s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 06:20:46 2005 From: s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:20:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Intros, Owls, Babies, Files/Photos/etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050205062046.38672.qmail@...> --- Kelley wrote: > Y'all know, we have a big, empty Photo (and Files > and Polls, etc.) > section here... (Hint, hint to everyone!) > Taking Kelley's hint, I've uploaded a couple pics to the Photos section. I have a family photo to upload, if I can only figure out where I stuck it on the computer. :) Sheryll ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 11:31:53 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 03:31:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Intros, Owls, Babies, Files/Photos/etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050205113154.46257.qmail@...> --- Kelley wrote: > Talisman on owl lore: > > However, modern-day Scottish Muggles continue to consider it bad > > luck to see an owl in daylight. > > Lucky I'm not in Scotland; some time back I had the opportunity to > see an off-white owl soar (quite low, maybe 30 - 40 feet up) through > my front yard in the late afternoon. Don't recall any worse-than- > usual luck following...though maybe the effects have worn off as my > luck's taken an upturn recently. That's good to hear, Kelley! ;-) All I can say is that I hope the bad luck thing doesn't extend south of Hadrian's Wall. We have barn owls in some farm buildings next door to us (we're trying to figure out with the owners how best to rehouse them so don't completely relocate when the barn conversion starts later in the year), and we frequently see them before dusk (although we hear them more - I think there might be screech owls there as well, which we haven't actually seen them). I'm not quite sure why they are supposed to be bad luck, although I could understand why they might be considered harbingers of death. They do have a certain silent, ethereal, ghostly quality and it's surely no coincidence that it is their cry children emulate when pretending to be ghosts and ghouls. I did just read that some cultures see them as guides to the Underworld, but this snippet interested me more: "Any man who eats roasted owl will be obedient and a slave to his wife." Not that I'm having problems in that department, but one never knows when it could come in handy. > > Catherine: > > > Under "Other things we might want to know about you" can you > > > think of anything else we might *really* want to know? > > David: > > Ah, a very Dumbledorean question. I feel Sirius has the best > > riposte: "Come on, Catherine, you can do better than that!" > > Ah, playful banter between old friends -- how I love it! (This > should not be seen as a veiled request to be brought into the teasing > myself, though.) :-D Oh why not? And in answer to David, yes, I could probably do better, but I haven't quite decided how far to go. Although I can think of someone who might be able to help me with that... > Welcome out to both David and Eloise! Yes - welcome back, Eloise. It's nice to see you back on LJ as well. > > Y'all know, we have a big, empty Photo (and Files and Polls, etc.) > section here... (Hint, hint to everyone!) Yes, and I see that Sheryll managed to locate her family portrait photograph. Sheryll, I'm intrigued as to who everyone is in that photo. Are Andy and Nyssa on it? I was thinking Nyssa must be the girl on the far left, but I'm not sure. Loved seeing that Alan Rickman picture again, btw. Catherine __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 15:12:01 2005 From: s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:12:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Photos In-Reply-To: <20050205113154.46257.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050205151201.39991.qmail@...> Catherine noted: > Yes, and I see that Sheryll managed to locate her > family portrait photograph. Sheryll, I'm > intrigued as to who everyone is in that photo. Are > Andy and Nyssa on it? I was thinking Nyssa > must be the girl on the far left, but I'm not sure. > Sheryll: Yes, that is indeed Nyssa on the far left. Andy is beside her, then me, my father and mother, sister Shawnda, my nephew Austin, brother-in-law Malcolm (called Beano by everyone). In the front are Shawnda and Beano's youngest two, Kailan and Makayla. IIRC, that photo was taken about 2 years ago. Nyssa would have been 18, Austin 12, Kailan and Makayla 5 and 7 respectively. Since Kailan was about 2, he and Makayla have always been the same size. It's a family joke that she'll be in a booster seat in the car until she's in university. She's very tiny. Kailan is the source of most of our family anecdotes, nicely replacing older brother Austin. Kailan is celebrating (belatedly) his birthday tomorrow. The children will be decorating their own small cakes. When my mother said is sounded like fun and asked if she could decorate one as well, he gave her a very serious look and said, "But Grammy, you're too *old* to be a kid!" :-D > Loved seeing that Alan Rickman picture again, btw. > I am pretty fond of that one. It brings back such delightful memories. :) Sheryll ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 15:46:00 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:46:00 -0000 Subject: Best of Enemies. pt 5. In-Reply-To: <2FE85D29-722F-11D9-89BE-000A9577CB94@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote (about Bella): > she's done little to Harry apart from threatening him with her > wand. Even that makes me break out in a light sweat. > > > La Belle Dame Sans Merci. And if she finds Harry alone and palely > loitering, his goose is cooked. > Carolyn now comments that Kneasy now appears to be faced with something of a dilemma. To see OOP, the movie or not. TLC reported yesterday: >>Ace movie site Dark Horizons reports today that during CNBC News last night, "it was apparently revealed that Elizabeth Hurley has been offered a part in the fifth Harry Potter Movie 'The Order of The Phoenix' with the character described only as an 'evil witch.' That would make her Bellatrix, or a very skinny Umbridge (we doubt it); the England-born model/actress is rumored to be considering it. If she is cast, presuming Ralph Fiennes stays on as Voldemort for OotP, it would make the Voldemort-Bellatrix evil duo (and the Lucius Malfoy-Bellatrix scenes) very attractive indeed.<< Mind you, Elizabeth Hurley's erm, *acting* talents only qualify her for the role of Mrs Black's portrait, IMO. Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 17:17:46 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:17:46 -0000 Subject: Best of Enemies. pt 5. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > > Carolyn now comments that Kneasy now appears to be faced with > something of a dilemma. To see OOP, the movie or not. TLC reported > yesterday: > > > >>Ace movie site Dark Horizons reports today that during CNBC News > last night, "it was apparently revealed that Elizabeth Hurley has > been offered a part in the fifth Harry Potter Movie 'The Order of The > Phoenix' with the character described only as an 'evil witch.' > > That would make her Bellatrix, or a very skinny Umbridge (we doubt > it); the England-born model/actress is rumored to be considering it. > If she is cast, presuming Ralph Fiennes stays on as Voldemort for > OotP, it would make the Voldemort-Bellatrix evil duo (and the Lucius > Malfoy-Bellatrix scenes) very attractive indeed.<< > > Mind you, Elizabeth Hurley's erm, *acting* talents only qualify her > for the role of Mrs Black's portrait, IMO. > > Carolyn Dilemma? There is no dilemma. Hurley? As Bella? Preposterous. One might as well cast Lassie as Sher Khan - and I don't mean in a Disney (spit) version either. I agree that she's not an Umbridge, though these film people, they do have very odd ideas sometimes. No; it just confirms the conclusions I reached after watching that PoA abomination - avoid the films like the plague. They steal the images we've formed while reading the books and replace them with third rate hack actors who just happen to have a persuasive agent or so-called 'stars' who think it would be fun to do a cameo in a kids film. Hell's teeth. Still, I suppose it's inevitable. After all, with the state of education such as it is, there's a fair number who might never be able to read the books. Let them watch film. Kneasy From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 5 20:27:22 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:27:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT: Intro Profile (amended) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050205202722.11994.qmail@...> Welcome Eloise, I would be interested in any description of Kent England since my ancestors came to America from Kent. Specifically Deal, Kent. I hope to take the family there on vacation one day. All I know about is the white cliffs of Dover and there are some famous castles around there too. Randy Estes now living in Florida --- fritter_my_wig wrote: > > First an apology to anyone on email/digest who gets > this twice with > small amendment and especially an apology to David. > I don't know > *why* I called him Dave (except for having just > deleted the Yahoo > attribution). > > I missed David's return when it was announced. > Perhaps it's time to > admit that I returned myself some time ago, not that > I ever got round > to posting - even an intro - the last time. Here > goes. > > > THE OLD CROWD INTRO > > > ***Name: > Elizabeth > > > ***Nicknames/IDs: > Eloise_Herisson (Yahoo and lj); I seem to have > managed to sign up > here under yet another Yahoo id. > > > ***Age: > 47 > > > ***Family: > Husband, four children 8-14 yrs, various animals. > > > ***Home > Kent, England > > > ***Birthday, Place of Birth: > 22nd March, Sale, Cheshire. > > > > > > > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > > Like David's, really a bit in decline. > I've always felt a bit embarassed about the fan > thing and don't much > admit to it. This of course meant it was rather > difficult to explain > where my time went when I was more heavily involved > in HPfGU admin > than I am now. I don't think I've ever been obsessed > as such, though > musing on a certain character has taken up quite a > lot of my time. > And still does from time to time. ;-) I used to know > the first four > books backwards. I've never got to grips with OoP to > the same extent. > > ***Current/recent viewing: > > Desperate Housewives, Tribe, trashy antiques > programmes, > North and South (and I missed the last episode!!!!! > :-( ) > Recently saw both The Aviator and Lemony Snicket at > the cinema and > loved both. > > ~Eloise > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 12:10:43 2005 From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:10:43 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: The invitations are out Message-ID: Greetings all! A little later than planned, ToC invitations have just gone out to 30 individuals, no doubt a fascinating mix of magical brethren, mythical beasts and mysterious onlookers. Three were rejected because the contacts don't accept invites, but these were the three people who were stranded in the database from last year, so I guess that's why we left them there. Anyway, let's see who apparates in. Neil flying ford anglia From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 13:10:51 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:10:51 -0000 Subject: OT: Introducing myself Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Eva ***Nicknames/IDs: Sigune, Severelysigune "Sigune" is a remnant from my Arthurian days. In case anyone is interested: she's a bald Grail maiden, in love with the knight Sch?onatulander, who sadly dies in his first attempt to duel for her. It's a nick I adopted when I was eighteen and reading a particularly difficult Swiss novel, "Der rote Ritter", an adaptation of Wolfram von Eschenbach's "Parziv?l", and it sort of stuck. I'm not bald. I'm not in love with someone who died fighting in my honour. ***Age: 25 ***Family: None. Well ? not of my own. I still live at home with my parents and younger sister. ***Home Ghent, Belgium. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: 8 October in Ghent, Belgium ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: MA Germanic Languages (English and German). I am a researcher at Ghent University and attempting to write a PhD about Oscar Wilde and Masculinities. My role in life is still an enticing (?) mystery. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Er ? apart from the fact that I'm delighted to be invited to The Old Crowd? I wouldn't know. Just fire away. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Actually I don't know the exact date ? it would have been somewhere in 2001, when a friend dragged me along to the cinema to see the first Potter film. Shortly after, the same friend lent me her copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, which entirely failed to impress me, but still I borrowed the next three books from another friend. I devoured them, but still wasn't impressed. In any case, that was the beginning of it all. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): My favourite book is "Order of the Phoenix", it being the first I bought myself and the one that finally got me hooked. I think what did it was the sudden (if somewhat belated) realisation that the series was very well thought out, that there was a "great plan" behind it all. I also enjoyed the fact that Harry was growing up and behaving like a flawed teenager. And, of course, there was the fact that James and Sirius turned out to be less nice and perfect than they had hitherto seemed. Favourite character(s): Snape. I also have a soft spot for Dumbledore. Ships ? none, really. Fics: mainly After the Rain's short fics ? "The Witness for the Defense", "A Fellowship of Young Squires"; TheTreacleTart's madness ? "Bottoms Up" ? and her "Still Life"; and more ? short stories, generally. I also have a few fan art favourites, like Laurence P?guy's. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Worrying. I'm afraid I'm really obsessed with Snape. It's not a strange thing: I am always obsessed with someone of something (the Celts, the ancient Egytians, Sir Gawain, Oscar Wilde, now Snape). It began with Snape drawings (I think he's visually interesting ? I've never before tried to draw anyone looking so much like a clich? baddie :-) ), then came fan fiction, then HpfGU, then a Snape comic. The whole thing really does take up a lot of time; I need therapy, I think ***Other interests/activities: Comics, manga, drawing, literature (mainly French and English, and I haven't entered the 20th century yet), everything Victorian, Oscar Wilde, Aubrey Beardsley, decadence, Hellenistic sculpture, painting in general, cinema, baking, fencing. ***Current/recent reading: I have just finished reading Michel Faber's "The Crimson Petal and the White", and enjoyed it. I'm still trying to get through Huysmans' "A Rebours", and "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell" is lying on my bedside table. Comics include "Fables", De Schorpioen, and manga "Lone Wolf & Cub". ***Current/recent listening: Sinead O'Connor, Turkish folk music, O'Stravaganza, V?rttine; Radio 1. ***Current/recent viewing: Dalziel and Pascoe; Charles II; Het bourgondisch complot. From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 14:53:12 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:53:12 -0000 Subject: OT: Introducing myself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > > THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO > > ***Name: > Eva Welcome, Eva/Sigune! > > ***Home > Ghent, Belgium. Does that mean you're not a native speaker of English? I never would have guessed! > Favourite character(s): Snape. I also have a soft spot for Dumbledore. > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > Worrying. I'm afraid I'm really obsessed with Snape. It's not a > strange thing: I am always obsessed with someone of something (the > Celts, the ancient Egytians, Sir Gawain, Oscar Wilde, now Snape). It > began with Snape drawings (I think he's visually interesting ? I've > never before tried to draw anyone looking so much like a clich? > baddie :-) ), then came fan fiction, then HpfGU, then a Snape comic. > The whole thing really does take up a lot of time; I need therapy, I > think > > ***Other interests/activities: > Comics, manga, drawing, literature (mainly French and English, and I > haven't entered the 20th century yet), everything Victorian, Oscar > Wilde, Aubrey Beardsley, decadence, Hellenistic sculpture, painting > in general, cinema, baking, fencing. > Oscar Wilde, Aubrey Beardsley, decadence, Snape ... is this a pattern? After many years, I have yet to forget a particularly sick line in UNDER THE HILL, where the girls of Venus's realm are described as having drawings on their legs which looks, through their white silk stockings, like 'the most delicious bruises'. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 15:34:17 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:34:17 -0500 Subject: OT: Intro Profile Message-ID: <004301c50c61$526ca4e0$6701a8c0@...> Thank you so very much for the invite to your group! THE OLD CROWD - INTRO ***Name: Rebecca Bowen ***Nicknames/IDs: Charme, dontask2much, travismac on Live Journal ***Age: 40 ***Family: William, my very old and absolutely brilliant cat, plus 2 dogs and a man I keep around to mow the grass, chop wood, and do "guy" things :) ***Home Charles Town, WV with access to the Shenandoah River from my backyard ***Birthday, Place of Birth: Sept 11th, Alexandria, VA ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: University level - I work as an associate department head for information technology services at a well known nonprofit federally funded research and development company here in the US. My role in life? There's no doubt it is to provide wit/humor where I can and crisis intevention in sticky situations, which sometimes I manage to accomplish at the same instant. :) Oh, and I imagine part of my role is to feed that man I've locked up around here.... ***Other things we might want to know about you: A short while ago, I lived for 3 years in a remote area of Alaska and I've seen and photographed various wildlife there, plus to learned to live "off the land" so to speak. I am a professional photographer, and have sold some of my works to various recognizable publications. I'm also gifted (or cursed, depends on whose pocketbook it comes out of) with an enhanced reading and comprehension ability and could read by the time I was 3 years old. I should have stock in Borders for how much I spend there, since a book the length of OoP takes me about 4 1/2 - 5 hours to complete, so your average novel of 300-400 pages is completed and quotable in about 2 1/2 - 3 hours. I give away some books I don't plan to keep (not the Harry Potters ones, no way - my friendship and generosity only goes so deep) weekly to my friends and encourage them to "pass them on" hoping I'll never get all of them back, otherwise moving around in the house might be a problem.... ***First contact with Harry Potter: I first came in contact with Harry Potter back 3 years ago when seeing a older, quite distinguished fellow reading GoF on the subway when I was enroute to a meeting at the Pentagon. I was flabbergasted - this guy is reading a kid's book? What's THAT all about? I bought and read PS/SS the very same day, and by the end of the week, had purchased and read all I could. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): My favourite book of the septology is OoP - to my way of thinking, we start to get more answers finally than questions and I *like* all the anger, darkness and such Harry experiences in this book. While I have a Snape fetish of sorts, I think I most enjoy Ron's "down to earth" humor. I'm also very, very curious about the Patronus Charm, as I suspect the spell wasn't originally used for repelling Lethifolds an if that's true, it begets the question of what exactly it *was* used for and how it might be used in future books. I think Lupin's not evil, and Snape may be a plot "red herring" for redemption and some fans give the dear Professor far too much credit for being on the extreme side of "good". Centaurs are beyond my comprehension and borderline annoying to me, and Fudge needs a smack upside his head with a very stout wand. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Moderate. I think I can accurately say it's a hobby of mine to discuss these books and see what others think and feel about what they've read, and that's the part that interests me the most. I enjoy online "communities" and "messageboards" and I've ran a few successful ones in my time. ( I might be one of the few who has experience with the Internet which doesn't include Yahoo, IRC chat programs, and the like. Back in the day, we didn't have such intuitive clients on the desktop and Internet like access wasn't as easy to get.) I don't go so far as to subscribe to fanfiction much, although there are a few fanfiction authors in the great Internet beyond I enjoy reading. I'm also enamored with Kneasyisms and have missed them for the last month or so as he's exclusively appearing here, which is probably going to get him teased unmercifully :) ***Other interests/activities: Other than my "geek" tendencies, I also love astronomony, am a certified PADI dive instructor, and pretty good with a Glock 40. :) (Remember, there are bears in the wilds of Alaska where you need that Glock.) My interest in all things Egyptian started back in 7th grade, where I mummified a frog for the science fair, and no, I'm not joking! ***Current/recent reading: The list is too long, but I'll give you what I've managed to plow through since December :) I'd never read Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series, and after reading a dissertation online discussing the religious connotation differences between Pullman, Lewis and Rowling, I was hooked. I also reread The Chronicles of Narnia directly after His Dark Materials. The funniest fiction I've read recently is written by Christopher Moore called "Lamb;" if you offend easily in the religious sense don't read it! "Lamb" begat the reading of all of Moore's other books. Others I've enjoyed recently include Gregory MacGuire's books (all of them) and Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, and Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series. Nonfiction? Yep, but mostly releases dealing with terrorism, 9/11, and the Bush administration. Worst written book on the face of the planet, IMO? Bill Clinton's "My Life." Old Bill needs to learn to paraphrase. ***Current/recent listening: Audiobooks from audible.com, AC/DC in my Mustang CD player at the moment, along with Def Leppard, KISS, and Whitesnake ***Current/recent viewing: Eddie Izzard's Unrepeatable (DVD) and I'm totally besotted with JJ Abram's "Lost" series. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 22:07:23 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:07:23 -0000 Subject: OT: New Intro Profile Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO First, Thank You Barry--it's good to be able to follow your postings again! I"m so very pleased to find so many other names here that I recognize and value. ***Name: Lyn Mangiameli ***Nicknames/IDs: Lyn works just fine, or kumayama Bit of initial trivia: Kumayama was the name of an Akita who was a member of our pack for 15 years. It is Mountain Bear in Japanese, which was a fitting title, as he lived in the Sierra Nevada mountains with us for most of his life and made it to the topof quite a few of the High Sierra peaks. ***Age: 53 for a short while longer. ***Family: My wife, companion and colleague of the past 33 years, Ashley. An adolescent Akita (named Pookha) and a Hedgehog (current one named Olivander Pygwheelian Hedgehog -- we had one before him named Hufflepuff which was very fitting if you know hedgehogs) ***Home Silicon Valley ***Birthday, Place of Birth: Omaha Nebraska, USA ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Ph.D. / Forensic Clinical Neuropsychologist ***Other things we might want to know about you: Hard to anticipate what others might want to know, so encourage others to ask publicly or privately as they wish. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Other than press reports, it was watching the first HP movie shortly after its theatrical release. This lead to immediately acquiring every HP book available and reading them to my wife. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Just the books themselves and the world incorporated therein. I'm fond of the way the books focus on moral choice and individual effort. ***Favourite character(s): HP and Hermione ***Ships ? I'd be pleased to see an HP/Hermione union, but mostly I just hope to be amused and satisfied with the way JKR develops her choice. ***Fics: If this refers to fanfics, I've never read any and don't care to. ***Extent of Potter obsession: I would consider myself to be more intruiged and appreciative, than obsessed. I suppose my checking of two or more HP websites everyday and making (often futile) efforts to keep up with many of the threads in the HP4GU group probably belies any dispassionate detachment. ***Other interests/activities: Woodturning and woodworking (I'm probably better know on the internet for my writings in this area than I am for my professional endeavors). Being in deserts, canyons, and above treeline in mountains, whether on foot or by vehicle. ***Current/recent reading: Well, I just finished a Muscle and Fitness magazine, before that it was a book on the neurology of vision. I'd say "eclectic" would better describe my reading tastes than any title or genre. ***Current/recent listening: Mostly whatever is on the old rock or jazz channels on Sirius. ***Current/recent viewing: Fox News. From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 22:07:33 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:07:33 -0000 Subject: OT Introducing me Message-ID: Thanks for the invite, it's good to see those of you I've not seen in a while. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Susan ***Nicknames/IDs: melclaros, by which you all know me from that other place. Gillieweed, by which I go in a few other places, and my livejournal. ***Age: Not telling. Old enough to know better, anyway. ***Family: 2 children, 14 and 11. One pending ex. ***Home St. Petersburg, FL. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: January 27, Long Island, New York ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: After being at home with kids for way too long, I have recently returned to full-time work. Employed by the local school district. Not a teacher. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Make something up. I'll be more interesting. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Looking for something to get my son reading. It worked. Read SS/PS back to back with CoS then had PoA brought over from England by visiting relatives as it was released much later here. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Fav book of series: Prizoner of Azkoban Fav character, Snape from the beginning. Lupin until OoP. Ron usually. New fav: Phineas Nigellus. Don't ship. At all. ::shudders:: Fics: Yes. They're out there. I also have a few fan art favourites, like Laurence P?guy's. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Joining groups like this. At my age. Tut tut. ***Other interests/activities: Gardening, cooking, reading, crafts. ***Current/recent reading: The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd. ***Current/recent listening: Ah, silence From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 01:34:58 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:34:58 -0000 Subject: OT Introduction Message-ID: Thank you very much for the invitation to join such respected posters. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Phil Cousins ***Nicknames/IDs: confusinglyso Based on my surname, COnfUSINglySo, but most apt, as my posts are often misunderstood, mostly owing to my lack of clarity. ***Age: 59 ***Family: Wife Julie, daughter Elizabeth 25, son Nicholas 21 ***Home Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England ***Birthday, Place of Birth: 22 October, Cheltenham ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Retired after career in mixture of science and engineering. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Used to own a Ford Anglia (Estate). Missed opportunity, Cheltenham has an annual Literature Festival, guess who has never been to one, in particular when a new writer was promoting HP and the Philosopher's Stone in 1997. ***First contact with Harry Potter: I used to take 'The Times' and noted the same 3 books were top of bestsellers list for ages. Bought PS then quickly CoS and PoA, all in paperback so must have been 1999, had to wait for GoF, which I have in hardback. Rest of family are fans, but my daughter and I are the most keen. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): My favourite is "Order of the Phoenix", I enjoyed the continued cluelessness of Harry with Cho,(although he should have also been understanding of her distress re Cedric), and the dry humour from Minerva. I thought Ron's clicking tongue 'clip clop' at the end in hospital wing was a touch of brilliance. Favourite character(s): Severus Snape. Arthur Weasley. Ships ? . Fics: Used to follow 'The Lily Evans Story". ***Extent of Potter obsession: Daughter getting married this year, her fiancee also a fan, and they want the reception to be HP themed. 1st Feb 2002 my wife, daughter, and I waited outside Gloucester cathedral in pouring rain to see Ron, Hermione, Severus, Albus, Filch, Gilderoy filming CoS. Alan Rickman is a real gentleman, as he was driven away to lunch, he wound his window down to give us a wave. I bought another set of HP1-4 second hand and OoP in paperback recently so that I can underline and add notes without harming my original copies, to hopefully improve my chances of posting intelligently. ***Other interests/activities: Walking, Computing, Cycling ***Current/recent reading: Ian Rankin, most recently "Watchman", a reissue. "Who's Afraid of Beowulf?" "The Da Vinci Code", OK, but would not rave about it. "Ender's Game" I enjoyed, was recommended by someone on HPfGU some time ago, as was "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell" , which I've just bought. ***Current/recent listening: Rolling Stones, Lonnie Mack, Albert Collins ***Current/recent viewing: TV has deteriorated so much that I tend to view the internet more than TV. About the only TV I make special effort for are F1 Grand Prix From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 02:24:16 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:24:16 -0000 Subject: Impertinence & Intros (was OT: Intros, Owls, Babies, Files/Photos/etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > > Talisman: > > ...never answer impertinent questions. >Kelley: > Funny; impertinence comes in many forms, eh? Talisman, blushing: Yes, and it's not even my best quality. Kelley: >Such as: guess we'll not get an Intro Profile from you, Talisman? Talisman, assuming a solemn stoicism: You will thank me, in days to come, when you are able to swear in open court, with perfect equanimity, "I really had no idea..." From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 05:20:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 05:20:08 -0000 Subject: OT: Introducing me Message-ID: ***Name: Susan Albrecht ***Nicknames/IDs: Siriusly Snapey Susan, Cubfanbudwoman ***Age: 42 ***Family: Husband of 14 years, Brian; daughter, Kristen (8), also a big fan; son, Jackson (6); two cats, Fumble & Washington; Goldie the goldfish. ***Home Crawfordsville, Indiana ***Birthday, Place of Birth: February 23, Wyandotte, Michigan ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: B.S. in psychology from Earlham College; brief tour at Univ. of Tennessee in clinical psychology doctoral program; switched to Indiana University for teacher certification [secondary school social studies] and an M.A. in counseling. Bartended, waitressed and typed papers through college/grad school years. Taught for 5 years. Now do acquisitions for a small, liberal arts college. Also elected to school board this past spring. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Hmmm. Tough to say. Before kids, I was a sports junkie. I have a propensity for saying "sure" when I should say "no." One of my best traits *and* failings is that I'm awfully soft-hearted. ***First contact with Harry Potter: A kid I knew from church dressed up as Harry for Halloween, and his enthusiasm got my interest piqued. It must've been Oct. '99, because I know that once I was hooked w/ SS, I was able to read the next two immediately after. I was distinctly aware that what was drawing me in was JKR's uncanny ability to remember what *mattered* to a kid aged 11, 12, 13. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): PoA is my favorite book. General likes: Snape's snarkiness, the twins' mischievousness, Ron's bluntness, McGonagall's dry wit, DD's twinkle, Crookshanks' mysterious abilities, Lupin's quiet presence, Ginny's growing strength. Bummed by Sirius' death. Love the thought of exploring Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley. Enjoy Harry even though he won't ask any damn questions. Marvel over JKR's penchant for creating cool things like Quidditch, the Marauder's Map, and Ton Tongue Toffee. SHIPs: favor Ron/Hermione, Harry/Ginny, liked the idea of Sirius/Remus Fanfics: read *very* few, but loved Arabella & Zsenya's After the End, and have read one of Sigune's. :-) Objects d'art: love my Snape keychain, Snape/MM/DD coffee mug. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Has grown farther than I expected and farther than I thought my family would tolerate. Have registered for The Witching Hour in Salem in October. Have all US hardbacks, all Jim Dale recordings, all movies. Saw PoA in the theater 6 times [I know, I'm sick]. Have been known to browse eBay for HP memorabilia. Have all soundtracks [PoA is the best]. Rarely go >2 days w/o visit to The Leaky Cauldron. ***Other interests/activities: Jogging, walking, tennis when I can manage it; reading; HP & other online groups; various community service activities; hanging out with my kids, since they're still at the age when they *want* me to be around. Oh--and watching Alan Rickman movies. ***Current/recent reading: I'm *always* reading one of the HPs, and I'm *always* reading one of the Betsy-Tacy books by Maud Hart Lovelace. Other recent reads: Devil in the White City; Pullman's The Golden Compass w/ Kristen; Walter the Farting Dog w/ Jackson; A Separate Peace; Secret Life of Bees; the last three Lilian Jackson Braun The Cat Who... books. **Current/recent listening: Rush in Rio; Love, Actually soundtrack; whatever's on the classic rock stations; myself trying to brush up my piano playing skills. ***Current/recent viewing: TV: Alias, college basketball Movies: The Aviator, Kinsey, Finding Neverland, Lemony Snicket [didn't like much], Barchester Chronicles [just released on DVD in the US!] Glad to be amongst you, Siriusly Snapey Susan From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 09:59:50 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:59:50 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Message-ID: Many, many thanks for invite. Hi I'm Jo. Age: 41 Female My parents can both spell but I can't, so I guess that makes me a squab. My favourite game as a child was `Star Trek' I was always Captain Kirk. I wanted to be Humphrey Bogart when I grew up. I wasn't overly clear on gender roles. My hobbies are reading and staring at walls. Currently reading P. G. Wodehouse's Blandings stories. Currently watching Charmed but recently dreamt that I was given a magical ring that gave me power over poultry so I should probably quit. It's no Buffy. Currently listening to Franz Ferdinand. Would like to be able to purr. Introduced to HP by friends, favourite book POA though have high hopes for HBP. Favourite bit of HP is Hogwarts and that back story. Off to read back posts now, may be some time. From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 10:46:08 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:46:08 -0000 Subject: OT Introducing me too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks very much for the invite. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Dot ***Nicknames/IDs: Dungrollin/Dung ***Age: Does it matter? ***Family: If that means offspring, no, but I am related to some people. ***Home Currently south London, but will emigrate to West Africa in the next couple of months, and live a drizzle-free mango-rich mosquito- infested life in a hammock. Overlooking the lagoon. With gin. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: April 16th, Kingston-Upon-Thames ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Research entomologist, writing up and soon (ahem) submitting PhD thesis. ***Other things we might want to know about you: I work on dung beetles in West Africa, and it's my dream job, and I love it, so stop sniggering. I get vertigo, which really irritates me, because I'm not *frightened* of heights, I just go dizzy. If I could hibernate through British winters I would. I have an unhealthy love of the Afrotropics: I've had malaria, which was not particularly nice, although typhoid was worse, (malaria was just surreal enough to be interesting, typhoid was rubbish). I can be quite frighteningly pedantic with regard to subjects about which I care. The best banana I've ever eaten was in Dabakala, and I never got over it, I now can't eat the *things* they sell over here under that name. I overuse punctuation... particularly ellipses... (and parentheses). I can't be bothered to force myself to like certain things because other people think I should like them (such as Dickens and Mozart). The most beautiful green thing I've ever seen was a baby green mamba. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Just after GoF came out I was in The King's Arms with a friend, a barrister, who is not at all given to child-like enthusing, and he started telling me about the books. After about twenty minutes he was jumping up and down in his chair and squeaking "Hurrah for Harry! Hurrah for Harry!" So I thought they might be worth a look. ***Favourite Potter things: Snape, I suppose. And I like Phineas Nigellus. Though I'm fond of Hagrid too (I empathise with his fascination for creatures that others don't like much). ***Ships: Nope. ***Fics: Nope. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Mild compared to some - a couple of lists like this. Only told one friend that I joined HPfGU, and she laughed so much that I haven't told anyone else. ***Other interests/activities: General Entomology. Travelling, particularly the tropics, and particularly in Africa. General natural history. Read quite a lot, fiction (anything but Dickens), non-fiction (mostly pop-science that reminds me of things I ought to understand, but don't), occasionally try for the umpteenth time to get all the way through Tristram Shandy, and fail. Play the clarinet (though quite badly, these days). Gin, (ice and lemon ? easy on the tonic). ***Current/recent reading: The Poisonwood Bible, Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, and I'm half way through Tristram Shandy... ***Current/recent listening: Not much that's recent, though I've got quite into Gillian Welch. ***Current/recent viewing: Don't watch much telly, but ? hooray! Smiley's People is out on DVD. Dung From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 11:32:12 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:32:12 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT Introducing me too In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050207113212.GD12668@...> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 10:46:08AM -0000, dungrollin wrote: Welcome! > > ***Current/recent viewing: > Don't watch much telly, but hooray! Smiley's People is out on > DVD. Does this mean they'll do something with that nice Mr Callum at some point? Or have they done so already? Never thought Smiley would see the light of day...hoorah. -- Mac OS X. Because re-branding NeXTStep was easier than fixing Mac OS. From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 13:16:47 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:16:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT: Introducing myself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207131647.19943.qmail@...> "severelysigune" wrote: > > THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO > > ***Name: > Eva > > ***Home > Ghent, Belgium. Catlady: Sigune: Thank you! But I bet that sooner or later I'll betray myself by using some entirely oblique expression, or by sounding terribly Victorian, or something other of the kind... ;-) Catlady: Sigune: *LOL* - In fact, I'd pick Wilde for the text, and Beardsley for the illustrations... I have to confess I've never managed to finish "Under the Hill"; I think it's a bit of a bore - a young man saying 'Hey, look what I dare to write! Isn't it shocking?' - it's a bit silly. But the drawings are great... I have been thinking hard about what the pattern Wilde-Beardsley-Snape-decadence might be (imagine that being necessary! I'd never given it much thought before...), and I think it's in the 'black, white and grey' field (also visually, which is fun) and crossing the borderline of what is permissible. In any case, you know what they say about people who are fascinated with decadence: they are nice and law-abiding citizens with a fairly boring life ;-). --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 15:42:33 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:42:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: OT: Hello Everyone - an Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207154233.27737.qmail@...> THE OLD CROWD INTRO ***Name: Magda Grantwich ***Nicknames/IDs: Magda, although on the Sugar Quill, I'm muggleguest. ***Age: late '30's ***Family: Single, no pets ***Home Canada ***Birthday, Place of Birth: August, Canada ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: History major, raising money for a major Canadian performing arts company ***Other things we might want to know about you: I read a great deal. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Read the first three books during summer of 2000 in preparation for the release of GOF (which I read in the fall of 2000). I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Just the books. ***Favourite character(s): Fave characters: Snape, Dumbledore, Luna, Neville. Un-fave characters: Molly, Sirius. ***Ships Well, I think Ron/Hermione is coming down the tracks with all the subtlety of a freight train but other than being convinced that McGonagall has a not-so-secret crush on Dumbledore (which he is aware of and finds touching, although he thinks he's too old and doomed for her), not much interested. ***Fics: There's a great fanfic called "The Eulogy" which is a 100ish Harry giving the eulogy for 140ish Snape, former headmaster of Hogwarts. Best Snape fic ever written, bar none. Gets Harry right too, which is also pretty rare. So bang on I'm half-convinced JKR wrote it. ***Extent of Potter obsession: I want to see how the story ends. Buy the paperbacks, not the hardcovers. ***Other interests/activities: Reading, writing. ***Current/recent reading: John Julius Norwich's "The Normans in the South" Flora Fraser's "Princesses: The Six Daughters of George III" ***Current/recent listening: Classical music, some opera. ***Current/recent viewing: Don't have a TV; waste of time, mostly. Cheers all. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 18:45:56 2005 From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:45:56 -0000 Subject: OT: Introduction Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Olivier Fouquet ***Nicknames/IDs: Olivier. Probably a sign of me lacking imagination. ***Age: 23 ***Family: I'm going to marry in August. ***Home Paris, France ***Birthday, Place of Birth: August. Lyon, France ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: I'm a mathematician, which pretty much defines my education too. ***Other things we might want to know about you: I don't know. I can cook a fine "dinde ? la sauce au cognac" if needed. ***First contact with Harry Potter: I reluctantly read CoS during the winter 2001, at first with the voiced intent of showing how shallow children literature is. As far as I remember, I then read PoA, GoF then PS. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Just the books. Well, I did enjoy the movie PoA. ***Favourite character(s): I like most of them. It also depends of the books. But let's say Lupin. ***Ships ? Yes, please. ***Fics: I read none and wrote an attempt myself, which I kept mostly private. ***Extent of Potter obsession: High enough to defend Lupin against Pippin vile attacks ;-). ***Other interests/activities: Too many things interest me for my own good. Apart from that, I swim in my spare time. ***Current/recent reading: Lately: La Collaboration ?conomique (M. Lacroix-Ruiz), De la Fran?afrique ? la Mafiafrique (FX. Verschaves), America Right or Wrong (A. Lieven), Japonaises : la r?volution douce (A. Garrigue), Righteous Victims (B. Morris), Destroying Palestine (T. Reinhart), Hegemony or Survival (N. Chomsky), Le commerce des promesses (PN Giraud). Plus some math reading in the context of my work. I don't read much fiction. I have read some poetry recently though. ***Current/recent listening: Mostly jazz, hip-hop, classical and french. ***Current/recent viewing: Last movie I saw was Fin ao?t, D?but septembre. I don't own a TV. Regards, Olivier From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 19:32:44 2005 From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:32:44 -0000 Subject: Post Scriptum Message-ID: By the way, many thanks to the person who invited me. Very much appreciated. Olivier From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 19:35:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:35:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Post Scriptum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207193532.6473.qmail@...> > By the way, many thanks to the person who invited me. > Very much appreciated. > Olivier Oh, yes. Me too! Thanks muchly. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From scarletdemon666 at scarletsorceress666.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 01:52:37 2005 From: scarletdemon666 at scarletsorceress666.yahoo.invalid (scarletsorceress666) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:52:37 -0000 Subject: Introduction... Message-ID: ***Name: Liz ***Pen name: Wolfsbaine, Wolfie, Scarlet ***Age: 42 sometimes. ***Family: Single ***Home UK, Birmingham. ***Birthday, Place of Birth May, England. ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Self Employed. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Around the PoA book Release time, brought the book for my nephew, I read it to him and got us both hooked. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objects d'Art, general enthusing): Favourite books: PoA, like all the books but in order PoA I would save first in a fire, not that keen on OoTP, found Jk's treatment of Sirius unfair. Favourite characters: Harry, Remus, Sirius, and DD. Ships: Find the obsession in Fans disturbing Fics: Will read anything. I prefer the way someone like Bruno Greengrass writes about the odd characters in the books or creates new stories around places in the Wizarding World, especially the writings about Knockturn Alley. General Enthusing: Have little time for the movies, PoA the least said the better. Like some HP-art, dislike the cheapening of HP with porn. Objects d'art Collector of lithographs, memorabilia Have the usually mugs, DVD's, CD's etc. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Just a little obsessed J ***Other interests/activities: Books, all kinds any kind. History, all kinds all subjects. Writing for my own pleasure. Studying, part time with the Open University, like it too much to graduate. Films, good ones, not blockbuster shoot em up, chase em in the car, kill the bad guy stuff, but ones that make you think. Art house, Old Classics, like A Matter of life and Death, Brief Encounter and so on. ***Current/recent reading: Precious Bane: Mary Webb,(again) always reading bits of HP and The Vampire Chronicles. Also like detective novels, such as Campion Mysteries, Ellis Peters. Non-fiction Book the Monarchy of England Volume 1, The Beginnings. David Starkey : ***Current/recent listening: Bowie like breathing. Likes, varied, Joy Division, Roxy Music, Bauhaus, Japan, Bruce Springsteen, some blues.Opera. Thanks Ali for putting my name forward. From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 04:31:07 2005 From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:31:07 -0000 Subject: OT: Yet Another Intro Message-ID: ***Name: Doug Kendall ***Nicknames/IDs: Eustace_Scrubb...why? Well, everyone has those days when they wake up and find they've turned into a dragon, don't they? Well? don't they? ***Age: 45 ***Family: My wife, Jacquie (professional baker); son Andrew (9-1/2), Potterite and cryptozoologist; Charm (almost 6), retired racing greyhound and 40mph couch potato. ***Home: Oneonta, NY, USA ***Birthday, Place of Birth: June 9, Bath, ME ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Far too many degrees, in History, Early American Culture and finally American Studies. I've worked in history museums for the past 23 years. Currently curator of collections at a pair of museums in Cooperstown, NY, where I also teach in a Museum Studies M.A. program. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Baseball fan + Grew up in New England=Long-suffering Boston Red Sox fan. If the Red Sox can win the World Series, perhaps JKR _can_ write a conclusion that will please everyone! Then again, maybe not... ***First contact with Harry Potter: Someone gave Andrew a hardcover of SS for his 5th birthday (I think that when it was), May 2000. It sat for a year or so; he's always been a precocious reader, but it wasn't until he was 6 that he started to try reading it. Got to Fluffy a couple of times and stopped. Then he decided I should read him The Hobbit and LOTR, which took over a year. About Jan. 2003, he read all of SS, then moved through the other 3 quickly. I followed in his wake, then we had to wait a month for OoP (I know, I know, only a month!) ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): --book: POA --characters: Neville, Arthur Weasley --ships: happen --fics: I've read a few; see below under "obsession." ***Extent of Potter obsession: Was especially pleased to attend a national conference of living history museums because the host institution also had an Imax showing POA. Am about 14 chapters into a derivative story started to pass the time between OoP and HBP--not exactly a fanfic. It's set in America beginning in the summer between GoF and OoP, involves no characters from JKR's books (except a few as reference points) nor any one named Mary Jane, and so far has no readership outside our house (though I'm encouraged by the reaction from my test readers). JKR foolishly encouraged me to continue when she stated on her website that "if anyone wants to write about American wizards they are of course free to write their own book!" ***Other interests/activities: What do you mean, other interests? Bicycling, helping out with Cub Scouts/Little League baseball/etc. ***Current/recent reading: Nathaniel Hawthorne, Stories and Tales Washington Irving, Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon Donald Hall, String Too Short to Be Saved ***Current/recent listening: OoP on tape (Jim Dale) Wallflowers (Breach) Eduard Tubin, Symphony No. 3 Counting Crows Bruce Cockburn ***Current/recent viewing: Ray The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, Complete 1st and 2nd seasons on DVD A Series of Unfortunate Events Thanks much for the invite! Cheers, Doug aka Eustace_Scrubb From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 08:39:10 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:39:10 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro Message-ID: ***Name: Neri Kafkafi (Gender: Male) ***IDs: nkafkafi (what, are these ids supposed to be like, original and cool? Nobody ever tells me anything) ***Age: 40 ***Birthday, Place of Birth: May 16, Israel, a Kibbutz over the Jordan river. ***Home: In the last five years mostly Baltimore, MD. ***Family: Single. A mother, four step-sisters and three younger brothers in Israel. Lost count of the nephews and nieces. ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Research, neuroscience and animal behavior. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Er... I don't know. Just ask. ***First Contact with Harry Potter: Jan 15, 2000, in a trans-atlantic flight to the USA, coming to live here for several years (my post-doc). My brother bought me SS/PS (in Hebrew) to read on the plane. The picture of a boy traveling in a train to a new and strange world stuck with me. Only years later I learned that this was the first picture of Harry that came into JKR's mind. ***Extent of Potter obsession: I was a purist until after OotP. My position was that a work of literature must stand by itself. I didn't have any connection with the fandom. I had absolutely no idea Snape was sexy. I took care not to read any interviews with JKR and nothing about her biography. I certainly did not see the movies (yuck!). However, this dedication crumbled after OotP, when I realized that I have at least two years waiting for Book 6, I had several theories I simply had to crosscheck, and I had no idea where and with whom. So I googled "Harry Potter theories" and landed straight into the Fantastic Posts site. As I dimly recall, my first thought was "gee, these guys are crazy", but fifteen minutes later I was hooked. As a scientist, I'm first and foremost a theorist. This is a challenge, and I simply must crack the mystery before Book 7 is out. But I'm not at all averted to other aspects: analysis, universe-building, even shipping. ***Favorite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objects d'Art, general enthusing): My favorite book depends on the day of the week. If pressed I'd say CoS. Many favorite characters: certainly the trio. Also Neville, Lupin, Dumbledore, Snape, Moaning Myrtle. I didn't know what "shipping" is, but since CoS I thought R/H and H/G are just obvious. I don't have principle objection to FF but still waiting to find something actually good. What are "objects d'Art" and "general enthusing"? My favorite TBay denizen is Faith. She got edge. In fact, she got too much edge. Ouch. (and Kimberly, if you're still around here, thanks!) ***Other interests/activities: Birding, drawing, science fiction, tai-chi-chuan. I did some writing in the past, mainly popular science articles (only in Hebrew). ***Current/recent reading: Can't find anything good lately. Can someone recommend a recent, really good SF? ***Current/recent listening: The Forge Players' wild version of John Dowland. ***Current/recent viewing: Don't have a TV. I recently liked the "Spirited away" DVD. Thanks for inviting me, and thanks to Carolyn for nominating me. Neri From bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 10:24:53 2005 From: bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid (Monika Huebner) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:24:53 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Intro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "nkafkafi" wrote: >***Current/recent reading: >Can't find anything good lately. Can someone recommend a recent, >really good SF? I don't know how you define "recent", but I would recommend the Company series by Kage Baker (if you are willing to cope with another unfinished series ;-)). There are five books so far, the fifth one has been released in December 2004, book 4 has just been re-released in trade pb this month. It starts with "In the Garden of Iden", and while this first one is sometimes mis-shelved with historical fiction (yuck), it's all about time-travel and immortal cyborgs. Baker has created a whole cast of them, and trust me, they often seem to be more human than their masters. I found myself loving this series almost as much as Harry Potter (and that says something!), I just devoured book 4 which had just gone OOP when I discovered the series, and I am eagerly looking forward to the next two. What I also love about this series is that Baker had the big picture in mind when she started writing (just like JKR), and there's a lot to speculate about what is really going on in her universe. There are supposed to be seven books like in the HP series. For more information you might want to check out Baker's web site: www.kagebaker.com Monika From Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 13:13:43 2005 From: Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid (S A H Culfeather) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:13:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT Introduction... another one!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050208131343.67227.qmail@...> Hello! Thank you to whoever invited me here - I notice a number of familiar names on the lists of members and pleased to be in such good company ***Name: Serena ***Nicknames/IDs Pookie, asphodeline (LiveJournal) ***Age: 38 until April ***Home Stirling, Scotland, UK ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Ba(Hons) Modern Languages, Secondary teaching qualification I have several jobs, I get bored easily! Teach adult leisure classes in evenings (French & Italian), I'm a merchandiser with Sainsburys supermarkets, I garden for other people (mostly the boring weedy bits but soemtimes it's more creative) and I caretake a holiday flat. Occasionally proof-read for money too! I would really like one job bringing in a decent wage! ***First contact with Harry Potter: I was a bookseller so heard about the book as it started to "grow" but took a while to read my copy and several attempts to get past chapter one, PS. Eventually the pub quiz master's obsession with asking HP questions pushed me to finish book one and I was hooked ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objects d'Art, general enthusing): Favourite books: PoA Favourite characters: Snape, Snape and Snape - also love Minerva and Ron and Lupin is okay and Lucius Malfoy Ships: keeping that quiet Fics: I read lots and will try anything if it's well written - and the recommendation to read The Eulogy was inspired, it's an amazing piece, especially Snape's final message! General Enthusing:I'd better not start on this.... Objects d'art Do a few action figures count here?? My mother has finally given in to my obsession and I am gathering interesting things. I am collecting the books in foreign languages, reading the French and Italian versions and have one or two others. The Japanese PS is particularly beautiful ***Extent of Potter obsession: Member of Accio_UK committee, spend most days doing something HP related and spend a ridiculous amount of time role-playing - sorry, I know some people think this is evil! I am intermittently Minerva, Ron and Fleur and love them all to bits I also carry a Harry Potter book in my handbag - choice varies depending on mood ***Other interests/activities: Not much time left for anything else but am an avid reader of anything, love walking and enjoy writing and sketching and used to do a lot of other things before HP came along ***Current/recent reading: always have several books on the go at once. >From the pile nearest my bed - Thursbitch, Alan Garner, The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold, Sybil by F R Schrieber. Current handbag book is HP et La Coupe de Feu, JKR ***Current/recent listening: I love music and will listen to all sorts. Currently enjoying Katie Melua ***Current viewing: Don't watch a lot of TV but when I do it's usually CSI or similar and Time Team and I think that's plenty to be getting on with!! Look forward to learning about the group Serena x ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 12:45:09 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:45:09 +0000 Subject: Dragonicity Message-ID: <4433B5C3-79CF-11D9-BA34-000A9577CB94@...> A desperate and probably futile attempt to make connections where none are likely to exist and to predict events that won't happen. Has that ever stopped me before? Not noticeably, no. But I have noticed that some of the fauna in HP doesn't get the attention from the fans that one might expect, particularly the more lethal varieties. Odd that. Let's redress the balance a little. Dragons, now. Would the study of such be termed Dracology or Dragonetics? I'm sure somebody out there has the answer. Whatever, they're popular beasties - kids are usually fascinated by 'em and a goodly number of writers have included dragons as key plot devices. From the tongue-in-cheek ("Puff the Magic Dragon"), the vicious (Smaug), the misunderstood (Tom Holt) to the mutated fluffy (Anne McCaffery), they turn up all over the place. (BTW - if you enjoy parody - you naughty, cruel people you! - then I can recommend David Langford's "The Dragonhiker's Guide to Battlefield Covenant at Dune's Edge: Odyssey Two". Not easy to find these days, a collection of short skewerings mostly of fantasy and SF authors, but it does have as part of the introduction a scene involving G'rot, his dragon Filth and the feisty but lovely Vanilla. Pern will never be the same again. What you can get hold of is his "The Silence of the Langford". Now if only I could write essays like those...) No matter. In HP too we have dragons. Good oh. They've turned up twice in the main plot and more often as background material or references. Presented pretty much as standard magical monsters - vicious, untamable, powerful - it's highly unlikely that Harry will pull off an Industrial Light and Magic sponsored Hermione/Ginny/Ron relief mission by riding one of these beasts to the rescue. Be thankful for small mercies. Those with suspicious minds and some familiarity with mythology may cast a leery eye at Andromeda Tonks. And if Severus Snape really is Perseus Evans - well, that'd be a turn up for the books. And I wonder what Draco's animagus form is? Nah. Couldn't be. Could it? In folklore dragons are mostly described as having a maiden fixation (Why? Is it an excuse for the king - it's inevitably his daughter - to get a bit of peace at breakfast? And are they eaten as crudites or flambe [please excuse lack of acutes]? The latter would be my advice - all the pictures I've seen depict these slightly podgy damsels ["Does my bum look big in this?" - "Yes."] as having tresses four feet long. Grave danger of hair balls for the unwary consumer.) They're depicted as having a gold complex too. Sort of mythological magpies for shiny bits and pieces. Dredging through what remains of my chemistry knowledge and combining it with some reasonable assumptions - I reckon dragons sleep on piles of gold because it's the only stuff that can pass unaltered through the chemical hell of their digestive systems. All those rings, necklaces, bangles - nothing more than expelled indigestibles accumulated over a few centuries of snacking on those who ignored the warnings clearly printed on the map. They've only themselves to blame. If someone goes to the trouble of announcing "Here be Dragons" on a hand-drawn limited edition parchment it's wise to assume they know what they're talking about. But this doesn't seem to apply in the Potterverse. Here we have dragons that're ginormous flying reptiles with volcanic halitosis, magically impervious skin and a disposition that's best described as touchy. And unlike dragons written of elsewhere they don't communicate, though I suppose ripping someone's lungs out after charcoaling the packaging could be construed as dropping a hint or two. So what's the likelihood of further dragon-related happenings in HP? Pretty good, I'd say. The background is already in place and so are a few of the cast. There's Charlie at the dragon reserve in Rumania - and on the reserve is Norbert, who's probably put on a bit of heft in the past 5 years, while just across the border is our old pal Vicky who also has some past experience of the beasts. And let us not forget that Hagrid's lurking in the background - the dragon-fancier supreme. It's all lined up for a bit of field-work in the CoMC curriculum. Unfortunately, while aerial fireworks are a fair possibility there's a low probability of wizard-crispies littering the forest floor. No doubt a few minor scorchings with the recipient restored to rude health by a cunningly contrived unguent or three, but nothing really serious. Pity. But I have dreams, mmm! And who gets the short straw? Luna. Oh, yes! Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Kidnapped by some of Krum's more Durmstrang-orthodox chums, chained to the traditional rock, burbling inanely of snorkacks and wondering if she really likes this game, the maiden awaits her fate. And who will leap to her defence, determined against all the odds to flummox the feral flame-throwers? Will it be Ron using the occasion for a bit of goal-keeping practice? No. I've got him lined up for a different destiny. Nor Neville, driven by the conviction that it's the right thing to do. His sticky end lies elsewhere. Maybe.... that irritating little squit Creevy. Yes.... ineffectual spells bouncing off a peckish Norbert; the zzzt! as poor Colin does his climactic impersonation of a mozzy hit by a blow-torch flame; the neat outline and whiff of burnt corks on the gently glowing, ceramic-finish rock. Isn't nature wonderful? Two birds with one stone. A quiet murmur of satisfaction from those who had to put up with the likes of Luna in the 60s and don't see why they should have to go through it again. Ahh! Yes! Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 13:37:57 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:37:57 -0000 Subject: OT: Intro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > ***Current/recent reading: > Can't find anything good lately. Can someone recommend a recent, > really good SF? > What style do you favour? Hard SF - try Al Reynolds's 'Century Rain' Space opera - hang on a few weeks, there's a new David Weber due. Or while you wait, Iain M. Banks's 'The Algebraist' Borderline SF - Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle - 3 hefty books. Fantasy isn't to my taste - even so I was impressed with 'The Light Ages' by Ian MacLeod - sort of a cross between Gormenghast and Dickens. Alternatively grab this month's Locus - they're reviewing books published over the past year. Kneasy From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 14:09:24 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:09:24 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: <4433B5C3-79CF-11D9-BA34-000A9577CB94@...> Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > Dragons, now. > Would the study of such be termed Dracology or Dragonetics? > I'm sure somebody out there has the answer. Kathy/Potioncat: I hope someone has the answer, Kneasy. It can't be Dracology. Dracology makes me think of those swooning girls who want to provide Draco with love and apple pie and uncover the goodness that lies in his heart. And I'd better say this before someone asks: No comment on what the swooning Snapefans want to do. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 14:35:48 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:35:48 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Kneasy wrote: > > Dragons, now. > > Would the study of such be termed Dracology or Dragonetics? > > I'm sure somebody out there has the answer. > > Kathy/Potioncat: > I hope someone has the answer, Kneasy. It can't be Dracology. > Dracology makes me think of those swooning girls who want to provide > Draco with love and apple pie and uncover the goodness that lies in > his heart. > Wouldn't that be Dracitis? Or hyper-dracophilia? No accounting for tastes, that's all I can say. > And I'd better say this before someone asks: No comment on what the > swooning Snapefans want to do. I presume they're hoping for a severance package, unless they want to continue to spend their lives in sevvytude. Kneasy From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 18:09:24 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:09:24 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: Kathy/Potioncat: ...swooning girls who want to provide Draco with love and apple pie and uncover the goodness that lies in his heart. And I'd better say this before someone asks: No comment on what the swooning Snapefans want to do. >Kneasy > I presume they're hoping for a severance package, unless they want > to continue to spend their lives in sevvytude. Talisman: Not at all darling. We're all hoping to uncover that Snapey, erm, "goodness" that lies sleeping like a dragon, waiting to be tickled. And we've got about as much interest in severance packages as you have in getting the boot from Bella. Alright, so you like a little boot, you know what I mean. Talisman, who was being perfectly good, but thanks to Kathy and Kneasy is all distracted about Snape again. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 00:21:27 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:21:27 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Kathy/Potioncat: > > And I'd better say this before someone asks: No comment on what the > > swooning Snapefans want to do. > Kneasy: > I presume they're hoping for a severance package Neri: I actually think that Kneasy is on the right track here. Severus Snape's name is usually interpreted (pasting from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary): Severe: strict in judgment, discipline, or government. Strongly critical or condemnatory. Inflicting physical discomfort or hardship. Snap: to utter sharp biting words: bark out irritable or peevish retorts. But there might also be an alternative, more sneaky meaning: Sever: to remove (as a part) by or as if by cutting. Snap: to break suddenly with a sharp sound. So what is it that Snape severed, or is going to sever? My bet is on a certain link with a certain Dark Lord. And it's gonna hurt. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 02:52:11 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:52:11 -0000 Subject: dragonicity Message-ID: A rather mundane reply for you Kneasy, but I believe the commonly accepted word for the study of dragons is Draconology. Lyn From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 06:03:45 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:03:45 -0000 Subject: OT: Another Intro Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD - INTRO ***Name: Jen Reese ***Nicknames/IDs: Don't ever use one anymore. ***Age: 37 ***Family: Husband of 10 years and 6 year old son. My in-laws live down the street, something akin to 'Everybody Loves Raymond' but without the laugh-track in the background. (Nah, we really get along pretty well). ***Home Austin, Texas ***Birthday, Place of Birth: June 26 in Midland, Texas. Known for only two things I can think of off-hand: 1) Birthplace of Laura Bush; and 2) Jessica, the little girl who fell down a well in 1985 and had her play-by-play rescue documented on national TV. Hey, maybe that was the first reality show? ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: MSW (social work). Currently work part-time in a local hospital emergency room. 'Role in Life' is a hard one to pin down, it keeps changing on me. Right now being a mom, maybe something else will take priority in a few years. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Erm, nothing springs to mind. ***First contact with Harry Potter: In a bookstore in Spring of 2000, watching my son play with a train set in the kid's section. I started browsing and discovered Harry. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): I don't have anything except the books and schoolbooks. Hard to believe, huh? Oh, and the first two DVD's. May favorite book is still POA, and favorite characters are Remus, Sirius & Harry. I like Hagrid when Grawp isn't involved. Luna looks promising, too. I love to hate Umbridge, and find her a more convincing villian than LV. ***Extent of Potter obsession: It waxes and wanes, and right now seems to be waning. Times like these I go off to unrelated obsessions. But I always find my way back ;). ***Other interests/activities: Currently trying to exercise a few days a week, and my son and I are taking a Karate class together this spring. Other than that, the usual parent things: de-cluttering the house, refereeing play-dates, volunteering at school. ***Current/recent reading: The comics and my Yahoo groups on a good day! *Looks longingly at a stack of Christmas books she has yet to crack open* ***Current/recent listening: Recently bought a bunch of college favorites that I never converted from cassette tape: Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, U2, Meat Loaf. ***Current/recent viewing: 'Everybody Loves Raymond' (of course). Recently saw 'Black Hawk Down' again. Thanks to Carolyn for the invite! From SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 07:53:28 2005 From: SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid (SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:53:28 -0000 Subject: OT: And one more introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the invitation. Especially as most of you don't know me. I was mostly a lurker at the main list. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Mindy Nolls ***Nicknames/IDs: It is some variant of Songbird in most places. That comes from my vocal music degree. Once in a while on a yahoo list it will be GoddessNut. That one came from my love of all things Ancient Egypt related. ***Age: 25 ***Family: Currently single. Parents are married and living elsewhere. I have one brother, younger and also single. ***Home: Phoenix, Arizona ***Birthday, Place of Birth: April 19, Los Angeles, California ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: BMusEd with choral emphasis, BA in Music, currently pursuing a MEd. Working part time for UPS in an effort to not owe my life to the government for all the education loans. ***Other things we might want to know about you: I am a book addict. So much so that my roommate (who is also a book addict) and I are thinking about turning our dining room into a library. So, I am always looking for recommendations. Also, you might want to know that despite all that education listed above, I honestly have no clue what I want to do with my life. Shhhh, don't tell my parents. ***First contact with Harry Potter: Shortly after the publication of PoA. A friend from university was doing a teaching internship with a 4th grade class. She kept recommending the books. I gave her the line, "But they are childrens books" approximately 20 times. She finally gave me the first three for Christmas. Being a book addict, I couldn't help but read them. Not read books that are right in front of me? Fat chance. I was fully caught up in Pottermania for the publication of GoF. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Book: PoA Character: Snape, and I have developed a liking for Ron, too. Ships: Don't do Fics: Don't do ***Extent of Potter obsession: Moderate in non-publishing years. I would say it rises to high in publishing years. Certainly high enough to have passed the addiction on to no less than 4 friends. Also high enough to have convinced another friend to attend a release party for HBP. Not high enough to wrest me out of lurker mode at HPfGU. This was mainly due to two things. 1. I was perpetually behind in reading posts. Therefore, 2. Someone almost always responded with my thoughts before I could. I am an avid lurker though. Perhaps with the lower post volume, I will have more success here. ***Other interests/activities: I love to hike. I love to travel. Also, the aforementioned obsession with Egyptology. ***Current/recent reading: I read multiple things at once, so here goes... (Not including school reading) Elizabeth Peters, "Lion in the Valley" Lois McMaster Bujold, "Memory" Susanna Clarke, "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" Alice Sebold, "The Lovely Bones" Barbara Kingsolver, "Prodigal Summer" ***Current/recent listening: Finally managed to upgrade most of my Beatles collection to CD, so I have been enjoying that. U2- "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" Green Day- "American Idiot" Of course, my training is in classical music, so I always have classical music in the CD player. Symphonies, Concertos, Opera, Choirs, even a few musicals, etc. Sometimes, I even venture into jazz. Though I am woefully uninformed. ***Current/recent viewing: Movies: Recently saw "Million Dollar Baby". Thought it was okay. Saw "House of Flying Daggers". Thought it was fabulous. Loved "Sideways", "La Mala Educacion", and "Finding Neverland" Television: Laughing every week at "Desperate Housewives". I can now add JJ Abrams "Lost" to my list of addictions. That is about it for television. Well, now that football is over and baseball doesn't start for a couple more months. Of course, normally I would have hockey on every night. Alas, the hockey lockout has put a damper on that. Thanks again, Mindy- who counts herself among those who wish to see Voldemort earn his evil status in HBP. Pretty please, Jo? Just one or two really evil acts? From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 11:33:49 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:33:49 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Severus > Snape's name is usually interpreted (pasting from the Merriam-Webster > Online Dictionary): > > Severe: strict in judgment, discipline, or government. Strongly > critical or condemnatory. Inflicting physical discomfort or hardship. > > Snap: to utter sharp biting words: bark out irritable or peevish retorts. > > But there might also be an alternative, more sneaky meaning: > > Sever: to remove (as a part) by or as if by cutting. > > Snap: to break suddenly with a sharp sound. > > So what is it that Snape severed, or is going to sever? My bet is on a > certain link with a certain Dark Lord. And it's gonna hurt. > > Neri Ah... Sevvy. That man again. I agree with you, though my bet is the breach was in the past. We've all got our pet theories about the Potions Master and it's rare for the boards I've seen to list more than a handful of posts before his name crops up - somehow. But - a general question here - it my be that my grey matter is failing me, but I have the impression that over the past couple of years there's been a gradual reconsideration and reassessment of his character. Views that were held by a smallish (though vocal) minority seem to be more the mainstream opinion now. Am I wrong? And if I'm not - what caused the change? Kneasy From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 12:01:48 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:01:48 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: So I googled "Harry Potter > theories" and landed straight into the Fantastic Posts site. As I > dimly recall, my first thought was "gee, these guys are crazy", but > fifteen minutes later I was hooked. > As a scientist, I'm first and foremost a theorist. This is a > challenge, and I simply must crack the mystery before Book 7 is out. > But I'm not at all averted to other aspects: analysis, > universe-building, even shipping. My favorite TBay denizen is Faith. She got edge. In fact, > she got too much edge. Ouch. (and Kimberly, if you're still around > here, thanks!) > > Thanks for inviting me, and thanks to Carolyn for nominating me. > Carolyn: Why Neri, I think you have Edge too. More Ouch [& inspects scars]. We've talked around this one before, but perhaps you don't mind if I revive it again? Like you, I am fascinated by the mystery at the heart of the series, but I think it would be fair to say you have more time for the girl in the gymslip than me. Maybe that's more a matter of belief that there are any supposed rules to JKR's game, than lack of interest in theorising, right? Many others here would argue that the central mystery is a mere bagatelle, of passing interest compared to the 'big themes' that the series (allegedly) addresses. >From the perspective of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the prospect of a highly conflicted ending and the confirmation of, for example, a theory like ESE!Lupin is what will make the series live on for me, and make me re-read long after Book 7 appears. The nearest analogy I can think of is Le Carre - his unflinching observations of trust, betrayal and the futility of war and international politics live on, and continue to resonate precisely because of the complexity of the plotting - it feels real because it is messy, uncomfortable and in many ways unresolved. How about you? Do you chuck away thrillers and detective novels once you know the ending, or are there any you revisit? What kind of resolution would make JKR live on for you? Carolyn From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 12:19:28 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:19:28 +1100 Subject: the sevvy question (was: Dragonicity) Message-ID: <20050209121928.GA21837@...> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Kneasy spake thus: > We've all got our pet theories about the Potions Master and it's rare > for the boards I've seen to list more than a handful of posts before > his name crops up - somehow. > But - a general question here - it my be that my grey matter is failing > me, but I have the impression that over the past couple of years there's been > a gradual reconsideration and reassessment of his character. Views that were > held by a smallish (though vocal) minority seem to be more the mainstream > opinion now. > Am I wrong? > And if I'm not - what caused the change? My question would be: how could you tell? In the time I've been on the HP lists I've never seen the argument go much beyond the "he's irredeemable" vs. "he's nice underneath, society is to blame" level. Only in OotP is it made plainer just how far this rabbit hole goes, and I don't really think the answer is with Snape himself. The one I want to grill is Dumbledore, who is really unmasked as a master manipulator. Snape and Harry are soldiers in Dumbledore's Army. If there's any qualitative change, it would come from the realization that the central argument in HPdom is a very old one. Obviously older than Harry, and much older than Snape. Now there's a lot to like about Possession Theory, but it may not pan out. But a lot of the circumstantial evidence stands. Dumbledore is not the first to stand against the forces of wizardly evil, of course, he's just the current general. Wherever Snape's "redemption" lies, it is with Dumbledore, until that relationship and its origins are made plain, little about Snape makes sense. We can't obviously take Harry's POV for granted anyway, but Blind!Harry is not a catch-all for our Snape-blindness. One of the more insightful arguments pro-Snape was made on the Australian list quite a while ago, and also uses the Soldier!Snape angle: Snape is much more visibly worried about the risks of DD's strategy and is constantly trying to "harden up" Harry for the trials ahead. Harry naturally misinterprets this as victimization, and doesn't realize, for instance, what a danger his knowing of a bad Snape day could pose for Snape's safety. It's quite a plausible angle, but unfortunately doesn't cover all the ground. My personal view is, whatever the real DD-Snape axis proves to be, that Snape is still a bitter misanthrope, regardless of hidden motives. You don't have to be "nice" to be on the right side, or even to have been there all along. As DD loves to repeat, we are our choices, and don't he love to present them... -- Mac OS X. Because re-branding NeXTStep was easier than fixing Mac OS. From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 13:58:25 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:58:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Sevvy Question was: Re: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209135825.4471.qmail@...> Kneasy wrote: Sigune: I hadn't realised there was such a thing as a 'mainstream opinion' concerning Snape :-). I can only think that all our personal pictures of him will logically converge more and more as the story progresses and we are dealt more and more information (though if JKR is a really good writer we will never reach total concensus - which is what I hope for). It's remarkable how Snape's role changes throughout the books - more so than any other character's - at least so it seems to me. Snape moved from 'Irritatingly Clich?d Bad Guy' (yes, sorry, that's how I felt, reading PS) to 'Harsh Victorian Schoolmaster' between beginning and end of Book One. During Book Two he was simply the 'Scourge of Harry's School Life', earning my appreciation for wiping the floor with Lockhart but not appearing very crucial. Then he moved on to 'Character with a Past, Worth Keeping an Eye on' by the end of Book Three, then to 'Reformed REAL Villain' by the end of Book Four; right now I have him slotted as 'Deeply Flawed and Therefore Mightily Interesting Character having a Puzzling Relationship with Dumbledore and a Mysterious Role in the Order.' I have no idea if this is the mainstream view - it probably is not. Yours severely, Sigune ~fervently praying that LOLLIPOPS won't come true --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 15:40:42 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:40:42 +0000 Subject: Sevvy Question Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > My question would be: how could you tell? In the time I've been on the HP lists I've never seen the argument go much beyond the "he's irredeemable" vs. "he's nice underneath, society is to blame" level. Only in OotP is it made plainer just how far this rabbit hole goes, and I don't really think the answer is with Snape himself. The one I want to grill is Dumbledore, who is really unmasked as a master manipulator. Snape and Harry are soldiers in Dumbledore's Army. > Puppetmaster!DD. Yes, I'll go along with that - the back room, some bright lights, veritaserum by the bucket and we might get to the bottom of this. What is potentially very dangerous is to accept that DD is the voice of truth in the text. This was brought up recently on another forum, and it was pointed out (by Talisman, no less) that in the relevant interview JKR stated that DD and Hermione were used to impart information that she (Jo) wanted the reader to have. At no point does she say that the information provided is the incontrovertible truth - just that it's something the author wants on the page. Is it there to guide or mislead? You pays your money and you takes your choice. And, to go back to my original question - an awful lot of whatever background information that we have on Sevvy seems to come from two sources - Sirius and DD, with DD providing, or hinting at, most of it. What we have had up to the end of OoP, or so I like to imagine, is what astronomers would refer to as a three-body problem. Each, so far as attitudes, information, etc. is concerned - both within the text and as extrapolated or perceived by the reader - affects the other two and is in turn affected by them. There is little that is objective, it's nearly all subjective. Again I may be wrong, but I feel that as more of the posting fraternity have been wondering if there's more to Snape than just a miserable old bugger dragged along, with reluctance, in DD's wake, so more have come to question DD, his motives and his strategy. Oh, I don't doubt that Sevvy is a committed misanthrope, unpleasant and with few social or professional graces - long may he remain so - but redemption? That I'm not sure of. For a start - what's he done that needs a massive atonement? Ans. - we don't know. We assume much, from his reasons for becoming a DE and what he might have done while he was a fully paid up member - but we don't know, it's guesswork. After 5 books we're still guessing. Frustrating, or what? For my part I still lean towards the revenge motif. Redemption, if it's applicable or even occurs, will be secondary to his hunger for revenge on Voldy. Yep, it's yet another guess, but perhaps an educated one. At least it could provide a half-way decent motive for why Sevvy is what he is. And to me that is more interesting and maybe more important than what he does from now on in. The 'why' of things - particularly personal interactions - is the most fascinating aspect of HP, at least from this keyboard it is. The 'why' of DD is not so obvious. IMO we take too much for granted with that gentleman and questions that should be asked aren't. Why did he form the original Order and why choose the members he did? The majority were Aurors fighting Voldy already, and they still kept on losing even after joining DD. But the minority faction - ah! now that's interesting - the Marauders, Lily and Hagrid - plus Snape as a later addition. Why take all 4 Marauders? Not a package deal, was it? Different levels of skill, differing backgrounds, maybe different loyalties. But unless they plus Lily are involved there will be no Weapon!Harry. Voldy will win. Forever. The Prophecy is of no help to DD; it predicts the birth of a potential victor over Voldy. It does not say how to win, or what will be needed to win. Key questions - Was the forging of Weapon!Harry a chance event, a concatenation of circumstances? Were the events at GH planned or at least manipulated by DD? Or were they just foreseen? Did he know in advance what would be required to defeat Voldy and make the appropriate moves to ensure the emergence of Voldy!Bane? The answer of course, may depend on the answer to another question I asked a few days ago - who or what is DD? That DD is on the side of good I've never really doubted. But 'nice'? No, despite all the tearful emoting over Harry. Even crocodiles can produce tears. Kneasy From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 11:41:45 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:41:45 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > Why Neri, I think you have Edge too. More Ouch [& inspects scars]. > We've talked around this one before, but perhaps you don't mind if I > revive it again? > > Like you, I am fascinated by the mystery at the heart of the series, > but I think it would be fair to say you have more time for the girl > in the gymslip than me. Maybe that's more a matter of belief that > there are any supposed rules to JKR's game, than lack of interest in > theorising, right? Neri: I'm not sure if you mean to say I lack interest in theorizing, or that I lack belief in JKR following her rules. I hereby proclaim that I'm a rabid theorist, and I'm certain JKR follows her rules wherever it counts. Maybe I should clarify the nature of my relationship with Faith, since I suspect that for me she represents something slightly different than her public image. For a scientist, one of the most dangerous things is to fall in love with his own theories and conceptions, so much that he can't see where they fail, or doesn't have the heart to abandon them. Countless scientists throughout history failed in this, and that's why we never heard about them, but even some of the greatest have made this mistake. Einstein, for example, wasted the last 30 years of his life on an absolutely fruitless effort, just because he couldn't let go of his conviction that "God doesn't play dice". In order to stay productive as a scientist one need to learn how to be unfaithful to one's own theories, to abandon them without looking back when they let him down, and move on to new and better theories. This is Faith to me. She doesn't represent anti-theorizing. She represents the ruthless natural selection of theories. I know that the day I can convince Faith to buy a badge, this will be the day I'll have a theory that is really worth something. And if I can't handle rejection from Faith, I won't be able to handle rejection from JKR too, when books 6 and 7 are out. So instead of being faithful to this or that theory, I'm faithful to Faith. Because she represents not only the ruthless natural selection, but also the conviction that a true and worthwhile solution does exist. I noticed that some months ago you had a discussion with Annemehr about the perils of theorising, and why many of the most enthusiastic theorists of the pre-OotP era are not very active anymore. May I suggest that many of them fell in love with their own theories, and didn't handle JKR's rejection in OotP very well? Perhaps they should have had some training with Faith first. > Carolyn: > Many others here would argue that the central mystery is a mere > bagatelle, of passing interest compared to the 'big themes' that the > series (allegedly) addresses. Neri: Faith had never argued that. Of course she believes in the big themes, but she ensures me that the heart-of-it-all is a mystery worthy of my efforts. Besides, one of the main reasons I'm interested with the big themes is that they are very handy tools for theory building and testing. > Carolyn: > From the perspective of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the prospect > of a highly conflicted ending and the confirmation of, for example, a > theory like ESE!Lupin is what will make the series live on for me, > and make me re-read long after Book 7 appears. The nearest analogy I > can think of is Le Carre - his unflinching observations of trust, > betrayal and the futility of war and international politics live on, > and continue to resonate precisely because of the complexity of the > plotting - it feels real because it is messy, uncomfortable and in > many ways unresolved. > Neri: To make the discussion more concrete, do you mean by this that you are content with the way Sirius died? That you prefer this death to remain messy, uncomfortable and unresolved? I believe I stand here with most other members (even those who aren't Sirius fans) when expecting for some clarification and meaning for it. The analogy with Le Carre might be misleading. JKR may be that deep, but that does not necessarily mean she shares the same themes and values. There are other ways of being deep than having a big ESE. And anyway, JKR wrote five books already. For theorizing about what will happen in books 6 and 7, I prefer to analyze these books then rely on analogies with Le Carre or any other author. > Carolyn: > How about you? Do you chuck away thrillers and detective novels once > you know the ending, or are there any you revisit? What kind of > resolution would make JKR live on for you? > Neri: I don't chuck the really good ones, the ones that are more than mere intellectual exercise. I reread HP many times, and not only because the main mystery is still unresolved. Actually, many times when I just open the book to check some detail I need for my theory, I find myself forgetting about the detail and my theory altogether, and just reading the book again. I don't think this will stop once I know The Big Answer. So books 1-5 will certainly live on for me. I'm not sure what kind of resolution I require. When I know that I'll probably be much closer to the final theory. I do sometime doubt that in books 6 and 7 JKR will manage to weave together all the threads she started. And then of course Faith clubs me on the head for my lack of faith. Ouch. Neri From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 15:14:53 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:14:53 -0000 Subject: Sevvy Question was: Re: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: <20050209135825.4471.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Kneasy wrote: > > > But - a general question here - it my be that my grey matter is failing me, but I have the impression that over the past couple of years there's been a gradual reconsideration and reassessment of his character. > Views that were held by a smallish (though vocal) minority seem to be more the mainstream opinion now. > Am I wrong? > And if I'm not - what caused the change?> > > > > Sigune: > > I hadn't realised there was such a thing as a 'mainstream opinion' concerning Snape :-). Neri: Me too, Sigune. Snape and 'mainstream opinion' is self-contradicting. I think that in Snape, JKR hit on the perfect recipe for a fandom hero. She did it in part unintentionally, I suspect, but still, this is the mark of true genius. The recipe, as far as I can make it, is: 1. Don't make this character the main hero of the story (it would clash with 5). 2. But OTOH, don't make him the evil overlord, unless there's someone or something more evil than he is. 3. Make him as nasty as it's possible to be without being downright repulsive. 4. Make the main hero a nice good-doer, so he'll be a bit dull by comparison. 5. Reveal as little as possible about the character's past and motives. 6. The little you do reveal, make as controversial and inconsistent as possible. 7. Make this character involved in as many critical plot turns as possible. 8. Balance the amount of good he does precisely with the amount of bad he does (warning: any deviation from an exact balance will ruin the effect). 9. Hint that he possibly did some Very Bad Things, but don't give any details. 10. Also hint that he possibly saved the day, but again don't give any details. 11. Plant suggestions that he might be playing a part, but do not repeat DO NOT supply any real proof that he indeed does so. 12. Make him the nemesis of the good hero. The more conflict between them ? the better. 13. But OTOH, make him save the good hero's butt once or twice. 14. However, underplay 13 and make it appear as if he only did it only for is own good. 15. Add plenty of diabolic characteristics, but nothing concrete. 16. Do not repeat DO NOT make him involved in ANY romantic relationship (the fans will take care of that). 17. Plant clues that he was badly abused in his childhood and/or youth. 18. However, while you're on 17, never make him appear nice or innocent himself. 19. Make several good characters trash him repeatedly. 20. However, add one reason, irrational as possible, why we should trust him, and play it again and again against all logic. This is as best as I can make it, but I'm sure that the fanfic writers around here can add and refine this recipe considerably. Neri From boyd.t.smythe at boyd_smythe.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 17:43:11 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at boyd_smythe.yahoo.invalid (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:43:11 -0600 Subject: Snipping Puppetmaster!DD Message-ID: Howdy again, OC! Have been happily watching Kneasy try to draw you all out and belatedly realized he had done it to me--damn you, old man! But your keen intellect is no match for my poor sportsmanship, so I hereby announce that in this thesis I shall withhold canon-based arguments in favor of simple logic. En guarde! Kneasy wrote: >Again I may be wrong, but I feel that as more of the posting fraternity have been wondering if there's more to Snape than just a miserable old bugger dragged along, with reluctance, in DD's wake, so more have come to question DD, his motives and his strategy.< Ah, yes, the eternal HPfGU question: is DD a scheming Puppetmaster or merely a powerful wizard? Do we believe that DD is so smart that he has caused Weapon!Harry to be, or at least positioned him for success? The rebounded AK? Turncoat!Peter? Priori Incantatem? The prophecy, Harry's visions, Harry's victory in the MoM? All thanks to DD? Two problems: First, Dumbledore virtually never lets Harry in on anything, so he depends on Harry to do the right thing--this from a kid/teenager. Does anyone here remember when they were teenagers? Unpredictable on a good day, downright narcissistically chaotic most others. Yet to believe in Puppetmaster!DD, I would have to believe that DD set Harry up to rush to the MoM with his friends, defeat the DE's (which required Harry to have practiced dueling with his DA friends) and reject Voldemort's possession. Plausible? Old Albus, that's really pushing things. Now try to convince me that DD set up the whole GoF plot. It is simply too incredible (as in not credible). Hmmm, OK, so he gets Barty Jr. to place Harry's name in the Goblet, gets Harry help to pass all 3 stages, knows LV will want Harry's blood + Peter's hand for a resurrection potion, makes sure the wands are twins (oops, that was almost four years ago, glad I did that), hopes Voldemort duels with Harry rather than simply AKing him on sight, hopes Harry and Voldie throw spells at the same moment, hopes no DE is competent enough to hit Harry, hope Harry remembers the portkey, hope hope hope.... And that's where the second problem comes in. Dumbledore does not equip Harry terribly well for these horrible situations that he's putting Harry in, does he? I mean, if I were smart enough to conjure such complex plots, I'd certainly think to give Harry a bag of tricks. "Here's a portkey to the Room of Requirement, Harry. Just in case. Oh, yes, and an extra wand (different core). Extra glasses. Keep this sword--bloody useful, eh? Two-way mirrors to talk to me, a time-turner, fireworks, Dobby & Fawkes as bodyguards, Veritaserum--can't be too safe!--and, oh yes, a really big gun and hand grenade." Obvious stuff. Never happens, does it? So we keep seeing Harry getting ambushed by powerful dark wizards and other beasties with little to no help, and nothing to save this VIW (Very Important Weapon) if something goes wrong with Dumbledore's plans. I see three options that still maintain Puppetmaster!DD: 1) Puppetmaster!DD has foreseen Harry's victory and is thus unworried (but what about all that choices claptrap?), 2) Puppetmaster!DD has powers we know not to protect Harry from the unexpected no matter the situation (very deus ex machina), or 3) Jo's world has some logical flaws. Which brings me to my last point against Puppetmaster!DD. We are over 70% through the series, yet the typical reader (i.e. not us obsessive types) does not have an inkling that DD could be manipulating *everything* behind the scenes--and might even be offended at what would then be his gross mistreatment of Harry. Would Jo do this intentionally? Yet this and many other theories are still possible: MD, lots of ESE!s, every acronym in Inish Alley. Leading me to think that either our beloved author has left holes in her plot large enough to drive a truck through, or she's gonna have some 'splaining to do, Lucy. --boyd who thinks that "three body problem" sounds very, very wrong From ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 18:19:21 2005 From: ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:19:21 -0000 Subject: OT: introductions and music-Dylan and Green Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, SongBird3411 at a... wrote: > > Finally managed to upgrade most of my Beatles collection to CD, so I have been enjoying that. > U2- "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" > Green Day- "American Idiot" Jen Reese wrote: ***Current/recent listening: Recently bought a bunch of college favorites that I never converted from cassette tape: Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, U2, Meat Loaf. A Goldfeesh: You ladies are after my own heart. Just two days ago it was brought forcibly to my attention that I both need to update and burn some CDs. I went to listen to Dylan's Planet Waves (Forever Young and You Angel You) and Nashville Skyline (Lay Lady Lay) and found that not only do I not have them on CD, that I don't even have them taped off anymore. On top of that I found my 1970s, awesome portable record player needs a bit of speaker repair! I get a fiancee and neglect my record player and collection- who knew? :) For anyone who loves, or at least, knows Dylan and needs a new book to read, I can recommend two. The first goes without saying, Chronicles Vol. 1, his autobiography. He is so Bob in it, he talks of his life yet is so so very elusive at the same time. From this first book you wouldn't know he was married twice, the names of his parents or even the names of his wives, while at the same time he tells a lot of his story that you didn't know. At one point he gives the name Becky Thatcher as a childhood friend- I said "wow, he named a name!" until I realized it was Becky Thatcher to his Tom Sawyer. *L* The second book, the reason I was looking for my CDs, is by Christopher Ricks, "Dylan's Visions of Sin." Ricks, a humanities prof and Dylan fan focuses fourteen or so songs reflect the 7 Deadly Sins and the 7 Heavenly Virtues. In additon, he brings in Keats, William Blake and other poet comparisons. This book made me remember why I love Bob so much. He points out things on word usage and rhymes that I would never dream of and made me reappreciate songs that I'd became over-familiar with. This book also makes mention of A.S.Byatt, reviled of Potter fans, who says (with equal lack of vision) paraphased that-- she could find layers and layers in Keats yet couldn't go through a Dylan lyric because she wouldn't know where to begin. Well that just reinforces my opinion of self-important has-beens. To change the subject a bit- Green Day! I recall them in high school on the radio but I was too much into the Beatles and Dylan. I would have never guessed that in ten years they would come out with such a masterpiece as American Idiot. They are so right on when it comes to media and politics and politicians and the average person. I never would have dreamed they had it in them. There is so much I'd like to say about the media and politics and the media eating out of the hands of the politicians and lobbyists and the powerlessness of the average person but- I'd better not. A (wordy) Goldfeesh- Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull, >From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol or Don't wanna be an American idiot. One nation controlled by the media. Information nation of hysteria. It's going out to idiot America. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 18:53:39 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:53:39 -0000 Subject: OoP: Amanda goes on and on and on and on and on about Snape In-Reply-To: <002901c33a02$65086360$5304a6d8@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: I am reminded, for some reason, of a children's story I read long and long > ago, too long to even remember names, just the gist. These children met an > old man, turns out he was a ghost. This ghost had failed to risk his life to > rescue other children from a fire, and was doomed to the earth until he made > things right. These children helped him, they went back in time and walked > into the fire with the old man and got the kids out. I remember, the kids > didn't feel anything, the flames didn't burn them; the old man was with them > and had his hand on their shoulders. One kid stumbled and the hand slipped > and he felt terrible pain; but then the old man touched him and he was fine. > The man was taking all their pain, because should have been his to begin > with. The image was strong and has lasted. (If anyone else read that, and > remembers what it was, please tell me.) > > ~Amanda > ----------------------- > Those who cannot hear the music, think the dancers daft. That would be 'The Ghosts' by Antonia Barber, reissued (and renamed) in the early 1970's with the release of a movie called 'The Amazing Mr Blunden'. Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 18:57:55 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:57:55 -0000 Subject: Mosque?toes Message-ID: A magical insect has been bugging me for a while - the mosque?to. Its natural habitat is overly tilled pasture that is lacking recent application of fertilising material. Similar to your standard beastie it has an annoying buzz and the bites itch like crazy. Unlike its mundane cousin it targets the mind leaving a nasty `?` shaped welt which begs the victim to ask `what?' a lot. Scratching at the wound only makes it worse and gets it all inflamed. Should anyone know of a remedy please apply it to the following. Why is it one whole year before anyone does anything about the prophecy? Here it is, the biggest dungbomb in Voldy's plans for a while, and no one lifts a finger. DD doesn't organise appropriate protection Voldy doesn't have a go, what's going on? Imagine for a moment that DD doesn't know Voldy knows, he doesn't know about that eavesdropper, (although why he wouldn't is odd, surely someone suspicious enough to be chucked out of the Hog's Head would prompt a report?) so he decides that protecting Harry and Neville will only draw attention to them. That's got to be risky. What about that record in the MOM, someone knows its there, someone has labelled it and knows the contents because the label gets updated after the attack on the Potters? Who is this keeper of the prophecies? Some kind of universal impartial librarian? Anyway its clearly marked `Dark Lord', your passing cleaning elf might give it a feathering and just happen to mention to that nice Mr Malfoy it should probably be more securely sited. Imagine Voldy does know about the prophecy, but believes DD doesn't know he knows, what's he waiting for? A favourable cup of tea? Imagine Voldy doesn't know about the prophecy until a year later. Why wasn't he told straight away, why does that eavesdropper suddenly decide to spill the earwax beans, why spill them at all after a year? Why would JKR have the prophecy enter stage right and then leave it lurking in the wings apathetically until the next act? Why not just bring it on in a timely fashion: prophecy, heard, overheard, reported, Voldy plan attack, DD plan defence, nasty ratty spy, 'curses undone' (entire cast) in swift order? Why wasn't MacGonagall told of the prophecy after the attack on the Potters? She happily swallows all that bilge about Harry growing up `normal' in the muggle world as the reason DD leaves him at the Dursleys when we now know it was a blood protection deal, no one has told her though, why? Why did Bellatrix torture the Longbottoms? Why would they know where Voldy was? Voldy disappeared at the Potters. After Voldy's curse backfires don't the DEs know immediately that he's a little off colour? The mark gets stronger with Voldy's improving health so surely it indicates near death experiences? Why visit the Longbottoms after Voldy is known to have been defeated by Harry? Did Bella know Voldy was planning to visit Neville after disposing of Harry, why was he planning to visit Neville if he'd already `chosen' Harry? Was she the insurance against the prophecy's duality? If so, why didn't she finish off Neville, tidy things up a bit? DD sent Hagrid to GH knowing that Lily and James were dead and Harry was alive, how did he know this, who told him and why did that person abandon Harry there? Cortical calamine lotion anybody? Regards Jo From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 20:07:56 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:07:56 -0000 Subject: Snipping Puppetmaster!DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > Howdy again, OC! Have been happily watching Kneasy try to draw you all out > and belatedly realized he had done it to me--damn you, old man! But your > keen intellect is no match for my poor sportsmanship, so I hereby announce > that in this thesis I shall withhold canon-based arguments in favor of > simple logic. En guarde! > Draw people out? Moi? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Would I do a thing like that? > > Ah, yes, the eternal HPfGU question: is DD a scheming Puppetmaster or merely > a powerful wizard? Do we believe that DD is so smart that he has caused > Weapon!Harry to be, or at least positioned him for success? The rebounded > AK? Turncoat!Peter? Priori Incantatem? The prophecy, Harry's visions, > Harry's victory in the MoM? All thanks to DD? > Sounds silly, doesn't it? Maybe it is. Mind you, there are variants on the Puppetmaster Theory and the one I espouse doesn't postulate that DD manouevres Harry in every situation. Nor does DD direct every jot and tittle of his existence. Deary me, no. Just the important stuff. A little list, by no means comprehensive - events in the life and times of H. Potter Esq. where DD's actions/inactions (either at the time or previously) have had a marked/significant effect on the path Harry's life has taken. Secret Keeper. Where was the much vaunted Legilimancy? Old Magic protection - which *requires* the death of Lily to work. Placement at Privet Drive - a place so unpleasant that he leaps at Hogwarts as an escape. A wand with Fawkes's feather- what a coincidence, it matches Voldy's. DD's gopher just happens to reinforce Harry's initial feelings re Slytherin - and apparently lies in the process. Peter and Sirius were Gryff - yet one of them was the biggest traitor of the lot. The same gopher drops important clues re PS. Just happens to be aware that Voldy 'powers' have been transferred to Harry. Riiiight. When did he know? During the 24 hours, perhaps? Suggests use of the Time-turner for Harry (a neophyte) to save himself. Why not go himself? Anybody else think there was back-up in the bushes? Does bugger all when the Goblet in GoF is obviously fixed. It's not credible that he's not aware of dirty work at the crossroads. He makes sure there's one safeguard - resistance to Imperius. Even though Moody's a fake, he can't slide past this one. The Portkey!Cup was a surprise, I think, yet it all ends with the 'gleam'. Reveals the Prophecy, tells Harry what he is expected to do. See, stuff like the MoM fight, that's happenstance. DD didn't plan it, though I suspect he knew about it while it was happening and was ready to act if and when it was required. Because Harry didn't win - DD did. He already knew that Harry was full of something (no sniggering please) that Voldy couldn't cope with. An AK could have knocked Harry off, little else IMO. Same at the climax of PS/SS; monitoring via the Mirror probably. DD whitters on about choices. He just hasn't allowed many to Harry. Not big stuff, anyway. His business has been in forging and putting an edge on Weapon!Harry. He has no choice, there is no other alternative, not since Godric's Hollow. But. Yep. There's a but. DD can't control or predict one important thing. The Voldy fragment that's in Harry. That's the wild card. That could screw his plans completely. I'm willing to bet it was that invader than affected Harry's attitudes in OoP - stroppy, stubborn, argumentative, and resulting in the Occlumency cock-up. You don't believe me, I can tell. 'Twas ever thus. And if I'm wrong? Who the hell cares? I'm having more fun just thinking up these devious theories than I get from straight readings of the books. Thank you Jo. You've given me a fun playground to romp around in. Kneasy From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 02:31:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:31:54 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: >I'm certain JKR follows her rules wherever it counts.< Carolyn: That is a remark worthy of Dumbledore! So, for example, JKR's apparent inability to construct a consistent pattern for Lupin's lycanthropy (see your tragically funny post: 123946 Full Moon - A Rant About Lycanthropy Symptoms) is a case of internal rules being irrelevant, despite the immense opportunities this opens up for doubting Lupin? Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they appear, and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The End. So, we sweep under the carpet little uncomfortable details like why great guys like James and Sirius were betrayed by one of their closest school friends, or why the saintly Lily didn't tell Dumbledore her husband was an animagus (you are telling me she didn't know?). You can see where memorable assertions like 'Frank Longbottom was Judge Dredd on acid' begin (Eric Oppen on top form...). Intelligent readers start to fill in the gaps in frustration. Personally, I'm certain JKR follows her rules whenever it suits her. Neri: >Maybe I should clarify the nature of my relationship with Faith, since I suspect that for me she represents something slightly different than her public image.< >She doesn't represent anti-theorizing. She represents the ruthless natural selection of theories.< > also the conviction that a true and worthwhile solution does exist.< Carolyn: Ah..this is rather different from the original girly who 'believes what canon places before her..first cousins with those cute twins, Naive and Gullible.' Admittedly, she had to grow up rather fast, considering the company she kept(*), but this is a bit of a departure. I see now you are arguing about scientific proofs, test-ability of evidence, trying to deduce a method in the madness (assuming valiantly there is one). Faith never used to work so hard, she was well, just that - faith that the author knew what she was doing, that we'd understand it all in the end and not to go around building fantastic castles on the slightest grain of evidence. Y'know, kind of *dull*. Now tell me, does the grown-up Faith in your lab, with her shiny new PhD and white coat carry out research into bangs, or is she still into whimpers? David Frankis once amusingly pointed out on her behalf that 'repetitive banging is really boring', and claimed that she said: 'bangy doesn't give a reason to re-read..subtle character clues unfolding does. Seeing Moody as Crouch does. But bangy just goes from flat to floppy.' That was written before OOP, a book of unpleasant subtle shocks rather big bangs, but which nevertheless subversively undermined many of the assumptions readers had been making about all sorts of characters and what was really going on up to that point. Hopefully, Faith is now beginning to realise that some of those apparently wild theories might have had a grain of truth in them, and that some really Big explanations are going to be needed to resolve some plot lines. Neri: >I noticed that some months ago you had a discussion with Annemehr about the perils of theorising, and why many of the most enthusiastic theorists of the pre-OotP era are not very active anymore. May I suggest that many of them fell in love with their own theories, and didn't handle JKR's rejection in OotP very well? Perhaps they should have had some training with Faith first.< Carolyn: Oooh, brave man! You are surrounded by many of the original authors here. Perhaps they will step out from the shadows and argue this on a case by case basis. But, as per my remarks above, I believe you are wrong in assuming that huge numbers of those theories are washed up. There are some specific ones which were based on mis-apprehensions as to who various characters were - it is hard to remember now that many people thought Bella was *Florence* Lestrange, for instance. And there was a spate of some completely wild ESE assertions, just because it is possible to make a case out of anything. Other, much more carefully worked out theories have simply not been disproved at all. There is the vast body of Neville theory, for instance, which if anything is enhanced by the information in OOP. Just try reading the Neville Memory Charm symposium, for starters (extremely long series of posts). Frankly, one or other variant has to get pretty close, IMO. Then there are sub-theories, for example about McGonagall's back history, and whether she knew Voldie, and the fact that she must have taught Snape, and must know him man and boy. Maybe not ESE, but yet another of DD's motley crew with a tale to tell, some part of the jigsaw. And then there's the chief mugwump himself. You'd expect me to say that, I suppose. Anyone who came out of OOP still thinking that Dumbledore was a nice old man, bumbling around looking for a pair of warm socks, and with everyone's best interests at heart frankly needs their head examining. Yes, I do have some questions, quite a lot in fact, about the Dishwasher and allied theories, but nothing makes me doubt the basic premise. But, on the alleged big themes, most seditious of all are the long series of posts by Elkins (often) but also Pip, Porphyria, Elfundeb, Pippin, Eileen etc which began to take apart the contradictory messages of the books. They are as fresh and relevant today as when they were written - OOP only deepened the case. Here's a taster: 'Although JKR lambasts the conservative middle class through her depiction of the Dursleys, her writing itself nonetheless promulgates many of this group's particular social values, mores and judgements, particularly when it comes to their view of social classes above and below their own.' 'JKR is a nostalgic writer, but her nostalgia is not merely nostalgia per se. It is of a particularly conservative and middle class flavor, a flavor which tastes awfully strange when combined with the progressive views that she elsewhere seems to wish very badly to espouse. Much like orange juice and toothpaste, the combination leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth.' Faith doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this kind of analysis. Neri: >>To make the discussion more concrete, do you mean by this that you are content with the way Sirius died? That you prefer this death to remain messy, uncomfortable and unresolved? I believe I stand here with most other members (even those who aren't Sirius fans) when expecting for some clarification and meaning for it. The analogy with Le Carre might be misleading. JKR may be that deep, but that does not necessarily mean she shares the same themes and values. There are other ways of being deep than having a big ESE. And anyway, JKR wrote five books already. For theorizing about what will happen in books 6 and 7, I prefer to analyze these books then rely on analogies with Le Carre or any other author.<< Carolyn: I could live with it being unresolved. It does have a certain hard pointlessness to it if that's how she left it, which is how things happen sometimes. But I do expect her to reveal some Sirius back history, which either explains it as an inevitability (whether he was murdered or it is an accident) given some past actions of his, or if he hasn't done anything wrong, just underlines the poignancy, that he got caught up in something and lost his life. I think you mistake my Le Carre analogy. He very rarely has his plots depend on some big ESE revelation. My reading of the Smiley stories in particular is that they usually come down to some intensely personal battle between one or two people, which is played out against a big Cold War backdrop. It's the contrast between the blunderbuss activities of governments and international politics in the background, with the particular pain of betrayal/or agonising decisions of trust between individuals which is so telling. Obviously JKR has created an entirely different universe, but it is a war environment nevertheless, and it seems to me that the messages about human nature are pretty constant, and that the final battle might be of a similar nature - just Harry and Voldy in the end. Carolyn (*) If anyone is intrigued by Faith's curiously malleable personality, and don't mind TBAY or life on board the Big Bang Destroyer, then take a look at 35878, 35930, 35966, 35972, 39414, 39468. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 03:10:01 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:10:01 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > > So, for example, JKR's apparent inability to construct a consistent > pattern for Lupin's lycanthropy (see your tragically funny post: > 123946 Full Moon - A Rant About Lycanthropy Symptoms) is a case of > internal rules being irrelevant, despite the immense opportunities > this opens up for doubting Lupin? Ah, the eternal question. Let me put forth a model that I tend to play with; being as this is fiction and not history, JKR has in mind some very concrete things that we might dare to call facts: whether Lupin is ESE or not, what exactly happened at Godric's Hollow that night, what Snape's motivations actually are. I think that many of these things will ultimately be revealed. The game that we're ultimately playing (in part) is "how close are we getting to guessing these things correctly?". But, as this is also fiction, there is the eminent possibility of a certain...disconnect between details and the factual reality I posited above. That is to say, it's very possible that it's completely factual that Lupin is not ESE, despite how *one* reading of the inconsistencies opens up that possibility. Facts, as Uncle Carl has been reminding me of for the past goddamn three weeks, can prove themselves amenable to any number of paradigms. > Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they > appear, and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The > End. So, we sweep under the carpet little uncomfortable details > like why great guys like James and Sirius were betrayed by one of > their closest school friends, or why the saintly Lily didn't tell > Dumbledore her husband was an animagus (you are telling me she > didn't know?). You can see where memorable assertions like 'Frank > Longbottom was Judge Dredd on acid' begin (Eric Oppen on top > form...). Intelligent readers start to fill in the gaps in > frustration. The problem is ultimately whether the gaps that we perceive are the same gaps that she does, when she writes the story. Or whether something that we think is a gap really IS a gap, in said factual model. I don't think everything is going to be settled, but I do get the idea that JKR has some very solid factual answers in mind (and does she ever have defined ideas about her characters), and there is always the point at which one runs into the reality of what is written. [I might add that mercifully, the idea that the author is dead is now pretty much officially dead. It has such nasty side- effects when you start to work with it seriously.] > Neri: > > The analogy with Le Carre might be misleading. JKR may be that deep, > but that does not necessarily mean she shares the same themes and > values. There are other ways of being deep than having a big ESE. > And anyway, JKR wrote five books already. For theorizing about what > will happen in books 6 and 7, I prefer to analyze these books then > rely on analogies with Le Carre or any other author.<< Somehow, bizzarely, having to trudge through Heidegger for class has actually thrown out something almost interesting for thinking about these ideas. It's his concept of Stimmung, which is perhaps best rendered as 'mood' or 'predisposition'. [Karol Berger takes that on to argue for Stimmung as the expressive power of music; it's not flawless, but hot damn does it get you somewhere that makes intuitive sense. You get around the emotion problem because Stimmung does not require an intentional object.] More, it's this astonishing claim made in some of the secondary literature about the work disclosing the whole of a set of relations, manifesting the possibilities for being of a fictional world...in other words, what kind of being is possible in that work of fiction, and linking that to genre. And I like that idea of 'what kind of being', because it makes me think about what the ground rules, what the cosmology of JKR's world is--because it sets limits on the possibilities of both plot and characterization. I don't think I've fully guessed JKR's Stimmung. :) But since I'm not one to ignore source material when I get it, I'm expecting the comments about Christianity to play a role in the denoument somehow. (It doesn't matter whether I *like* that or not-- it's there, and when she says she won't talk about religious aspects until it's all over...). I expect some of her comments about what she values and doesn't, about the broad themes, about who influenced her (Decca Mitford, anyone?) who she loves; all little hints. My personal sense is that it's a universe rather far from Le Carre's, and that it's one with shades of grey, but is a lot more straightfoward than most theorists think. Not to mention analysts. Eh, it's an idea. -Nora is also something of a fan of Faith From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 03:20:12 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:20:12 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snipping Puppetmaster!DD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050211032012.GA22758@...> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:07:56PM -0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > See, stuff like the MoM fight, that's happenstance. DD didn't plan it, > though I suspect he knew about it while it was happening and was ready > to act if and when it was required. Because Harry didn't win - DD did. > He already knew that Harry was full of something (no sniggering please) > that Voldy couldn't cope with. An AK could have knocked Harry off, little > else IMO. > Same at the climax of PS/SS; monitoring via the Mirror probably. Giving a teenage witch a Time Turner didn't exactly strike me as being the kind of prudence MacGonagal usually displays...hmmm, you think? The whole Time Turner thing (and I know you hate the movies, but there is a use for them) became particularly disturbing to me as portrayed in the PoA movie; especially as it seems a deliberate hint that DD is, shall we say, a little more _tricksy_ than we supposed (great big whopping hint IMHO). > DD whitters on about choices. He just hasn't allowed many to Harry. > Not big stuff, anyway. His business has been in forging and putting an > edge on Weapon!Harry. He has no choice, there is no other alternative, not > since Godric's Hollow. Yeah the whole 'we are our choices' thing. Strange that the whole WW socio-political backdrop has an oddly Zoroastrian cast to it. That's right, the forces of light vs the forces of dark. Except under that theme, there is no choice, it's been preordained. The MoM scenes in OotP were another nod to this split between the goodies and the baddies, the ragnark to come. So is JKR attempting the incredible feat of reconciling Northern and Mid-Eastern myth? Or are we going for the Old Testament/New Testament split, that was then but this is now, chill out dudes theme? Doesn't the idea of all magical beings living together in peace and hermione strike anyone here as a tad gauch? > But. Yep. There's a but. > DD can't control or predict one important thing. > The Voldy fragment that's in Harry. That's the wild card. That could screw > his plans completely. I'm willing to bet it was that invader than affected > Harry's attitudes in OoP - stroppy, stubborn, argumentative, and resulting > in the Occlumency cock-up. Then again it could be the 'why was I chosen?', 'my life appears to be controlled by a world I increasingly understand and increasingly dislike' kinds of syndrome :) -- Mac OS X. Because re-branding NeXTStep was easier than fixing Mac OS. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 03:22:29 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:22:29 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Dragonicity References: <4433B5C3-79CF-11D9-BA34-000A9577CB94@...> Message-ID: <00ab01c50fe8$eb73eec0$6501a8c0@...> Kneasy uttered: In folklore dragons are mostly described as having a maiden fixation (Why? Is it an excuse for the king - it's inevitably his daughter - to get a bit of peace at breakfast? And are they eaten as crudites or flambe [please excuse lack of acutes]? The latter would be my advice - all the pictures I've seen depict these slightly podgy damsels ["Does my bum look big in this?" - "Yes."] as having tresses four feet long. Grave danger of hair balls for the unwary consumer.) They're depicted as having a gold complex too. Sort of mythological magpies for shiny bits and pieces. So what's the likelihood of further dragon-related happenings in HP? Pretty good, I'd say. The background is already in place and so are a few of the cast. Charme: Ah, Kneasy, how I have missed your posts. However, I am compelled to respond to this one :) You know that thingy (don't you just love that word: so unrefined, yet so handy in times of descriptive need) about your boy DD and, I think, Nicolas Flamel? The one about discovering the 12th use of dragon's blood? I think that's probably more how dragons enter the soiree - dragon's blood mythically could make one stronger, braver, understand the language of birds (Norse/Siegfried), heal and protect from disease. Or maybe a more subtle path is necessary here, such as a correlation or relation to the Norse word "draugr" thought to be related to the word we now know as "dragon." Draugrs were thought to live in the graves of dead Vikings, which is interesting since one of the myths associated with dragons is that they were purported to guard the graves of kings and possibly lends something to the historical belief dragons were drawn to collect gold and trinkets (e.g., king's treasures.) There's also the herbal/botanical "dragon's blood" which has been reputed to have been used in magic and alchemy. Racier uses included as an aphrodisia and as well as an impotency cure (hey now, don't shoot the messenger, gentlemen) and then in some less erotic ways: relieve pain, heal, resist disease and calm distress. It's made it's way into religion and culture as well, since in India dragon's blood resin is sometimes used during rituals to cleanse an area of negative spirits or energy and some Catholic churches add this to their frankincense mixture to deepen smoke and also for the resin's disinfectant properties. Yep, all you really didn't want to know about dragons, dragon's blood and more, isn't it? :) I know, I know.... you'll thank me later... ;) Charme From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 06:09:20 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:09:20 -0000 Subject: OT: introductions and music-Dylan and Green Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > A Goldfeesh: > You ladies are after my own heart. Just two days ago it was brought > forcibly to my attention that I both need to update and burn some > CDs. I went to listen to Dylan's Planet Waves (Forever Young and > You Angel You) and Nashville Skyline (Lay Lady Lay) and found that > not only do I not have them on CD, that I don't even have them taped > off anymore. On top of that I found my 1970s, awesome portable > record player needs a bit of speaker repair! I get a fiancee and > neglect my record player and collection- who knew? :) Jen: Oh, nostalgia! My first 45' was "Cheeseburger in Paradise" by Jimmy Buffet. Hopefully my taste in music has improved, but I still remember the thrill of buying records and playing them on a really horrible portable record-player with built-in scratchy speakers. And 8-tracks! I inherited my brother's collection when he moved up to cassettes, and thus developed an interest in 70's classic rock like Kansas, Rush, Steve Miller Band, Journey, etc. This I blame on him. As for Dylan, I only have one, "Blood on the Tracks." So many great tunes on this one: "Tangled up in Blue"/"Idiot Wind"/"Buckets of Rain." Maybe I'll buy another soon, since I'm on a roll? A Goldfeesh: > For anyone who loves, or at least, knows Dylan and needs a new book > to read, I can recommend two. The first goes without saying, > Chronicles Vol. 1, his autobiography. He is so Bob in it, he talks > of his life yet is so so very elusive at the same time. > The second book, the reason I was looking for my CDs, is by > Christopher Ricks, "Dylan's Visions of Sin." Ricks, a humanities > prof and Dylan fan focuses fourteen or so songs reflect the 7 Deadly > Sins and the 7 Heavenly Virtues. In additon, he brings in Keats, > William Blake and other poet comparisons. This book made me > remember why I love Bob so much. He points out things on word usage > and rhymes that I would never dream of and made me reappreciate > songs that I'd became over-familiar with. Jen: Thanks for the tips. The second book sounds perfect, as I do spend time pondering his lyrics and would like to know the meaning behind a few mysteries. Like this one: "I lived with Emma on Montague street, a basement down the stairs. There was music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air. He started into dealing with slaves, and something inside of him died. She had to sell all the things she owned and froze up inside." So, why the sudden switch to third person? It's the only place in the song he does that. And I've always wondered if he's referring to actual slavery, or someone who has become enslaved to drugs or the like. A Goldfeesh: > There is so much I'd like to say about the media and politics and > the media eating out of the hands of the politicians and lobbyists > and the powerlessness of the average person but- I'd better not. Jen: The Texas Legislature is in session, and my dh has spent much of his working life there in some form or fashion. When I lament the proceedings, he tells me his favorite quote from a former Texas politician, Carl Parker: "If you took all the fools out of the legislature, it wouldn't be a representative body anymore." Well, I don't feel any better, but it explains quite a bit. :) From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 06:28:18 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:28:18 -0000 Subject: Hello to Newest Members Message-ID: First, I have to say thank you to Carolyn for emailing me that there's a party going on in here. I haven't been around lately. I haven't been cataloguing posts, or writing questions for my daughter's reading competition, or keeping up with the Big List. No. I've been coughing, mostly. In between, I'd get the dinner on, or run a load of laundry. If I sat down at my computer, I ended up playing games of Spider Solitaire because my brain was too foggy to think. It's time to shake it off. It's great to see all the new members -- I've met almost all of you before, and I'm happy you're here. Laurasia said: > ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets > d'Art, general enthusing): > Can't resist a good FanFic Parody. Love Voldemort's evil speech in the > Graveyard, especially to re-enact with plenty of screaming and > spitting. Reenact? Never thought of trying that... Let's see, which of my kids should I tie up and shout at? What is Naan Bread? SSSusan: > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > Has grown farther than I expected and farther than I thought my > family would tolerate. Have registered for The Witching Hour in > Salem in October. *bounces in seat* Me too! I'm taking along my daughter, who will be fifteen by then. She's not as obsessed as I am, but you may have "met" her in the Hogs_Head -- she posted a couple or three filks under the name of Ereturtle18. Dungrollin wrote: > ***Home > Currently south London, but will emigrate to West Africa in the next > couple of months, and live a drizzle-free mango-rich mosquito- > infested life in a hammock. Overlooking the lagoon. With gin. Yes, yes. Hammocks and gin. And malaria and questionable mail service. That's all very nice, but you forgot the most important thing. Will you have internet access? By the way, I did see your Snape post and was working my way through it before I came down with this... viral thingy. Turns out some of my ideas about his backstory were a bit muddled. I promise to get back to it, though (heh, even if you've moved on). Entomology, huh? My daughter, on the other hand, is heavily into etymology. Eustace Scrubb: > ***Nicknames/IDs: > Eustace_Scrubb...why? Well, everyone has those days when they wake > up and find they've turned into a dragon, don't they? Well? don't > they? Dear, you have no idea. ;) Okay, time to play -- Annemehr From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 06:47:26 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:47:26 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050211064726.GA5604@...> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:31:54AM -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > But, on the alleged big themes, most seditious of all are the long > series of posts by Elkins (often) but also Pip, Porphyria, Elfundeb, > Pippin, Eileen etc which began to take apart the contradictory > messages of the books. They are as fresh and relevant today as when > they were written - OOP only deepened the case. Here's a taster: > > 'Although JKR lambasts the conservative middle class through her > depiction of the Dursleys, her writing itself nonetheless promulgates > many of this group's particular social values, mores and judgements, > particularly when it comes to their view of social classes above and > below their own.' > > 'JKR is a nostalgic writer, but her nostalgia is not merely nostalgia > per se. It is of a particularly conservative and middle class flavor, > a flavor which tastes awfully strange when combined with the > progressive views that she elsewhere seems to wish very badly to > espouse. Much like orange juice and toothpaste, the combination > leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth.' > > Faith doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this kind of analysis. Fascinating. Perhaps a pointer or two to a relevant thread to whet further my curiosity at such outsiders? -- Mac OS X. Because re-branding NeXTStep was easier than fixing Mac OS. From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 07:59:04 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:59:04 -0000 Subject: Snipping Puppetmaster!DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Boyd: > > Ah, yes, the eternal HPfGU question: is DD a scheming Puppetmaster or merely > > a powerful wizard? Do we believe that DD is so smart that he has caused > > Weapon!Harry to be, or at least positioned him for success? Kneasy: > Mind you, there are variants on the Puppetmaster Theory and the one > I espouse doesn't postulate that DD manouevres Harry in every situation. > Nor does DD direct every jot and tittle of his existence. Deary me, no. > Just the important stuff. Annemehr: So do I take it that the following list is the important stuff? Let's look at parts of it: > Old Magic protection - which *requires* the death of Lily to work. Which doesn't mean it was the objective all along - it could have been the contingency plan. "Listen, if Voldy finds you, you and James are dead meat. There is still a way you can protect Harry, though. Here's what you have to do..." > Placement at Privet Drive - a place so unpleasant that he leaps at Hogwarts > as an escape. Ye-es. Or, it's another part of the contingency plan - the blood protection. Though we seem to have some conflicting information about that particular charm. (Talisman, did you ever write that post about this? *is hopeful*) > A wand with Fawkes's feather- what a coincidence, it matches Voldy's. Although DD of course could arrange for any number of matching Fawkes-feather wands, how on earth is he supposed to have caused one to match Harry? I grant you he may have *forseen* that one made of Holly might match, once Harry was born, but not caused it. [...] > Just happens to be aware that Voldy 'powers' have been transferred to Harry. > Riiiight. When did he know? During the 24 hours, perhaps? I don't know. I don't see how you can lay it at Dumbledore's feet, though. But you have just grazed by one of my few pet theories -- that the power of possession is one of LV's powers that was transferred. Just thought I'd mention that, in case it comes true. ;) > > Suggests use of the Time-turner for Harry (a neophyte) to save himself. > Why not go himself? Anybody else think there was back-up in the bushes? I assume he had to send Harry because 1) he knew Buckbeak had been saved and 2) he knew he hadn't done it himself. Snape was right - it was all Potter's doing. DD may have been skulking in the bushes, though, for all we know. Or Snape, if you're feeling MDish. > Does bugger all when the Goblet in GoF is obviously fixed.[...] Yep. Are we meant to believe that Harry truly was under a binding magical contract? Many scoff at the idea, but I can't decide. > > Reveals the Prophecy, tells Harry what he is expected to do. Yes (except I think he was wrong). Out of your list, it's only the when and how of telling the prophecy that I can absolutely ascribe to DD's manipulation. Maybe sending Hagrid to deliver Harry's letter, too (but only because Hagrid is just what DD needs, as I don't believe Hagrid is much of an actor). But I would add to that the gift of the invisibility cloak and a certain disregard for rulebreaking. Some of the other things (Godric's Hollow, Pettigrew) are possibilities but might have other explanations. [...] > > DD whitters on about choices. He just hasn't allowed many to Harry. > Not big stuff, anyway. His business has been in forging and putting an > edge on Weapon!Harry. He has no choice, there is no other alternative, not > since Godric's Hollow. Choices again! He doesn't whitter on about choices. He said once that choices *show* who we are. Not *make us* who we are, but *show.* In other words, Harry chose "not Slytherin," and that shows us that he was, indeed, not a Slytherin. He was a Gryffindor all along. Who really has all that many choices anyway? Lots of life is not what you choose, but what happens to you. Then you get to choose what to do about it. Harry nearly always gets to choose what to do about what happens to him. > But. Yep. There's a but. > DD can't control or predict one important thing. > The Voldy fragment that's in Harry. That's the wild card. That could screw > his plans completely. I'm willing to bet it was that invader than affected > Harry's attitudes in OoP - stroppy, stubborn, argumentative, and resulting > in the Occlumency cock-up. I'm not sure I buy a Voldy-fragment in Harry. I'm betting it's more of a mind-link. In CoS, Dumbledore said Voldy transferred some of his powers to Harry. Harry said there was a bit of Voldy in him. Who are you going to believe? Dumbledore? Harry? Neither? Harry certainly felt LV's curiousity re the DoM and his hatred of Dumbledore, but this does not require a bit of LV to be inside Harry. After all, LV felt Harry's horror during the snake attack on Arthur without a bit of Harry inside him (or is there? Was there an exchange of grey matter?) I don't know, I think we need more information on this one. Stroppy, now - that doesn't need to be LV at all. I like stroppy. A perfect combination of James' arrogance and Lily's determination, perhaps. It kept him sure of his right to exist despite ten years of the Dursleys' insistence otherwise. It sent him after the Stone, and into the Chamber, and it sent him out from behind the gravestone to meet Volemort's AK with Expelliarmus. It has this interesting and frustrating side-effect of maintaining his belief the conclusions he's leapt to despite new evidence to the contrary. I like it much better than Voldy-thingy's peevishness: "The AK I fired at you bounced off and hit me, and that hurt, and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!" For fifteen years now. Yeesh. At least when Harry's peevish, it's only temporary. Back to Dumbledore and his manoeuverings, though. Like I said, it's hard to tell how deep it goes with Harry. But maybe we can broaden the field, instead. We have the clear indication in CoS that DD was involved in the life of young Tom Riddle. He made James and Lily Head Boy and Girl. That would give him an excuse to get more involved with them personally, and groom them for membership in the Order (at the very least, and at a very young age) - not to mention including their best friends Sirius and Peter as well. More than likely, he was important in Snape's life at the time, too - gives Snape a basis for turning to DD when he left the DEs. And finally, we have Harry and the prophecy. A list of proteges and charges like this makes him seem more fallible than, say, MD!Dumbledore -- or at least, that he's gotten a lot better at manipulation since the old days. He lost Tom and Peter. He lost Snape for a while, too. Lily and James are dead - regrettable whether you think he arranged it out of necessity or tried unsuccessfully to prevent it. I wonder who else DD may be "guiding" through life? Ernie McMillan was in his office; he talked to the paintings. Who knows what relationship he has with Neville? Or had with the Longbottoms? Lucius or Draco? Percy? The guy never seems to teach any classes -- I wonder what he's doing all day? Well, that went on longer than I expected - it's late, and I'm feeling kind of foggy. Wonder if I've made any sense? *hits Send* Annemehr (having Faith in Bangs, George, Mystery, *and* Themes, all at once) From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 14:38:38 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:38:38 +0000 Subject: Mosque?toes Message-ID: <9E32D4DE-7C3A-11D9-99F4-000A9577CB94@...> An embarrassment of riches on the board this morning, four subject lines seductively whispering their siren songs in the Kneasy shell-like. Could be in for a busy weekend at the keyboard. Best to respond in the order in which they were posted, in which case - good morning mooseming! --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > Why is it one whole year before anyone does anything about the prophecy? Here it is, the biggest dungbomb in Voldy's plans for a while, and no one lifts a finger. DD doesn't organise appropriate protection Voldy doesn't have a go, what's going on? > A short digression, if you don't mind. That damn prophecy. Sybill does the trance bit, DD records it for posterity and it gets stuffed on a shelf in the Ministry - "Voldy & A.N.Other". Mind you, Sybill has no track record for prediction so it's provenance and significance might be regarded as a bit dodgy. The frustrating thing about prophecies is that their accuracy can only be determined in retrospect (how else to determine that it's a real prophecy?) and there is a real danger that they can become self-fulfilling. There's a possibility that this is the case here. Voldy believed he was fulfilling the terms of the prophecy by knocking off Harry. So he was, but not in the way he thought. Instead he creates his own possible nemesis, something he wouldn't have done if he hadn't been told of the prophecy. Causality. Oh dear. It can get as convoluted as alternate timelines. Retrospective interpretation has its pitfalls too. I've never quite worked out the "mark as his equal" bit. Equal in what? Magical power? Wouldn't think so, not a 15 month old sprog. Potential then? Maybe, but potential for what? The equality mark seems to be linked to it's donor and since the donor is the epitome of evil..... surely not? Stop this line of thought immediately! Do not succumb! Be strong! Or Possession Theory will once again be inflicted on a suffering fandom. Right. The eavesdropper. It's a cause for some disgruntlement that the really fascinating events in the story don't happen in the timeline of the books at all. Tom in the Chamber, the "thrice defied" episodes, the eavesdropper, the betrayal, GH, the 24 hours. Anyone would think it was deliberate, keeping us in the dark over past actions that are almost certainly the determinants for what's happened since. Yeah, sure. If only we knew who the listener was. Plenty of speculation, usually focussing on Peter and Snape, with a few non-conformists plumping for Aberforth. Don't see that myself; DD says he couldn't warn his master - but old Abbers was in the Order, hardly likely Voldy was his "master". Who would want to listen in on an interview for a Divination teacher anyway? Deliberate or accidental, planned or a chance event? And was the information passed on immediately? If it was Snape or another Voldy hench-wizard then it probably would be; if Peter probably not - it was before he started working for Voldy. A snippet passed on when the pressure was later applied? Or was it somebody else? We don't know - if we did we might be able to come up with a rationale for any delay in informing Voldy. But if he was informed at the time, why the hold-up? Well, brooding on the meaning, sussing out possibilities, deciding on the best course of action - I doubt he sees any need to rush - once that is he believes that this challenger is not an immediate threat. Nobody'd be too bothered at the thought of a two foot high avenging angel with nappies drooping round his knees. No; the question isn't why did he wait so long, but why didn't he wait longer? DD himself comments that Voldy would have been wiser to wait, to assess the situation, to find out more. Yet he delays for over a year, then moves. The worst of both worlds, neither one thing nor t'other. Why? What made him strike when he did? I find it intriguing that at the time of the attack there were two conduits of information between the Order and Voldy - Peter and Snape. DD used one (Snape) to gather information. Did he use the other to disseminate it? It's likely that something made Voldy move when he did; where did that something come from? Let us not forget that he was winning, he could afford to take his time over a toddler that might or might not be of significance sometime in the future. But DD, he needed Voldy to come a cropper *now*, before it was too late. Could almost make one think in terms of chess - gambits and sacrifices. Yeah, I know. Two possible causes - conspiracy or cock-up. No prizes for guessing which one Kneasy leaps to. The rest of your post I'll leave in abeyance, if you don't mind. Minerva, Hagrid, the 24 hours and the Longbottom episode - well, they deserve more than a few comments. Worthy of posts of their own. Long ones, I should think. Kneasy From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 15:06:13 2005 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:06:13 -0000 Subject: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker Message-ID: CV: I received the following news about our good friend Dr. John Kusalavage, known on this and other lists as Haggridd. This came from his cousin, JoAnn: ======== John passed away on January 22nd at his home in Aiken, South Carolina. I know how much John's "Harry Potter" friends (and on- line chats) ment to him and I'd like to be sure that everyone that was in contact with John thru the website realize that they played a very special part in his life. (he may not have said it that way exactly, but you know what I mean) If you could pass this message on, I would appreciate it. ======== CV: Haggridd's heart was as big as his form. We all enjoyed his filks and some lucky ones of us met him at Nimbus. Big Guy - we loved you. I'll never think of goats in the same way. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 15:43:05 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:43:05 -0000 Subject: Mosque?toes In-Reply-To: <9E32D4DE-7C3A-11D9-99F4-000A9577CB94@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > good morning mooseming! > good afternoon to you, Kneasy > If only we knew who the listener was. Plenty of speculation, usually > focussing on Peter and Snape, with a few non-conformists plumping for > Aberforth. Don't see that myself; DD says he couldn't warn his master - > but old Abbers was in the Order, hardly likely Voldy was his "master". Do mine eyes deceive me!!!!???? "DD says" I am agog, aghast, I have been confunded!! *you* are surely not quoting DD as a reliable source to me, you wouldn't do that....you couldn't do that..its a fiendish ruse so despicable I cannot fathom the purpose. DD says "My (pause) our (pause) one stroke of good fortune ...", perhaps the great editor in chief is rewriting as he speaks. Could he be about to say 'my brother' or 'our collegue'. His 'master' at what point, then, now, later? In what way? > > Who would want to listen in on an interview for a Divination teacher > anyway? Deliberate or accidental, planned or a chance event? > A shy admirer not known for choosing suitable partners? Found lurking around in an unsavoury manner, dodgy enough to be booted out but not suspicious enough to be reported, in fact enough of an embarrassment to certain parties to be hushed up? Still if DD says it isn't then..... Regards Jo From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 16:18:12 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:18:12 -0000 Subject: Snipping Puppetmaster!DD In-Reply-To: <20050211032012.GA22758@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > Giving a teenage witch a Time Turner didn't exactly strike me as being the > kind of prudence MacGonagal usually displays...hmmm, you think? The whole Time > Turner thing (and I know you hate the movies, but there is a use for them) > became particularly disturbing to me as portrayed in the PoA movie; especially > as it seems a deliberate hint that DD is, shall we say, a little more > _tricksy_ than we supposed (great big whopping hint IMHO). > Kneasy: DD? Tricksy? Straight as a corkscrew, that bloke. You're probably right about MM; would she hand out things like TTs without consulting DD? I doubt it, especially as the Ministry was involved in granting permission. See, the big thing about the movies (besides how awful the last one was) is that we can't be certain if any hints, clues, pointers or whatever are real or are the result of fans scouring the celluloid and grasping at straws - or shadows, to make the allusion more apposite. Does anyone besides Jo know how the story progresses? No, I don't think so. Is it likely that she sidled up to whoever-it-was and whispered "Make DD more ambiguous, he was too nice in the last one"? Just possible I suppose, though I got the impression that the whole ersatz-gothic thing was the sole responsibility of some smart bugger being too clever by three-quarters. Could be wrong but it's the result of fevered imaginings in a back room at Warners, is my bet. "Oh, there's a Time-turner! Let's have a bloody great clockwork whatsit to ram home the plot point!" Now you and I may have drawn certain conclusions about DD, so might the producer, or the scriptwriter, or there might have been a nudge and a wink from herself - or it may be part of the overall atmospheric ambience considered as appropriate to this cinematic folderol and therefore totally coincidental. We can't tell. That's why it ain't canon, so far as I'm concerned. > > Yeah the whole 'we are our choices' thing. Strange that the whole WW > socio-political backdrop has an oddly Zoroastrian cast to it. That's right, > the forces of light vs the forces of dark. Except under that theme, there is > no choice, it's been preordained. The MoM scenes in OotP were another nod to > this split between the goodies and the baddies, the ragnar?k to come. So is > JKR attempting the incredible feat of reconciling Northern and Mid-Eastern > myth? Or are we going for the Old Testament/New Testament split, that was then > but this is now, chill out dudes theme? Doesn't the idea of all magical beings > living together in peace and hermione strike anyone here as a tad gauch?? > Kneasy: Hum. Duality and preordination. And choices. Choices not only define us, they reveal us, reflections of our true nature. In this sense DD's 'choices' would not conflict with predestination. Rather they would be a confirmation of what we are. And if we act according to our nature, there really is little choice, in the moral/ethical field anyway. Ragnarok would make for an entertaining climax. The old order goes down in flames, a new beginning. Is there an equivalent in ME mythology, where *all* the gods die? (Yes, Balder comes back, but he was dead before the final battle.) Elimination of magic from the world would be the preferred metaphor, probably. > > Then again it could be the 'why was I chosen?', 'my life appears to be > controlled by a world I increasingly understand and increasingly dislike' > kinds of syndrome :) > Kneasy: The ingratitude of the wretch! He's gonna be even more famous, an epic hero. The sticky end is just to balance the deal. As if the world is or should be organised to suit his convenience. Tell him to stop moaning and get on with it. From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 20:06:21 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:21 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > But - a general question here - it my be that my grey matter is failing > me, but I have the impression that over the past couple of years there's > been a gradual reconsideration and reassessment of his character. > Views that were held by a smallish (though vocal) minority seem to be > more the mainstream opinion now. > Am I wrong? > And if I'm not - what caused the change? Me. ~Amandageist From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 20:07:44 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:07:44 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > Kneasy: > > > But - a general question here - it my be that my grey matter is > failing > > me, but I have the impression that over the past couple of years > there's > > been a gradual reconsideration and reassessment of his character. > > Views that were held by a smallish (though vocal) minority seem to > be > > more the mainstream opinion now. > > Am I wrong? > > And if I'm not - what caused the change? > > Me. > > ~Amandageist Modesty becomes you. Kneasy From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 20:07:48 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:07:48 -0000 Subject: OoP: Amanda goes on and on and on and on and on about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jo > That would be 'The Ghosts' by Antonia Barber, reissued (and renamed) > in the early 1970's with the release of a movie called 'The Amazing > Mr Blunden'. THANK YOU!!!! Hey, aren't you the mystery person who's supposedly Jo Rowling, subject of much debate on HPFGU? ~Amandageist From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 20:15:17 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:15:17 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > > > Am I wrong? > > > And if I'm not - what caused the change? > > > > Me. > > > > ~Amandageist > >Kneasy: > Modesty becomes you. > Potioncat: And to think, I was afraid I wouldn't be allowed to "one-line" over here. Tell us, Kneasy, what is the mainstream opinion about Snape? From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 20:43:47 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:43:47 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri (Previously): > >I'm certain JKR follows her rules wherever it counts.< > > Carolyn: > That is a remark worthy of Dumbledore! Neri: Surely not, just a useful observation. JKR can't cover EVERY detail in the Potterverse, so she focuses on what's important for the plot. If you find repeated flints in a certain section of the story, this suggests that JKR didn't put much thought into it, so it's probably not very central to the mystery. Merely a useful deduction for a theorist. > Carolyn: > So, for example, JKR's apparent inability to construct a consistent > pattern for Lupin's lycanthropy (see your tragically funny post: > 123946 Full Moon - A Rant About Lycanthropy Symptoms) is a case of > internal rules being irrelevant, despite the immense opportunities > this opens up for doubting Lupin? Neri: What immense opportunities? I naturally considered the possible implications of my lycanthropy research for the ESE!Lupin theory (no theorist who has been exposed to Pippin during the last two years can possibly ignore that) but I really don't see what ESE!Lupin gains from the fact that the moon couldn't have been full both during the week after Halloween and in Christmas. Do you suggest that Lupin faked the times of his transformations? But if so, how did Hermione realize he's a werewolf? Or is she in this together with him? > Carolyn: > Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they appear, > and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The End. Neri: "Trust everything" and "doubt everything" are equally faulty theorizing strategies. Building a theory is basically the act of deciding which canon details you trust and which you don't. > Carolyn: > So, > we sweep under the carpet little uncomfortable details like why great > guys like James and Sirius were betrayed by one of their closest > school friends, or why the saintly Lily didn't tell Dumbledore her > husband was an animagus (you are telling me she didn't know?). You > can see where memorable assertions like 'Frank Longbottom was Judge > Dredd on acid' begin (Eric Oppen on top form...). Intelligent readers > start to fill in the gaps in frustration. > Neri: OK, I'll rephrase my previous statement a bit. Building a theory is basically the act of deciding which canon details to sweep under the carpet and which to set above it. This choice is inevitable. There are much too many suspicious and uncomfortable details in the HP saga to ever be explained in just two books. > Carolyn: > Personally, I'm certain JKR follows her rules whenever it suits her. Neri: I don't see the difference between this statement and my own, unless you mean that JKR doesn't play fair and doesn't gives us the information we need. A notion that Faith rejects, of course. > > Neri (previously): > >Maybe I should clarify the nature of my relationship with Faith, > since I suspect that for me she represents something slightly > different than her public image.< > >She doesn't represent anti-theorizing. She represents the ruthless > natural selection of theories.< > > also the conviction that a true and worthwhile solution does exist.< > > Carolyn: > Ah..this is rather different from the original girly who 'believes > what canon places before her..first cousins with those cute twins, > Naive and Gullible.' Admittedly, she had to grow up rather fast, > considering the company she kept(*), but this is a bit of a departure. > (*) If anyone is intrigued by Faith's curiously malleable > personality, and don't mind TBAY or life on board the Big Bang > Destroyer, then take a look at 35878, 35930, 35966, 35972, 39414, > 39468. Neri: Faith grew up EXTREMLY fast. Your quote above is from Kimberly's first Faith post #35878. In her third Faith post, #35966, only four days later, Kimberly had already described Faith as "smiling twistedly", "a tiny bit sadistic", quoting Snape, and having edge. But I quite agree that even these days Faith still retains a girly, goody-goody side. I think it's simply because canon have this goody-goody side to. You know, the side that conspiracy theories despise, and which they have always therefore underestimated ? to their cost. But I begin to suspect you aren't familiar with my own Faith posts. If not, you can find them in 116369, 116370, 116371 and 116373. These posts present my view of Faith and theorizing, using an actual new theory as a test case. If you don't mind TBAY, of course. > Carolyn: > I see now you are arguing about scientific proofs, test-ability of > evidence, trying to deduce a method in the madness (assuming > valiantly there is one). Faith never used to work so hard, she was > well, just that - faith that the author knew what she was doing, that > we'd understand it all in the end and not to go around building > fantastic castles on the slightest grain of evidence. Y'know, kind of > *dull*. Neri: Far from me being that methodical. I'm only passing along several useful tips, gathered by many theorists during hundreds of years of harsh experience. I have no problem with you or anybody else building fantastic castles on the slightest grain of evidence. I've been known to do that myself more than twice. But if your goal is really to solve JKR's mystery, not merely enjoy building fantastic castles, then perhaps these tips might help. And Faith most certainly has never worked hard. There has never been any need, as she explained to me in post #116369. > Carolyn: > Now tell me, does the grown-up Faith in your lab, with her shiny new > PhD and white coat carry out research into bangs, or is she still > into whimpers? David Frankis once amusingly pointed out on her behalf > that 'repetitive banging is really boring', and claimed that she > said: 'bangy doesn't give a reason to re-read..subtle character clues > unfolding does. Seeing Moody as Crouch does. But bangy just goes from > flat to floppy.' > Neri: Heh! To tell you the truth, even I rarely use that white coat in my work. I don't even own such a coat, and if I don't want my closes covered with mouse poop, I have to borrow one from my lab partners. As to Faith, if you'll read my posts above you'll find that she still wears the same schoolgirl uniforms, and occasionally a life belt. And her maryjanes are still sporting four-inch spiked heels. Regarding bangs, David has been Faith's friend for much longer than I have, and if he claims that she said that, he's surely right. I'll only add that Faith believes what canon places before her. Since canon most obviously includes conspiracy and bangs, I must conclude that Faith believes in conspiracy and bangs. And so do I. > Carolyn: > > > Hopefully, Faith is now beginning to realise that some of those > apparently wild theories might have had a grain of truth in them, and > that some really Big explanations are going to be needed to resolve > some plot lines. Neri: Faith asks me to write that she has always known that those wild theories have a grain of truth in them, and she thinks all of them are quite nice. It is just that each supposition is strained. > Carolyn: > Oooh, brave man! You are surrounded by many of the original authors > here. Perhaps they will step out from the shadows and argue this on a > case by case basis. > Neri: I'm sure we will both be very glad if they chose to show themselves. And even more glad if they decide to stay. > Carolyn: > But, as per my remarks above, I believe you are wrong in assuming > that huge numbers of those theories are washed up. Neri: I didn't say that huge numbers are washed up. Some do, and some are in need of serious updating and rethinking. And for some reason many of the Captains are not enthusiastic. > Carolyn: > Other, much more carefully worked out theories have simply not been > disproved at all. There is the vast body of Neville theory, for > instance, which if anything is enhanced by the information in OOP. > Just try reading the Neville Memory Charm symposium, for starters > (extremely long series of posts). Frankly, one or other variant has > to get pretty close, IMO. Neri: Oh, I'm currently working myself on adapting some of the Memory Charm theories to the post-OotP canon, trying to synthesize a Book 6 theory (Faith had already agreed to inspect it when it's ready. She occasionally reads extracts over my shoulder, sniggering and making snide remarks). My question is why do we see so few of the originators of these theories doing that? > Carolyn: > And then there's the chief mugwump himself. You'd expect me to say > that, I suppose. Anyone who came out of OOP still thinking that > Dumbledore was a nice old man, bumbling around looking for a pair of > warm socks, and with everyone's best interests at heart frankly needs > their head examining. Yes, I do have some questions, quite a lot in > fact, about the Dishwasher and allied theories, but nothing makes me > doubt the basic premise. > > But, on the alleged big themes, most seditious of all are the long > series of posts by Elkins (often) but also Pip, Porphyria, Elfundeb, > Pippin, Eileen etc which began to take apart the contradictory > messages of the books. They are as fresh and relevant today as when > they were written - OOP only deepened the case. Here's a taster: > > 'Although JKR lambasts the conservative middle class through her > depiction of the Dursleys, her writing itself nonetheless promulgates > many of this group's particular social values, mores and judgements, > particularly when it comes to their view of social classes above and > below their own.' > > 'JKR is a nostalgic writer, but her nostalgia is not merely nostalgia > per se. It is of a particularly conservative and middle class flavor, > a flavor which tastes awfully strange when combined with the > progressive views that she elsewhere seems to wish very badly to > espouse. Much like orange juice and toothpaste, the combination > leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth.' > > Faith doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this kind of analysis. Neri: Faith doesn't have a lot to say about ANYTHING, unless we sincerely ask her for her opinion and really listen to her. If we won't, she doesn't give a damn. Why should she? It is not her, but you and I who cling to our rickety theories in the middle of the bay with Hurricane Jo looming on the horizon. If you believe the analysis above will save you from drowning coming July 16th, cling hard to it. But perhaps I should warn you that Faith was reading it over my shoulder, and right now she's in the other room having an uncontrollable laughing fit. She can be quite annoying, that way. > Carolyn: > > > I think you mistake my Le Carre analogy. He very rarely has his plots > depend on some big ESE revelation. My reading of the Smiley stories > in particular is that they usually come down to some intensely > personal battle between one or two people, which is played out > against a big Cold War backdrop. It's the contrast between the > blunderbuss activities of governments and international politics in > the background, with the particular pain of betrayal/or agonising > decisions of trust between individuals which is so telling. > > Obviously JKR has created an entirely different universe, but it is a > war environment nevertheless, and it seems to me that the messages > about human nature are pretty constant, and that the final battle > might be of a similar nature - just Harry and Voldy in the end. Neri: Perhaps this is the case, and perhaps it isn't. But it seems to me that you are saying to JKR: "I liked it very much so far, but could I have a Le Carre style resolution, please?" You'll feel disappointed if JKR won't supply it. Perhaps you prefer not even considering the possibility that she won't. Nothing wrong with this position, of course. It is your constitutional right to want a certain resolution and not to like other resolutions. It is just that when you are sailing your theory into the hurricane, constitutional rights are not of much help. Neri wonders who is the personification of conspiracy theories, and how he/she would get along with Faith From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 21:05:40 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:05:40 -0000 Subject: Dragonicity In-Reply-To: <00ab01c50fe8$eb73eec0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > You know that thingy (don't you just love that word: so unrefined, yet so > handy in times of descriptive need) about your boy DD and, I think, Nicolas > Flamel? The one about discovering the 12th use of dragon's blood? I think > that's probably more how dragons enter the soiree - dragon's blood > mythically could make one stronger, braver, understand the language of birds > (Norse/Siegfried), heal and protect from disease. > snip> I seem to recall that there was a short thread way back on HPfGU on what the 12 uses were - Muggle Remover and Wand Polish were a couple of my contributions, somebody else suggested it as an ingredient in cocktails - good thinking that, the WW seems distressingly deficient in many of the finer things in life. Just think of the curries if dragon's blood were blended in. Mmmm! And to take care of those uncomfortable after-effects a haemorrhoid preparation was a further suggestion. All good ideas likely to enhance civilised society. But since most wizards are a bit woolly when it comes to logic, I sometimes wonder about how they'd go about investigating something new. 1. Feed it to an Elf. If he stays upright 2. Bash it with your wand (no, not the Elf) 3. Mix it with anything handy. 4. Repeat 1. 5. Continue until something interesting happens. Bet it's a real bundle of laughs being a research alchemist. Mind you, you're probably right. The total silence on the uses of dragon's blood in FBaWTFT is not coincidental IMO. Hope it doesn't become too deus ex machina for comfort. Kneasy From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 22:45:11 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:45:11 -0000 Subject: Theorising/some references In-Reply-To: <20050211064726.GA5604@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > Fascinating. Perhaps a pointer or two to a relevant thread to whet further mycuriosity at such outsiders? > Sean Here are some post numbers. They refer to a thread discussing the Philip Nel question #10 about class: 41210 Porphyria 41247 Ali 41268 GulPlum 41277 Eloise 41399 Elkins 41403 David 41407 Pip!Squeak 41412 GulPlum 41413 Pippin 41415 Elkins 41448 Dicentra 41466 Pippin 41446 Elkins Another couple of posts on political stereotypes outside this thread are: 34041 Elkins 36338 talondg 37328 milz Carolyn Who fears these esteemed posters would not think much of Kneasy's proposed uses for house elves. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 23:15:48 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:15:48 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri wonders who is the personification of conspiracy theories, and > how he/she would get along with Faith Suspicion--a decidedly ratty sort of fellow, although oddly enough, he is often very well-dressed as he is able to pass in the best of circles, even dominating them at times. Equally at home in a tuxedo and a nice set of rags. The inestimable Paul Ricoeur set those two up as perpetually feuding siblings back in the early 70's, and there is considerably worse we could do than to follow his lead. -Nora admits to being a professional fan of the hermeneutics of faith, as well From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 23:53:53 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:53:53 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >CV: >I received the following news about our good friend Dr. John >Kusalavage, known on this and other lists as Haggridd. Thanks for letting us know, Constance. As I'm not a member of any of the HPfGU groups anymore, I had no idea. >CV: >Haggridd's heart was as big as his form. We all enjoyed his filks >and some lucky ones of us met him at Nimbus. I'd always hoped to meet him. Aiken isn't *that* far from Charleston... > >Big Guy - we loved you. I'll never think of goats in the same way. Amen. Parker From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 00:10:45 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:10:45 -0000 Subject: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Constance, thank you for the news. I'm stunned and grieving. As unlikely as it may seem, John and I were good friends. I had the pleasure of having him to stay when he toured the country last year, and we had a lovely dinner in San Francisco and a really nice time meeting in person at last. He wasn't the only right-winger I've ever loved, but he was one of the few. He was funny, generous, gifted, and a pain in the ass, rather like his beloved namesake, in fact. He could laugh at himself, and he could laugh at me in a way that I could laugh too. And he was much too young to leave this life. During a very hard few months in my life, he sent me the entire Discworld oeuvre in installments, delighting vicariously in my discovery--he wished he could read them all for the first time again. I don't know if I ever told him what a lifeline they were. I have a little wind-up Death I have been meaning to send him, since it looks like one of our favorite characters. I hope the Death of the Discworld was there to greet him and say something amusing. Kelley's been bugging me to come to TOC and I have been thinking about it, but I was hoping to come in on a happier announcement than this. Amy Z From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 02:04:11 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:04:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT: introductions and music-Dylan and Green Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212020411.83252.qmail@...> Agreed on U2 CD. Uno, Dos, Tres, Quatorze(sp?) HELLO HELLO I'm at a place called Vertigo! It's everything I wish I didn't know! But you give me something I can Feel !!!! Boy my work sure seems like Vertigo these days! --- ameliagoldfeesh wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, > SongBird3411 at a... wrote: > > > > Finally managed to upgrade most of my Beatles > collection to CD, so > I have been enjoying that. > > U2- "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" > > Green Day- "American Idiot" > > > Jen Reese wrote: > > ***Current/recent listening: > Recently bought a bunch of college favorites that I > never converted > from cassette tape: Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, U2, > Meat Loaf. > > > A Goldfeesh: > You ladies are after my own heart. Just two days ago > it was brought > forcibly to my attention that I both need to update > and burn some > CDs. I went to listen to Dylan's Planet Waves > (Forever Young and > You Angel You) and Nashville Skyline (Lay Lady Lay) > and found that > not only do I not have them on CD, that I don't even > have them taped > off anymore. On top of that I found my 1970s, > awesome portable > record player needs a bit of speaker repair! I get > a fiancee and > neglect my record player and collection- who knew? > :) > > For anyone who loves, or at least, knows Dylan and > needs a new book > to read, I can recommend two. The first goes > without saying, > Chronicles Vol. 1, his autobiography. He is so Bob > in it, he talks > of his life yet is so so very elusive at the same > time. From this > first book you wouldn't know he was married twice, > the names of his > parents or even the names of his wives, while at the > same time he > tells a lot of his story that you didn't know. At > one point he > gives the name Becky Thatcher as a childhood friend- > I said "wow, he > named a name!" until I realized it was Becky > Thatcher to his Tom > Sawyer. *L* > > The second book, the reason I was looking for my > CDs, is by > Christopher Ricks, "Dylan's Visions of Sin." Ricks, > a humanities > prof and Dylan fan focuses fourteen or so songs > reflect the 7 Deadly > Sins and the 7 Heavenly Virtues. In additon, he > brings in Keats, > William Blake and other poet comparisons. This book > made me > remember why I love Bob so much. He points out > things on word usage > and rhymes that I would never dream of and made me > reappreciate > songs that I'd became over-familiar with. > > This book also makes mention of A.S.Byatt, reviled > of Potter fans, > who says (with equal lack of vision) paraphased > that-- she could > find layers and layers in Keats yet couldn't go > through a Dylan > lyric because she wouldn't know where to begin. > Well that just > reinforces my opinion of self-important has-beens. > > To change the subject a bit- Green Day! I recall > them in high > school on the radio but I was too much into the > Beatles and Dylan. > I would have never guessed that in ten years they > would come out > with such a masterpiece as American Idiot. They are > so right on > when it comes to media and politics and politicians > and the average > person. I never would have dreamed they had it in > them. There is so > much I'd like to say about the media and politics > and the media > eating out of the hands of the politicians and > lobbyists and the > powerlessness of the average person but- I'd better > not. > > A (wordy) Goldfeesh- > > Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull, > From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol > > or > > Don't wanna be an American idiot. > One nation controlled by the media. > Information nation of hysteria. > It's going out to idiot America. > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 02:41:07 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:41:07 -0000 Subject: Sevvy Question In-Reply-To: <20050209135825.4471.qmail@...> Message-ID: [Judy Serenity wakes up from hibernation, pokes head out of burrow] Snape? Snape? Did I hear people discussing Snape? Neri said that Severus Snape might mean: > Severe: strict in judgment, discipline, or government. Strongly > critical or condemnatory. Inflicting physical discomfort or > hardship. > Snap: to utter sharp biting words: bark out irritable or peevish > retorts. > But there might also be an alternative, more sneaky meaning: > Sever: to remove (as a part) by or as if by cutting. When I read the books, I mentally pronounced his name as "sever-us". Then I saw the movies, where it was pronounced "severe-us." This favors the "severe" reading, although of course the movies aren't canon. I hadn't considered the "sever-snap" connection. Interesting... Sigune said: >>Snape moved from 'Irritatingly Clich?d Bad Guy' (yes, sorry, that's how I felt, reading PS) to 'Harsh Victorian Schoolmaster' between beginning and end of Book One.<< Oh, I think JKR deliberately made Snape seem like an 'Irritatingly Clich?d Bad Guy' -- the better to fool us when it turns out he wasn't the bad guy at all. One of JKR's beloved red herrings! It wasn't even Snape who made Harry's scar hurt at the welcoming dinner. Sigune said she was "fervently praying that LOLLIPOPS won't come true" What?!? I'm completely convinced of LOLLIPOPS. I proposed its unappealing variant, "Too EEW to be true." [Judy Serenity turns to go back to burrow and sees her shadow. Drats! 6 more weeks of winter!] -- Judy, from chilly Michigan, where we don't bother much with groundhogs' day because any groundhog that left its burrow in early February would likely freeze to death From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 02:43:57 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:43:57 -0000 Subject: OT- Intro Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO I've actually been signed up here for a while, but haven't posted much. After I wrote this, I checked the archives and found that I posted an intro last summer. But, since I've hardly posted at all since then, perhaps people have forgotten it! After all, I had. Feel free to skip this if you read my last intro.... ***Name: Judy Shapiro ***Nicknames/IDs: Judy Serenity -- name taken from a hobby jewelry business, Serenity Gems, that I used to run ***Age: Life, the universe, and everything. Um -- I mean 42. ***Family: Husband, cat, another cat, yet another cat, plus one more cat. Occasional bats and raccoons (uninvited.) No children, unfortunately, but some nieces and nephews. ***Home Ann Arbor, Michigan, home of the University of Michigan, best known for its football team. This town would be great if it weren't for football Saturdays. Go (away) Wolverines! ***Place of Birth: The tiny village of Goshen, New York. Actually, at the time my parents lived in the even tinier village of Maybrook, which didn't have a hospital. The teeny-tiny hospital in which I was born has been turned into a restaurant, last I heard. ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: PhD in Social Psychology, which is more like sociology than like what most people think of as psychology. In other words, I'm not a therapist. I teach at a local university, but it's not a full-time position, which is frustrating. So, I have started putting more time into writing and less into teaching. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Two years ago, a chance discussion with other HP fans led me to watch the notorious "Living with Michael Jackson" special. I hardly knew anything about Michael Jackson, but was instantly intrigued. "Wow," I thought. "This guy has so many problems, I could write a book!" So, now I am writing a book about Michael Jackson -- specifically, what his problems are and what might have caused them. I'm frantically trying to finish by this summer, when his trial is predicted to end. I've written about 85,000 words, but need to cut that down because I have tons more to say. (At this rate, my book will be as long as OoP!) ***First contact with Harry Potter: I bought some toys for my nephews, and the toys came with free paperback copies of PS and CoS. My nephews already had the books, so I decided to keep them. (The books, I mean, not the nephews.) ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): May I just cut-and-paste Eloise's answers here? They're perfect! "Book: PoA Character: Snape (of course) Ships: Don't do ships Fics: Ditto Objets d'Art: Are there any??" ***Extent of Potter obsession: Was very into HPfGU for a while -- starting in winter 2001-2002, I think. Then, I got involved in HPfGU admin work, and didn't have much time to post on the main list anymore. Lately, my HP interest has sadly declined. I couldn't get into OoTP at all, and am hoping that I like HBP better. I still do some behind- the-scenes work at HPfGU, but more out of a desire to keep in touch with other fans than out of an interest in HP. Lately, I don't have time to do much HP stuff. ***Other interests/activities: Love to travel. Feel free to invite me to visit! My latest hobby is buying cheap timeshare weeks and trading them for stays at luxury resorts. (I learned how to do this on the internet, of course!) So, anyone want to go to anywhere? I'm always looking for traveling companions; DH is stuck working almost all the time. (And, I often write best when traveling.) I live in a large, older house that DH & I are currently (and continuously) renovating. I also like gardening, but mostly grow herbs and vegetables. Right now, I don't grow many flowers because my house has a paved yard. (I'd call it a "garden" for those of you in the UK, but in fact it's more of a yard, even by the UK definition.) Luckily, there is a community garden (allotment) nearby that I can use in summer for veggies. ***Current/recent reading: I don't read much fiction, because I get too caught up in it! Most of the non-fiction that I read lately is background material for my book. ***Current/recent listening: I've never much liked audiobooks -- they don't let you stop and think every few sentences. I love music, but also get very caught up in it. So, I rarely have "background" music on -- when I'm listening to music, I don't usually do anything else. (Except sometimes drive my car.) This really limits how much time I can spend listening to music. I somehow managed to make it through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s without buying any Jackson 5 or Michael Jackson music, so I have recently done a lot of catching up for my book. (Wow, I didn't know that was Michael Jackson who sang "Human Nature!" Or, "Dancing Machine." Or, "Got to Be There." Or a bunch of other songs, many of which I thought were sung by girls.) ***Current/recent viewing: Don't watch much TV, but DH has gotten me interested in the Farscape series, which we've borrowed on DVD. And, the US media is giving so much coverage to the Michael Jackson trial that I can't possibly watch it all. (There's 1000 reporters staked out at the courthouse!) Saw the Lemony Snicket movie last week and liked it, despite my antipathy to Jim Carrey. -- Judy, belatedly From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 02:47:53 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:47:53 -0000 Subject: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "constancevigilance" wrote: >> ======== > John passed away on January 22nd at his home in Aiken, South > Carolina. I know how much John's "Harry Potter" friends (and on- > line chats) ment to him and I'd like to be sure that everyone that > was in contact with John thru the website realize that they played > a very special part in his life. (he may not have said it > that way exactly, but you know what I mean) > If you could pass this message on, I would appreciate it. > ======== Oh, my -- I am catching up here and was saddened to read this. I didn't have much contact with John, but saw him on the lists. It is always so shocking to here that a "cyber-friend" is gone! I wonder if there is some way we can convey our condolences to his family? -- Judy From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 03:02:09 2005 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:02:09 -0800 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker References: Message-ID: <017d01c510af$3e6d5140$01fea8c0@...> I hope so. I wasn't as familiar with John as some but his name was always a welcome addition to my inbox. Saitaina **** "You may now kiss the. . . groom in a dress." "If you're going to sing in the shower, don't start with a song that begins with 'help'." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 03:03:01 2005 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:03:01 -0000 Subject: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is such sad news. I was fortunate to meet John in person at Nimbus. He let far too many of us pile into his car and drove us to the market (getting lost many times along the way), and seemed to thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to help us out. The most fun I had at Nimbus was hanging out with John, Caius and others in Gail and Lilac's hotel room and singing filks while John handed out the "Pickled Toad" awards (he had brought toad statues with him - a whole stack of them!). I was hoping to recreate that magic someday, but it will never be the same without John. I am saddened that he will not have the opportunity to filk Books 6 and 7, and that we won't have the opportunity to sing them. He will surely be missed. ~Phyllis From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 03:30:33 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:30:33 -0000 Subject: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oh my gosh...Constance, thank you for telling us. I'm in disbelief, so very sad to hear this. I never knew John personally, but I sure knew him from the group, definitely one of those stand-out people, and I've always been a fan of his filks. I've heard so many good things about him from those who did know him; I'm sad I'll never get to meet him. As Phyllis said, he will surely be missed... --Kelley From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 03:34:07 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:34:07 +1100 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter Message-ID: <20050212033407.GB5523@...> Thankyou Carolyn for those interesting threads, some very thought-provoking ideas. Mmm, in the time I've been on these lists, it surprises me how little standard criticism there is! By "standard", I mean of the sort that Porphyria employed. I recognise there was always a matter of culture shock (surprisingly little to this older Australian perhaps), and a lot of deliberate archaism to be sorted out, and so in some respects that these questions were asked early (Carolyn's msgs run from Jan-Jul 2002) is no surprise, but they are not more developed is just as interesting. Naturally we are fans, and prefer to immerse ourselves in the Stimmung (excellent word!) JKR has dreamed up for us, and seem to prefer questioning the internal logic of characters. But insofar as we are trying to see where JKR may be going, the external logic of the story must be also examined, and we should not shy from that. Are the Lit. Crit. establishment merely waiting to pounce on post-Potter work while avoiding serious examination of the Opus? I do wonder - there's a lot of pseudo-crit about, but the standard of Richard Adams is lacking. Or, as I suspect, are they Tolkienizing Potter, deeming JKR to be another collector of olde childish things, of the sort that amuse the fickle Publick? Does Potter need defending like that, if at all? Archaism is a good starting point, because it references many other notable aspects of WW society. The Point to it (a few Points actually), is that the WW is an alternate non-scientific society. As if medieval metaphysics and alchemy had survived relatively unscathed (more oddly, essentially unchanged) because magic had been found to be the way forward, except here we have a bifurcation with one side of Western culture staying underground with the secret societies and mystery cults of the 17th century, and the other towards the brave new world we now inhabit. JKR is saying such a society wouldn't change all that much, but it is obviously under enough external pressure to now be cracking. The Harry-Voldemort conflict, while polarizing the WW, is still an archaic struggle. The class war, exemplified by Dobby and not a few other disgruntled magical creatures, is clearly not. Dobby and his leading SPEW advocate, Hermione, are meant to put us in mind of modern labour struggles, and Fudge is a quintessential Chamberlain. To standard criticism, it might seem obviously a bizarre mix of medievalism and postmodern culture filching; on the other hand, you could ask why, for instance, is British Royalty so fascinating to Americans? Why do Australians like myself instinctively latch on to the class assumptions inherent in the WW? In other words, the Old World is still with us, we've only just painted the New World over it. 200-old years of industrialism hasn't quite stamped out the assumptions of feudalism yet. The WW problem, seen from a Muggle viewpoint, is that magic is a Bad Idea, a dangerous Power that must be contained else an evil one will wield it, like nuclear capability. Such an evil one has appeared, but we aren't given the response of the Muggle PM, although we can probably guess it ("fix it or we'll fix YOU"). Integration of the WW internally and externally with the Muggle world is seen from the WW side as an unscalable cliff face, but the impending alternative is cultural implosion. A divided WW may be just the thing for an ambitious Muggle PM. These conflicts are merely implied by the Opus, JKR doesn't even begin to hint whether they even merit resolution; perhaps she will allow the H-V denoument to suggest the WW may be facing up to such an integration. Are there integral religious aspects to the WW? Certainly we're meant to examine redemption, sacrifice, and not a little situational ethics (which somehow philosophy hasn't quite wrested from religions grasp). I think it's a bit glib though to paint Harry as a Christ-figure, however superficially persuasive. Religious certainties would have to pale in the face of a Snape, to say nothing of the self-contradictory Harry. To the standard lit. critter, Voldemort is altogether too remote a figure. With a bwaha here and a bwaha there, and a 'nurture gone wrong' backstory, he comes perilously at times to panto. Beelzebub he ain't, although he tries hard. So perhaps we are meant to look more closely at the conflicted middle rather than the certain extremes. But when we step back from the characters, we're still left with that Manichean duality of the bright swords vs. the green fire. (Why green? Why couldn't the AK be red? Spoils the symbology, what?). Normal lit. crit. projection defence mechanisms come into play here by deeming the whole thing 'confused'. Back to the class war: how we react to it is the interesting thing. In real life, we still pretend class is a thing of the past, when of course it isn't and pervasively so. You don't need a belief in massive social conspiracies to see that. Apply it to the WW and we are confronted with the same bemusement of Ron, the same quiet rage of Hermione, the careless glee of Dobby and the despairing shame of Winky. What answer do we give her? Interesting that Harry refrains from entering that debate. It is one of the cleverest parts of Potter that JKR gave us an alternate society to mirror our own concerns. She paints the Muggle world as a endless dreary Suburb, of people so concerned to be Equal they are nothing much at all. The WW is ultimate from-birth-to-grave inequality, impossible to be otherwise, yet under sure strain of the outlook of the New Witch and Wizard. Are we meant to think it's too easy to make a grey blob of society while assured we are free from the old-world order? Politics naturally comes into such discussions but I think real-world events are beginning to teach us how much of a cultural phenonemon politics are. Because it is not such a stretch to see Hermionie as a cultural imperialist. Or Ron as an unconscious feudalist. Is this the stuff that book 6 will hopefully either dispense with or finally address, or does JKR even need to? Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 08:31:54 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:31:54 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" > wrote: > > > Neri wonders who is the personification of conspiracy theories, and > > how he/she would get along with Faith > > Suspicion--a decidedly ratty sort of fellow, although oddly enough, > he is often very well-dressed as he is able to pass in the best of > circles, even dominating them at times. Equally at home in a tuxedo > and a nice set of rags. > > The inestimable Paul Ricoeur set those two up as perpetually feuding > siblings back in the early 70's, and there is considerably worse we > could do than to follow his lead. > > -Nora admits to being a professional fan of the hermeneutics of > faith, as well Dumbledum and Dumbledee `Contrariwise,if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 13:50:13 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:50:13 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: <20050212033407.GB5523@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Thankyou Carolyn for those interesting threads, some very thought- provoking > ideas. > > > Mmm, in the time I've been on these lists, it surprises me how little standard > criticism there is! > > > By "standard", I mean of the sort that Porphyria employed. I recognise there > was always a matter of culture shock (surprisingly little to this older > Australian perhaps), and a lot of deliberate archaism to be sorted out, and so > in some respects that these questions were asked early (Carolyn's msgs run > from Jan-Jul 2002) is no surprise, but they are not more developed is just as > interesting. > > Naturally we are fans, and prefer to immerse ourselves in the Stimmung > (excellent word!) JKR has dreamed up for us, and seem to prefer questioning > the internal logic of characters. But insofar as we are trying to see where > JKR may be going, the external logic of the story must be also examined, and > we should not shy from that. > > > Sean > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." Disclaimer I have no background in lit crit, formal or otherwise. I am not sure what you mean by `external logic' but thought that the following might be applicable ball park wise. If not please accept apologies in advance. I am aware that some styles demand the inclusion of `in my opinion', `it can be seen as', `one interpretation is', `it is possible to propose', on reflection however, I can't be arsed with all that. If your tastes run that way then I firmly encourage you to move on and read something less hypertension provoking. I do not believe what follows is necessarily true, accurate or more valid then other viewpoints. Do I care? Nah. I once considered why stories of the fantasy genre are generally set in a feudal world and decided it was probably because there were no organised financial institutions. In feudal times Kings went into battle besides their foot soldiers, sharing a moral belief system, requiring a commitment to their right to rule (if not the individual then to the role). In other words the themes of power, authority, morality and action remain directly, observably linked, there is no abstraction via the commercial world. If the writer is interested in an absolute embodiment of these themes (usually in reference to a personal journey) then this era will suit their purposes. Ambiguous stories on the other hand rest more easily in a Modern world. Here power, morality and action are more fragmented and less transparent. King-like figures operate in isolation in an arch villain Bond type way and foot soldiers are also free agents in a cold war spy style. Much more scope for intrigue, multiple betrayal, shady moral behaviour etc. If the writer is interested in a more complex portrayal of the themes, their relation to each other and the individual then this era works for them. HP however is set in a Post Modern world where morality has, for some, become entirely divorced from other concerns. This separation is expressed in the magical/muggle divide. The magical world represent the moral sphere whereas the muggle world represents the political sphere. The muggle world is grey, conformist, material and without substance. Although in the books magic is an inherited trait it is not dependent on who your parents are and JKR is giving the reader the choice of which world he/she wishes to inhabit or identify with. She is essentially saying morality is a choice take it or leave it. Within the magical moral world there is conflict, there has always been conflict, there will always be conflict. How was it resolved in the past, how will it be resolved in the future? These are the questions which drive the action. These are the questions on which we are being encouraged to speculate. As we stand at present we (both the readers and Harry) do not have sufficient information to answer these questions. We have clues however. General perceptions are that previous conflict will significantly inform future behaviour and therefore outcome. The how, the what, the when and the where of those previous actions are hotly debated. We have two major signalled, but not elaborated on, events. The Hogwarts founders fallout and the events at Godric's Hollow. Resolution of the former was achieved by the banishment but not destruction of the bad (Salazar Slytherin). The outcome was persistent internalised conflict, represented by the division of the school houses and a legacy of suppressed expression as represented by the chamber of secrets. Resolution of the later was achieved by the partial but not complete destruction of the bad (Voldemort). The outcome was more unresolved animosity (on both sides) and the continued subversion of `dark' magic. Some (not mainstream) speculation has proposed that additional complications were created at that time. The present conflict should therefore have a different strategy in order to provoke a different, and hopefully more positive, outcome. One such strategy would be to move from dualism to pluralism. Dualism gives us the eternal two sided conflict re-enacted through generations. Participants must choose either one belief system or the other. In HP terms you are either with Slytherin or you aren't. Pluralism whilst acknowledging the existence of good and evil recognises that they aren't inherent in any single unified belief system. In HP terms you can be both a member of Slytherin House and a member of Hogwarts. Pluralism allows you to condemn the offence without condemning the offender. Hogwarts is the home of pluralism. Its ethos is cooperation, communication, forgiveness, trust, tolerance and redemption. It is the place for second chances. The house to which you are assigned does not determine your moral choices, those are individual. Subscribe to the school philosophy and all will be well. Even those unable to coexist within the school because of temperament or individual needs have a space of their own, the Forbidden Forest, outside the school itself but within the grounds: Dragons scorch you Spiders thrive Unicorns fix you You might survive Home to the dispossessed, the discarded and the downright dangerous it is anarchical but not amoral. I like to think of it as Hogwarts equivalent to Australia (joke). Hogwarts is ailing however, the first conflict left its poison. An inability to effectively teach DADA, inter house conflict and individual vendettas which spill out into the greater magical world. The second conflict is, at least in part, a result of the poison from the first, it did not resolve any of the long term issues indeed it may have exacerbated these. From this perspective our saga will be complete only when the poison is flushed from the Hogwarts system. The moral world must learn from past mistakes, balance must be restored. What though of the magical/muggle divide? Will this also be addressed? Does JKR truly believe that muggles are essentially laughable, pitiable but mostly harmless. Is the balance of existence ok if morality operates separately from the mundane? I am rationally amoral but by nature morally inclined. I would dearly love JKR to address the above because I, for one, could do with some guidance. Regards Jo From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 15:10:59 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:10:59 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: References: <20050212033407.GB5523@...> Message-ID: <20050212151059.GB13758@...> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:50:13PM -0000, mooseming wrote: > HP however is set in a Post Modern world where morality has, for > some, become entirely divorced from other concerns. This separation > is expressed in the magical/muggle divide. The magical world > represent the moral sphere whereas the muggle world represents the > political sphere. The muggle world is grey, conformist, material and > without substance. Although in the books magic is an inherited trait > it is not dependent on who your parents are and JKR is giving the > reader the choice of which world he/she wishes to inhabit or > identify with. She is essentially saying morality is a choice take > it or leave it. Yes, I think HP thoroughly postmodern. It has that bright patchwork of goodies the bowerbird collects, as much for contrast as a reminder that the past is not truly always behind us. But if the WW represents anything, probably more as a world with real meaning; the kind of world that makes more sense to a child, although it has rapidly taken on aspects of the world left behind as the series has continued, and that is deliberate, and is meant to be sad in some ways. I also think it more likely that the WW would think its morality superior to Muggles; Voldemort is the exception that proves the rule. Given the Muggle propensity to blow up anything and anyone they don't agree with, wizards are laid back by comparison, but it doesn't make them any more ethical. > We have two major signalled, but not elaborated on, events. The > Hogwarts founders fallout and the events at Godric's Hollow. Neither of which are fully or satisfiably explained. The Hogwarts Founders Fallout is the more vexing, it would be expected to be baseline knowledge to the students. But we are meant to believe that Harry has no head for history, which becomes less and less convenient. > Resolution of the former was achieved by the banishment but not > destruction of the bad (Salazar Slytherin). The outcome was > persistent internalised conflict, represented by the division of the > school houses and a legacy of suppressed expression as represented > by the chamber of secrets. Resolution of the later was achieved by > the partial but not complete destruction of the bad (Voldemort). The > outcome was more unresolved animosity (on both sides) and the > continued subversion of `dark' magic. Some (not mainstream) > speculation has proposed that additional complications were created > at that time. The present conflict should therefore have a different > strategy in order to provoke a different, and hopefully more > positive, outcome. If memory serves, Salazar was not banished, but 'went solo'. We aren't told what happened afterwards anyway, but this seems more destablizing than a hearty 'get thee hence' from the surviving bandmembers. Another thing for book 6 to hopefully resolve. Given the need for symmetry, perhaps Slytherin amassed sundry forces of darkness and the WW had it's first major split along these same lines, until DD's antecedent temporarily resolved the problem. It begins to make some theories more viable in this case. > Hogwarts is the home of pluralism. Its ethos is cooperation, > communication, forgiveness, trust, tolerance and redemption. It is > the place for second chances. The house to which you are assigned > does not determine your moral choices, those are individual. > Subscribe to the school philosophy and all will be well. Sounds nice, but it's not so pluralistic for Winky is it? Otherwise Hogwarts seems to exemplify the source of the WW middle class. House elves are themselves almost anachronistic within the WW, is it not strange that Hogwarts does not gently retrain the elves to be free? Isn't that what they should want? You see what gentle and not-so-gentle jabs JKR can make and have Hermione take the heat for it. > Even those unable to coexist within the school because of > temperament or individual needs have a space of their own, the > Forbidden Forest, outside the school itself but within the grounds: > > Dragons scorch you > Spiders thrive > Unicorns fix you > You might survive > > Home to the dispossessed, the discarded and the downright dangerous > it is anarchical but not amoral. I like to think of it as Hogwarts > equivalent to Australia (joke). I'm afraid Fudge is in charge down here; Umbridge is running the detention centres. But I liked the Dorothy Parker filk :) And technically the Forbidden Forest is a kind of approved sanctuary, but don't tell the centaurs I said that! JKR very carefully wrote _Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them_ and there's important backstory from it relevant to the Forest. > Hogwarts is ailing however, the first conflict left its poison. An > inability to effectively teach DADA, inter house conflict and > individual vendettas which spill out into the greater magical > world. The second conflict is, at least in part, a result of the > poison from the first, it did not resolve any of the long term > issues indeed it may have exacerbated these. From this perspective > our saga will be complete only when the poison is flushed from the > Hogwarts system. The moral world must learn from past mistakes, > balance must be restored. My view is that JKR is as likely to leave the bigger picture unresolved if it allows Harry's to be finalized. Unexplained vistas are useful to the world's realism as Tolkien once said. Didn't fool anyone though. > What though of the magical/muggle divide? Will this also be > addressed? Does JKR truly believe that muggles are essentially > laughable, pitiable but mostly harmless. Is the balance of existence > ok if morality operates separately from the mundane? I once rather unfairly made Harry responsible for solving this dilemma. It is after all a conceit of the WW that Muggles be seen that way, but the more intelligent wizards remember the witchhunts. Remember that the worlds are carefully kept seperate, on both sides, for good reasons like witchhunts and extremests. The Fudges of both sides eagerly trample their own people to avoid any fateful meeting. It's questions like these that make me wonder how JKR will ever meet such expectations. > I am rationally amoral but by nature morally inclined. I would > dearly love JKR to address the above because I, for one, could do > with some guidance. Amen to that. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 15:14:52 2005 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:14:52 -0000 Subject: Haggridd Message-ID: It has been good therapy for me to read you guys' remembrances of Our Good Doc. Some people have been asking me if there is some way to read the family. I'm going to break the rules a bit and post the personal email address of his cousin JoAnn Struebing in case some of you might want to pass on some condolences. I'm sure she would be glad to know how much we all loved Haggridd. CV Off topic: There is currently a play being presented at the Los Angeles Music Center called "The Goat or Who Is Sylvia" about a man who falls in love with a goat. I can't help but think that the playwrite must be a member of our list. Hey! How about "The Goat or Who Is Sylvia, the Musical!" From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 15:37:16 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:37:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: <20050212033407.GB5523@...> Message-ID: <20050212153716.29532.qmail@...> I agree with many of your points listed below. I often wonder about the allusions to World War 2, and the direct references to "the Great Elf Rebellion" and the power of elves against wizards once it is unleashed (Dobby vs. Mr. Malfoy). Dobby obviously represents the poor people on this earth who do all the thankless jobs. During World War 2, those same people fought alongside the middleclass and maybe even a few upper class. This was the great equalizer when you consider the poor person's ability to fight evil was just as valid as the next person's. I see the references to the "Great Elf Rebellion" and I think that the ending must involve another one in which the poor are again asked to make the greatest sacrifices to end tyranny just like they did in World War 2. Having grown up in America during the Cold War, I find it remarkable that the US and Russia could work together to stop the Nazis. Obviously when everything is on the line, huge differences in beliefs can be overlooked to fight a common foe. I think the Elves, the Giants, the Wizards, (represented in the statue at the Ministry of Magic is an overt symbol of this alliance to end the tyranny of Voldemort. I get the feeling that JKR wishes to assert the importance of the "little people" (pun intended). Perhaps those in Britain understand class struggle to a much greater degree than those in the US. I see the class divide growing larger every year in the US. I think the divide was smaller after World War 2, but the lessons have been lost over the years as the WW2 generation passes away. People may make fun of these books as pure childish fantasy, but I think there are important themes being discussed just like in Gulliver's Travels. Randy --- Sean Dwyer wrote: >. > > Naturally we are fans, and prefer to immerse > ourselves in the Stimmung > (excellent word!) JKR has dreamed up for us, and > seem to prefer questioning > the internal logic of characters. But insofar as we > are trying to see where > JKR may be going, the external logic of the story > must be also examined, and > we should not shy from that. > > > > Archaism is a good starting point, because it > references many other notable > aspects of WW society. The Point to it (a few Points > actually), is that the WW > is an alternate non-scientific society. As if > medieval metaphysics and alchemy > had survived relatively unscathed (more oddly, > essentially unchanged) because > magic had been found to be the way forward, except > here we have a bifurcation > with one side of Western culture staying underground > with the secret societies > and mystery cults of the 17th century, and the other > towards the brave new > world we now inhabit. JKR is saying such a society > wouldn't change all that > much, but it is obviously under enough external > pressure to now be cracking. > The Harry-Voldemort conflict, while polarizing the > WW, is still an archaic > struggle. The class war, exemplified by Dobby and > not a few other disgruntled > magical creatures, is clearly not. Dobby and his > leading SPEW advocate, > Hermione, are meant to put us in mind of modern > labour struggles, and Fudge is > a quintessential Chamberlain. To standard criticism, > it might seem obviously a > bizarre mix of medievalism and postmodern culture > filching; on the other hand, > you could ask why, for instance, is British Royalty > so fascinating to > Americans? Why do Australians like myself > instinctively latch on to the class > assumptions inherent in the WW? In other words, the > Old World is still with > us, we've only just painted the New World over it. > 200-old years of > industrialism hasn't quite stamped out the > assumptions of feudalism yet. > > The WW problem, seen from a Muggle viewpoint, is > that magic is a Bad Idea, a > dangerous Power that must be contained else an evil > one will wield it, like > nuclear capability. Such an evil one has appeared, > but we aren't given the > response of the Muggle PM, although we can probably > guess it ("fix it or we'll > fix YOU"). Integration of the WW internally and > externally with the Muggle > world is seen from the WW side as an unscalable > cliff face, but the impending > alternative is cultural implosion. A divided WW may > be just the thing for an > ambitious Muggle PM. These conflicts are merely > implied by the Opus, JKR > doesn't even begin to hint whether they even merit > resolution; perhaps she > will allow the H-V denoument to suggest the WW may > be facing up to such an > integration. > > Are there integral religious aspects to the WW? > Certainly we're meant to > examine redemption, sacrifice, and not a little > situational ethics (which > somehow philosophy hasn't quite wrested from > religions grasp). I think it's a > bit glib though to paint Harry as a Christ-figure, > however superficially > persuasive. Religious certainties would have to pale > in the face of a Snape, > to say nothing of the self-contradictory Harry. To > the standard lit. critter, > Voldemort is altogether too remote a figure. With a > bwaha here and a bwaha > there, and a 'nurture gone wrong' backstory, he > comes perilously at times to > panto. Beelzebub he ain't, although he tries hard. > So perhaps we are meant to > look more closely at the conflicted middle rather > than the certain extremes. > But when we step back from the characters, we're > still left with that > Manichean duality of the bright swords vs. the green > fire. (Why green? Why > couldn't the AK be red? Spoils the symbology, > what?). Normal lit. crit. > projection defence mechanisms come into play here by > deeming the whole thing > 'confused'. > > Back to the class war: how we react to it is the > interesting thing. In real > life, we still pretend class is a thing of the past, > when of course it isn't > and pervasively so. You don't need a belief in > massive social conspiracies to > see that. Apply it to the WW and we are confronted > with the same bemusement of > Ron, the same quiet rage of Hermione, the careless > glee of Dobby and the > despairing shame of Winky. What answer do we give > her? Interesting that Harry > refrains from entering that debate. It is one of the > cleverest parts of Potter > that JKR gave us an alternate society to mirror our > own concerns. She paints > the Muggle world as a endless dreary Suburb, of > people so concerned to be > Equal they are nothing much at all. The WW is > ultimate from-birth-to-grave > inequality, impossible to be otherwise, yet under > sure strain of the outlook > of the New Witch and Wizard. Are we meant to think > it's too easy to make a > grey blob of society while assured we are free from > the old-world order? > Politics naturally comes into such discussions but I > think real-world events > are beginning to teach us how much of a cultural > phenonemon politics are. > Because it is not such a stretch to see Hermionie as > a cultural imperialist. > Or Ron as an unconscious feudalist. > > Is this the stuff that book 6 will hopefully either > dispense with or finally > address, or does JKR even need to? > > Sean > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the > same people you do." > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 18:07:39 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:07:39 -0000 Subject: OT Re: Haggridd, good friend and legendary filker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amy Z. wrote: > During a very hard few months in my life, he sent me the entire > Discworld oeuvre in installments, delighting vicariously in my > discovery--he wished he could read them all for the first time > again. I don't know if I ever told him what a lifeline they were. > I have a little wind-up Death I have been meaning to send him, since > it looks like one of our favorite characters. I hope the Death of > the Discworld was there to greet him and say something amusing. Ginger: He sent me a number of them as well. I had tried calling last week to ask him a question about one of the books, and when he didn't answer, I assumed he was out visiting someone. I had hoped he was having a good time. I still hope the same. Your line about the Death of the Discworld greeting him was much needed amusement as I am still crying. I am now going to imagine their potential conversations and laugh as I did when conversing with Haggridd, remembering him as he was: someone who always made me laugh until I hurt. Take care everyone, Ginger From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 19:32:36 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:32:36 -0000 Subject: The nature of Faith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri: > OK, I'll rephrase my previous statement a bit. Building a theory is > basically the act of deciding which canon details to sweep under the > carpet and which to set above it. This choice is inevitable. There > are much too many suspicious and uncomfortable details in the HP > saga to ever be explained in just two books. Which details are important and fundamental, perhaps (Dahlhaus' criteria, combined with 'studying what can be studied'). A survivable theory has to take guesses as to what matters and is thus likely going to be supported or expanded upon in some way. Otherwise you end up in that uncomfortable limbo-land of "It hasn't been excluded, so it's possible", with things that are untestable and thus might be nice as speculation but cannot be made to relate to what we got. > Neri: > Faith doesn't have a lot to say about ANYTHING, unless we sincerely > ask her for her opinion and really listen to her. If we won't, she > doesn't give a damn. Why should she? It is not her, but you and I > who cling to our rickety theories in the middle of the bay with > Hurricane Jo looming on the horizon. If you believe the analysis > above will save you from drowning coming July 16th, cling hard to > it. But perhaps I should warn you that Faith was reading it over my > shoulder, and right now she's in the other room having an > uncontrollable laughing fit. She can be quite annoying, that way. It seems to me that Faith is wary of some analyses of big themes because she's the person sitting there going "Do we really KNOW all of that yet? That requires plugging a hole here, here, and here...I guess you can do it, but...". For me, Faith is the incarnation of a peculiar mixture of the hermeneutics of faith (trying to understand an author on his own terms first, the Verstehen principle) and the belief in evidentiary standards--and its younger sibling, the idea that the more evidence you can make sense out of, the better you're doing. Faith is a tough bitch of a taskmaster. She really likes lots of footnotes. She's not a New Critic, but she close-reads everything. Some might fault her for her willingness to set aside lines of inquiry too quickly, but it's just because she's looking for what's more significant; if the author says Snape isn't a vampire, then Snape isn't a vampire. :) -Nora gets in a Shakespearean mood From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 19:56:10 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:56:10 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: <20050212151059.GB13758@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > Yes, I think HP thoroughly postmodern. It has that bright patchwork of goodies > the bowerbird collects, as much for contrast as a reminder that the past is > not truly always behind us. But if the WW represents anything, probably more > as a world with real meaning; the kind of world that makes more sense to a > child, although it has rapidly taken on aspects of the world left behind as > the series has continued, and that is deliberate, and is meant to be sad in > some ways. I also think it more likely that the WW would think its morality > superior to Muggles; Voldemort is the exception that proves the rule. Given > the Muggle propensity to blow up anything and anyone they don't agree with, > wizards are laid back by comparison, but it doesn't make them any more > ethical. > I think you have misunderstood me (my bad I'm sure!). I take post- modern to be a rejection of absolutes including morality, there is no definable good/bad or right/wrong. Everything depends on perspective. By isolating the WW from the real world JKR can explore the moral dimension without addressing the more gnarly contemporary debates surrounding power, equality and responsibility whilst *at the same time* not denying those debates. The WW itself is modern not post-modern. Good and bad do exist as identifiable attainable concepts. Our ability to be good is a function of our desire to be so and our comprehension of the choices available. The plurality of the WW is an attempt to re-create paradise and assumes there is such a thing to be attained. > > Sounds nice, but it's not so pluralistic for Winky is it? Otherwise Hogwarts > seems to exemplify the source of the WW middle class. House elves are > themselves almost anachronistic within the WW, is it not strange that Hogwarts > does not gently retrain the elves to be free? Isn't that what they should > want? You see what gentle and not-so-gentle jabs JKR can make and have > Hermione take the heat for it. This is exactly the problem post-modernists have. No matter how hard you try you can't please everyone! What is good for some is not good for others. The house elves are a useful case, are we to believe Dobby or Winky? If we do what is right for one will we harm the other, who has the right to choose? DD's behaviour is another example, he encourages students to engage in dangerous tasks, children have died in the triwizard tournament and yet freedom and risk are, in certain circumstances good, overprotection, bad. The pluralistic model also depends on the existence of the FF. It assumes you can do something right for those destructive to the majority. Take that option away and your paradise begins to unravel. What rights for Aragog then? > > > > What though of the magical/muggle divide? Will this also be > > addressed? Does JKR truly believe that muggles are essentially > > laughable, pitiable but mostly harmless. Is the balance of existence > > ok if morality operates separately from the mundane? > > I once rather unfairly made Harry responsible for solving this dilemma. It is > after all a conceit of the WW that Muggles be seen that way, but the more > intelligent wizards remember the witchhunts. Remember that the worlds are > carefully kept seperate, on both sides, for good reasons like witchhunts and > extremests. The Fudges of both sides eagerly trample their own people to avoid > any fateful meeting. It's questions like these that make me wonder how JKR > will ever meet such expectations. > Ah but those witch hunts weren't dangerous, the flames simply tickled. The separation maybe provident for the WW but is that true of the muggle world. Are moralists apart? Damn the infidels and all that. Can muggles be seen as mostly harmless and expendable? In which case doesn't that make Salazar right? Regards Jo From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 23:06:55 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:06:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Original Order of the Phoenix (was Re: Sevvy Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212230655.7051.qmail@...> --- Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Why did he form the original Order and why choose the members he > did? The majority were Aurors fighting Voldy already, and they > still kept on losing even after joining DD. But the minority > faction - ah! now that's interesting - the Marauders, Lily and > Hagrid - plus Snape as a later addition. > Why take all 4 Marauders? Not a package deal, was it? > Different levels of skill, differing backgrounds, maybe different > loyalties. But unless they plus Lily are involved there will be no > Weapon!Harry. Voldy will win. Forever. > > Kneasy I lean towards Red Hen's theory that the original Order was put together to guard the two infants who turned out to be the subjects of Trelawney's prophecy: Harry and Neville. Had a third or fourth infant been born at the end of June that year, their parents would probably been enrolled as well. Yes I do think the Marauders were a "package deal". No one in their right mind, let alone Dumbledore, would have taken Pettigrew on board without some kind of other reason than just his willingness to join. Or Sirius for that matter. Pettigrew a(n apparent) star-struck James-fanatic and Sirius a reckless go-it-alone sort who had too much faith in his own instincts. I'm not sure that Snape was a part of the Order's work: I think Dumbledore was running spies and passing info to the MoM before he set up the Order, and the two very different activities were kept apart. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 13 00:29:29 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:29:29 -0000 Subject: The Original Order of the Phoenix (was Re: Sevvy Question) In-Reply-To: <20050212230655.7051.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Magda: > I lean towards Red Hen's theory that the original Order was put > together to guard the two infants who turned out to be the subjects > of Trelawney's prophecy: Harry and Neville Neri: This is an interesting notion I haven't considered before. The problem I see with it is the prophecy words: "born to those who thrice defied him". This implies that the defying was already done when Trelawney spoke these words, as DD indeed confirms: "It meant that... this boy would be born to parents who had already defied Voldemort three times" (OotP, Ch. 37). Now, Frank and Alice could have "narrowly escaped" Voldy three times as a part of their job as aurors, but did James and Lily do that as a hobby? Three times? It seems much more probable that it was during Order operations. Neri From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 13 04:33:48 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:33:48 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Internal logic and standard criticism (Re: lit. crit. and Potter) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050213043348.GC13758@...> On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:28:27AM -0000, iris_ft wrote: > Hi all, > I don't know if my reply really follows the original thread, but the > two posts I've quoted remind me of something I noticed when I > started lurking through the HP fandom: it was like a "literary > closet". Tell me I'm biased, that what I write is a caricature, but > that's the way it appeared to me: there was the Potterworld and > nothing else, it was as if it had come from a literary big bang, as > if it was born from a "Fiat lux". Ahem. Both were my fault, actually, don't blame Carolyn for my weak sense of humour :) > If you wanted to analyze the books, you needed to remain exclusively > into "the canon database", and to use your own experience, nothing > more. External considerations sounded like attacks. > By "external considerations", I mean any attempt to analyze the > series from an academic point of view, with references to other > works, for example. > As if being a fan meant being locked up in an exclusive, hermetic > system, without any contact with what was around > I remember several discussions on HPfGU about what people > called "Metathinking". It generally came after someone had come > aboard with some analyze based upon references to previous literary > or artistic or philosophic or psychoanalytic sources "It's too far > fetched, this is Metathinking" > Vade retro Metathinking Vade retro standard critcism People who rally behind someone's work tend to be defensive when criticised. You have to understand the shock at the success of a _children's book_, and the apparent witchhunting DNA of certain Christian organizations. Given these factors, it's not surprising the baby sailed out with the bathwater (wheeeee!), and metathinking was frowned upon, particularly as it tended to generalize off-topic to the main list (cf. the canon rule). I don't think that's so bad a thing. But the overenthusiastic panning by some quarters seems to have had a chilling effect on general criticism, which IS a Bad Thing, regardless of whether that seeps onto HPfGU lists. There are other reasons, see below. > I agree with the interest of questioning the internal logic of the > characters and situations; as JKR writes about human kind, it's > quite normal if we tend to analyze the series according to what we > feel, what we remember, etc, when we read the books. > But there's something we can't deny (it wouldn't be very wise, IMO): > every work of art comes from other ones, and it also applies to the > Harry Potter series. Nothing will be allowed to descend from Potter sadly, unless they're licensed by the copyright owners. > I don't see any contradiction between reacting with my own > experience to what I read in these books (let's say that's the > emotional level of the series, to simplify), or trying to guess > what's coming next, and analyzing what JKR writes from a cultural > perspective (let's call it the intellectual level). Indeed I'll make a wild generalization with Dickens here: key to the influence he had was the serialization of his novels in cheap newspapers. If JKR wanted to make some social points she garnered the widest platform of any author since Dickens, not least of which is the influence on children which tends to knock-on to parents. Of course this spells Gravy Train in flaming letters a thousand feet high over the Forbidden Forest to some people. But does the HP series yet claim to make a cultural impact? My argument here is that it might have done much more, but I fear unlikely because of the dogged commercialism the whole package is wrapped in. It doesn't stop me from enjoying the books, or from commenting on them here. But like another consumer item, it stops when it's consumed. It's not unique in the literary world, but it's the most alarming development. I don't want to be misunderstood here: I'm not claiming that artistic merit is extinguished necessarily by commercial success. But the nature of the control over the works is unprecedented; the only parallel I can draw is with the music industry, and even there, their contracts are always renegotiable. This is not a small issue for the media, it makes them very wary. Dickens policed attempts to take over his successful franchise too. But his basic ideas and plots were never quarantined as JKR's are now. > I don't believe that trying to recognize the influences that gave > birth to the series is despising JKR's work and originality, on the > very contrary. I consider it's like a tribute to her vast knowledge > and sharp mind, to her ability to create something new from a pre- > existent material. This ability is the mark of the true artist, IMO. > We all are able to acquire knowledge and culture, but the capacity > of creating something from what we know isn't given to everyone. > That's why I'm glad every time I think I recognize a sparkle of > Harry's magic in a book, a movie or an encyclopaedia, in whatever > makes what I call culture. > I'm glad to see where it might come from. I think it's a comforting > idea: it gives the books a kind of lineage, and puts them in the > position of potential seeds for other creations. One teeny tiny problem with that: you don't _ever_ want to cross Bloomsbury, Scholastic or Warner Bros. There will be no potential seeds from this creation if it can at all be proved in a court of law, fanfic notwithstanding. The media response to the book 6 promotion efforts will be *fascinating*, given their fury at the constraints placed upon them the last time the machine was in action. And here you can guess at another reason why we don't see a lot of lit. crit. about the Potterverse. Noone wants their dissertation vetted by the publisher. > So what? Does it make the magic vanish? I don't think so. And it > doesn't split either our "fandom". Harry's magic is also his > capacity to be a private interlocutor for million people, whatever > they know about him. That's why analyzing the books from "an > exterior perspective" is IMO necessary, and doesn't spoil JKR's > original creation. It simply makes us enter a wider place, and gives > us the true magnitude of her work. A fair question, whatever exterior perspective is chosen, is whether the point is meaningful. I just made an artificial connection between Dickens and JKR, was it meaningful or necessary? Both were exceedingly commercially successful, Dickens, Shakespeare and the Bible are JKR's only rivals, does that mean we should make such connections? There have been a fair number of Tolkien connections (noone seems to have gotten my Tolkienisation pun, oh well), and look how eager lit. crit. is to embrace his work! Is it a problem with the fantasy genre? It probably has something to do with it, but I'd argue that Potterverse has become too big for one genre, it has ascended to that holy of holies, general literature, even more reason why it should be analysed as such. Let's take an example or two, which so far haven't been deemed verboten: say the creation of fanciful animals. This enduring pastime of Europe since time immemorial cannot be claimed as invention by any one artist, so it's probably safe to make comparisons with JKR's menagerie. Funny pseudo-botanical latin is perfectly free too. Ricky Gervais' Flanimals is probably familiar to British readers (we poor Aussies only heard about it last night on a long-delayed Parky), and follows much the same formula. No problem there. Silly invented or rewritten histories, well Tolkien is the obvious reference, but it's been a popular though obscure technique used often by caricaturists (I'm thinking here of 1066 And All That for example). Much children's literature has always used fantasy intermixed with the familiar reality to entertain or inform, so that's not a problem either. There are any number of universal themes addressed in the Potterverse which aren't exclusive either, and this is pure lit. crit. territory so you'd think they'd jump right in. So does anyone have an answer for me and Iris? Are we 'just not qualified' to make these criticisms, or is it too early to tell? -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 13 13:39:50 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:39:50 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > I think you have misunderstood me (my bad I'm sure!). I take post- > modern to be a rejection of absolutes including morality, there is > no definable good/bad or right/wrong. Everything depends on > perspective. By isolating the WW from the real world JKR can explore > the moral dimension without addressing the more gnarly contemporary > debates surrounding power, equality and responsibility whilst *at > the same time* not denying those debates. > > The WW itself is modern not post-modern. Good and bad do exist as > identifiable attainable concepts. Our ability to be good is a > function of our desire to be so and our comprehension of the choices > available. The plurality of the WW is an attempt to re-create > paradise and assumes there is such a thing to be attained. I've been reading this thread in a desultory sort of way - not being an enthusiast for lit. crit. type analysis means I can take it or leave it. I also have a sneaking suspicion that quite a lot of lit. crit. - and I'm speaking generally here, not specifically about HP - is based on false premises. It's assumed that what a reader takes from, or even perceives in a book is neither subjective interpretation nor an accidental or coincidental parallel or allusion arising solely from the requirement of getting characters from the start of the tale to the finish. They have to do something while they're in there, don't they? And as coming up with actions or interactions that are totally unique is asking a bit much, the comparison of arcs and threads to past literary or real world themes is pretty much ineluctable. Significance though; aye, there's the rub. Sure, it's possible to draw or leap to conclusions and authors may have intended that some of them should be drawn, but IMO you can have too much of a good thing - push it too far and you're in trouble, it starts to get messy, to fall apart into a macedoin of personal agendas. An example; HP as it might be seen from a certain political stance: It is patently obvious that the WW is a satiric indictment of the tendency of elites in societies to pervert the uses of technology for their own selfish ends and that oppression of the weak is the inevitable outcome. Valid interpretation - or a load of old cobblers? Couldn't give a toss either way, frankly. I'm too busy enjoying the way the words have been strung together on the page. If someone wants to equate DEs with fascism, House Elves with slavery, Goblins with the Peasants Revolt and Giants with the destruction of Amerind societies, well - it keeps 'em out of mischief, I suppose. Adds nothing to the books of course, may even detract. Expectations, indeed current certainties may not be fulfilled - probably disappointing some but cheering others. I think I'll stick to plot theories internal to the canon, thank you very much. Being right or wrong is a much more cut and dried affair there. Two quotes; neither from people I admire and with a bit of luck they'll have been taken out of context: "There is nothing outside the text." - Derrida. "Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art." - Sontag. Kneasy From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 13 21:49:26 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:49:26 -0000 Subject: fragons/American wizards/detective stories/Puppetmaster Message-ID: My word, this list has gotten ACTIVE since Kneasy joined. What will I give up to make time for it? Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1017 : << Dragons, now.Would the study of such be termed Dracology or Dragonetics? >> According to the title of a recent book that I haven't bought yet, it's Dragonology: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0763623296/qid=1108321782/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-5655853-2603367 Charme wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1041 : << such as a correlation or relation to the Norse word "draugr" thought to be related to the word we now know as "dragon." Draugrs were thought to live in the graves of dead Vikings, which is interesting since one of the myths associated with dragons is that they were purported to guard the graves of kings and possibly lends something to the historical belief dragons were drawn to collect gold and trinkets (e.g., king's treasures.) >> My friend Lee says something I can't quite remember about the word 'draco' comes from a Greek word meaning 'guard' and referred to a spirit guarding graves to punish grave-robbers. Doug aka Eustace_Scrubb wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1013 : << JKR foolishly encouraged me to continue when she stated on her website that "if anyone wants to write about American wizards they are of course free to write their own book!" >> Speaking (as Neri does below) of falling in love with one's own theories, I am irritated at JKR's very amusing depiction of wizarding North America being just like wizarding Britain except they play Quodpot instead of Quidditch. Because I'm in love with my own theory that wizarding North America, at least the USA part of it (I love the Canadianness of the Laurentian School's back story) is the Wizarding Wild West, no law except the fastest wand. See, in *my* Potterverse, the wizarding folk are much less inclined to emigrate than Muggles. JKR said many emigrated in hope that the New World would have less prejudice against wizards, but I think they aren't much troubled by prejudice against wizards in the Old World, because they're so good at staying hidden. And they're also good at meeting their material needs like food and clothing, so that wipes out two main motives for emigration. While leaving the motive of emigrating because pursued by Law Enforcement. And the Native American wizards who were already there would have taken two looks at how the European Muggles treated the Native American Muggles and immediately decided to stay hidden from the European wizards. So they never reached out to offer magical education to the muggle-born wizarding children of USA. (They educated their own children by apprenticeship, not by school) So USA magic was on a very primitive and self-taught level, and no wizarding government was formed. Until World War II. When some of the American soldiers in Britain were unknowing wizards. Who innocently caused some difficulty to the British wizards (e.g. accidentally dispelling the Muggle-dispelling spells). Who decided that the only solution was to seek out and educate the American wizards. Which led to enough mixed marriages that enough British witches (and wizards) 'returned' to USA with their new spouses to demand that wizarding schools be set up for their children. A great revivification to the two tiny wizarding schools that had been set up in colonial days and somehow hung on, New Hogwarts in New England and La Lycee Magie de Terranova in Louis-y-Anne-a, and foundation of new wizarding schools in California and Texas... But what can one expect from an author who omits the Thunderbird from Fabulous Beasts? (I believe the real Thunderbird, as known to Magizoologists, is the same as the real Coatl, a between-bird-and- reptile creature like they keep digging up in China, except with wingspan, depending on species within the genus, of 12 to 36 feet, and magic. Surely Muggles have already happened upon the remains of one of them, named Quetzalcoatlus northrupi? Carolyn asked Neri in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1027 : << Do you chuck away thrillers and detective novels once you know the ending, or are there any you revisit? >> As for me, when I used to be a big reader of detective stories and the occasional thriller, I never tried to figure out the mystery and never chucked the book away just because I'd read to the end and been told the solution. The ones I liked, I read over and over. I read them for the characters (often eccentric and implausible and humorous), and the settings (often exotic -- but to me, a chocolate factory clearly standing in for Hershey, an automobile company clearly standing in for American Motors, the Navajo Reservation, and 1930s England are ALL exotic), and the people had hopes and plans and were doing thing -- quite different from Real Literature, which at least in those days was about boring unpleasant suburban men who sat around complaining about how boring and unpleasant their boring and unpleasant lives were -- sometimes they considered murdering their wives or having an affair with a despised undergraduate, but if they ever did so, it was off-screen -- and they didn't enjoy it. Boyd wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1033 : << Ah, yes, the eternal HPfGU question: is DD a scheming Puppetmaster or merely a powerful wizard? Do we believe that DD is so smart that he has caused Weapon!Harry to be, or at least positioned him for success? The rebounded AK? Turncoat!Peter? Priori Incantatem? The prophecy, Harry's visions, Harry's victory in the MoM? All thanks to DD? >> There IS a puppetmaster of the Potterverse, and Her initials are JKR. As far as the characters and their world are concerned, She is God the Creator, and no sparrow falls except by Her intention. The characters don't know that, and the kids could sit in their common room (or their dorm room, or on the stair steps between) and argue about whether God exists, and whether they have free will, and what makes Good good and Evil evil, just as I recall from my high school and college days. So the question of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore is to what extent he has been let in on the Divine Plan. Does he just bumble the best he can and be as surprised by the results as any naive reader? Does he receive cryptic commands from God, like 'don't interfere with the Dursleys mistreating baby Harry' and 'make sure the Potter boy gets the other Fawkes wand'? Is he told the goals and has to figure out for himself how to set them up: "Make sure that James and Lily die to save Harry; make sure that Sirius is falsely imprisoned while the real traitor escapes unsuspected; make sure that the real traitor is re-united with Lord Voldemort in 1994"? Neri wondered in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1054 : << who is the personification of conspiracy theories, and how he/she would get along with Faith >> It can't be TBAY!Pippin, excellently costumed as she is for the role, as she personifies Vampire!Snape. Maybe it's Hercule Poirot. By the way, the Safe House was built for ALL theories involving conspiracies, spies, and disguises, not just for MD. Iris wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1078 : << I remember several discussions on HPfGU about what people called "Metathinking". It generally came after someone had come aboard with some analyze based upon references to previous literary or artistic or philosophic or psychoanalytic sources >> IIRC 'Metathinking' meant treating the Potter ouevre as if it were a book rather than real events that we were lucky enough to catch sight of, such as admitting the existence of an Author. IIRC there were one or two, maybe three, people who objected to Metathinking. One gave the charmingly self-deprecating reason that he couldn't play the other game because he had never read anything else. IIRC the others cried out 'Metathinking!' as a magic incantation to protect their theory from criticism . It seems to me that that theory was a form of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore and the criticism that especially was called Metathinking was the point I made above: yes, there is a puppetmaster, but it's not one of the characters, it's the author. Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1030 : << Why did [DD] form the original Order and why choose the members he did? >> IIRC Herself said somewhere that the Order of the Phoenix had existed before Dumbledore and it comes back into existence when it is needed, so maybe the part about 'why did he form the original Order' is that he was notified (by Fawkes, the portraits, the ghosts, astrology, a dream, whatever) that it was time. That still wouldn't answer why he chose those members. From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 13 22:36:42 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:36:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: OT FILK Chamber of Secrets Blues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213223643.83941.qmail@...> Chamber of Secrets Blues (sung to the tune of Heartbreak Hotel) (words by Randy Estes) Well since my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell. Its down in the Chamber of Secrets At the bottom of this well. Ive been so lonely Ive been so lonely Ive been so lonely you could die! Then Ginny found the diary And started to take a peek. I took over her mind, And started freezing kids for weeks! They felt so lonely They felt so lonely, baby Theyll be so lonely, they could die! But darn that Moaning Myrtle, She looked me in the eye. Then shes been flooding the girls bathroom With her tears ever since she died! She feels so lonely She feels so lonely She feels so lonely since she died! Then Harry found the diary And came to see my home. I almost got that kid. Before he stabbed the diary with my bone ! Tom Riddles lonely His basilisk fell like a stone yeah Harry took his only Way to get outside ! So Dumbledores schools back open And Riddle has faded to gray. But dont you get too comfortable Cause Voldys going to have another day!!!! Youll be so lonely Watching Wormtails boney Arm while he unties you with only One good arm! So look out Harry Potter And tell your friends to run. Cause no Half Blood Prince can save you >From this Evil Son of a Gun !!!! Voldys been so lonely Wants to rule you only Hes tired of being boneless Since he almost died !!!! Yeah baby , just call me Lonely Voldy !!!!!!! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 01:37:13 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:37:13 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > But I begin to suspect you aren't familiar with my own Faith >posts. If not, you can find them in 116369, 116370, 116371 and >116373. These posts present my view of Faith and theorizing, using >an actual new theory as a test case. Talisman, rubs her weary eyes and dips her quill in a vile of smoldering liquid: Dear Neri, Thank you so much for the four lengthy posts you proffered for our illumination. As I read them I was struck by the subtlety and depth of your workmanship. Knowing that many of the most scandalous theorists have had the dubious benefits of advanced education, you courteously held your rudimentary lessons in the hermeneutic cycle to a minimum within the vast expanses of "Mind-linked!Snape Mk.1," posts 1 through 4. Why then, I paused to ask, did you exert yourself in this extended satire, when you could have initiated the great unwashed to the salubrity of employing a corrigible hypothesis, refined and ultimately validated (or not) by reference to the text, it's structure, and even relevant externalities, in as many words? I think I've finally got it: In comedy, timing is everything. Right? Another important lesson you brought home with stinging clarity was that endnotes are a deplorable convention to employ in this format. Although I don't believe I have ever been in danger of committing such an error, I hope that your sacrifice will enable future generations to avoid this pernicious trap for the unwary. Moreover, by burying your citations to canon at the end of interminable verbiage (requiring scrolling not to be undertaken without sufficient quantities of Dramamine) and excising all relevant context, you achieved in one swoop a credible mimesis of both those who omit canon altogether, and those who contort it for their own preferences. Additionally, failing to provide page numbers for your cites cleverly reveals this as an annoying roadblock for the reader who wishes to verify your analysis. Let's just hope you haven't inadvertently encouraged the Philistines by your efficacy. And, by building your airy epic on a foundation of highly suspect statements, made by known dissemblers, in contexts where they might been seen to wish to mislead, you reinforce that all-important need to relate the parts to the whole, quite nicely. But the coup de gr?ce, really, is your expos? of Faith for what she is. While she may have started out as a noble ideal, she has long since fallen into the wrong hands. I'm afraid our Faith has an unfortunate tendancy to rely on the intellectual kindness of strangers, which has left her little more than a leering whore, all too willing to satisfy the personal preferences of her instant client. Apparently you like a lot of leash in the beginning. So we see Faith obediently give you as much latitude as you want. She finds some of your most gymnastic syllogisms credible and praises you for spinning pure fan fiction to knit together improbabilities. Indeed, she is most amazingly elastic throughout the arduous labors of your epic. Nonetheless, at the end, when it serves your purposes and pleasure to receive the spanking, she dutifully whacks you in the ass. Never was there so clear a demonstration of the dangers of trusting Faith for an honest opinion. For Faith, all tricked out in the frippery of objectivity and truth, in fact emanates from the minds of individual readers. These readers are products of the prevailing ideology of their society, bound in an inferior position to forces that dictate their mores and attitudes. By and large they conform, thoughtlessly, comfortably, without even perceiving the cage. The ability to achieve freedom, or the individual initiative of an unpolluted perspective, is rare. To the extent an author is able to exhibit this, it can only be acknowledged by readers who are likewise able to penetrate self-deception at a much deeper level than merely loving their theories too much. In the majority of cases, where readers cannot penetrate the profound saturation of ideology, mistaken as it is for verity, they will merely "appropriate" (a historist's term of art) the text, which is to say they will cause it to conform to their own comfortable assumptions and preferences. It is axiomatic to say that most readings are mediocre, conformist and therefore, bound in ideology. In the context of this series, we could say these appropriations are Muggle readings. Because the norm is determined by the conforming ideology, piercing insights are necessarily outliers. Crazy ideas promulgated by lunatics. "Misfits," as Rowling calls her wizards, who see what Muggle eyes can`t see, and accept what Muggles explain away. (E.g.The lists of ways Dumbledore has "screwed up" or whispers that Rowling must have erred again: so sad that she's so poor at characterization.) Yes, and if ridicule won't shut them up, bring out the pitchforks, the stake, or a good rope. Though eventually even the hoi polloi come to see that Earth revolves around the sun. (Usually after the theorist is good and safely dead.) To the extent that they must, the masses will be seen absorbing radical ideas slowly and only after constructing careful explanations that will protect the larger social construct from too much upheaval. The problem is not that Faith is a bitch, but that she is everybody's Bitch. Inasmuch as Paul Ricoeur has been invoked, perhaps you were actually advocating a more vigorous role for his alternate character, Suspicion. Rather than being something to avoid, Suspicion is an essential tool for piercing self-delusion. Suspicion is not Faith's enemy, for he may well be the only entity with a chance of making an honest woman of her. Though, as he emanates from the same source, there is no guarantee. So, while it's kind of you to employ Faith so vigorously, in hopes of disabusing deluded theorists, you mustn't allow it to cause you to neglect yourself, or Charity for that matter. Who reminds you to begin at home. Thanks so much for the lovely tips, Talisman For the Fellowship of the D.U.S.T. (Dumbledore Undercover Surveillance Team) From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 02:18:19 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:18:19 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > It is axiomatic to say that most readings are mediocre, conformist > and therefore, bound in ideology. In the context of this series, > we could say these appropriations are Muggle readings. Ah, the invocations of ideology. But if we're going to play that game, we might as well play it in its most up-to-date form, no? Which means that *everyone* is working from an ideological reading. This whole idea that there are those who can 'see through' ideology is but a vain delusion. Outliers like to delude themselves into thinking that they are the non-conformist posessors of truth, on the avant-garde edge; but the postmodern student of Jenkins knows better. > Though eventually even the hoi polloi come to see that Earth > revolves around the sun. (Usually after the theorist is good and > safely dead.) To the extent that they must, the masses will be seen > absorbing radical ideas slowly and only after constructing careful > explanations that will protect the larger social construct from too > much upheaval. Ooh, it looks like someone has been reading Kuhn, too. Again, such a bias it is, the assumption that the radical is always going to be eventually accepted by those too slow to have appreciated it at the time of its naissance. I wonder at the attribution of such agency to the masses, as well. Do they get together in little groups? Is it them, or the Zeitgeist? > Inasmuch as Paul Ricoeur has been invoked, perhaps you were > actually advocating a more vigorous role for his alternate > character, Suspicion. Rather than being something to avoid, > Suspicion is an essential tool for piercing self-delusion. > Suspicion is not Faith's enemy, for he may well be the only > entity with a chance of making an honest woman of her. Though, as > he emanates from the same source, there is no guarantee. Suspicion is also, however, an excellent tool for *confirming* one's own particular self-delusions. Witness the progression (or don't; it's pretty sad) of Freudian literary criticism throughout the century. Oh, those men (and a few women) of suspicion, uncovering what is *actually* going on in all of those texts. Or take the Marxists, with their ultimately reducible insight into all literature. You know it's a book in trouble when you need another book just to understand it, pace Jameson. Suspicion is very good at telling the analyst that he is right--there is something underneath the surface of what that pesky author (who doesn't really exist now, anyways; except if you want any kind of standpoint epistemology, he rises from the grave, of course) is writing. No one else can see it, the blind fools! But the gifted analyst of insight knows what is really there, underneath the obfuscatory nods to traditional hegemony. There is a role for both Faith and her brother Suspicion in the grand scheme of things. I suspect, however, that one of them will be somewhat more productive in the long run, when the good 95% of the theories are drowning in the Bay or moping sadly upon the GARBAGESCOW. Castles in the sky look nice, but you can actually live in a hut on the ground. -Nora gets back to watching Ramsey resurrect the author (and the reader-with-a-history, to boot) From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 03:47:06 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:47:06 -0000 Subject: The Original Order of the Phoenix (now Peter Question) In-Reply-To: <20050212230655.7051.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I lean towards Red Hen's theory that the original Order was put > together to guard the two infants who turned out to be the subjects > of Trelawney's prophecy: Harry and Neville. Had a third or fourth > infant been born at the end of June that year, their parents would > probably been enrolled as well. > > Yes I do think the Marauders were a "package deal". No one in their > right mind, let alone Dumbledore, would have taken Pettigrew on board > without some kind of other reason than just his willingness to join. > Or Sirius for that matter. Pettigrew a(n apparent) star-struck > James-fanatic and Sirius a reckless go-it-alone sort who had too much > faith in his own instincts. > >snip Lyn here: This brings up an interesting (at least for me) consideration. What did Peter think of James and Lily having a child? If he remained so "star-struck" with James, or at least invested in his relationship with James, what did he think of having to share Jame's attention with others. Was Lilly already a most unwanted competitor for Jame's attention? Recall the photo Moody shares with Harry in which Peter has positioned himself between James and Lilly. Is this not faintly remiscent of how a child or dog will interject between two adults sharing affection. So what then might a Potter child represent to Peter? Would not the child draw yet more attention away from Peter, and would it not further cement the James-Lilly relationship to the detriment of Peter? If Peter looked at it this way (and of course there is no direct canon to indicate this) might he not actually be interested in LV doing away with the youngster, and perhaps even James as a result of him feeling slighted that the Jame's had diminished his attention towards Peter for his new role as parent. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 04:06:34 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:06:34 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy, Your comments below are most refreshing. I also question just how much one can properly make of any of JKR's supposed motives and moral messages (overtly or covertly represented in the text) before the series (and thus story) is completed. For all we know, at the end she may make Harry into a chump for ever believing in DD, wishing to help others, embracing the WW, and showing alliegance to Ron and Hermione. Lyn --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > I've been reading this thread in a desultory sort of way - not being an > enthusiast for lit. crit. type analysis means I can take it or leave it. > I also have a sneaking suspicion that quite a lot of lit. crit. - and I'm > speaking generally here, not specifically about HP - is based on false > premises. > > It's assumed that what a reader takes from, or even perceives in a book > is neither subjective interpretation nor an accidental or coincidental > parallel or allusion arising solely from the requirement of getting > characters from the start of the tale to the finish. They have to do > something while they're in there, don't they? And as coming up with > actions or interactions that are totally unique is asking a bit much, > the comparison of arcs and threads to past literary or real world > themes is pretty much ineluctable. > Significance though; aye, there's the rub. > > Sure, it's possible to draw or leap to conclusions and authors may have > intended that some of them should be drawn, but IMO you can have too > much of a good thing - push it too far and you're in trouble, it starts > to get messy, to fall apart into a macedoin of personal agendas. > > An example; HP as it might be seen from a certain political stance: > It is patently obvious that the WW is a satiric indictment of the tendency > of elites in societies to pervert the uses of technology for their own > selfish ends and that oppression of the weak is the inevitable outcome. > Valid interpretation - or a load of old cobblers? > > Couldn't give a toss either way, frankly. > I'm too busy enjoying the way the words have been strung together on > the page. If someone wants to equate DEs with fascism, House Elves with > slavery, Goblins with the Peasants Revolt and Giants with the destruction > of Amerind societies, well - it keeps 'em out of mischief, I suppose. > Adds nothing to the books of course, may even detract. Expectations, > indeed current certainties may not be fulfilled - probably disappointing > some but cheering others. > > I think I'll stick to plot theories internal to the canon, thank you very much. > Being right or wrong is a much more cut and dried affair there. > > Two quotes; neither from people I admire and with a bit of luck they'll > have been taken out of context: > "There is nothing outside the text." - Derrida. > "Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art." - Sontag. > From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 05:20:02 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:20:02 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:06:34AM -0000, kumayama wrote: > Kneasy, Your comments below are most refreshing. > I also question just how much one can properly make of any of JKR's supposed motives > and moral messages (overtly or covertly represented in the text) before the series (and > thus story) is completed. For all we know, at the end she may make Harry into a chump for > ever believing in DD, wishing to help others, embracing the WW, and showing alliegance to > Ron and Hermione. [snip egregrious top-posting] How would you be any better equipped after the series? Are we supposed to wait for JKR's pronouncement and accept that as face-value too? We're not without opinions of our own, surely? External theory apparently not as acceptable as wild theorizing within the text - well it's all far-fetched to me, entertainingly enjoyable as it is. I doubt lit. crit. will ever fully engage with the Potterverse simply because it's all escapism to them. Interesting word+concept, escapism. Apparently invented some time in the 1930's by a literary critic, noone's quite sure, but quickly became the favourite word. But i disagree with the thrust of Kneasy's argument, that criticism has anything to do with forcing artistic work to equate with reality. A clever way of avoiding the issue, but that's his choice. Perhaps current lit. critters are delusionally obsessed with that, but i suspect it's only to get dissertations accepted and tenure secured. I'm not interested in Potterverse as a social phenonemon, I want to see how JKR's sources and influences might influence the logic of the story. You can hardly cry foul if JKR is also playing the game on her website. You can hardly expect JKR to not be affected by the mass of hypothoesis around her work. The text is not Writ, it's the end of a process. That process includes us, it's a necessary feedback loop whether it's desired or not. I can see both sides of Kneasy's (obviously shared) argument, I live in both worlds figuratively. I don't ignore one to preserve the wonder of the other, i wouldn't be on a Potterverse list if i did. But the implications of such external insights seem curiously threatening, or at least disturbing to some. That's a limitation that surprises me, why isn't it the case for Tolkien fans just as the most obvious example? -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 15:48:24 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:48:24 -0000 Subject: The Original Order of the Phoenix (now Peter Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "kumayama" wrote: > > This brings up an interesting (at least for me) consideration. What > did Peter think of James and Lily having a child? If he remained so > "star-struck" with James, or at least invested in his relationship with > James, what did he think of having to share Jame's attention with > others. Was Lilly already a most unwanted competitor for Jame's > attention? Recall the photo Moody shares with Harry in which Peter > has positioned himself between James and Lilly. Is this not faintly > remiscent of how a child or dog will interject between two adults > sharing affection. So what then might a Potter child represent to Peter? > Would not the child draw yet more attention away from Peter, and > would it not further cement the James-Lilly relationship to the > detriment of Peter? If Peter looked at it this way (and of course there > is no direct canon to indicate this) might he not actually be interested > in LV doing away with the youngster, and perhaps even James as a > result of him feeling slighted that the Jame's had diminished his > attention towards Peter for his new role as parent. Um. The dynamics of all-male groups. Enter a female who ensnares the leader, displacing all the others - his closest friends. Resentments, jealousies - who knows what might have been unleashed. The positionings in that photograph have been the subject of speculation in the past. Little agreement as to its significance though. Is he intruding between James and Lily? A would-be Iago? A devious destroyer, Uriah Heap style? Or are we reading it wrong? Perhaps the Potters are acting in a protective manner, one each side to give him feelings of security. No, didn't think you'd like that one. Usually I work to the principle that I may be wrong but I'm not uncertain. Can't seem to get that to work with Peter, it's uncertainty all the way. "You should have died [...] rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you." Somehow the idea of Sirius dying for Peter... er, I don't think so - or is that my ESE!Sirius inclinations showing? James though, what would he sacrifice for Peter? A lot but not everything IMO, certainly not his family. And Peter wouldn't sacrifice himself to save James - let alone Lily or Harry. If - and that's a big if - we believe the situation as described in PoA. Before GH? Peter is so weak, ineffectual, that it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't see Harry as an opportunity to get closer and to get more attention from James. To use your dog metaphor, I can see him sitting by the cradle, wagging his tail. That always pleases the parents. And the dog stays in the warm. Not a great deal of help, I'm afraid. I just can't get a firm grip on Peter. There's something missing, or at least my instinct so insists. What? Dunno. Frustrating. Kneasy From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 17:18:17 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:18:17 -0000 Subject: Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Talisman, rubs her weary eyes and dips her quill in a vile of > smoldering liquid: > > Dear Neri, > > Thank you so much for the four lengthy posts you proffered for our > illumination. As I read them I was struck by the subtlety and depth > of your workmanship. Knowing that many of the most scandalous > theorists have had the dubious benefits of advanced education, you > courteously held your rudimentary lessons in the hermeneutic cycle > to a minimum within the vast expanses of "Mind-linked!Snape > Mk.1," posts 1 through 4. > > Why then, I paused to ask, did you exert yourself in this extended > satire, when you could have initiated the great unwashed to the > salubrity of employing a corrigible hypothesis, refined and > ultimately validated (or not) by reference to the text, it's > structure, and even relevant externalities, in as many words? > > I think I've finally got it: In comedy, timing is everything. > Right? Neri takes his own quill, and finds that he's out of smoldering vile liquid: Dear Talisman, You seem to think that these posts were merely an exercise in educating the masses or, alternatively, masochism. I ensure you I don't like to be whacked THAT much. However, I know from personal experience that theorists, and not only HP theorists, typically get whacked 90% of the time during their regular work. This perhaps explains why in HPfGU theorizing is currently done mainly by newbies. It should perhaps clarify that VASSAL (Voldy And Snape Share A Link, originaly code named Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1) was not constructed as an exercise, but as a very honest attempt to solve some of the main HP mysteries. I thought about this theory for months and then invested at least three weeks researching and writing, and it was almost complete when I discovered the critical contradiction with DD words, which was naturally a bit of a letdown. At this point I had several choices: 1. Despair, quit being an active theorist, and limit my activity in the list to criticizing the theories (or worse, the ideologies) of others. 2. Continue to develop other theories, but stash this one deep in my hard disk, with all the research and the ideas that went into it. 3. Post the theory without mentioning the contradiction with DD's words, and hope no other member in the list will notice this contradiction. 4. Post the theory with DD words, but explain them away, probably by saying that DD lies to Harry and us. The MDDT (to take only one example) did just that, when their theory did not went well with DD telling Harry that he didn't know about the Marauders being animagi. Unfortunately, I happen to think that DD lying to us would be too easy a solution, both for me as a theorist and for JKR as the author. 5. Post the theory, explain it as well as I can, and then also explain the contradiction with DD words, as well as I can. For this I needed Faith. My dialogue with Faith in those posts closely follows the course of my reasoning while developing the theory. While VASSAL contains this single inconsistency, it still explains a surprising number of the mysteries while making very few assumptions, and none of these assumptions requires a grand plot leap or the complete rethinking of a theme or a major character. I still believe that JKR's real solution, when it is finally revealed, won't be very far from it. Moreover, if you personally think that DD does lie to us, then for you VASSAL is completely watertight and one of the most inclusive and consistent HP theories around. Unless you can find any hole in it that Faith didn't. > Talisman: > Another important lesson you brought home with stinging clarity was > that endnotes are a deplorable convention to employ in this > format. Although I don't believe I have ever been in danger of > committing such an error, I hope that your sacrifice will enable > future generations to avoid this pernicious trap for the unwary. > Neri: Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. I Personally tend to include all the quotes and comments in the body of the text. However, in my previous experience in HPfGU I noticed that almost no one had the patience to read through my very long and complicated posts, so I tried to introduce the theory in a more accessible form, and leave the nitpicking to the endnotes. I gather you didn't like the result much. My apologies. > Talisman: > Moreover, by burying your citations to canon at the end of > interminable verbiage (requiring scrolling not to be undertaken > without sufficient quantities of Dramamine) and excising all > relevant context, you achieved in one swoop a credible mimesis of > both those who omit canon altogether, and those who contort it for > their own preferences. > > Additionally, failing to provide page numbers for your cites > cleverly reveals this as an annoying roadblock for the reader who > wishes to verify your analysis. Let's just hope you haven't > inadvertently encouraged the Philistines by your efficacy. > Neri: My apologies again. Being relatively new to the HP fandom, I just used the common format in the HP Lexicon, which usually doesn't provide page numbers (perhaps because they are not the same in different editions anyway). I guess that this unfortunate omission was the only reason why you could not be bothered, in your whole post, to include even a single canon-based argument to the point of my theory. > Talisman: > But the coup de gr?ce, really, is your expos? of Faith for what > she is. While she may have started out as a noble ideal, she has > long since fallen into the wrong hands. I'm afraid our Faith has an > unfortunate tendancy to rely on the intellectual kindness of > strangers, which has left her little more than a leering whore, all > too willing to satisfy the personal preferences of her instant > client. > Neri: Unlike the mystery of the HP saga, which will (probably) be revealed in Book 7, Faith is a subjective matter. If your Faith is different than mine, I would be glad to meet her. > Talisman: > Apparently you like a lot of leash in the beginning. So we see > Faith obediently give you as much latitude as you want. She finds > some of your most gymnastic syllogisms credible and praises you for > spinning pure fan fiction to knit together improbabilities. Indeed, > she is most amazingly elastic throughout the arduous labors of your > epic. Nonetheless, at the end, when it serves your purposes and > pleasure to receive the spanking, she dutifully whacks you in the > ass. Neri: In my experience, this is how things usually work. Theorizing would indeed be MUCH easier if Faith was to whack our ass immediately when we make the first wrong turn. Unfortunately, she can't be bothered giving us so much attention. So she gives us free rein to build our great castles in the air, and only after a lot of work, when we are really sure we have it all figured out, THEN she whack our ass. > Talisman: > Never was there so clear a demonstration of the dangers of trusting > Faith for an honest opinion. For Faith, all tricked out in the > frippery of objectivity and truth, in fact emanates from the minds > of individual readers. > > These readers are products of the prevailing ideology of > their society, bound in an inferior position to forces that > dictate their mores and attitudes. By and large they conform, > thoughtlessly, comfortably, without even perceiving the cage. The > ability to achieve freedom, or the individual initiative of an > unpolluted perspective, is rare. To the extent an author is able to > exhibit this, it can only be acknowledged by readers who are > likewise able to penetrate self-deception at a much deeper level > than merely loving their theories too much. > Neri: Oh, dear. Ideology. This is the kind of threads I learned to avoid in HPfGU. > Talisman: > In the majority of cases, where readers cannot penetrate the > profound saturation of ideology, mistaken as it is for verity, they > will merely "appropriate" (a historist's term of art) the > text, which is to say they will cause it to conform to their own > comfortable assumptions and preferences. > > Neri: Erm... I must admit that I spent about an hour now with Webster trying to decode your argument, but I apparently failed. Unfortunately I'm not a native English speaker, nor do I have the benefits of advanced education in philosophy and literature, and thus it probably went over my head. You seem to be saying that I got it wrong because I'm mistaking my ideology for verity, but I didn't manage to understand what my ideology is supposed to be, and where exactly it went wrong. I certainly did not understand what is the RIGHT ideology, or even if it exists. Now you had me wondering: is it really necessary to master this high style of debate, complete with the artistic insults, in order to penetrate the profound saturation of ideology and solve the mystery of the HP saga? If so, then I don't stand a chance. > Talisman: > Thanks so much for the lovely tips, Neri: I managed to gather that you won't be using them much. No problem. It seems you don't need them anyway, since you clearly had HP and JKR all figured out. Hmm. Knowing Faith, this is the time to watch your ass... Neri From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 14 21:07:13 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:07:13 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > How would you be any better equipped after the series? Are we supposed to wait > for JKR's pronouncement and accept that as face-value too? We're not without > opinions of our own, surely? > Kneasy: Over the years many authors have elicited hollow laughter (from this direction, anyway) when attempting to justify or 'explain' their works. No doubt you've experienced as much cynicism or frustration as anyone while they spout obvious rubbish on chat shows, interviews and the like, mostly to try and sell more copies. Well, that's something Jo won't have to do, that much is certain. But the frequency with which authors pretend that their books are something they quite patently aren't does cause one to wonder if their answers aren't fully as fictional as their works. All it needs is for some critic (who probably never bothered to finish the book) to include a few words or phrases like 'angst' (synonym for miserable), 'deep insight into the modern condition' (messy) and suddenly a very run-of-the-mill volume acquires the Emperors New Clothes. Mind you in can happen in reverse. All the agonised twistings of an agitated Attwood when confronted by the shock-horror news that she'd written a Sci-Fi novel. It would have made the cat laugh. Still, it was true, it wasn't her first and it wasn't very good. Three time loser. Didn't stop her denying it vehemently though. Hence a deep distrust lingers. At least when readers discuss plot theories it is with the reasonable expectation that an answer will be found before the closing of the final chapter. > External theory apparently not as acceptable as wild theorizing within the > text - well it's all far-fetched to me, entertainingly enjoyable as it is. I > doubt lit. crit. will ever fully engage with the Potterverse simply because > it's all escapism to them. Interesting word+concept, escapism. Apparently > invented some time in the 1930's by a literary critic, noone's quite sure, but > quickly became the favourite word. > Kneasy: It might. French academe got very exercised about HP last year. Not sure if it was totally serious or a veiled attempt to remind the taxpayers that professors are really important by indulging in a public knock-about over a subject people have actually heard of. > snip> > I can see both sides of Kneasy's (obviously shared) argument, I live in both > worlds figuratively. I don't ignore one to preserve the wonder of the other, i > wouldn't be on a Potterverse list if i did. But the implications of such > external insights seem curiously threatening, or at least disturbing to some. > That's a limitation that surprises me, why isn't it the case for Tolkien fans > just as the most obvious example? > > Kneasy: Disturbing? Do you think so? Can't think why. Don't see it myself. It'd be interesting if you expanded on that. No, I regard all the discussion about sources, influences etc. as pretty much on a par with the extras they tend to include on DVDs - all those "how we did this" and "weren't we clever to do that". Extraneous guff from smug bastards. Professional lit. critters fill much the ecological niche IMO. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 04:20:37 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:20:37 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> Message-ID: Hello Sean, What Jolly fun, my third public post and I'm held to account with a word I"m not sure really exists--i.e., your line, "snip egregrious top-posting." Seems a "word" of that spelling gets used occasionally, yet I've never really found it in a respected dictionary (say the OED, at least my worn old muti-volume set). So being my inquisitive self, I say, "Self, just what did Sean mean to say about my posting? Ah, why not go to the source and ask." So, taking my self's advice to Self, I shall ask, just what did you intend to convey in finding my "top-posting" egregrious? TIA for any enlightenment you may bestow. But on to your more expansive comments. Frankly, you illustrate why I found Kneasy's comments refreshing. I shan't go too far into this as I don't have the interest or time, and Kneasy has already made his own reply in defence (or was it just explanation?). I guess I'm a simpleton at heart, and perhaps a bit of a detective (and thus why I'm a neuropsychologist and not a Jungian analyst). I enjoy the books, and I don't need for them to be any larger or lesser than the story contained therein. Those looking for profundity will likely generate it (ah, happily deluded Hans). I really wonder how much JKR looks out on all the assumptions associated with her each and every word and phrase, and then thinks to herself how much richer and devious and symbolic a story she has written than her mind ever intended. Will she be able to be honest with herself that this apparent (or better, pseudo-) richness is the fabrication of some readers, or will she begin to believe her "underlying intent" (conscious or un- conscious) has been recognized and revealed in their erudite interpretations and "insight." I suspect she won't, but if she did she would not be the first author to begin to believe there is more meaning in her text than she ever conceived of when writing. If you have fun with that stuff, fine. Doesn't bother me, but my fun lies in a less cerebral and more narrow approach to the story, which, as Kneasy indicated, can come from the story itself and does not require speculation based on the social/political/economic/religious context of the writer and the written. (I recall my wife seeing the original Star Wars film and being much put off by the "sound" of weapons firing in empy space--I can't help but think those who less critically submersed themselves in the film enjoyed it much more. Indeed, hasn't it appeared that there has been a little less enjoyment of the HP story on the part of many of those actively engaged in its disection over at HPfGU.) Thus again, I find refreshing to read Kneasy "I'm too busy enjoying the way the words have been strung together on the page," and the story they tell. Of course, I don't know the whole story yet, even though I've read the 5 volumes. The story will be complete (at least to JKR's satisfaction and intent) at the end of 7. If the story were spread over only one book, I wouldn't feel I could fairly understand, let alone critique, the volume based on reading only the first 5 of the 7 chapters, so I don't feel I can fairly critique (nor fully understand) this story when almost one third of it remains to be written. [To use an almost tiresome analogy, could one really understand the significance of Gollum, and Frodo's choices with respect to Gollum, until almost the very end of the last volume of the LOTR.] At this time, most analysis of the HP story can only be speculation and expectation, and as Kneasy has written, "Expectations,indeed current certainties may not be fulfilled - probably disappointing some but cheering others." I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything (might have tried in my youth, but no longer---and of course the battling shippers well illustrate the futility of such attempts), and thus I'm not much into arguing my statements either. We will all find our own ways to extend and expand on the HP experience for ourselves. I use the word "I" a lot, perhaps because of a hint (or more ) of narcissim, but also because I am labeling the comments as representing MY approach to HP. I toss ideas out into the market place-- some may find them worthy of purchase as is, some may add to them, some may walk around them, some may walk over, and some may attempt to trample them. Observing the process is sometimes interesting, but mostly there is the potential I may learn from the reactions, whether or not I appreciate them. Lyn below if one wants the back text here. --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:06:34AM -0000, kumayama wrote: > > > Kneasy, Your comments below are most refreshing. > > > I also question just how much one can properly make of any of JKR's supposed motives > > and moral messages (overtly or covertly represented in the text) before the series (and > > thus story) is completed. For all we know, at the end she may make Harry into a chump for > > ever believing in DD, wishing to help others, embracing the WW, and showing alliegance to > > Ron and Hermione. > > [snip egregrious top-posting] > > How would you be any better equipped after the series? Are we supposed to wait > for JKR's pronouncement and accept that as face-value too? We're not without > opinions of our own, surely? > > External theory apparently not as acceptable as wild theorizing within the > text - well it's all far-fetched to me, entertainingly enjoyable as it is. I > doubt lit. crit. will ever fully engage with the Potterverse simply because > it's all escapism to them. Interesting word+concept, escapism. Apparently > invented some time in the 1930's by a literary critic, noone's quite sure, but > quickly became the favourite word. > > But i disagree with the thrust of Kneasy's argument, that criticism has > anything to do with forcing artistic work to equate with reality. A clever way > of avoiding the issue, but that's his choice. Perhaps current lit. critters > are delusionally obsessed with that, but i suspect it's only to get > dissertations accepted and tenure secured. I'm not interested in Potterverse > as a social phenonemon, I want to see how JKR's sources and influences might > influence the logic of the story. You can hardly cry foul if JKR is also > playing the game on her website. You can hardly expect JKR to not be affected > by the mass of hypothoesis around her work. The text is not Writ, it's the end > of a process. That process includes us, it's a necessary feedback loop whether > it's desired or not. > > I can see both sides of Kneasy's (obviously shared) argument, I live in both > worlds figuratively. I don't ignore one to preserve the wonder of the other, i > wouldn't be on a Potterverse list if i did. But the implications of such > external insights seem curiously threatening, or at least disturbing to some. > That's a limitation that surprises me, why isn't it the case for Tolkien fans > just as the most obvious example? > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 05:40:33 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:40:33 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: References: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> Message-ID: <20050215054033.GA16442@...> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:20:37AM -0000, kumayama wrote: > > > Hello Sean, > > What Jolly fun, my third public post and I'm held to account with a word I"m not sure really > exists--i.e., your line, "snip egregrious top-posting." Seems a "word" of that spelling gets > used occasionally, yet I've never really found it in a respected dictionary (say the OED, at > least my worn old muti-volume set). > > So being my inquisitive self, I say, "Self, just what did Sean mean to say about my posting? > Ah, why not go to the source and ask." So, taking my self's advice to Self, I shall ask, just > what did you intend to convey in finding my "top-posting" egregrious? TIA for any > enlightenment you may bestow. Adding the entire message you are replying to without specific relationship to the points you are making wastes my bandwidth. I am also forced to perform major editing on your email in order to reply. I could have used the phrase 'bloody annoying' but 'egregrious' was more entertaining at least for myself. > But on to your more expansive comments. Frankly, you illustrate why I found Kneasy's > comments refreshing. I shan't go too far into this as I don't have the interest or time, and > Kneasy has already made his own reply in defence (or was it just explanation?). I guess I'm > a simpleton at heart, and perhaps a bit of a detective (and thus why I'm a > neuropsychologist and not a Jungian analyst). But you did 'go far into this'. At length. To satisfy Kneasy's curiosity, I merely wondered why everyone retreats the moment anyone goes 'metathinking'. I thought perhaps it disturbed them, hence the word. Judging by the vast silence, perhaps they're merely asleep. The suggestion that the possibility of authorial meglomania is sufficient warning that we shouldn't stray from canon is frankly hilarious and I will close the subject by merely noting that the art is there for everyone to make anything they like from it. Within copyright-infringment guidelines of course. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 06:29:45 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:29:45 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter In-Reply-To: References: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> Message-ID: <20050215062945.GC16442@...> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:07:13PM -0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Hence a deep distrust lingers. At least when readers discuss plot theories > it is with the reasonable expectation that an answer will be found before > the closing of the final chapter. I wasn't so interested in what JKR might herself say; noone is objective about art anyway. But I've said before I don't expect answers. I wanted to see more variety of questions though. > Kneasy: > It might. French academe got very exercised about HP last year. > Not sure if it was totally serious or a veiled attempt to remind the taxpayers > that professors are really important by indulging in a public knock-about > over a subject people have actually heard of. All too possible I'm afraid, but the French have a nice habit of getting enthusiastic about the good art of other countries. They have their faults, but they like Woody Allen. > Kneasy: > Disturbing? Do you think so? Can't think why. Don't see it myself. It'd be > interesting if you expanded on that. Just throwing ideas out there and see what comes back. I have no idea why. What can I do but suggest? Why are Tolkien fans stimulated to investigate language, myth, even calligraphy? What might Potterverse inspire besides shippers and fanfic? I see that Latin is a little more popular, is that all there is? -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 11:40:56 2005 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:40:56 +0100 Subject: Fun Things to do with HP books In-Reply-To: <20050214052002.GC5415@...> Message-ID: <000001c51353$3777ab50$0c350f9a@shasta> A small, off-white goat - sluggish from several long, soporific winters in farmer Gray's barn - is startled from his slumbers by a violent commotion over in the hen house. Quills and feathers waft through the chilly air outside, making lovely, exciting patterns against the steel-blue sky. "Well, well - new animals on the farm!" murmurs the goat as a he rubs his red eyes and trys to figure out what directions the feathers are floating in. He wonders also: these beady eyed newcomers - are they dangerous or just peckish? * * * * One way or another, I thought the lit. crit. (and related) threads were cool in excelsis. As usual, I found myself thinking about things that weren't really to the point (or, P.S., points which Sean has already made much more succinctly), and immediately decided to share them with the world. To wit: I thought about all the things people can do with the HP books, and also about the things I do with them in relation to the things other people do, particularly in the HP fandom. Here is a very, very long list of just a few of those things. Feel free to skip it and go to the end of the post, or simply move on to a less abstruse email. Still here? OK. Just limiting myself to the things I (me, that is) have done with the HP books: You can drop the fat ones on your small left toe, which is painful but makes for a funny story; and you can use the skinny ones to prop up your video projector. (The other way around doesn't work very well - the story isn't nearly as funny and the projector shines straight into the ceiling.) You can arrange the whole series on the shelf above your bed board, adding a new, vaguely talismanic element to your interior decorating scheme - and if you think about what your family, friends and church members will think about this, you can use the books as a conversation piece, not to mention stimulous to reflection on culture, religious belief, child development, cover art and semiotics. (Of course, if you're still, after all these years, not quite sure what semiotics is, you end up wondering whether you perhaps aren't thinking about semiotics after all, or whether you were before but aren't any more, and if so, whether there is a special cognitive category for thinking about something you don't know you're thinking about. This is *really* beside the point, of course - but it was the act of looking at your HP books sitting above your bedboard that lead directly to the thought, or quasi-thought, as the case may be.) If you get around to looking at the black squiggles inside of the books, you can do even more things. You can look for split infinitives while you hunt for those waddyacallum words that mean something else if you read them backwards. You can look for the funny patches or scarey parts or sexy bits. You can estimate the average sentence length and situate the religious references and ask yourself: "What kind of person would write this kind of book? Do I like this person? Do I think I would like the way she thinks about politics or religion - would I like her as a friend or a neighbor? Would I, ceteribus paribus, fall in love with her? And if so, would it be fun?" While you are pondering all these things, you can also try to guess what will happen in the sentence after the one you're currently reading - or in the next passage, chapter or book. If you already know, because you are reading that particular passge for the 27th time, you can try to decide whether you ought to have been able to figure that out the first time you read the passage. If this begins to bore you, you can even try to guess what the author will write about if she takes a stab at a book without school children waving magic chopsticks. You can imagine the people in the story doing something different from what they do in the passage you're thinking about, and you can try to decide whether you like your version better, or Jo's, and whether you should write your ammendment and post it on a fanfic site. You can also imagine what it would be like if you were part of the world in the book - and you can think about the sort of perspective this gives you on the world you live in (part of which is, by the way, the book you are reading). If the world in the book is one of the few fun things things happening in the world you live in right now, you can spend as much time as possible thinking about the world in the book instead of mulling over the stupid parts of your world. Sometimes doing this gives you a new perspective on things in the rest of your life; sometimes it just makes you more depressed than you were to begin with. (If you get your wires crossed on this one, HP will be accused of fostering escapism.) You can also wonder why the world in the book is the way it is and not something else. You can compare the world in the books with the worlds in other books you have (or pretend to have) read, and ask yourself, "Which of these worlds do I like better - and which *should* I like better - and what sort of criteria do I use to to answer this question, and is there anyone else in the world who might, or even should, use these same criteria - and if so, would they agree about the way I have applied them?" If you're in a particularly abstracted frame of mind you can even wonder about the way in which reading these particular books moved you to pose these general questions and wonder whether different books tend to pose the same aesthetic questions in different terms or maybe different aesthetic questions in different terms (not to mention whether the difference even makes a difference). (Vive la difference.) Also, never forget reflexivity: compare the world in the books with the world in the books - ie, you can look for internal fractures. If you find one, you can start a roaring fight about it on HPfGU. This (and guessing things, see above) seems to be the most popular thing to do with the HP books, which leads to interesting questions about the nature of the books and the nature of the people who post about them in cyberspace. But of course, you can also wonder: assuming the fracture is even there, is this inconsistency a Good Thing, because life itself is inconsistent, or a Bad Thing, because life isn't inconsistent (at least not in this way) - or isn't supposed to be, even if it is. Once you start using the books to do things like this, you'll quickly find yourself thinking about Life Itself, and that too is a very fine thing to use the HP book for. If you are feeling practically minded, you can even wonder what sort of role the world in the book plays in various worlds outside of the books. Politics, for instance, or child literacy, or the resurgence of the sort of people who propound the resurgence of pint sized Satanists sacrifying small white goats. Finally, depending on your lines of work and play, you can think of things to say about any of or all the above that might potentially make friends and enemies, influence people, get tenure, get into a fight or at least get invited to join the old crowd or just get ordered to walk the plank of someone's SHIP. * * * * These are all things I have done with the HP books. (Well, I don't actually think I ever looked for sexy bits in the proper sense, but I *did* spend a lot of time looking for bits I could *pretend* were sexy bits, which is even more fun.) The point? I think a lot of disagreements in HP fandom (perhaps even a lot of disagreements in the homo sapien fandom) boil down to people who are doing different things with the same thing (in this instance, book) and either (a) don't notice or articulate the difference, (b) have reservations about the thing the other person is doing, or (c) feel that the perpetrator is doing something which cannot be done reasonably without having put some effort into doing something else first. (Like discussing a book's literary value before hvaing read it.) "Meta-" discussions (that is, discussions in which the books are viewed in a context broader than the books themselves) tend to get snarled up in this area. And when you consider how hard it is to agree about simple factual issues (ie, "How many students does/did Jo think are at Hogwarts?") it's understandable that "meta-" discussion can turn arcane and nasty on a sixpence. OTOH, it's worth considering that fiction itself is, from the standpoint of life itself, a meta- pursuit. That is, it is not merely a part of life - it is a part of life that requires and stimulates reflection on life. (A shopping list or snow shovel does this to some extent, but not the way a book does.) If you were to completely erase its connections to its own meta-level - that is, life in its entirety - it would be, literally, meaningless. Also, even a discussion of the purely "factual" questions (like the number of students at Hogwarts) entails a pre-understanding (and hopefully stimulates thought) about this meta-level. For instance, does a text mean (a) what the author was thinking about when she wrote it, (b) what the author said it meant later on, (c) what the reader thinks it means, (d) what the reader thinks it ought to mean or (e) what a canonical set of semantic and syntactical rules indicate that it means and/or meant? The way you answer questions like this turns out to be related to very basic things in the way you think about Life in General - not to mention the Kind of Person you are. So I think the meta-level is as important as it is difficult. It's the meta-level that makes books meaningful - and what's more *fun.* * * * * Anyway, once you have figured which of the things in the list above are the correct, fun and virtuous things to do and figured out the correct, fun and viruous order and manner in which to do them, the whole problem is solved. (But then what exactly is the problem? Oh well. At least we have already been informed that the correct answer is 42.) So there. I'm done waffling. Any questions? Anyone still left? * * * * And with that, the small white goat staggered back toward the cozy, sleepy part of barn, weighing the costs and benefits of an excursion though the hemp patch on his way there. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who for the record, has never partaken of anything more potent than two glasses of red wine and a shot glass of Hungarian vodka, which is called palinka, but tastes just as vile.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 14:31:52 2005 From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:31:52 -0000 Subject: Hello! - HP quiz failure (OT-ish) - Dumbledore, leading to Tarot Message-ID: I keep meaning to read through all the messages from the last week or so and construct a multifaceted post of individual greetings, wild theorising and pithy retorts, but it would take me a week to write, by which point there would be another 100 messages to read so I'll pass for now, and just say, "hello" to all the new people. I had my family over at the weekend and my brother warned me ahead of time that my eight-year old niece, Alison, is now **seriously** into Harry Potter. "She's prepared a quiz for you and she's going to make you take it," he explained with glee. "I've told her you're an expert, so don't let her down!" Obviously (and thankfully) my brother has never read the archives of HPfGU or he would know that I have always been woolly on facts and more inclined to churn our idle ramblings, misremembered details and posts on the outer margins of canonicity, such as the origins of treacle. Anyway, to cut to the chase, I scored 7 out 10 on the "Prisoner of Askaban quiz" and fell for the trick question: "In the book, who said `if you're going to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too'". It was Ron in the book. I said Hermione, who said it in the film, because she's prettier and needed more lines. Somehow knowing "the name of Hadgrid's hipogrif friend" didn't balance things out. A while back, Kneasy asked "what is Dumbledore"? I've always been intrigued by Dumbledore's use of The Pensieve. In fact, I stand by a ridiculous theory connecting Dumbledore's spiritual self to Peeves, because Pensieve is an anagram of "in Peeves". Okay, don't all write at once. What is it, though, with The Pensieve? Aside from the plot device of letting Harry see a crucial re-run in GoF, Dumbledore wants to take thoughts out of his head and put them in a bowl, because: (a) he can't bear the pain of those memories and wants to purge them? (b) he has too many thoughts swimming round his mind? (c) it's an addictive behaviour; (d) it's a neat trick and David Blaine doesn't own the copyright. He let Snape have a go on his toy, presumably on the basis of (a), but if we consider (b), is that because Albus: (i) is amazingly ancient and simply has way too many memories; (ii) embodies several personalities and needs to make room for them to party; (iii) is unable to forget hmm, don't think so; (iv) would otherwise explode. Considering (c), I think of parallels with Victorians losing themselves in opium dens. Drug addiction leading to a gradual weakening ? tiredness, failings ? and, possibly in Book 6, death. As for (d), Dumbledore hasn't pulled a rabbit out of a hat, but that sword trick he did was pretty cool. Hey, and didn't he saw a lady in half somewhere? Okay, back at my Peeves theory: if Dumbledore were "The Magician" and Peeves "The Fool", I wonder about a possible connection with the Tarot. Voldemort would be "Death", of course. Anyone care to shoehorn anyone else into this scheme? Now, one of you is going to point out that I've misunderstood The Pensieve, another that I've forgotten the plot of GoF and someone else that I've missed an entire Tarot thread on HPfGU. Highly possible. Neil Flying Ford Anglia From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 14:41:03 2005 From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:41:03 -0000 Subject: OT: Haggridd Message-ID: I just wanted to add my belated thoughts to those remembering John (Haggridd). Ironically, the best exchange I had with him was an off-list discussion about homesexuality in the aftermath of agreeing that it would be best if he left HPfGU (when I was a moderator there). I regretted that departure, as it ended the start of a friendship. Neil From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 15:25:09 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:25:09 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > Many others here would argue that the central mystery is a mere > bagatelle, of passing interest compared to the 'big themes' that the > series (allegedly) addresses. > > From the perspective of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the prospect > of a highly conflicted ending and the confirmation of, for example, a > theory like ESE!Lupin is what will make the series live on for me, > and make me re-read long after Book 7 appears. My own feeling is that the 'big themes' and the 'central mystery' are the same thing. My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot construction - POA is the least bad, and even there Sirius' actions are hard to construe. I am strongly suspicious that Dumbledore's 'screw-ups', for example, are really JKR's screw-ups - or rather, JKR's lack of concern for consistency in a magical fantasy series. However, I feel she has more grip on the themes, and that the eventual revelation of the series will be a theme-related one, not a plot-related one. My best guess has been that Voldemort also has mother-love protection, but his attempts to reject his father and Muggle ancestry and to live forever have progressively undermined that. The crucial clue, in this theory, is Dumbledore's assertion that 'Voldemort doesn't understand love'. Harry's mother love protection is the inadvertent means by which Harry is marked (we know AK leaves no scar of itself) by Voldemort as his equal. Sirius' death advances the theme because while it seems that Lily's protection involved a spell, Harry is able to cast Voldemort off by direct appropriation of the love between him and Sirius - consider the parallel with the Christian sloughing of Mosaic ritual. But it doesn't matter if I'm wrong about the details here: where I think I will be vindicated is that the eventual resolution - the defeat of Voldemort, the explanation of the events at Godric's Hollow, the resolution of the old conflict among the founders, the resolution of Snape's fate - will turn not on a mechanical juggling by Dumbledore but on the themes of love, choice, loyalty, unity in diversity, and acceptance of the place of death in the universe, that have dominated the books to date. Of course, I do not for a moment wish to deny the speculative plot theorists their fun. However, I don't feel that they really reflect the 'big-picture' sense that the text gives. I could say more about how some of the minor themes trump plot consistency, but I think I'll leave it there. David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 16:59:52 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:59:52 -0000 Subject: 'Externalities' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > No, I regard all the discussion about sources, influences etc. as pretty much > on a par with the extras they tend to include on DVDs - all those "how we > did this" and "weren't we clever to do that". Extraneous guff from smug bastards. Hey, hey, now, steady on. I think it's possible and interesting to ask and try to answer questions such as the following without being smug. Economic: how do you think that JKR's experience of penurious single parenthood might show up in her depiction of Harry at the Dursleys? Political: the wizarding world is portrayed as having many injustices, which are sometimes regarded by fans as unrealistic. How do you think JKR's experience of working for Amnesty International might come across in this aspect of her work? Religious: in what sense, if any, can Sirius Black be seen as a Christ figure? I do feel, however, that Sean and Iris were particularly referring to *literary* influence: literary criticism takes many forms and those based on Marxism, psychoanalysis, feminism, and so on are only one part, just as those confining themselves to the text in isolation are only another part. So: how does the Harry Potter series appear to show the influence of CS Lewis' Narnia series? Does JKR's known liking for Jane Austen make us re-think her handling of romantic relationships? How does Harry Potter stand in the tradition of the British boarding-school story? Are there genre conflicts between the school element, the fantasy element, and the detective element? Oh, and here's one I have not the least knowledge of, but would love to hear: JKR studied French at university: does the Harry Potter series suggest any French literary influences? Some - maybe all, I have missed many good discussions over the past couple of years - of these questions have been discussed in the past. I understand they may not be of equal interest to everyone, but guff they ain't. David, who thinks the French academics provided bad answers to good questions last year From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 19:36:04 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:36:04 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate > speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot construction - POA is the least bad, and even there Sirius' actions are hard to construe. I am strongly suspicious that Dumbledore's 'screw-ups', for example, are really JKR's screw-ups - or rather, JKR's lack of concern for consistency in a magical fantasy series. > Pippin: Heh, heh. You just don't get it, do you? . The plot ties to the themes pretty well, but to understand what happened to Sirius, you have to understand Lupin. I don't think Lupin would be her favorite adult character if he were sloppily worked out. But the key to understanding him, and thus everything else, is in CoS. "It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not hate them," said Harry. "I'd like to see you try it." --CoS ch 11. These words aren't quoted nearly as often as Dumbledore's speech about choices in the same book, and yet I think they are crucial to understanding it. Oppression creates hatred; in the Potterverse there is no choice about that. The choice that shows what the characters are is not whether to hate but how to deal with it. They may turn their hatred inward, like Winky, or outward like Riddle, or they can channel it constructively, as Harry does with his saving people thing. The latter is the "good" choice, and for those who are "good", ie brave and relatively undamaged, the right choices are the easy ones. Harry was never seriously tempted to join Slytherin; quite the contrary. But for those whom suffering has made bitter and/or cruel, which is *not* presented as a choice, it is no longer easy to turn away from revenge. Few seek it as wholeheartedly as Riddle, but there are many who would like to be good to their friends and evil to their enemies. I believe Rowling intends to show us that this is impossible, both because it is not in the nature of evil to distinguish between guilt and innocence, and because there are those like Voldemort who are expert at manipulating the hate-filled mind. In order to resist that manipulation one must choose what is right over what is easy. But according to Dumbledore AKA Jo, we should have sympathy for those who are too weak to do so, for they are what the cruelty and indifference of others has made them. So Dumbledore has sympathy for Kreacher, and IMO, Jo has sympathy for ESE!Lupin, too. Does that make sense? Pippin From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 20:28:39 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:28:39 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > In order to resist that manipulation one must choose what is > right over what is easy. But according to Dumbledore AKA Jo, we > should have sympathy for those who are too weak to do so, for > they are what the cruelty and indifference of others has made > them. So Dumbledore has sympathy for Kreacher, and IMO, Jo > has sympathy for ESE!Lupin, too. ESE!Lupin is a theory that I admit to enjoying reading, for one primary reason: It's completely and *utterly* testable. It will live or die in empirical fact; it will be true, or not true. There's not much room for shades of ambiguity in the current state of ESE!Lupin, unless you want to separate it out into component parts: Lupin who killed Sirius but didn't kill Cedric--oh, an infinite number of combinations! But now I have to ask Pippin; let me give you a hypothetic, that the factual postulations (Lupin did X, Y, and Z) completely fail to fall out as you say they will. Does that screw your particular reading of theme as well, if/when it happens? -Nora prefers knee-high boots to Mary Janes, all in all From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 21:11:21 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:11:21 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin: > Heh, heh. You just don't get it, do you? No, I don't believe I do. At least, your post all makes perfectly good sense, but I don't see how it is supposed to be a reply to mine. David From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 22:24:52 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:24:52 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > No, I don't believe I do. At least, your post all makes perfectly good sense, but I don't see how it is supposed to be a reply to mine.< Pippin: If I understood your argument correctly, you said JKR doesn't do complexity,doesn't understand the level of consistency which fantasy fans expect in artificial worlds, and this extends to plot and characterization, which therefore don't support the theme. Was that right? The gist of my answer was that if ESE!Lupin is correct, there is a consistent and complex plot that carries out the theme. What we can see of it now is a little bit like a drawing done on a piece of origami and then unfolded. The lines won't match up until you fold the paper correctly. I didn't really deal with the inconsistent world building. I would say that JKR is deliberately inconsistent about things like the number of students which don't directly affect the plot but lend Hogwarts a slightly surreal quality. She is also deliberately inconsistent about characters and their actions, which makes them seem surreal as well, but that is part of the plot and will not be surreal once all is revealed to us. My favorite example is Scabbers falling asleep just after being tossed into the window by Goyle in Book One. That is surreal until you find out in Book Three that Scabbers isn't a normal rat, and is a "sleeper" enemy agent. Pippin From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 22:42:41 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:42:41 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess Message-ID: Although I read the posts from the learned members wishing to analyse the Potterverse, I'm afraid I shall have to wait for "A Student's Guide To HP",as found these days for literature classics on school courses. My last efforts at 'lit crit' were on Pride and Prejudice and Henry IV over 40 years ago. The thread 'Themes and Theories' gives me an excuse to jump in :- As preparation for HBP I've been dusting off my old theory, that Kneasy led me into, that Harry was Possessed by LV at Godric's Hollow, and some explanation for the 'missing' 24 hours. As part of this I've recently come up with the following idea. Voldemort definitely Possessed Harry in the Ministry of Magic. But what is the mechanism for Possession ? Is Possession a more finely focused development of Apparation ? JKR gives a detailed description of Apparating in GoF, a suspicious reader might say unusually detailed. << "GoF, Chapter 'The Portkey', page 63 UK" Apparating 'You have to pass a test to Apparate ?' Harry asked. 'Oh yes,' said Mr Weasley...'The Department of Magical Transportation had to fine a couple of people the other day for Apparating without a licence. It's not easy, Apparition, and when it's not done properly it can lead to nasty complications. This pair I'm talking about went and splinched themselves.' 'Er - splinched ?' said Harry. 'They left half of themselves behind,' said Mr Weasley... "Apparating is disappearing from one place and reappearing almost instantly in another. Charlie failed his first test, Apparated five miles south of where he meant to, right on top of some poor old dear doing her shopping." >> When LV left Harry at GH, theory still being dusted, he splinched himself (and Harry)so that a part of LV remained in Harry, and part of Harry was in LV. Hence the mind link, stronger than the scar link, when LV regained a body at the end of GoF. Then in OoP, Chapter 'The Only One He Ever Feared', pages 719-720 UK. The splinching may have been 'repaired' by the *second* possession in the Ministry of Magic. DD's crooked nose was inches from Harry's as Harry recovered from the possession, so DD was probably checking by eye contact whether LV could still be seen in Harry's eyes. This may explain how DD was able to face Harry back at Hogwarts. It seems such a minor detail, but could Possession be very accurate Apparition ? And has the 'second' posssession undone any Splinching ? This may mean that Harry is no longer a Parselmouth besides breaking the mind link. confusinglyso Phil From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 23:39:13 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:39:13 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > But now I have to ask Pippin; let me give you a hypothetic, that the factual postulations (Lupin did X, Y, and Z) completely fail to fall out as you say they will. Does that screw your particular reading of theme as well, if/when it happens? > > Pippin: Hmmm....well, I expect *some* genuinely sympathetic character to betray/have betrayed the Light. If that doesn't happen at all, then yeah, I'll have to change my ideas about the theme. Pippin From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 15 23:53:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:53:50 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Apparate to Possess References: Message-ID: <007601c513b9$998561a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Phil wrote: > Then in OoP, Chapter 'The Only One He Ever Feared', pages 719-720 UK. > The splinching may have been 'repaired' by the *second* possession > in the Ministry of Magic. DD's crooked nose was inches from Harry's > as Harry recovered from the possession, so DD was probably checking > by eye contact whether LV could still be seen in Harry's eyes. > This may explain how DD was able to face Harry back at Hogwarts. > It seems such a minor detail, but could Possession be very accurate > Apparition ? > And has the 'second' posssession undone any Splinching ? > This may mean that Harry is no longer a Parselmouth besides breaking > the mind link. SSSusan: My first post at TOC is going to be a glorified "me, too!," which is pathetic I realize, but I have to say I really like this idea, Phil. It has bugged me to no end that some people seem to think that Harry will have to continue Occlumency in year 6 because nothing has changed, whereas others seem to think there is no reason to believe the mind link is still present, so Occlumency will no longer be necessarry. I've never quite understood why it's been so "clear" to some posters that the MoM Voldy possession somehow undid everything, made Harry no longer impressionable or malleable by Voldy. Is it your belief, then, Phil, that the link is *totally* closed at this point, because of the "unsplinching"? Or is the link still somehow open via the scar, but it won't be as strong or as useful to Voldy? Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 01:40:36 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:40:36 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Hmmm....well, I expect *some* genuinely sympathetic character > to betray/have betrayed the Light. If that doesn't happen at all, > then yeah, I'll have to change my ideas about the theme. What also makes this scenario so much fun is that there are such good literary arguments for either the yes or the no. Yes argues that betrayal is so thematically important and practically inevitable that it would be a weak conclusion to not have it happen. No argues that betrayal is really rather passe, JKR worked it pretty hard in terms of events in the First War and we still don't know enough about it, so the repercussions/revelations of the first one (restricting it factually to Peter; a past Lupin betrayal of the ESE! sort actually falls into the 'yes' category because it would be a revelation of a previously unovertly disclosed event--no, it's not overt enough in the text right now to count) are more than enough to keep us busy. As always, I'm professionally agnostic on such...minute plot points, but I'm rather inclined more towards numbah two myself. Betrayal's been done, and there are other ways to accomplish catastrophe if that's what's desired, although we may end up with a distinctly un- BANG-y story, in the long run. (I like Diana, after all.) My own sense of literary economy tells me it's not going to be Harry screwing up either, but one of the adults. Funny, whose turn is it to have some real dirt dug up and show the bad side... -Nora indulges in a few hypothetics, for once From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 02:59:00 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:59:00 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > David: > My own feeling is that the 'big themes' and the 'central mystery' > are the same thing. > Neri: I agree that the big theme and the big mystery will be very closely connected. JKR already hinted as much, when she said that she is glad no one ever asked her about her beliefs, because if she told us about them it would then be easy to guess the outcome (I can't find the exact quote now. Pippin had it). > David: > My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate > speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do > complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot construction. Neri: I definitely don't agree that JKR sucks at tight plot construction. I think she's extremely good at it. However, her plot IS extremely complex, and she also took upon herself a very strict limitation ? that (almost) everything must be described from Harry's POV. Under these very difficult conditions JKR sometimes performs less than perfect, but IMO she has never bungled significantly. BTW, I once set a challenge to the HPfGU members, to find any series that has more characters than HP, but is still written mostly from the POV of a single character. I don't think there were any serious takers, although this was in part because I was immediately banished to the OT list. Any takers now? > Pippin: > In order to resist that manipulation one must choose what is > right over what is easy. But according to Dumbledore AKA Jo, we > should have sympathy for those who are too weak to do so, for > they are what the cruelty and indifference of others has made > them. So Dumbledore has sympathy for Kreacher, and IMO, Jo > has sympathy for ESE!Lupin, too. > > Does that make sense? Neri: To describe both Dumbledore's feelings for Kreacher and JKR's feeling for Lupin as "sympathy" is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The exact words are: OotP, p. 832 US: 'She was quite right, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as our Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect .' But this clearly relates to the Kreacher that didn't yet make the choice to trick Harry (who had never hurt him) to his death. I doubt DD thinks that Kreacher deserves kindness and respect now. Two paragraphs later DD refers to the post-choice Kreacher as follows: OotP, p. 832 US: 'Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby's. He was forced to do Sirius's bidding, because Sirius was the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher's faults, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier ? ' So Kreacher is now only to be pitied, as opposed to "love" that JKR feels for Lupin. In addition, Kreacher's fault is perhaps somewhat alleviated by the fact that he was not entirely in his right mind and was under a split geis ? he was magically enslaved to Sirius but also, in less but significant amount, to Narcissa and to the memory of Mrs. Black. > >Nora: > > But now I have to ask Pippin; let me give you a hypothetic, that > the factual postulations (Lupin did X, Y, and Z) completely fail to > fall out as you say they will. Does that screw your particular > reading of theme as well, if/when it happens? > Pippin: > Hmmm....well, I expect *some* genuinely sympathetic character > to betray/have betrayed the Light. If that doesn't happen at all, > then yeah, I'll have to change my ideas about the theme. > Neri: We are back again to a question that was recently asked here: is it possible to identify the big themes before the series is over? I've pointed out in the past that Betrayal is much less of a theme than many fans think it is. In particular, betrayal has had a surprisingly low bang quotient in books 1-5. Actually, can anybody recall a single big bang in the series that was produced by betrayal? The BIG bangs are produced by possession (Voldy->Quirrell, Riddle->Ginny) and fake identity (Peter!Scabbers and Crouch!Moody). Personally I find it difficult to understand why so many members take it as a given that we'll have a super bangy betrayal of the Light side in books 6-7. I won't be surprised if we'll have a Podmor-size character betraying the Order, but more likely some bangy trick of the metamorphmagus/imperius sort. Neri From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 03:07:30 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:07:30 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories References: Message-ID: <00ca01c513d4$a7867ad0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Neri: > I agree that the big theme and the big mystery will be very closely > connected. JKR already hinted as much, when she said that she is glad > no one ever asked her about her beliefs, because if she told us about > them it would then be easy to guess the outcome (I can't find the > exact quote now. Pippin had it). SSSusan: Here 'tis: The quote you are looking for comes from the Vancouver Sun interview by Max Wyman of Oct 26,2000. ------- Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn't personally believe in that kind of magic -- ``not at all.'' Is she a Christian? ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 03:35:59 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:35:59 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: <00ca01c513d4$a7867ad0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> References: <00ca01c513d4$a7867ad0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: <20050216033558.GA5625@...> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:07:30PM -0500, susiequsie23 wrote: > Is she a Christian? > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' This is a quote I fear encourages many an HPfGU fan to avoid the wider view of the books; I don't blame them since it's a very disappointing gaffe by JKR IMHO, although not without a certain irony. If Harry goes off into the figurative desert, I shall have to write to the Times. And speaking of foreshadowings, the long season of chapter discussions of OotP is finally ended! The (so far) most torturous complicated volume of Potterverse is finally precisis-ed out with thoughtful q&a's chapter by chapter. The list elves should all be knighted for this ardous task, it makes rereading OotP much easier in the leadup to HBP. And for ease of use, excuse my putting my version of the list here for you all to hop to by chapter: Date/Week Ch. Title: Poster: YY-MM-DD: Post Number: ~ 01 (Dudley Demented) Pip (bluesqueak) 03-07-07 68149 ~ 01 (Dudley Demented) Pip (bluesqueak) 03-10-06 82399 ~ 02 (A Peck of Owls) Kelley 03-07-20 72009 / 72010 ~ 02 (A Peck of Owls) Kelley 03-10-13 82827 ~ 03 (The Advance Guard) Ali 03-08-08 76055 ~ 03 (The Advance Guard) Ali 03-10-20 83205 ~ 04 (Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place) Eloise 03-10-27 83659 ~ 05 (The Order of the Phoenix) Pippin 03-11-10 84622 ~ 06 (The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black) Claire 03-11-24 85863 ~ 07 (The Ministry of Magic) KathyK 03-12-08 86780 ~ 08 (The Hearing) Oryomai 03-12-23 87462 ~ 09 (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley) Abigail 04-01-10 88304/88305 ~ 10 (Luna Lovegood) Kirstini 04-01-20 89155 ~ 11 (The Sorting Hat's New Song) Marianne 04-02-13 90812 ~ 12 (Professor Umbridge) Jen Reese 04-02-19 91184 ~ 13 (Detention with Dolores) Penny 04-03-01 91834 ~ 14 (Percy and Padfoot) Penapart 04-03-15 93024 ~ 15 (The Hogwarts High Inquisitor) Debbie 04-03-29 94334 ~ 16 (In the Hog's Head) Melody 04-04-13 95772 ~ 17 (Educational Decree Number Twenty-Four) Pt 1 Elisabeth 04-04-26 97025 Part 2 04-05-01 97352 ~ 18 (Dumbledore's Army) Amy Z 04-05-25 99345 ~ 19 (The Lion and the Serpent) Melody 04-06-01 99837 ~ 20 (Hagrid's Tale) Petra 04-06-21 102219 ~ 21 (The Eye of the Snake) Dicentra 04-06-27 102932 ~ 22 (St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries) Wendy St. John 04-07-06 104467 ~ 23 (Christmas on the Closed Ward) Amber 04-07-19 106898 ~ 24 (Occlumency) Melanie 04-08-04 108736 (repost of 108735) ~ 25 (The Beetle at Bay) KathyK 04-09-02 111792 ~ 26 (Seen and Unforeseen) Sunnylove 04-09-15 112921 ~ 27 (The Centaur and the Sneak) Petra 04-09-24 113688 ~ 28 (Snape's Worst Memory) Alla 04-10-06 114902 ~ 29 (Career Advice) Potioncat 04-10-18 115789 ~ 30 (Grawp) Debbie 04-11-03 117118 ~ 31 (O.W.L.s) Juli 04-11-15 117895 ~ 32 (Out of the Fire) Juli 04-11-23 118332 ~ 33 (Fight and Flight) Anita 04-12-06 119379 ~ 34 (The Department of Mysteries) Abbi 04-12-21 120207 ~ 35 (Beyond the Veil) meriaugust 05-01-03 121041 ~ 36 (The Only One He Ever Feared) arudemechanincal 05-01-18 122222 (pt1) 05-01-20 122444 (pt2) ~ 37 (The Lost Prophecy) dumbledore11214 05-02-06 124028 ~ 38 (The Second War Begins) danfeeney 05-02-15 124570 There is now no excuse for OotP confusion :) Let's pray there aren't as many chapters to HBP (only BIG ones)! -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 03:38:56 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (kumayama) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:38:56 -0000 Subject: lit. crit. and Potter (actually just another exchange between Lyn and Sean) In-Reply-To: <20050215054033.GA16442@...> Message-ID: Ah, Sean, I thanked you in advance, and I shall again thank you now for making quite clear your meaning. You find merit in a convention I don't subscribe to (nor feel bound by--ever notice the rules for participating in this group?-- DU can serve as a model of how to rectify that). Perhaps a less confrontational and controlling reaction to your dissatisfaction with my style of posting (and your perception of it as a waste of your bandwith) would be simply not to read my posts anymore, or bother to reply to them. As for whether or not I lived up to my statement that "I shan't go far into this" is perhaps a matter of perspective. I'm used to writing 25-35 page reports for medical professionals and the courts; and even in my pasttime I am known for comprehensive equipment reviews. So for me, a page or less is a most certainly not a lengthy treatment of a matter; your standards for judgment are different and you don't care for mine. Perhaps I detect a trend here. I am pleased to learn that I brought some hilarity into your life, for whatever reason and with whatever justification (actually your phrase "authorial meglomania" was quite successful in generating its own amusement). As this may come as close to a positive point as we shall share, this is where I shall be content to close. I'm afraid I will never match the openings of E.B. White, nor close as pithily as Wiggenstein. Lyn --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:20:37AM -0000, kumayama wrote: > > > > > > Hello Sean, > > > > What Jolly fun, my third public post and I'm held to account with a word I"m not sure really > > exists--i.e., your line, "snip egregrious top-posting." Seems a "word" of that spelling gets > > used occasionally, yet I've never really found it in a respected dictionary (say the OED, at > > least my worn old muti-volume set). > > > > So being my inquisitive self, I say, "Self, just what did Sean mean to say about my posting? > > Ah, why not go to the source and ask." So, taking my self's advice to Self, I shall ask, just > > what did you intend to convey in finding my "top-posting" egregrious? TIA for any > > enlightenment you may bestow. > > Adding the entire message you are replying to without specific relationship to > the points you are making wastes my bandwidth. I am also forced to perform > major editing on your email in order to reply. I could have used the phrase > 'bloody annoying' but 'egregrious' was more entertaining at least for myself. > > > But on to your more expansive comments. Frankly, you illustrate why I found Kneasy's > > comments refreshing. I shan't go too far into this as I don't have the interest or time, and > > Kneasy has already made his own reply in defence (or was it just explanation?). I guess I'm > > a simpleton at heart, and perhaps a bit of a detective (and thus why I'm a > > neuropsychologist and not a Jungian analyst). > > But you did 'go far into this'. At length. To satisfy Kneasy's curiosity, I > merely wondered why everyone retreats the moment anyone goes 'metathinking'. I > thought perhaps it disturbed them, hence the word. Judging by the vast > silence, perhaps they're merely asleep. The suggestion that the possibility of > authorial meglomania is sufficient warning that we shouldn't stray from canon > is frankly hilarious and I will close the subject by merely noting that the > art is there for everyone to make anything they like from it. Within > copyright-infringment guidelines of course. > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 03:44:40 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:44:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050216034441.38880.qmail@...> Was Lilly already a most unwanted > competitor for Jame's > > attention? Oh my god! Are you saying that Lilly is the Yoko Ono of the Marauders? Peter must be Ringo. I guess Lupin is George? Perhaps the Malfoys represent the Eastman family. Just trying to return to earth with a little laughter after launching into the 8th dimension reading some of these posts! While I find reading some of these other longer posts to be challenging after a long day of statistics class, I tend to spend more of my time inside the upper and lower control limits. I kind of like looking at life a little closer to the mean. Just think. If I had not read the first book to my son, I would not be reading these incredible literary criticisms. I just thought the plot twists were fun to read and the characters were interesting. I gave it a 9 because it has a nice beat and I can dance to it. --- Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "kumayama" > wrote: > > > > This brings up an interesting (at least for me) > consideration. What > > did Peter think of James and Lily having a child? > If he remained so > > "star-struck" with James, or at least invested in > his relationship with > > James, what did he think of having to share > Jame's attention with > > others. Was Lilly already a most unwanted > competitor for Jame's > > attention? Recall the photo Moody shares with > Harry in which Peter > > has positioned himself between James and Lilly. > Is this not faintly > > remiscent of how a child or dog will interject > between two adults > > sharing affection. So what then might a Potter > child represent to Peter? > > Would not the child draw yet more attention away > from Peter, and > > would it not further cement the James-Lilly > relationship to the > > detriment of Peter? If Peter looked at it this way > (and of course there > > is no direct canon to indicate this) might he not > actually be interested > > in LV doing away with the youngster, and perhaps > even James as a > > result of him feeling slighted that the Jame's had > diminished his > > attention towards Peter for his new role as > parent. > > > Um. The dynamics of all-male groups. > Enter a female who ensnares the leader, displacing > all the others - his closest > friends. > Resentments, jealousies - who knows what might have > been unleashed. > > The positionings in that photograph have been the > subject of speculation > in the past. Little agreement as to its significance > though. Is he intruding > between James and Lily? A would-be Iago? A devious > destroyer, Uriah Heap > style? Or are we reading it wrong? > Perhaps the Potters are acting in a protective > manner, one each side to > give him feelings of security. No, didn't think > you'd like that one. > > Usually I work to the principle that I may be wrong > but I'm not uncertain. > Can't seem to get that to work with Peter, it's > uncertainty all the way. > > "You should have died [...] rather than betray your > friends, as we would > have done for you." > > Somehow the idea of Sirius dying for Peter... er, I > don't think so - or is > that my ESE!Sirius inclinations showing? James > though, what would he > sacrifice for Peter? A lot but not everything IMO, > certainly not his family. > And Peter wouldn't sacrifice himself to save James - > let alone Lily or Harry. > If - and that's a big if - we believe the situation > as described in PoA. > > Before GH? Peter is so weak, ineffectual, that it > wouldn't surprise me if > he didn't see Harry as an opportunity to get closer > and to get more attention > from James. To use your dog metaphor, I can see him > sitting by the cradle, > wagging his tail. > That always pleases the parents. And the dog stays > in the warm. > > Not a great deal of help, I'm afraid. I just can't > get a firm grip on Peter. > There's something missing, or at least my instinct > so insists. What? > Dunno. > Frustrating. > > Kneasy > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 04:11:58 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:11:58 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050216041158.GB5625@...> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:59:00AM -0000, nkafkafi wrote: > Neri: > I definitely don't agree that JKR sucks at tight plot construction. I > think she's extremely good at it. However, her plot IS extremely > complex, and she also took upon herself a very strict limitation > that (almost) everything must be described from Harry's POV. Under > these very difficult conditions JKR sometimes performs less than > perfect, but IMO she has never bungled significantly. Technically there will always be errors, the test is whether the art is so good you never (or prefer not to) notice. Tolkien's work is full of weird little inconsistencies that arise from rewriting chapters 30 or 40 times and subtly changing viewpoints and styles each time. Of course I don't expect JKR ever to edit her work like Tolkien did later with the Hobbit and LotR. And the Potterverse is essentially mapless, which saves a lot of trouble. But yes, I do expect there to be artifacts of the process lying in and around the canon, it happens with most authors, except maybe Robert Pirsig who seems to be have been an exceptional planner (5 years of rolodexed cards before he wrote a word). > BTW, I once set a challenge to the HPfGU members, to find any series > that has more characters than HP, but is still written mostly from the > POV of a single character. I don't think there were any serious > takers, although this was in part because I was immediately banished > to the OT list. Any takers now? Gee, Tolkien maybe? That's technically 3 people (Bilbo, Frodo and Sam) filtered through at least 3 editions and as many generations; but it's hard to think of anything similar with huge panthenons of characters and a relatively narrow POV. There are many things they never understand and have obviously been given second or third-hand and many later additions to the text, as was the purpose of Tolkien's fictional scholarship. It's quite easy to tell which parts those are: edit out anything where a hobbit was not present (you lose at least a quarter of the book at a rough guess). Potterverse is different, literally being Harry's Universe. Increasingly the question becomes not, 'how much does Harry know?' but 'how many of the blindingly obvious questions should he have asked?' It will be infuriating to learn that basic and important knowledge of the Founders, for instance, has been sitting in the history books oft quoted by Hermione, and hitherto ignored by Harry. Something of that nature is more or less likely I fear. > We are back again to a question that was recently asked here: is it > possible to identify the big themes before the series is over? I've > pointed out in the past that Betrayal is much less of a theme than > many fans think it is. In particular, betrayal has had a surprisingly > low bang quotient in books 1-5. Actually, can anybody recall a single > big bang in the series that was produced by betrayal? The BIG bangs > are produced by possession (Voldy->Quirrell, Riddle->Ginny) and fake > identity (Peter!Scabbers and Crouch!Moody). Personally I find it > difficult to understand why so many members take it as a given that > we'll have a super bangy betrayal of the Light side in books 6-7. I > won't be surprised if we'll have a Podmor-size character betraying the > Order, but more likely some bangy trick of the metamorphmagus/imperius > sort. Well yes, if JKR's gaffe about Christian themes is anything to go by. That bothers me more than most suggestions, because I'm wondering how far Harry's POV is going to extend. I don't think JKR intends to resolve the WW's problems by book 7. I think it more likely that if Harry survives, he's going to tell them to sort it out themselves. And go and play Quidditch professionally :) -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 04:20:35 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:20:35 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories References: <00ca01c513d4$a7867ad0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> <20050216033558.GA5625@...> Message-ID: <010301c513de$dcfe54d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Sean wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:07:30PM -0500, susiequsie23 wrote: > Is she a Christian? > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.' SSS again: Just to clarify. I did not write the question, "Is she a Christian?" That came from the person doing the interview. Neri mentioned the quote; I sent it in. Je suis seulement le messager. Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 04:35:44 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:35:44 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: <20050216033558.GA5625@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Sean: > This is a quote I fear encourages many an HPfGU fan to avoid the > wider view of the books; I don't blame them since it's a very > disappointing gaffe by JKR IMHO, although not without a certain > irony. If Harry goes off into the figurative desert, I shall have > to write to the Times. Gaffe? Funny, it looks to me like she was just expressing one of the sources for what will eventually happen in the series. And wouldn't any 'wider' view of the books want to take this into account and not dismiss it off-hand? Frankly, the continual dismissal of JKR's comments about her own works boggles me more than slightly. In my own professional line of work, there are so many times that I'd absolutely *kill* to have comments like these, not as complete prescriptives for analysis and interpretation, but for an enriched understanding of context. I do think that context matters, particularly as... Barthesian hard post-modern indeterminacy is dead. Deader than a doornail. The author is back alive in some way, shape, or form, and context matters; the "so what?" ending Barthes ultimately takes you to is rather unsatisfactory. It is an equally arbitrary offense to say that "The word of the author is absolute law!" as to say that "The word of the author is completely meaningless, free interpretation is everything!". I find it's often useful to take authors into consideration about their own works, even when it's no longer a WIP. When it *is* a work in progress, the authorial comments can be an excellent heuristic, as has been pointed out in other threads. If it plays out in line with what JKR said on the religious angle, that will be there; but there's really no way that it will be the *only* thing there. Hence is the difference between literature and propaganda, and there's no reason to believe that the former will become the latter at this stage in time. -Nora notes that there's a big meta post in there somewhere about the metaphors we use to describe interpretation, but nobody here probably wants to hear about Schenker From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 06:50:38 2005 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:50:38 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c51387$18e32820$37350f9a@shasta> David wrote, > But it doesn't matter if I'm wrong about the details here: where I > think I will be vindicated is that the eventual resolution - the > defeat of Voldemort, the explanation of the events at Godric's > Hollow, the resolution of the old conflict among the founders, the > resolution of Snape's fate - will turn not on a mechanical juggling > by Dumbledore but on the themes of love, choice, loyalty, unity in > diversity, and acceptance of the place of death in the universe, > that have dominated the books to date. Nice to see you around David - and I thought I'd welcome myself back to active posting with a grand me too. I agree about JKR's weak plotting. ("Sucks"? Well, that's maybe a little tough? Maybe it's more like watching a top tennis player with a "weak" backhand: weak by their standards, though it would blow a hack like me right off the court.) I'd even stretch that weakness to include the whole planning of her imaginary world. A long time ago, I remember reading an article by Alan Richardson, where he claims that Rowling, more like Tolkien than Lewis, has mythopeia "in spades." At the time, I agreed. I don't any more. I would now say that JKR's creativity is much more like Lewis' - if anything even patchier. (For the record, I don't really give a rip. The special things about Jo's writing are her fundamental values - which you mentioned -, her sense of humor - which I think is devestating -, and a hyperactive, irrepresible creativity that expresses itself more in clever, ad hoc plot devices than in strategic, Tolkinien breadth.) The humor and the plot devices alone could never carry her series home - but I think - as you say - that her grasp of those basic human themes will be enough to pull it through. * * * * The one thing I'd really like to see her wrestle with, though, is freedom. Issues of freedom, character, choice and destiny are obviously important to Jo. But the house system and sorting hat (otherwise known as a charactometer - accent on the third syllable) either call the whole thing into question or set the stage for some really compelling thinking about the issues - and ambiguities thereof. (I'd love to see the Sorting Hat turn out to be the great tragic figure of the whole series - even more than Snape, defintely more than Pettigrew.) Hope, they say, is the certainty of things not seen. Me, well, I'm doin my best. 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 aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 09:54:00 2005 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:54:00 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter, Father Time In-Reply-To: <20050216034441.38880.qmail@...> Message-ID: <001001c5140d$71e34fa0$37350f9a@shasta> Randy muttered, > Oh my god! > > Are you saying that Lilly is the Yoko Ono of the > Marauders? Helpless giggling. You know, Randy, I don't think I ever mentioned this, but way back when the hills were young (back before HPfGU was even a Yahoo group and all these clever whippersnappers showed up) it was your posts (and Neil's) that convinced me that I absolutely had to horn in on the action. And then, round about when I turned up, you rode off into the sunset. That was pretty disappointing. Seeing you post around here warms my doddering bones. (I think, at least. Didn't you? Or was that someone else? I think it was you. Jim Ferrer - another one of those really old names - disappeared for a long time too then turned into a posting machine many moons later. But he wasn't the funny one, I don't think. Or do I? Bother. Beware, youngsters, of your second infancy.) Anway, I was aware of Haggridd but never got to know him - but hearing that he has died made me realize how long HPfGU has been around. Something like 4 1/2 years, I'd guess. It's not a lifetime, but it's long enough to have seen some water under the bridge. Hearing about babies is fun - but when you hear about a death ... well, yeah. Anyway, and taking the long view of things, is there eventaully going to be an email group for the truly senile HP fan? Perhaps with automated emails sent on a regular basis reminding us (1) who we are, (2) why we are here, (3) who thinks what, and (4) who is meant to be violently disagreeing with whom. (Heck - I think I could use one of those already.) 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 naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 10:01:14 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:01:14 -0000 Subject: Reminder on posting rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "kumayama" wrote: > > Ah, Sean, > I thanked you in advance, and I shall again thank you now for making quite clear your > meaning. You find merit in a convention I don't subscribe to (nor feel bound by--ever > notice the rules for participating in this group?-- DU can serve as a model of how to > rectify that). >From the Humongous Bigfile (on Posting Rules): ======================== 2.4 Quoted Material 2.4.1 Attribution Please put quoted material before your own comments, and identify the author at the beginning of the quote. When replying to a post containing comments from more than one person, make sure you attribute the comments to the proper person. ... Please clearly indicate quoted material (for example, by using chevrons or angle brackets [>], which Yahoo and many e-mail programs insert automatically; or by putting quoted material between quotation marks). 2.4.2 Snipping To be kind to those with slow internet connections, please snip (edit down) all quoted material, leaving only the minimum necessary for others to understand your reply. ... ========================== Naama From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 10:14:52 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:14:52 -0000 Subject: Indeterminacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora wrote: > Barthesian hard post-modern indeterminacy is dead. Deader than a > doornail. The author is back alive in some way, shape, or form, and > context matters; the "so what?" ending Barthes ultimately takes you > to is rather unsatisfactory. That may be true as far as academic criticism goes, and it's nice to know the (current) end point of pursuing a line of inquiry or a method. However, for a group such as this, it's part of the fun to play 'let's pretend' and consider that all her comments are excluded from the discussion. And there is no doubt that many fans find some of her interventions problematic in the extreme - to the point of no longer enjoying the series, judging by some of the comments over at Hog's Head. It is an equally arbitrary offense to > say that "The word of the author is absolute law!" as to say > that "The word of the author is completely meaningless, free > interpretation is everything!". I find it's often useful to take > authors into consideration about their own works, even when it's no > longer a WIP. When it *is* a work in progress, the authorial > comments can be an excellent heuristic, as has been pointed out in > other threads. How very post-modern. ;-) David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 11:07:51 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:07:51 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > If I understood your argument correctly, you said JKR doesn't do > complexity,doesn't understand the level of consistency which > fantasy fans expect in artificial worlds, and this extends to plot > and characterization, which therefore don't support the theme. > Was that right? David: 3 out of 5. Yes on complexity, a qualified yes on consistency (maybe 'has other concerns than' rather than 'doesn't understand'), yes on plot, no on characterisation, no on themes. I do see chracterisation and plot supporting the themes. In fact, I think this is my point: the plot is not like that of a detective or spy story, where plot is paramount and one may suppose that rigorous analysis of small clues may lead one to the unravelling of the mystery. In my experience of this type of literature, chracterisation is necessarily flat to allow as many characters as possible to remain suspects for as long as possible. It is theories based on the opposite supposition - that HP is *predominantly* a detective or spying novel - that I feel are going to be disappointed. Pippin: > The gist of my answer was that if ESE!Lupin is correct, there is a > consistent and complex plot that carries out the theme. > What we can see of it now is a little bit like a drawing done on a > piece of origami and then unfolded. The lines won't match up > until you fold the paper correctly. Yes - but I have to say that I don't see ESE!Lupin as one of those complex speculative theories, in the main. The main premise is so simple that the title says it all. Try thinking of a name for Magic Dishwasher that actually tells the intelligent newbie enough to flesh out the rest of the theory for himself. I think JKR's characterisation is subtle and complex, yes, so in that sense, yes, she 'does complexity'. It's just that her characters can't plan a simple thing like world domination, or the protection of a valuable artefact, for toffee. If for the moment we assume ESE!Lupin is part of the forthcoming revelations, I don't honestly see how it thematically addresses the central mysteries of the series, which I take to be 1] what really happened at Godric's Hollow, particularly how did Voldemort survive and 2] how can Harry defeat Voldemort without being morally compromised himself (there is a possible 3] how can Slytherin be truly brought back into the fold)? A betrayal by Lupin would certainly be spectacular, just as Crouch!Moody was spectacular (I thought Nora's comments on betrayal were helpful, but I do tend to agree with you that a big betrayal, of which Pettigrew and Quirrell are foreshadowings, is very much on the cards), but I would see it as a foil to the resolution of these mysteries, rather than an integral part. However, all this obscures that we seem to be in agreement that it is themes that drive plot, not vice versa. > I didn't really deal with the inconsistent world building. I would > say that JKR is deliberately inconsistent about things like the > number of students which don't directly affect the plot but lend > Hogwarts a slightly surreal quality. And, no doubt, the use of phrases such as 'Oh, maths' followed by successive explanations on her website, which themselves require subsequent emendation, is all part of her plan to disorientate the fandom? David, happy to withdraw the word 'sucks' on Mike's recommendation From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 11:07:37 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:07:37 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > My own feeling is that the 'big themes' and the 'central mystery' > are the same thing. > > My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate > speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do > complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot construction - > POA is the least bad, and even there Sirius' actions are hard to > construe. I am strongly suspicious that Dumbledore's 'screw-ups', > for example, are really JKR's screw-ups - or rather, JKR's lack of > concern for consistency in a magical fantasy series. > I couldn't agree more. The very diversity and complexity of the conspiracy theories here are an indication of the number and variety of the holes that beg to be plugged. Like you, I think they are simply that - holes (rather than clues). > However, I feel she has more grip on the themes, and that the > eventual revelation of the series will be a theme-related one, not a > plot-related one. My best guess has been that Voldemort also has > mother-love protection, but his attempts to reject his father and > Muggle ancestry and to live forever have progressively undermined > that. I don't think that Tom Riddle had a love protection - as it would undermine the point of the efficacy of Love. For purposes of symmetry, I had suggested that his mother put on him a protection of hate - arising from her reciprocated hatred of his father. This would make Tom a child of hate vs. Harry the child of love. It's a bit too neat, though. Most likely, and it chimes better with the choice theme, is that Tom made himself into what he is, without external (magical) influence. >The crucial clue, in this theory, is Dumbledore's assertion > that 'Voldemort doesn't understand love'. Harry's mother love > protection is the inadvertent means by which Harry is marked (we > know AK leaves no scar of itself) by Voldemort as his equal. > Sirius' death advances the theme because while it seems that Lily's > protection involved a spell, Harry is able to cast Voldemort off by > direct appropriation of the love between him and Sirius - consider > the parallel with the Christian sloughing of Mosaic ritual. Feeling dense here - I don't get the last bit about Mosaic ritual. Could you elaborate on that? Naama From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 12:03:07 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:03:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> --- naamagatus wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" > wrote: > > > > My own feeling is that the 'big themes' and the 'central mystery' > > are the same thing. > > > > My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate > > speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do > > complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot > construction - > > POA is the least bad, and even there Sirius' actions are hard to > > construe. I am strongly suspicious that Dumbledore's 'screw-ups', > > for example, are really JKR's screw-ups - or rather, JKR's lack of > > concern for consistency in a magical fantasy series. > > > > I couldn't agree more. The very diversity and complexity of the > conspiracy theories here are an indication of the number and variety > of the holes that beg to be plugged. Like you, I think they are > simply that - holes (rather than clues). I agree with this as well. As much as I enjoyed OoP (and I'm surprised and intrigued to discover that there are at least 3 newcomers to this list who cite it as their favourite of the series so far), I was very dissatisfied with the whole prophecy plot line. Not so much regarding the prophecy itself, but I still cannot comprehend why exactly it was so important to guard the prophecy - or even keep it in existence. Yes, there is the whole insanity thing to get around, but why on earth couldn't they have just smashed it? Dumbledore, after all, had (allegedly) perfect recollection of it. I can only think of two reasons - one, that Voldemort wasted almost a whole year trying to get hold of the prophecy, and so bought Dumbledore some time, and two, that he was trying to lure Voldemort into revealing himself at the Ministry, which he presumably expected only to work if Voldemort failed to lure Harry there first, hence the importance of occlumency. I'm sure there has been much discussion on this over on HPFGU - as you can see, I haven't visited there for while. Catherine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 12:48:36 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:48:36 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> Message-ID: Catherine wrote I was very dissatisfied with the whole prophecy plot line. Not so much regarding the > prophecy itself, but I still cannot comprehend why exactly it was so important to guard the > prophecy - or even keep it in existence. Yes, there is the whole insanity thing to get around, > but why on earth couldn't they have just smashed it? Indeed. Furthermore, this is not the only example where a seemingly standard bit of magic (the equivalent, more or less, of a combination lock) trumps all the ability and creativity of a Dumbledore and a Voldemort. Other examples include the Triwizard goblet - weak enough to be fooled by Crouch, strong enough for Dumbledore to be obliged to enter Harry in the tournament, and Apparition at Hogwarts. David From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 12:50:48 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:50:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050216125048.52229.qmail@...> Catherine wrote: Sigune here: As one of those newcomers who offered OotP as their favourite, I feel inclined to reply to this. After reading the recent complex discussions on this board I am very painfully aware of the fact that my contribution is going to sound exceedingly simple and na?ve, but well, so be it. First I want to say that my partiality for OotP has much to do with the characterisations and complexity - with Harry growing up, with the Snape glimpses, with James and Sirius becoming more problematic than before. I am not much of a sleuth (clues to mysteries simply pass me by - this probably makes all of you wonder what I am doing here, but hey, I *do* enjoy reading other people's speculations and like to keep them in mind when re-reading), so I just let the plot meander towards its finish and keep myself amused with other elements instead. But now to the prophecy. There are, indeed, mighty holes in the Prophecy plot line, but they never bothered me while reading and/or reflecting afterwards. The reason for this is that, despite Dumbledore's and Voldemort's efforts to the contrary, I have never been convinced of the genuine importance of the prophecy. That is, although it has obviously been the engine behind the actions that lie at the basis of the Potter series' plot - the murder of Harry's parents and Dumbledore's meddling with Harry's life - I have always felt that both Dumbledore and Voldemort have been fixated on the wrong thing. To me, the idea of a prophecy determining a person's fate is in entire contradiction with the theme of choice that is repeatedly pushed to the fore in the series. Apart from that, I, prosaic Muggle, am simply very sceptical of predictions to begin with. All great 'prophets' owe their renown to interpretations post factum. Prophecies are pretty useless as guidelines because they are *always* vague; and stories featuring a prophecy tend to have a nasty twist in the tail, Oedipus's being the classic example. I was rather astounded to read that Dumbledore set such great store by something as uninteresting (or, to put it bluntly, *STUPID*) as a prophecy. So, actually, what I read in the Prophecy plot (but books six and seven may of course prove me spectacularly wrong) was a glaring instance of weird wizard thinking - that is, a way of thinking devoid of the logic Muggles are supposed to more easily take recourse to because they have to do without magic. The more powerful the wizard/witch, it seems, the less use s/he makes of logic. Magical minds make funny leaps - I suppose Harry's actions in OotP promise great things for his wizarding future ;-). Yours severely, Sigune --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 12:53:08 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:53:08 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot In-Reply-To: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: > Catharine: > > I can only think of two reasons - one, that Voldemort wasted > almost a whole year trying to get hold of the prophecy, and so > bought Dumbledore some time, and two, that he was trying to lure > Voldemort into revealing himself at the Ministry, which he > presumably expected only to work if Voldemort failed to lure Harry > there first, hence the importance of occlumency. Both of those reasons have legs, as Voldemort alludes to both issues in his obligatory "So, you want to know why I'm here..." speech at the end. Voldie was very happy to be nicely ensconced in hiding; he gets to work at finding out the end of the novel after 15-something years, and his main enemy looks like an idjit for saying "The sky is falling! Voldemort is here!". So Dumbledore has problems: on the one hand, there are strong pluses to keeping Voldemort from going active. Voldemort in hiding is far more careful and discriminate about doing things like killing people, which is generally nice for the white hats, and Harry gets some more time and mad skillz under his belt. On the other hand, the Ministry and the general populace are sitting ducks, and Voldemort can accomplish certain goals because no one is really believing the threat. So don't break the desired shiny object, but guard it; use it as a lure and eventually Voldemort himself will have to come into a public place and be told that he is indeed live on Candid Camera. Of course, it goes a little egg-shaped and they end up losing one of the Order members most prized by the person who they're all depending on. Oops. Which leads to my $64,000 question, which I hope is answered, being "What the hell was up with Occlumency lessons? Good teacher, bad teacher**? Ended them as personal prerogative or with knowledge of his boss? Because I don't know." Oh, waiting. **(I have a personal conceptual model for Occlumency and why Harry couldn't learn it that I would be happy to share. Not for those deeply allergic to comparisons with RL practices. No idea if it has legs or not, but it makes sense to me.) -Nora longs for another hour of sleep From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 13:41:07 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:41:07 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dave wrote: > > My impression of JKR is that, despite the many elaborate > > speculations that have arisen in fandom, she just doesn't do > > complexity. She also, IMO, mostly sucks at tight plot > > construction - POA is the least bad, and even there Sirius' > > actions are hard to construe. I am strongly suspicious that > > Dumbledore's 'screw-ups', for example, are really JKR's screw- > > ups - or rather, JKR's lack of concern for consistency in a > > magical fantasy series. Naama responded: > I couldn't agree more. The very diversity and complexity of the > conspiracy theories here are an indication of the number and > variety of the holes that beg to be plugged. Like you, I think they > are simply that - holes (rather than clues). SSSusan: I guess this puts me in a slightly different camp. I think that JKR does have some problems with plot holes [some issues around the TWT cup, for instance, even with TT] and with [minor to me, major to others] inconsistencies or Flints along the lines of the number of students at Hogwarts, the number of teachers & just how it is they teach all of these students, the ages of the Weasley brothers, and etc. OTOH I also think that what JKR does exceedingly well is *layers.* Layers of meaning in names and words she chooses. Layers of possibility in her characters and overall story. I mean, here we sit, 5 books into a series, and we still can argue ? quite reasonably, I might add ? all kinds of possibilities surrounding many of the *major* characters. I don't see this as a failing or as due to plot holes. I see this as at least in large part deliberate on JKR's part. She *is* hiding mysteries, she *is* revealing grayness and probably quite enjoying the arguments which arise out of said grayness. Is Fudge stupid? Typical bumbling politician? Truly evil underneath a veneer of bumbling stupidity? Does he know more than he lets on? Is DD a kind, loving, wise old fart who makes mistakes now & again? Or is he a manipulating, cold-hearted puppetmaster? Just how much does the man really know? Is Lupin a good-hearted, if cowardly and occasionally selfish, man? Or is he ESE! at the core, driven there by the prejudices of his world and resentments arising from them? Are his failings something Herself "wants" us to forgive? Or are they serious matters? Or is it worse than most of us know, and he's actually the one behind it all, the great betrayer? Is it plot holes or inconsistencies which leave all this (fairly) wide open? Or is it a master of layering and precise revelation of select information? I lean towards the latter. Which is why I agreed with Nora's earlier post on JKR's supposed gaffe. I don't see a reason to believe that JKR made a mistake in identifying her beliefs or their importance. But the fact that, again, we're 5 books into the series and a reader can be atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Christian or wiccan and still be pleased with the "messages" she's sending speaks to her ability and desire to do what she's doing in a non-propaganda'ish way. As Nora said, why expect her literary work to turn into propaganda in the end? It may be that, once we reach the end, we'll see *something* in the resolution which mirrors *something* in her Christian belief system, but it doesn't mean that she's going to be shouting at people, "See!! It was all a Christian story after all! Ha ha! Suckered you into reading it and now you've been prosletyzed to." Not her style, that. No, I think there may be parallels but that the reader won't have reason to feel it's been propaganda. There have been parallels or "borrowings" from all kinds of things in her books so far ? folklore, mythology ? but it doesn't mean that's ALL it's about or ALL that we'll see in the end. Siriusly Snapey Susan, still way under the weather and so probably shouldn't be attempting this post, but there you have it. From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 13:58:05 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:58:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Reading OoP In-Reply-To: <20050216125048.52229.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050216135806.56092.qmail@...> --- Eva Thienpont wrote: > Sigune here: > > As one of those newcomers who offered OotP as their favourite, I feel inclined to reply to this. > After reading the recent complex discussions on this board I am very painfully aware of the fact > that my contribution is going to sound exceedingly simple and nave, but well, so be it. > > First I want to say that my partiality for OotP has much to do with the characterisations and > complexity - with Harry growing up, with the Snape glimpses, with James and Sirius becoming more > problematic than before. I am not much of a sleuth (clues to mysteries simply pass me by - this > probably makes all of you wonder what I am doing here, but hey, I *do* enjoy reading other > people's speculations and like to keep them in mind when re-reading), so I just let the plot > meander towards its finish and keep myself amused with other elements instead. Yes - I agreed with much of what you said, when I read it in your intro. It was quite refreshing to come across, actually, because so many people expressed disappointment in OoP in the first days after its release. Myself included, on first reading, but that wasn't because of the book - it was more because I'd spent so much time on HPFGU that the first reading felt stale. It wasn't as enjoyable as my first reading of any of the others. In short, it was a victim of over analysis of the series (Mrs Figg a squib? Not Lily's best friend Aged Up? Oh well, hey ho. Moving on...) That left me by my second reading, fortunately; OoP surprised me many times over and exceeded my expectations in some ways and although it isn't my favourite - that is still PoA - it is increasingly becoming a close second. Why? Well, I think that like you, I am more of a character person than a plot person, and I loved Angry Harry. I also loved Umbridge - JKR's best villain to date, IMO, although I wished she hadn't got her to own up to the Dementors in that way (and Kneasy's analysis made me look at her in a slightly different way, for which I thank him). The Harry/Snape relationship moved from outright hatred, to ambivalence, to outright hatred again - I wonder how long (if ever) it is before Harry realises that his renewed hatred of Snape may stem in part from his anger over the tarnished image of James? Dudley - the interaction between him and Harry took a different turn (and I'd still like to know why Dudley goes to Kings Cross every year - surely *he* can be trusted to stay at home alone?). Because of the pain of Sirius' death (I still find it hard to read on past Harry's History of Magic exam), and because of the way in which everything in OoP is turned on its head for Harry, and therefore us as well, the book seemed less formulaic than usual (although still operating within the usual parameters), and therefore a much less comfortable read. But I now enjoy it all the more for that. Yes, I am dissatisfied with the plotting, and I'm unhappy that she killed off Sirius - but in a way I admire her for it, because the "what ifs", skewed logic and easily avoidable mistakes which occur result in something messy and heartbreaking - just like in Real Life. Catherine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 14:38:51 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:38:51 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: > far), I was very dissatisfied with the whole prophecy plot line. Not so much regarding the prophecy itself, but I still cannot comprehend why exactly it was so important to guard the prophecy - or even keep it in existence. Yes, there is the whole insanity thing to get around, but why on earth couldn't they have just smashed it? Dumbledore, after all, had (allegedly) perfect recollection of it. I can only think of two reasons - one, that Voldemort wasted almost a whole year trying to get hold of the prophecy, and so bought Dumbledore some time, and two, that he was trying to lure Voldemort into revealing himself at the Ministry, which he presumably expected only to work if Voldemort failed to lure Harry there first, hence the importance of > occlumency. > Pippin: Not only are those the reasons given in the book, they make the prophecy pure McGuffin (Alfred Hitchcock's term of art for the object of desire that sets a mystery in motion.) Like Hammet's classic Maltese Falcon it turned out to be completely worthless except that everyone wanted it. "Such stuff as dreams are made on," to quote from the film. Ooooh. Pippin From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 15:56:27 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050216155628.90202.qmail@...> --- nrenka wrote: > **(I have a personal conceptual model for Occlumency and why Harry > couldn't learn it that I would be happy to share. Not for those > deeply allergic to comparisons with RL practices. No idea if it has > legs or not, but it makes sense to me.) Yes please. Catherine __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 16:00:16 2005 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:00:16 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c51440$9c89dbb0$37350f9a@shasta> Naama pondered, > I don't think that Tom Riddle had a love protection - as it would > undermine the point of the efficacy of Love. Great to see you Naama! - but I don't see a problem there. A Harry, progeny of amity, vs. Voldemort, scion of enimity, scenario would be workable. But you could work it out David's way, too. Imagine if Voldemort were to discover that the root of all his power is not his own mojo but a strapping big dose of Mummy woovie Voldie. It's the sort of subversive twist that JKR might like, and could allow some interesting thoughts about human nature - for example, that not even hatred evil are possible without love and goodness. (And besides: Jo's comments about not calling his Unmentionability "Voldie" are obviosuly a subtrefuge for something, eh?) BTW, the fact that I've even briefly entertained (or even been entertained by) this theory is conlcusive proof that it'll never happen. Which is a pity. > > Harry is able to cast Voldemort off by > > direct appropriation of the love between him and Sirius - consider > > the parallel with the Christian sloughing of Mosaic ritual. > > Feeling dense here - I don't get the last bit about Mosaic ritual. > Could you elaborate on that? That's long shot on David's part, but clever. In his epistles Paul talks about faith in God's grace replacing the need to observe the details of Mosaic (Old Testament) law. Ergo, the love inside of Harry turns out to be more powerful than Voldemort's ability to manipulate magic. Love trumps Technique, Essense trumps Manipulation, Emotion trumps Reason, Internal vulnerability trumps External Mastery. Or some such. (Love trumps Hate isn't quite the point, btw.) [NB: I'm on vacation at my in-laws and working from a dial-up, so if several dozen other people have already answered - which happened to me this morning - sorry! I'd forgotten that following a feast action list over a dial-up connection demands stategic thinking!] 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 nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 16:20:58 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:20:58 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot In-Reply-To: <20050216155628.90202.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: > > --- nrenka wrote: > >> **(I have a personal conceptual model for Occlumency and why Harry >> couldn't learn it that I would be happy to share. Not for those >> deeply allergic to comparisons with RL practices. No idea if it >> has legs or not, but it makes sense to me.) > > Yes please. Hehe--and now I get caught without it written up in a coherent form, but rather scattered in various places. So I can't quite be my normal punctual self, having other urgent and fun things to do...but I promise I'll post it when I get it together. Just not this week. But the basic idea comes from my own going on five years now study of aikido, involving problems like how do you relax (but not go limp and lifeless), how do you teach things that are at base deeply intuitive (hint: sink or swim is the absolutely *slowest* way to do it and the least ultimately effectual), and the realization that a very particular kind of 'relaxation' is actually the best way to resist force. -Nora begs your indulgence, and will get cracking after presentations From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 17:36:52 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:36:52 +0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess Message-ID: <57F92834-8041-11D9-A6FF-000A9577CB94@...> > > As preparation for HBP I've been dusting off my old theory, > that Kneasy led me into, that Harry was Possessed by LV at > Godric's Hollow, and some explanation for the 'missing' 24 > hours. > As part of this I've recently come up with the following idea. > Voldemort definitely Possessed Harry in the Ministry of > Magic. > But what is the mechanism for Possession ? > Is Possession a more finely focused development of > Apparation ? Kneasy: Possession. At last! "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy. But soft. Restrain yourself. Mask the manic eyes and the foam-flecked lips. Appear reasonable, considered, judicious. And besides, Phil has noticed a possible wrinkle, indeed a possible clue, that may add to our sum of knowledge of that fascinating subject. > JKR gives a detailed description of Apparating in GoF, a suspicious reader might say unusually detailed. "GoF, Chapter 'The Portkey', page 63 UK" 'You have to pass a test to Apparate ?' Harry asked. 'Oh yes,' said Mr Weasley...'The Department of Magical Transportation had to fine a couple of people the other day for Apparating without a licence. It's not easy, Apparition, and when it's not done properly it can lead to nasty complications. This pair I'm talking about went and splinched themselves.' 'Er - splinched ?' said Harry. 'They left half of themselves behind,' said Mr Weasley... > snip> When LV left Harry at GH, theory still being dusted, he splinched himself (and Harry)so that a part of LV remained in Harry, and part of Harry was in LV. Hence the mind link, stronger than the scar link, when LV regained a body at the end of GoF. > Kneasy: It's an interesting possibility. If it's not a variant of Apparating then at the very least it could be a similar technique. A projection over a distance of mind and/or matter. Splinching is regarded as poorly exercised magic. What happened between Harry and Voldy at GH was an unintended result, yes - but a result of the protection that had been emplaced rather than sloppy casting on the part of his evilness, I think. Mind you, explaining a split personality in terms of apparating would make a mental division easier to envisage and accept. But it's the result that counts. Voldy was split. (But see below.) Reading the books, there seem to be a surprising number of magical devices whose sole purpose is to be aimed at the minds of others. From Confundus, Legilimancy (type A - with wand), Imperio, Legilimancy (type B - without wand, Voldy and DD for the use of) and through to Possession, it resembles a sliding scale of intrusion, with the upper reaches accessible only to the most powerful of wizards. (I'd rate Legilimancy type B higher than Imperio because it's performed without wands and, so far as we know, only the top two rated wizards in the world are expert.) We've known from book 1 that Voldy can possess, if riding as a hag is true possession, though colonisation might be a more accurate word to use in that instance. But there may be parallels - the scar and it's associated powers may be Quirrell and Face writ small. Shamefully, despite all my past whitterings about Voldy invading Harry, the thought that there's a reciprocal deal, that part of Harry now resides in Voldy has never occurred to me. Blinkered, you see. Must open my mind to encompass such wonderful possibilities. What else has slipped beneath the radar? Must give this theory some thought. I promise to post something on this in a day or so. Phil: > Then in OoP, Chapter 'The Only One He Ever Feared', pages 719-720 UK. The splinching may have been 'repaired' by the *second* possession in the Ministry of Magic. DD's crooked nose was inches from Harry's as Harry recovered from the possession, so DD was probably checking by eye contact whether LV could still be seen in Harry's eyes. This may explain how DD was able to face Harry back at Hogwarts. It seems such a minor detail, but could Possession be very accurate Apparition ? And has the 'second' posssession undone any Splinching ? This may mean that Harry is no longer a Parselmouth besides breaking the mind link. > Kneasy: The possibility that Voldy is once again whole has been the subject of posts of mine in the past. Brief resume. Harry has scar plus powers, a Voldy enclave. It serves some useful purpose, it warns (non-specifically) when Voldy is stirring, it's responsible for his parceltongue ability plus other stuff (wish I knew what). GoF. Voldy overcomes Lily's protection, he can touch Harry, and it's from there that we can trace the mind connection between the two. Now it's no longer non-specific; both of them have clear mind images of what's going on, or of what Voldy wants Harry to see. It's as if the protection quarantined the invasive bits and when the protection was negated the Voldy bits grew more powerful, or at least had a greater influence over Harry. A foreign body had been encysted, now the cyst was breaking down, it's contents leaking. There is a danger of a systemic infection, though it hasn't happened yet. ("But in essence divided?" And what if the answer had been "No."?) The protection wasn't just against external dangers but internal ones too. Harry is very vulnerable. OoP. Voldy enters Harry. A full possession. He is forced to withdraw. He *could* have taken his strays with him ("Come to papa"). Unfortunately it happened right at the end of the book and no opportunity has arisen to test the scar, powers, or mind contact. Damn. Speculation. If they have returned to where they belong expect Voldy to be stronger and Harry not to have any warning when Voldy's up to something. No more need for Legilimancy. If they haven't (my bet) Harry is in danger of becoming more like Voldy as the influence exerted becomes stronger. Legilimancy becomes immensely more difficult, it may even be too late for it to be effective; the real danger is already inside Harry. Now won't that be fun? From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 17:52:35 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:52:35 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: <57F92834-8041-11D9-A6FF-000A9577CB94@...> Message-ID: Kneasy > GoF. Voldy overcomes Lily's protection, he can touch Harry, and it's from there that we can trace the mind connection between the two. Pippin: Um, are you saying the specific mind connection is traced from when Voldy overcomes Lily's protection? Because that's not so. It dates from the beginning of GoF, not the end. Harry has two specific visions that year; one of Voldemort plotting his death and the other, later in the year, of the report that Crouch Sr. has been killed. Pippin From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 17:50:45 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:50:45 -0000 Subject: Indeterminacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sean: > This is a quote I fear encourages many an HPfGU fan to avoid the > wider view of the books; I don't blame them since it's a very > disappointing gaffe by JKR IMHO, although not without a certain > irony. If Harry goes off into the figurative desert, I shall have > to write to the Times. > Nora wrote: > > > Barthesian hard post-modern indeterminacy is dead. > > It is an equally arbitrary offense to > > say that "The word of the author is absolute law!" as to say > > that "The word of the author is completely meaningless, free > > interpretation is everything!". > David: > How very post-modern. ;-) Neri: Perhaps you meant post-post-modern ;-) Being a non-christian and an atheist, I can certainly identify with Sean's fear that JKR is going to build her resolution on some very boringly conventional Christian theme. So I just hope that it will be universal and original as the series mostly was until now. OTOH I never liked the post-modern tendency to dispense with any non- relative truth, even the fictional truth of the author within her own work. So post-post-modern wouldn't apply to me. When wearing my theorist's hat I don't feel I have the luxury to ignore the author's intensions only because I don't like them myself. This would be a sure way to the bottom of Theory Bay. In this hat I believe it's my job to reveal the author's ideology and not to impose my ideology on her work. For the later we have fanfic (and I leave it to others to decide where lit. crit. stands in this). As the goat said, it's all depends on what we like to do with the books at any given moment. Neri From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 18:00:46 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:00:46 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050216120307.17251.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Catherine : > I agree with this as well. As much as I enjoyed OoP (and I'm surprised and intrigued to discover > that there are at least 3 newcomers to this list who cite it as their favourite of the series so > far), I was very dissatisfied with the whole prophecy plot line. Not so much regarding the > prophecy itself, but I still cannot comprehend why exactly it was so important to guard the > prophecy - or even keep it in existence. Yes, there is the whole insanity thing to get around, > but why on earth couldn't they have just smashed it? Dumbledore, after all, had (allegedly) > perfect recollection of it. I can only think of two reasons - one, that Voldemort wasted almost a > whole year trying to get hold of the prophecy, and so bought Dumbledore some time, and two, that > he was trying to lure Voldemort into revealing himself at the Ministry, which he presumably > expected only to work if Voldemort failed to lure Harry there first, hence the importance of > occlumency. > > I'm sure there has been much discussion on this over on HPFGU - as you can see, I haven't visited > there for while. Neri: There might be another reason why DD was reluctant to simply destroy the prophecy orb: he wanted to use it as a proof for the whole WW that Harry is their only winning card in the war. The pensieve evidence would be suspicious - especially with DD credibility already questioned by the Ministry. The prophecy orbs in the DoM, OTOH, must have very strong credibility or they wouldn't be collected and guarded so meticulously. I imagine DD envisioned the whole wizengamut and top Ministry gathered in the DoM with Harry asked to smash the orb in front of them in order to prove beyond doubt that he is The One. And DD couldn't suggest such a gathering before it was obvious to everybody that Voldy is back, because Fudge's party would just say that the prophecy predicted the final vanquishing if Voldy in GH. Now that the orb was smashed, DD can't prove to everybody that Harry is The One, or even that there IS "The One". I predict a conflict between DD and the Ministry in Book 6 about Harry's importance and how to run the war. I fully agree that JKR sometimes has plot holes, but I'm not sure at all the prophecy is one of them. We have to remember that the existence of the prophecy was revealed very late in OotP, and after that it was not time to dwell on many details because of Harry's state of mind. There are probably more explanations coming in HBP. > Aberforth's Goat a.k.a. Mike Gray wrote: > I agree about JKR's weak plotting. ("Sucks"? Well, that's maybe a little > tough? Maybe it's more like watching a top tennis player with a "weak" > backhand: weak by their standards, though it would blow a hack like me > right off the court.) I'd even stretch that weakness to include the > whole planning of her imaginary world. A long time ago, I remember > reading an article by Alan Richardson, where he claims that Rowling, > more like Tolkien than Lewis, has mythopeia "in spades." > > At the time, I agreed. I don't any more. I would now say that JKR's > creativity is much more like Lewis' - if anything even patchier Neri: Yes, so it IS world building that JKR is really weak at, not plotting. Her "plot holes" are usually those depending on the consistency of the world building. You know, the "why didn't DD do this" and "why couldn't Voldy do that" type. With a detective plot taking place in RL-like world we would have known for sure why, but when it is embedded in a fictional realty that is not familiar to us muggles and is not very consistent, it seems questionable. As a Sci-Fi fan I was never impressed with JKR's world building. It's not even close to that of Tolkien. I believe she actually never pretended to try building a consistent realty. Her WW is more of assorted parodies on several RL aspects and literary/mythical styles. It's great because it is so entertaining and imaginative, not because it is consistent. Neri From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 18:09:07 2005 From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (Olivier Fouquet) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:09:07 +0100 Subject: Externalities Message-ID: Olivier: Allow me to step in. >Hey, hey, now, steady on. I think it's possible and interesting to >ask and try to answer questions such as the following without being >smug. >Economic: how do you think that JKR's experience of penurious single >parenthood might show up in her depiction of Harry at the Dursleys? Or more broadly, we could wonder what kind of image JKR offers of the english society if we accept the idea that the wizarding world is reflection of the real one. >Political: the wizarding world is portrayed as having many >injustices, which are sometimes regarded by fans as unrealistic. >How do you think JKR's experience of working for Amnesty >International might come across in this aspect of her work? Clearly, anti-discrimination values and harsh criticism against torture and exceptional justice (whether under the guise of child punishment ? la Umbridge or treated seriously, for instance in the Crouch sub-plot) seem to indicate that she passed on some of the values of her former employer into her books. I wish that this depiction was unrealistic, but extreme poverty, race discrimination, forced labor and torturing law officers are not unknown in our world. And we French have our own personal Voldemort (according to a poster-board in an anti-racist demonstration that came to national attention a few years ago). Snipping the question about religion because I'm not sure my insights about that are of any value, I jump to >So: how does the Harry Potter series appear to show the influence of >CS Lewis' Narnia series? Does JKR's known liking for Jane Austen >make us re-think her handling of romantic relationships? How does >Harry Potter stand in the tradition of the British boarding-school >story? Are there genre conflicts between the school element, the >fantasy element, and the detective element? Indeed I wish someone could enlighten me on all these aspects, since part of my enjoying of the series clearly stems from the clever intertwining of the fantasy/detective/school genre. >Oh, and here's one I have not the least knowledge of, but would love >to hear: JKR studied French at university: does the Harry Potter >series suggest any French literary influences? JKR once said studying French was a mistake for her. At any rate, as a French with a reasonable knowledge of my culture and literature (though not an expert as say Iris), I have the impression that the influences are rather mild. Beauxbatons, Fleur Delacour, bouillabaisse and Hermione holidays in Dijon fall under the case of english preconception about France (correct or incorrect). Nicolas Flamel and Perenelle come to mind as real references to french culture. But they are rather minor characters. I must say that all in all the series strikes me as clearly anglo-saxon in tone and mood, if only because it is set in a school that so embodies the differences between english and french mentality. Then again, I am quite confident one could construe an argument that HP is in fact a heavily disguised version of Les Mis?rables (resp. Le Misanthrope resp. Le Discours de la M?thode resp. La Com?die Humaine resp. Zadig) with Harry in the role of Cosette, Ron being Gavroche, and Sirius Jean Valjean. I am sure one could even find an acronym for it. >David, who thinks the French academics provided bad answers to good >questions last year Ah, but this defines academia, and I speak as a member of it ;-). If only I could provide even a bad answer to the questions that torment me now... Olivier [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 20:04:40 2005 From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:04:40 -0000 Subject: Reminder on posting rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Naama referred to the Humongous Bigfile... Neil, wearing the cloak of invincibility (not very effective), responds: Naama makes a very good point, although I should perhaps clarify that The Old Crowd is not part of HPfGU or operating under its rules, despite featuring some of its current and former denizens. The aim here is to keep the rules fewer and simpler than those outlined in The Humongous Bigfile. Part of the logic behind that is that a smaller list of experienced posters shouldn't need to read through a stack of rules to know what's acceptable; so we state, briefly in the ToC rules: "We observe accepted netiquette in terms of behaviour and standards". Relaxed rules do not, however, mean it's fine to: (a) ignore such handy things as snipping and attribution, which can help the reader follow the thread of a discussion. (b) be downright rude, inconsiderate or summarily dismissive of others' views, styles and analytical techniques. Yes, that has happened this side of Christmas... One last thing: Since not all of us are reading HPfGU, it's important to avoid the assumption that everyone here is familiar with every HPfGU thread and every acronym coined along the way. Spare a thought for us old'uns. I shall now stow the ceremonial moderator jackboots and leave you as you were. Neil, exhumed mechanimagus From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 20:53:58 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:53:58 -0000 Subject: Reminder on posting rules (not for this group) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Naama My posts have been to "the old crowd" group. You post your "reminder" to "the old crowd" group, as I am sure you know. Your reference from the "Humongous Bigfile" (so very appropriately named) is from the group HPfGU group, as I am again sure you well know. Two different groups, so no "reminder" of any posting rules for this group. The rules of "the old crowd" [TOC] are readily available, are very few (thankfully) and appear to have been determined in a spirit of tolerance and desire for minimal control (quite unlike the HPfGU structure). The rule for TOC that is pertient here is number three:" We observe accepted netiquette in terms of behaviour and standards." I suspect that nearly all on this group are participants in other "Net" forums and newsgroups which have behavior, standards, and conventions that are considerably less restrictive than the HPfGU standards. As an example, I regularly post to three forums and one newsgroup, none of which have found any need to specifiy quoting and snipping regulations, let alone ones as extensive and narrow as the HPfGU group has established for itself. Now I know that many at TOC came out of the HPfGU group, some even having played a role in the establishment and administration of that group. I'm sure that many here are well socialized to the HPfGU regulations and might wish to follow them in their posts to this group. But I would point out that there is nothing in TOC rules that state we all must abide by the unusually controlling regulations of another group (which may have been necessary in the other's circumstances, but not necessary here). Some of the newer members never were part of HPfGU, some who were members never chose to post there under its regulations (I being one), and some once were members but chose or were asked to end their involvement (I notice more than one name here on TOC which fits this description). If one preferes to post according to the hide-bound requirements of HPfGU, then by all means due so. But I have been under the impression that TOC group exists in no small part to be a more relaxed and open atmosphere, such as is possible with fewer members. I do think it is helpful to consider that conventions that some might be familiar with and thus comfortable with, are not necessarily superior. In some small groups where I post, having referencing quotations located at the beginning of each post would be found tedious. Why?, because we already have followed the train of discussion and don't wish to have to scroll through an unknown number of previously read lines of "backstory" to get to the response (how many times have we all had to scroll through half a dozen paragraphs on HPfGU to get to a two sentence reply?). Is what may be useful for a group the size of HPfGU really required for TOC? I suspect the very few rules set up for TOC represents the answer. I think we would all agree that civility and courtesy towards other group members is a necessary foundation for a stable group. I believe such acts are often better conveyed in the tone and attitude by which we post to others, than in any specific allegiance to rule sets. Snarkiness, and often down right rudeness abounds on HPfGU, all within their posting strictures. In the end, I suspect this diversion into posting conventions represents the growing pains of a small group absorbing new members. It is the age old dilemma of increasing diversity of opinion and thought, while some still wishing to retain the familiar. Frankly, I didn't have any intention or interest in starting such a discussion (and didn't), but neither do I intend to quietly accept being chastised because I didn't subscribe to someone else's preferences. Lyn --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "kumayama" > wrote: > > > > Ah, Sean, > > I thanked you in advance, and I shall again thank you now for > making quite clear your > > meaning. You find merit in a convention I don't subscribe to (nor > feel bound by--ever > > notice the rules for participating in this group?-- DU can serve as > a model of how to > > rectify that). > > > From the Humongous Bigfile (on Posting Rules): > > > ======================== > 2.4 Quoted Material > > 2.4.1 Attribution > Please put quoted material before your own comments, and identify the > author at the beginning of the quote. When replying to a post > containing comments from more than one person, make sure you > attribute the comments to the proper person. > > ... > > Please clearly indicate quoted material (for example, by using > chevrons or angle brackets [>], which Yahoo and many e-mail programs > insert automatically; or by putting quoted material between quotation > marks). > > > 2.4.2 Snipping > > To be kind to those with slow internet connections, please snip (edit > down) all quoted material, leaving only the minimum necessary for > others to understand your reply. > > ... > > ========================== > > > > Naama From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 21:02:33 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:02:33 -0000 Subject: Reminder ...quick addendum on 1137 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neil, I hadn't seen your message before posting mine (1137). I wouldn't have posted if I had. If you like, feel free to remove it as redundant. Lyn From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 22:15:03 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:15:03 -0000 Subject: Reminder on posting rules (not for this group) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: While I appreciate this urge to be consider of other's feelings, the general ire aroused by top-posting is certainly not a new phenomenon, nor the prohibition of it anything new. I may be younger than most of y'all, but I've been on the Internet a disturbingly long time, and Usenet netiquette has *always* been contra top-posting. Yes, people do it, just like people use .sigs that aren't McQ, but it's not polite/downright inconsiderate in both cases. I like to read this group through both the website and the email digests. Snipping out material that you're not responding to instead of top-posting and just leaving it to hang at the end is very much appreciated. But Neil really said it all already. Of course, Usenet should probably not be your guide if you want to prohibit snarkiness and rudeness, though. -Nora ponders making up a properly McQ .sig file, for fun From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 00:18:18 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:18:18 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess Message-ID: Post Number 1105 "susiequsie23" SSSusan: Tue Feb 15, 2005 asked <> confusinglyso Phil I think the 'mind' link may be gone because of the 'unsplinching' using the << DD's crooked nose was inches from Harry's as Harry recovered from the possession, so DD was probably checking by eye contact whether LV could still be seen in Harry's eyes. This may explain how DD was able to face Harry back at Hogwarts>> extract from my start post 1103 as evidence. Of course, everything falls apart if Dumbledore was able to look Harry in the eyes just because Voldemort was busy being consoled Bellatrix! Phil ................................................ Post Number 1131 Barry Arrowsmith, Kneasy Wed Feb 16, 2005 << Splinching is regarded as poorly exercised magic. What happened between Harry and Voldy at GH was an unintended result, yes - but a result of the protection that had been emplaced rather than sloppy casting on the part of his evilness, I think. Mind you, explaining a split personality in terms of apparating would make a mental division easier to envisage and accept. But it's the result that counts. Voldy was split. >> confusinglyso Phil The unintended result was Voldy losing his body. He lost his body as a result of Lily's (and possibly Dumbledore's) protection. Voldy, because of his experiments/precautions was not dead but in some vapour form. The only ability we are told Voldemort had left when bodiless was that of Possession GoF, Chapter 'The Death Eaters', page 567 UK. As Harry was the only living thing to hand, Voldy, perhaps in desperation, possessed Harry. How Voldemort left Harry will be in another post, but it was when leaving Harry that the 'splinching' occured. Kneasy continued <> confusinglyso Phil I think it's the "reciprocal deal" that enables the 'mind' link to work. Phil .......................................................... Post Number 1132 pippin_999, Pippin Wed Feb 16, 2005 << Kneasy > GoF. Voldy overcomes Lily's protection, he can touch Harry, and it's from there that we can trace the mind connection between the two. Pippin: Um, are you saying the specific mind connection is traced from when Voldy overcomes Lily's protection? Because that's not so. It dates from the beginning of GoF, not the end. Harry has two specific visions that year; one of Voldemort plotting his death and the other, later in the year, of the report that Crouch Snr. has been killed. Pippin >> confusinglyso Phil Your observations, Pippin, are difficult for me to overcome. >From my original post 1103 <> I proposed the 'mind' link existing from when Voldemort had his new body, Kneasy from same time but for different reason, that Voldy had overcome Lily's protection. The two visions you rightly mention could be argued as Harry viewing to one side, he was a spectator, he was not inside Voldemort's head, (or the snake's body). An alternative argument could use the fact that Voldemort did have a body from the start of GoF, (he was able to use a wand even in the first vision). It is the spectator viewpoint in GoF I'm finding a problem. I do not think these visions can be explained using the scar rather than the 'mind' link. I guess I've shown my thoughts above, so I'd better tidy the 'theory'. Voldemort had a 'baby' body at the beginning of GoF. The 'mind' link started to develop resulting in the 'visions'. They may have been visions, as a spectator, because the 'baby' was non human. At the end of GoF, Voldemort became 'mortal', can we equate that to human? With Voldemort 'human', the 'mind'link with Harry improved through the book until it was bi-directional. No such development happened in GoF, as far as we know. confusinglyso Phil From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 00:45:43 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:45:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter, Father Time In-Reply-To: <001001c5140d$71e34fa0$37350f9a@shasta> Message-ID: <20050217004543.6264.qmail@...> Thanks for the compliment. Lately, I feel like I have wandered into the Oxford debate team olympic competition. I do like the wide range of topics but struggle to see how I could possibly fit into any of these conversations. I don't think anyone has to come down to my level, but once in a while a silly post seems needed. Perhaps we should start "the old monty python potter crowd" for old silly people. And now for something completely different.... As for HP4GU, I could never keep up with all the posting rules and my silly filks never seem appropriate. I watched my wife get wrapped around the axle and bonk her head against the pavement many times.....water under the bridge... I have quite simple minded theories about Albus Dumbledore being a very large house elf who gets Dobby to lead the elves to save the day against Voldemort. I still think Voldemort is some kind of word scramble other than the Tom Riddle one. Perhaps Immortal Jackass or something like that. Anyway... I do look forward to book number 6 as the gray hairs creep into my beard... Randy --- Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray wrote: > Randy muttered, > > > Oh my god! > > > > Are you saying that Lilly is the Yoko Ono of the > > Marauders? > > Helpless giggling. > > You know, Randy, I don't think I ever mentioned > this, but way back when > the hills were young (back before HPfGU was even a > Yahoo group and all > these clever whippersnappers showed up) it was your > posts (and Neil's) > that convinced me that I absolutely had to horn in > on the action. And > then, round about when I turned up, you rode off > into the sunset. That > was pretty disappointing. Seeing you post around > here warms my doddering > bones. > > (I think, at least. Didn't you? Or was that someone > else? I think it was > you. Jim Ferrer - another one of those really old > names - disappeared > for a long time too then turned into a posting > machine many moons later. > But he wasn't the funny one, I don't think. Or do I? > Bother. Beware, > youngsters, of your second infancy.) > > Anway, I was aware of Haggridd but never got to know > him - but hearing > that he has died made me realize how long HPfGU has > been around. > Something like 4 1/2 years, I'd guess. It's not a > lifetime, but it's > long enough to have seen some water under the > bridge. Hearing about > babies is fun - but when you hear about a death ... > well, yeah. > > Anyway, and taking the long view of things, is there > eventaully going to > be an email group for the truly senile HP fan? > Perhaps with automated > emails sent on a regular basis reminding us (1) who > we are, (2) why we > are here, (3) who thinks what, and (4) who is meant > to be violently > disagreeing with whom. (Heck - I think I could use > one of those > already.) > > 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...." > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 00:45:59 2005 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:45:59 -0800 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter, Father Time References: <20050217004543.6264.qmail@...> Message-ID: <041001c5148a$0cd2a160$01fea8c0@...> Randy wrote: Okay...how does this work? This has peaked my interest in a way nothing has since...ever. Saitaina **** "You may now kiss the. . . groom in a dress." "If you're going to sing in the shower, don't start with a song that begins with 'help'." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 02:07:17 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter, Father Time In-Reply-To: <041001c5148a$0cd2a160$01fea8c0@...> Message-ID: <20050217020717.19256.qmail@...> Okay the evidence is merely circumstantial... In Book One at the end of chapter 12 "The Mirror of Erised", Harry asks Dumbledore; "What do you see when you look in the mirror?"HP "I? I see myself holding a pair of thick, woolen socks." DD In Book Two: In Chapter 18 "Dobby's Reward" "Master has given a sock,"said the elf in wonderment. "Master gave it to Dobby." Dobby then has power that Lucius is unable to control. He defeats Lucius in a quick duel. Dumbledore has many house elves at Hogwarts much to Hermione's dissappointment. But like in "Schindler's List" perhaps he is protecting them from the ownership of others. I think he is preparing for the great battle when he can release them all at once and ask for their help! Lucius was easily overcome by Dobby, so imagine a room full of elves against a room full of wizards. I can't tell you how many references to the "Great Elf Rebellion" are scattered throughout the series. Using Greek logic. Elves are self-deprecating and very powerful. Dumbledore is self-deprecating and very powerful. Dumbledore is an Elf. Of course, someone else could use logic to prove that Dumbledore is a squid or a flabber worm or something else... Randy (who uses less multi-syllabic words on average than anyone else in this group) ;0) --- Saitaina wrote: > Randy wrote: > > Dumbledore being a very large house elf > who gets Dobby > to lead the elves to save the day > against Voldemort. > > > Okay...how does this work? This has > peaked my interest in a way nothing has > since...ever. > > Saitaina > **** > "You may now kiss the. . . groom in a > dress." > > "If you're going to sing in the shower, > don't start with a song that begins > with 'help'." > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 04:22:19 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:22:19 -0000 Subject: OT chatter, Father Time In-Reply-To: <20050217020717.19256.qmail@...> Message-ID: I like it Randy, The whole idea of DD amassing house elfs at Hogworts to both protect them and build a future army is rather elegant in its efficiency. How consistent it would be that the elves who do so much to care for the students, all without any recognition from the students or anyone else, would also selflessly go to war to protect those same students. I do wonder, just what is the predominant hair color of the elves? and also their lifespan? It also makes me wonder, the Marauders seemed to have more contact with the house elves than the typical student (all those clandestine raids on the kitchen). Might they have also developed more of a positive relationship with the house elves than is usual. A stretch, but just maybe part of the reason Dobby finds Harry so great is because he also felt James treated the house elves well. No canon to my knowlege, but something to look for. As for the multi-syllabic words, I suspect there is a lot of preening and strutting and prancing taking place by many for many because so many new faces have recently come aboard. I bet the erudite references and multi-syllabic words will significantly fall off over the next six months. Lyn --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes wrote: > Okay the evidence is merely circumstantial... > snip> > Dumbledore has many house elves at Hogwarts much to > Hermione's dissappointment. But like in "Schindler's > List" perhaps he is protecting them from the ownership > of others. I think he is preparing for the great > battle when he can release them all at once and ask > for their help! Lucius was easily overcome by Dobby, > so imagine a room full of elves against a room full of > wizards. > >snip> > Randy > (who uses less multi-syllabic words on average than > anyone else in this group) ;0) > From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 04:37:49 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:37:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Choice (was themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <1108558140.1645.58888.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050217043749.26622.qmail@...> Pippin wrote: (quote ) >"It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not >hate them," said Harry. "I'd like to see you try >it." --CoS ch 11. Back to this in a minute. >These words aren't quoted nearly as often as >Dumbledore's speech about choices in the same book, >and yet I think they are crucial to understanding it. >Oppression creates hatred; in the Potterverse there >is no choice about that. Hm. I need a little more backup for that opinion. There's no choice whether to hate or not? I was nodding along with your distinction between the emotion, hatred, and acting upon it or declining to . . . > The choice that shows what the characters are is not >whether to hate but how to deal with it. . . . but you seem to be saying that in fact >But for those whom suffering has made bitter and/or >cruel, which is *not* presented as a choice, I don't follow you here. It's not presented as a choice to either become bitter/cruel or not in response to suffering? Is that what you mean? >it is no longer easy to turn away from revenge. Right. Not easy. But still possible. Or are you really saying that JKR is really saying that once one becomes bitter and/or cruel one cannot stop the slide into ? How bitter and/or cruel do you mean? Harry is certainly bitter at times, so we must be talking about degrees. I don't take Harry's line in CoS very seriously. Yes, he hates the Dursleys, but the line doesn't carry a lot of weight as a general statement about free will. It's a defensive reaction to a ridiculous assertion by Ernie: that because Harry hates his foster family, he hates Muggles in general. (Note that in his first conversation about Muggles, with Ron on the train in PS/SS, he specifically distinguishes between the Dursleys and most Muggles.) Dumbledore's line about Kreacher being what wizards have made him is more serious. It is an extreme statement to say a sentient being and presumed moral agent was "made" into the person he is. But again, before we take it too literally, we need to look at the character (the one who does harp on choices, overquoted though that CS Dumbledore passage may be), and the context. What, primarily, is he trying to say?: not that Kreacher literally bears no responsibility, but that wizards bear much. OP is very interested in the relationship between witches and wizards and other magical species; the pathology of this relationship, which received incidental mention in the first four books (centaurs in 1, house-elves in 2, etc.), now becomes a focal point, literally so in the MoM. It is this, rather than Kreacher's moral culpability, that drives Dumbledore's rhetoric. Amy Z who will post an introduction shortly and who is feeling extremely warm and fuzzy to be here --------------------------------------------------- "This is the weirdest thing we've ever done," Harry said fervently. --PA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 10:43:19 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:43:19 -0000 Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: <20050216034441.38880.qmail@...> Message-ID: Randy wrote: > Oh my god! > > Are you saying that Lilly is the Yoko Ono of the > Marauders? > > Peter must be Ringo. I guess Lupin is George? I find this deeply worrying. Non-Brits (and those without relatives under 20) may not realise that Ringo's later career has consisted mostly of doing the voice-over for Thomas The Tank Engine programmes. I do feel that if JKR were to mete out a similar fate to Pettigrew that would be horribly disproportionate - the Dementors at least suck your soul out *quickly*. David From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 17:41:51 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:41:51 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > David: the plot is not like that of a detective or spy > story, where plot is paramount and one may suppose that rigorous analysis of small clues may lead one to the unravelling of the mystery. In my experience of this type of literature, chracterisation is necessarily flat to allow as many characters as possible to remain suspects for as long as possible.< > Pippin: JKR gets around this by having Harry see large numbers of people as flat. Then he suspects only the flat characters whom he notices doing something suspicious. It is the characters who tell lies and don't strike Harry as suspicious (or that Harry forgets were suspicious) that you, as a sleuth, should have your eye on: -Quirrell, lying about the turban - Riddle, lying to Dippet -Crouch!Moody, lying that he can't see Crouch on the map any more, (we should realize this is a lie, though Harry doesn't. As Hermione points out in another context, Crouch couldn't have just evaporated) -Kreacher lying about where he went over Christmas "Though Sirius seemed satisfied with this story, it made Harry uneasy." Need I point out that Lupin is a most accomplished liar? Dave: > It is theories based on the opposite supposition - that HP is *predominantly* a detective or spying novel - that I feel are going to be disappointed. > Pippin: Then what are we to make of her constant references to clues and red herrings? Dave: > Yes - but I have to say that I don't see ESE!Lupin as one of those complex speculative theories, in the main. The main premise is so simple that the title says it all. Try thinking of a name for Magic Dishwasher that actually tells the intelligent newbie enough to flesh out the rest of the theory for himself.< Pippin: Actually, the surviving elements of MD have been pretty much subsumed by Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, which says it all. Dave: > I think JKR's characterisation is subtle and complex, yes, so in that sense, yes, she 'does complexity'. It's just that her characters can't plan a simple thing like world domination, or the protection of a valuable artefact, for toffee.< Pippin: I see her inspiration as satirical rather than mythopoeic. You aren't supposed to ask how someone as incompetent as Voldemort could possibly be feared by everyone anymore than you are supposed to ask what Discworld's Morporkians drink if the river Ankh is so polluted. Dave: > If for the moment we assume ESE!Lupin is part of the forthcoming revelations, I don't honestly see how it thematically addresses the central mysteries of the series, which I take to be 1] what really happened at Godric's Hollow, particularly how did Voldemort survive > and 2] how can Harry defeat Voldemort without being morally > compromised himself (there is a possible 3] how can Slytherin be truly brought back into the fold)? Pippin: ESE!Lupin is tied to Godric's Hollow and Harry's ultimate fate by his boggart, which I take to be the prophecy orb. How it works out I have no idea; but it may be that Lupin knows the answer to 1 and will be instrumental in 2. As for 3, I think that Harry will be forced to see that Snape and the Slytherins, as difficult as they are to deal with, are less morally compromised than a certain traitorous Gryffindor. Pippin: > > I didn't really deal with the inconsistent world building. I would say that JKR is deliberately inconsistent about things like the number of students which don't directly affect the plot but lend Hogwarts a slightly surreal quality. Dave:> > And, no doubt, the use of phrases such as 'Oh, maths' followed by successive explanations on her website, which themselves require subsequent emendation, is all part of her plan to disorientate the fandom? > Pippin: I may be projecting my idiosyncracies onto JKR, but I think she's like me: relentlessly logical, scores high in mathematical reasoning, but slightly subaverage in mathematical computation. Dates, sequences, and figgers put her in a fluster, due to which she gladly accepts eleventh hour corrections from editors and figures if it's in the Lexicon it's probably okay, and where did I put my notes about that anyway. Judging by her virtual desktop, she's not great at organizing, and therefore probably has multiple sets of notes which are not quite duplicates. Like, there's one set in which NHN died in 1492 and another where it was 1592. Oh well, he's been a ghost for a long time, anyway, and calendars don't mean much when you're dead. ;-) Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 20:54:16 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:54:16 -0000 Subject: Choice (was themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050217043749.26622.qmail@...> Message-ID: te: > Pippin wrote: > > (quote ) > > >"It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not > >hate them," said Harry. "I'd like to see you try > >it." --CoS ch 11. Amy: > Hm. I need a little more backup for that opinion. > There's no choice whether to hate or not? Pippin: There's loads of examples in the books but the best proof is probably empirical. Snape has his fans and even Voldie has his apologists but do you know any readers who *don't* hate Umbridge? Does Rowling leave us any choice? Amy: > I was nodding along with your distinction between the > emotion, hatred, and acting upon it or declining to . > . . > . . . but you seem to be saying that in fact > >But for those whom suffering has made bitter and/or > >cruel, which is *not* presented as a choice, > I don't follow you here. It's not presented as a > choice to either become bitter/cruel or not in > response to suffering? Is that what you mean? Pippin: I was thinking of Harry at the beginning of OOP. He didn't *decide* that he was going to become unfeeling, but he didn't feel sorry when he saw that Hedwig had pecked Ron and Hermione either. Pippin: > >it is no longer easy to turn away from revenge. Amy: > Right. Not easy. But still possible. Or are you > really saying that JKR is really saying that once one > becomes bitter and/or cruel one cannot stop the slide > into ? How bitter and/or cruel do you mean? Harry is > certainly bitter at times, so we must be talking about > degrees. Pippin: Yes, still possible, but much more difficult. JKR said in one of her interviews that she believes children are good unless they are 'damaged.' So I think she sees evil as a two step process (at least) like an infection in a wound. All damaged people don't become evil, but people who aren't damaged are much more resistant. I don't think JKR is trying to negate individual responsibility but to say that while there is individual responsibility for fighting the infection, there is social responsibility for healing the wound, as it were, especially if society caused it in the first place. Sirius couldn't do anything to stop Kreacher hating him, but he never tried to ease his suffering and that's where he was at fault. Amy: > I don't take Harry's line in CoS very seriously. Yes, > he hates the Dursleys, but the line doesn't carry a > lot of weight as a general statement about free will. > It's a defensive reaction to a ridiculous assertion by > Ernie: that because Harry hates his foster family, he > hates Muggles in general. (Note that in his first > conversation about Muggles, with Ron on the train in > PS/SS, he specifically distinguishes between the > Dursleys and most Muggles.) Pippin: What makes it general for me is the "I'd like to see you try it" which, IMO, invites the reader to imagine himself in Harry's position. It is genuine hate, IMO, in that the Dursleys are far away, aren't hurting Harry at the moment, and yet he still has harsh feelings about them. Harry doesn't hate Muggles in general despite what the Dursleys have done to him; he's too healthy for that. But he didn't decide to be resilient, he just was. I see Umbridge's quill as a metaphor for Harry's resilience. As much as the quill hurts Harry, it's only after many, many strokes that it scars his hand. One gets the impression that someone without Harry's magically protected skin would have been wounded much more quickly. In other words, people vary as to how suffering affects them, so we can't say just because one person wasn't permanently damaged that someone else in the same circumstances wouldn't be. That Dobby emerged from the Malfoy environment with his free will intact and no hatred of wizards generally does not mean that every other House Elf could do so. Pippin From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 21:02:52 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:52 -0000 Subject: Oh dear, getting dragged into ESE!Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin wrote: >ESE!Lupin is tied to Godric's Hollow and Harry's ultimate fate by >his boggart, which I take to be the prophecy orb. As much as I loathe and fear the possibility of ESE!Lupin, I LOVE this idea. Love, love, love it. It's just the kind of thing JKR would do: throw out a red herring like "I wonder why Professor Lupin's afraid of crystal balls?," resolve it with "aha! it's the MOON!" and three books later, give another twist and reveal that it's the prophecy that terrifies him. The problem is the movie, in which it Lupin's boggart is so obviously the moon (not a crystal ball or prophecy sphere) that it's clear that the moviemakers decided, as with the incident of seeing Pettigrew on the map, that they'd better simplify the storyline. I don't believe JKR would have allowed it if it clashed with a future plot twist as big as "Lupin's a DE." Amy Z _____________________________________________________________ "And on Wednesday, I think I'll come off worst in a fight." "Aaah, I was going to have a fight. Okay, I'll lose a bet." "Yeah, you'll be betting I'll win my fight. . . ." From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 21:05:30 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:05:30 -0000 Subject: Choice (was themes and theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > There's loads of examples in the books but the best proof is > probably empirical. Snape has his fans and even Voldie has his > apologists but do you know any readers who *don't* hate > Umbridge? Does Rowling leave us any choice? Actually....yes. Mostly out there in LJ land where all kinds of odd things flourish, but it's out there. I see a suprising amount of apologia for Umbridge as the authority for Hogwarts (mostly in conjunction with 'Draco isn't that bad for being on the IS'). -Nora notes that readers can get sympathy into almost anywhere, when they try hard enough...Goethe had something to say about that... From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 17 23:07:34 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0000 Subject: Oh dear, getting dragged into ESE!Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > > The problem is the movie, in which it Lupin's boggart is so obviously the moon (not a crystal ball or prophecy sphere) that it's clear that the moviemakers decided, as with the incident of seeing Pettigrew on the map, that they'd better simplify the storyline. I don't believe JKR would have allowed it if it clashed with a future plot twist as big as "Lupin's a > DE." Pippin: But it doesn't clash. A boggart can have multiple scary forms as we learned in OOP. Film is a much more immediate vehicle than a novel; the filmmakers have cut or rewritten *everything* that doesn't resolve in PoA and or set up the situation for GoF. That doesn't mean that the prank, for example, is not important. The time for the movies to offer a clue that Lupin knows about the prophecy will be in the picture when the prophecy is resolved...probably not till Seven. Pippin From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 00:46:05 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:46:05 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > David: > the plot is not like that of a detective or spy > > story, where plot is paramount and one may suppose that > rigorous analysis of small clues may lead one to the unravelling > of the mystery. In my experience of this type of literature, > chracterisation is necessarily flat to allow as many characters as > possible to remain suspects for as long as possible.< > > > > Pippin: > JKR gets around this by having Harry see large numbers of > people as flat. Then he suspects only the flat characters whom > he notices doing something suspicious. It is the characters who > tell lies and don't strike Harry as suspicious (or that Harry > forgets were suspicious) that you, as a sleuth, should have your > eye on: > Carolyn: You seem to be sticking to a very traditional take on the genre, David. Many of the best detective and spy novels tend to be intense psychological studies, with the complexity arising from what people do when driven by events they can't control. Often the original cause of a death or betrayal turns out to be quite simple, even trivial, in retrospect, but difficult to understand at the outset because it is buried in past events that are not yet known by the reader. I see no conflict between JKR broadly addressing meta themes like love, loyalty and death, yet doing so through intensely-imagined protagonists, who behave ambiguously under pressure, or who cave in and try to cover up, leaving a trail of clues if you want to look for them. You can call this conspiracy theory or subversive if you like, but the fact is that people do this on a regular basis every day in all walks of life. She's just presenting us with an authentic study of human nature, warts and all within an entertaining WW universe. It's for us to disintangle the wildcard magic elements from the essential human story, and in the case of Harry, consider what a teenage boy might overlook or misunderstand in the way adults around him behave. I think ESE!Lupin is a fascinating theory, but myself I have difficulties with the idea that he has actually gone as far as becoming one of Voldemort's henchmen, or that the Voldy war is anything but incidental to this sub-plot. As I have said to Pippin offlist, I think this is a case of someone committing a crime in the past that he thought was good and buried, but which has come back to haunt him. A personal disaster which has become entangled with world events and which he can't prevent unravelling. He clearly did something that raised the suspicions of Sirius, James and Dumbledore before GH, or they would have included him in the group that knew about the SK. Equally clearly James and Sirius were more important friends to him than Peter. I think that Voldemort's agents were no fools, and targeted Lupin in the run up to GH, and partially succeeded with him, to the extent that, to get them off his back, or to prevent further public disclosure of his werewolf status, or to save his own life, he finally gave away information about Peter - who in his mind was less valuable than his other friends, and could be sacrificed. He probably thought Peter knew very little, and was too stupid to have been entrusted with any important missions. Unfortunately, unknown to Lupin, that was just what that towering intellect, Sirius, had finally persuaded James to do, and so the tragedy at GH occurred. Lupin was no doubt devastated at the consequences, but also pretty glad that Peter was apparently dead. Then to his horror, in the best detective story tradition, Peter turns up again 12 years later, and from then on in, Lupin is in damage limitation mode. He's convinced that Peter will have realised he was betrayed, and tries to kill him in POA, but fails due to Harry's intervention. Now things are much worse - for all Lupin knows, Peter could share his suspicions with Voldy, who wouldn't hesitate to use them to discredit a member of the Order. He frets and worries offstage all through GoF, but finally, in OOP, get to spend a lot of time with Sirius at Grimmauld Place. Sirius, depressed and drinking can't stop running over old events, starts to ask too many questions, makes some boozy accusations....Lupin decides to his deep regret, that he must silence his old friend, and sees his opportunity to do so at the MoM. Of course, Dumbledore has figured all this out too, and is now having to factor in how this increasingly desperate, and flawed individual's personal disaster might affect his future plans. And Peter has not told Voldy, but is storing up the realisation of who betrayed him and ruined his life for dealing with at a later date, if he ever gets a chance. Carolyn From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 02:37:33 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:37:33 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories References: Message-ID: <011501c51562$cd71e920$6501a8c0@...> > Carolyn: > As I have said to Pippin offlist, I think this is a case of someone > committing a crime in the past that he thought was good and buried, > but which has come back to haunt him. A personal disaster which has > become entangled with world events and which he can't prevent > unravelling. > > He clearly did something that raised the suspicions of Sirius, James > and Dumbledore before GH, or they would have included him in the > group that knew about the SK. Equally clearly James and Sirius were > more important friends to him than Peter. I think that Voldemort's > agents were no fools, and targeted Lupin in the run up to GH, and > partially succeeded with him, to the extent that, to get them off his > back, or to prevent further public disclosure of his werewolf status, > or to save his own life, he finally gave away information about > Peter - who in his mind was less valuable than his other friends, and > could be sacrificed. Charme: I agree with you, Carolyn, that Lupin did something that raised the suspicions of James and Sirius, but I don't know about Dumbledore - my reasoning for that is Dumbledore certainly wouldn't have hired Lupin as a teacher later, much less DADA. Dumbledore himself didn't know of the SK switch, so did that mean James and Sirius suspected him too? Notice I didn't include Lily in that mix; Lupin's comments to Harry in the PoA movie about Lily intrigue me, as they aren't canon. I think whatever Lupin did or as accused of doing happened quite a while before the whole GH event. > He frets and worries offstage all through GoF, but finally, in OOP, > get to spend a lot of time with Sirius at Grimmauld Place. Sirius, > depressed and drinking can't stop running over old events, starts to > ask too many questions, makes some boozy accusations....Lupin decides > to his deep regret, that he must silence his old friend, and sees his > opportunity to do so at the MoM. Charme: This part of your post reminded me of a question I've had regarding Lupin in the OoP DoM/MoM battle. (Try typing that 5 times - that's a finger twister ;)) I noticed that Sirius, Moody, Tonks, and Shacklebolt all have some of their actions in battle depicted, but Lupin doesn't. Only when he grabs Harry from trying to get to the veil after Sirius has fallen thru it do we see Lupin after his initial mention of arrival with other members of the Order. What was he doing all that time? Charme From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 04:55:04 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:55:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter, Father Time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218045504.38511.qmail@...> Lyn wrote: > The whole idea of DD amassing house elfs at Hogworts > to both protect them and build a > future army is rather elegant in its efficiency. How > consistent it would be that the elves > who do so much to care for the students, all without > any recognition from the students or > anyone else, would also selflessly go to war to > protect those same students. < > I just feel that the underlying theme in this series is that the bad guys always overlook the abilities of the good guys. The aristocratic Lucius sees Dobby as unimportant and no threat to anyone. Professor Quirrell sees Harry as just a stupid boy at the end of book one. Tom Riddle sees Ginny as just another silly girl and Harry and the Phoenix as no threat to him. Professor Lockhart underestimates Ron and Harry near the end of book two. Cornelius Fudge underestimates the children in book three. Voldemort underestimates Harry at the end of book four. The Death Eaters underestimate the school kids at the end of book five. I think that JKR wants children to see their own abilities and not to feel inadequate. (Just look at Neville) The power of Dumbledore is his ability to see that potential in Harry and the other children and to foster their growth. Dumbledore encourages while Voldemort belittles others. Given this recurring theme of underestimating the little guy, I am projecting that everyone is underestimating the power of the house elves. Randy Lyn wrote: >I do wonder, > just what is the predominant hair color of the > elves? and also their lifespan? > > Lyn I would think they would have red hair because they are the "wee people" so often talked about in Irish folk stories. Randy (whose red beard has some connection to that part of the world if you go back 400 years) > I bet the erudite references and > multi-syllabic words will significantly fall off > over > the next six months. > > Lyn By the way, I immediately realized that I should have said (who uses "fewer" multi-syllabic words on average than anyone else in this group) I may be brief, but that is no excuse for bad grammar. Randy --- "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > > I like it Randy, > The whole idea of DD amassing house elfs at Hogworts > to both protect them and build a > future army is rather elegant in its efficiency. How > consistent it would be that the elves > who do so much to care for the students, all without > any recognition from the students or > anyone else, would also selflessly go to war to > protect those same students. > > Lyn > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes > wrote: > > Okay the evidence is merely circumstantial... > > snip> > > Dumbledore has many house elves at Hogwarts much > to > > Hermione's dissappointment. But like in > "Schindler's > > List" perhaps he is protecting them from the > ownership > > of others. I think he is preparing for the great > > battle when he can release them all at once and > ask > > for their help! Lucius was easily overcome by > Dobby, > > so imagine a room full of elves against a room > full of > > wizards. > > > >snip> > > Randy > > (who uses less multi-syllabic words on average > than > > anyone else in this group) ;0) > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 05:10:20 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:10:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218051020.41530.qmail@...> David wrote in regards to my silly comment about Peter being the Ringo of the Marauders : >I find this deeply worrying. Non-Brits (and those >without relatives >under 20) may not realise that Ringo's later career >has consisted >mostly of doing the voice-over for Thomas The Tank >Engine programmes.< Actually I have a five year old son who is absolutely in love with Thomas the Tank Engine and has a poster above his bed. How were we to know that Ringo tranforms into a rodent and hides between his musical career and later TV career? ;0) I make lots of references to the Beatles because I was a young child in the sixties and heard them on the radio when their hits were new! I guess those songs are hardwired into my cerebral cortex. I even wrote a couple of Harry Potter filks to the tune of some Beatles songs in the past. I saw no connection between Peter and Ringo except for maybe the nose. Randy (who is now hooked on U2's latest CD "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb". If you listen to 'Vertigo' you get an image similar to Harry Potter during a battle or scar episode because it speaks to the power of love to help one deal with the sometimes overwhemingly powerful emotions of young people.) --- davewitley wrote: > > Randy wrote: > > > Oh my god! > > > > Are you saying that Lilly is the Yoko Ono of the > > Marauders? > > > > Peter must be Ringo. I guess Lupin is George? > > I find this deeply worrying. Non-Brits (and those > without relatives > under 20) may not realise that Ringo's later career > has consisted > mostly of doing the voice-over for Thomas The Tank > Engine programmes. > > I do feel that if JKR were to mete out a similar > fate to Pettigrew > that would be horribly disproportionate - the > Dementors at least > suck your soul out *quickly*. > > David > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 05:37:03 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:37:03 -0000 Subject: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: <011501c51562$cd71e920$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > > He clearly did something that raised the suspicions of Sirius, James > > and Dumbledore before GH, or they would have included him in the > > group that knew about the SK. Charme wrote: > I agree with you, Carolyn, that Lupin did something that raised the > suspicions of James and Sirius, but I don't know about Dumbledore - my > reasoning for that is Dumbledore certainly wouldn't have hired Lupin as a > teacher later, much less DADA. Dumbledore himself didn't know of the SK > switch, so did that mean James and Sirius suspected him too? No. It just means that the fewer people who know about the identity of an SK, the better. So if you don't think it says anything about their trust of Dumbledore, why do you think there has to be another reason for leaving Lupin out of the loop? I have another, by the way, for those who do need one: he's a werewolf. What? His best friends, and the saintly Dumbledore, still had irrational prejudices against werewolves? Sure, why not? And following that speculative thread a little further, perhaps the heroism of such as Lupin in those times was a reason that Dumbledore now leads the way in tolerance of this hated minority. But as I said, I don't think you need to read in mistrust. It can simply be that they told no one who didn't absolutely, positively need to know. BTW, Pippin, I follow you on the movie thing. Right, it doesn't clash; it just leaves out a nifty clue. Amy Z ---------------------------------------------------- Asleep was the way Harry liked the Dursleys best. -GF From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 08:04:26 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:04:26 -0000 Subject: going way OT off of: Re: Themes and theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: You > aren't supposed to ask how someone as incompetent as > Voldemort could possibly be feared by everyone anymore than > you are supposed to ask what Discworld's Morporkians drink if > the river Ankh is so polluted. Ginger: Oh, that one's an easy one, Pippin. DD is a tortletongue (can speak to turtles and tortoises) and he apparated to the Multiverse and taught A'Tuin the very same spell that the founders used to make the lake habitable for the Merfolk. Ginger, wondering if Captain Carrot married Mrs. Cake if she'd be Mrs. Ironfoundersson, or if he'd be Carrot Cake. We return you now from the Discworld to the Potterverse. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 12:15:12 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:15:12 +0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess Message-ID: <0da7df21545a7509f8692ef2599286c0@...> I've been giving some more thought to Phil's idea that the failed possession attempt at GH resulted not only in bits of Voldy being stranded in Harry, but also in fragments of Harry residing in Voldy. On the face of it, it's a neat idea - but I dunno, I have difficulty tidying up some loose ends. Let's recap. For Possession Theory to hold water certain assumptions need to be made. 1. Possession is possible. Yep. We know that. 2. The act of possession involves something more than say, Legilimancy. It's not just looking, there's a projection of personality/mind/anima from one person into the mind of another. We can tick that box, too. 3. This projection need not be total or irrevocable. The projected mind can return to its origin. Yes. All these three can be deduced from the incident in the Ministry. 4. When possession occurs *and is successful* there is a melding of the two minds and whatever powers they contain. No absolute proof for this one. But what other purpose would possession have? 5. Combining 3 & 4, it could be possible to enter a mind, combine with it, or parts of it, and return the resultant combination to sender. Or, if so wished, the combination can stay in the recipient. There's no proof for the first part of this; conversely there's no proof it can't be done. The second part, well, isn't this more or less the situation that Harry found himself in? Any major disagreements with that lot? Now to the case in point. Voldy would have had more interest in Harry than in just killing him. We can provide a rationale for that - power. Harry has power - not *will have* power, it's already there, inbuilt if the first line of the Prophecy reads correctly. Voldy is very interested in power, he's spent years travelling the world learning stuff until (in his mind) he's a contender for top-spot. And here's an untrained sprog with sufficient power to be able to challenge him - once Harry grows up and gets his act together. He'd want a look. He want to know exactly what this power is (is it quantitative or qualitative?) and if at all possible subsume it. Legilimancy wouldn't do it, that reads thoughts not magical capability. I doubt he'd be too worried about being knocked off by a 15 month old. The fact that the family was in hiding would offer reassurance that the child was not, in and of itself, impervious to Voldy's spells. Unexpected protective charms placed by a third party were something else and he came a cropper. But the mere fact that identifiably Voldy attributes were lodged in Harry provides strong evidence that an invasion had taken place and was partially successful. We have no idea how the protection worked; my bet is that it was specifically anti-Voldy. Nobody else. Harry can touch DEs, even a hag-ridden Quirrell when Voldy isn't active. Spells work against him too - Quirrell again, Crouch!Moody's Imperio, Peter or whoever in the graveyard. Two protections - one was to shut out Voldy, the other, the blood protection, was to give him a safe haven against any malicious magic where Lily's blood dwelt. Phil suggests that there was a reciprocal exchange of mind material at the key moment. I'm not so sure. The doubts are mostly based on inferences rather than evidence, so it wouldn't be surprising if others thought I'm talking through me chuff. If Harry donated stuff to Voldy, what would it be? Powers? Very dodgy. It's Harry's powers that Voldy was looking for. If not power, then what? If part of Harry is in Voldy then Voldy is an amalgam, a chimera, part of which is Harry. How can Harry be protected against something that is partly himself? Wasn't the whole palaver of the resurrection spell in the graveyard designed to do just this - negate the protection by incorporating some of Harry into Voldy? DD seemed so pleased it had happened, too. If Harry was already in there, why the relief? Hum. I'd be interested to hear what folk have to say on this one. Kneasy From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 18:01:01 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:01:01 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: <0da7df21545a7509f8692ef2599286c0@...> Message-ID: > Kneasy wrote: > Now to the case in point. > Voldy would have had more interest in Harry than in just killing him. > We can provide a rationale for that - power. > Harry has power - not *will have* power, it's already there, inbuilt > if the first line of the Prophecy reads correctly. Voldy is very > interested in power, he's spent years travelling the world learning > stuff until (in his mind) he's a contender for top-spot. And here's an > untrained sprog with sufficient power to be able to challenge him - > once Harry grows up and gets his act together. > > He'd want a look. > He want to know exactly what this power is (is it quantitative or > qualitative?) and if at all possible subsume it. Legilimancy wouldn't > do it, that reads thoughts not magical capability. > I doubt he'd be too worried about being knocked off by a 15 month old. > The fact that the family was in hiding would offer reassurance that > the child was not, in and of itself, impervious to Voldy's spells. > Unexpected protective charms placed by a third party were something > else and he came a cropper. > Neri: Your argument here is similar to VASSAL, and therefore gets stuck in the same place. According to this theory, Voldy did TWO things to Harry in GH: First he tried to possess him. When that failed, he tried to AK him. The first problem with this is: if Voldy only possessed Harry to take a look inside, and then left, why did he forget a bit of himself behind? The second problem is: if you assume that the scar is a result of the AK, and doesn't have any connection with the possession attempt that took place before that, then why does Harry's scar hurt during active connection with Voldy? This suggests that the scar IS the connection, or at least its external manifestation (as DD indeed suggests). Neri From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 18:16:53 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:16:53 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: <0da7df21545a7509f8692ef2599286c0@...> Message-ID: We have no idea how the protection worked; my bet > is that it was specifically anti-Voldy. Nobody else. Harry can touch DEs, even a hag-ridden Quirrell when Voldy isn't active. < Pippin: Kneasy, if I didn't know better I'd suspect movie contamination. Harry and Quirrell shook hands before Quirrell was possessed. Kneasy:. > If Harry donated stuff to Voldy, what would it be? Powers? Very dodgy. It's Harry's powers that Voldy was looking for. Pippin: Now that one's *too* easy. The power that Voldie knows not. (Not, you'll note, the power that Voldie 'has' not) It then lies quiescent for thirteen years, because Voldie doesn' t have the blood -- until the graveyard. Hence the gleam. Pippin wanders off whistling "All you need is love" From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 18:29:05 2005 From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:29:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [the_old_crowd] going way OT off of: Re: Themes and theories References: Message-ID: <421633F1.000001.01192@KATHRYN> Ginger, wondering if Captain Carrot married Mrs. Cake if she'd be Mrs. Ironfoundersson, or if he'd be Carrot Cake. We return you now from the Discworld to the Potterverse. You know if you're going to say things like that you should warn people! I darn near choked to death on my fruit juice ;) Slightly more seriously there is a bit of a difference between the Potterverse and the Discworld in that we expect the Potterverse to be internally consistent, because it's adventure/drama whereas because the Discworld is by and large comedic we don't. In fact Terry Pratchett always seems to be stunned when he discovers that it pretty much *is* internally logical (for certain Discworldian values of logic anyway) like when they created the maps - he didn't actually think it would be possible. With something as surreal as the Discworld you (as a reader) are far more likely to give it the benefit of the doubt. However when things like Harry Potter or (in a different medium) Star Wars or Highlander contradict themselves it's far more likely to jar and alienate you from the material. For example my main problem with the last Highlander film was not that the plot was a little odd (really let's be fair they all were) but that the entire logic of who was more powerful and why, which was pretty much the major plot point, made no sense at all and thinking about it led to the danger of your brain leaking out of your ears! K [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 19:26:22 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:26:22 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Your argument here is similar to VASSAL, and therefore gets stuck in > the same place. According to this theory, Voldy did TWO things to > Harry in GH: First he tried to possess him. When that failed, he > tried to AK him. > Not so. I don't believe Voldy tried to AK Harry. Harry remembers just *one* green flash - and that killed Lily. The possession attempt was after this, failed and Voldy discorporated. The scar, plus the embedded bits, is what remains of the possession attempt. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 19:35:47 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:35:47 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > We have no idea how the protection worked; my bet > > is that it was specifically anti-Voldy. Nobody else. Harry can > touch DEs, even a hag-ridden Quirrell when Voldy isn't active. < > > Pippin: > Kneasy, if I didn't know better I'd suspect movie contamination. > Harry and Quirrell shook hands before Quirrell was possessed. > Kneasy: Exactly. Isn't that what I've said? > Kneasy:. > > If Harry donated stuff to Voldy, what would it be? Powers? Very > dodgy. It's Harry's powers that Voldy was looking for. > > Pippin: > Now that one's *too* easy. The power that Voldie knows not. > (Not, you'll note, the power that Voldie 'has' not) It then lies > quiescent for thirteen years, because Voldie doesn' t have the > blood -- until the graveyard. Hence the gleam. > Kneasy: Sorry. Don't see what you're getting at. Voldy is told Harry has sufficient power to defeat him. He invades Harry to find out what it is and gets thrown out. Are you saying he knows what that power is? Because "the power he knows not" occurs towards the end of the Prophecy and Voldy didn't hear it. (See OoP chap 36 where DD explicitly states that Voldy never heard that bit.) Or are you saying because he doesn't know what it is, it's obvious what it is? Please elucidate. From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 19:55:16 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:55:16 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess Message-ID: Responding to Kneasy Post 1158 I have thought of Possession as very accurate, focused Apparition, ie the whole body, which also allows for 'Splinching' on departure. Don't ask awkward questions about clothes, wands, spectacles, body sizes etc, same questions apply to Animagi, especially Peter Pettigrew and Rita Skeeter. It's Magic! ;-) Kneasy, if I understand your thinking in post 1158, you are considering only a 'mental' Possession. I think it's body and soul, everything. Otherwise, at MoM, while LV is Possessing Harry, what happens to LV's 'vacant' body. For example, Dumbledore, or Moody with his roving eye, could find it and destroy it. LV then (bodiless) stuck in Harry and my theory of 24 hours at Godric's Hollow would have to replayed. LV's body was vacated at GH because the body was hit by the bounced AK. LV did challenge DD to 'Kill me now, Dumbledore...' while he was Possessing Harry. 'If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy...' OoP page 720 UK. Since this challenge is from LV, is it bluff, attempted trickery, or fact ? Could he have been killed inside Harry ? The following quote illustrates two points:- Just prior to the challenge, OoP page 719 UK, the actual Possession:- 'Then Harry's scar ***burst open*** and he knew he was dead: it was pain beyond imagining, pain past endurance - He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound by pain, and there was no escape- And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth, so that in his agony he felt his jaw move...' 1. The scar bursts open as LV Possesses Harry. I think LV was using the same entry/exit point as in GH. 2. "Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, ". Does this line support my understanding of 'Possession', ie total body of Possessor involved, not solely mind control ? Kneasy asks 'Why the palaver of the resurrection spell in the graveyard... if a bit of Harry already in Voldy?' Until the resurrection LV was relying on animals and Quirrell for a body. These bodies had their own blood. LV could not touch Harry until he had his own body, and his own blood 'seeded' from Harry's blood. I am making this up as I go along so how am I doing. The 'fact' that LV already had a bit of Harry inside him, an unknown number of brain cells, for the 'mind' link to work does not seem to count against the AntiVoldy protection, because of the lack of exclusively Voldy blood supply. Until proper resurrection LV was Vapour!Mort and Baby!Mort yet still there were scar pains and dreams/visions. Since visions have been mentioned perhaps the following quote helps respond to Pippin's Post 1132 that I tried to reply to in Post 1140 OoP page 729 UK :- 'And this ability of yours - to detect Voldemort's presence, even when he is disguised, and to know what he is feeling when his emotions are roused - has become more and more pronounced since Voldemort returned to his own body and his full powers.' Note: Throughout this discussion I am considering LV Possessing via accurate Apparition, Kneasy's excellent theory of Possession of Tom Riddle by Spirit of Salazar, starting in the Chamber of Secrets, I am treating as a separate theory, not least because TR may have been a willing participant in the partnership, having spent years searching for the CoS, and presumably Salazar himself. From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 20:34:50 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:34:50 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess Message-ID: Responding to Kneasy Post 1162 I do not think LV Possessed Harry before trying to kill him, my 24 hours theory suggests that Harry was Possessed by LV when Hagrid rescued him. Harry did not see Lily killed, although he heard it. ( Hence he could not see Thestrals until after Cedric's death ) PoA Chapter 'Grim Defeat' page 134 'Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!' 'Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...' 'Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -' A member on the main group suggested that this plea by Lily, offering herself in exchange for Harry, constituted a 'Magical Contract'. LV killed Lily, so by the terms of the 'contract', he should let Harry live. But LV then tried to kill Harry, but the 'Magic Contract' prevented the AK from killing Harry, and bounced it back on the perpetrator. I support this theory, and am pretty confident that LV AK'd Harry, suffered the bounce, his body died, and LV's spirit/essence Possessed Harry after the bounced AK as his means of survival. This still leaves Harry only seeing one green flash. confusinglyso Phil From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 20:37:17 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:37:17 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "confusinglyso" wrote: > > Responding to Kneasy Post 1158 > I have thought of Possession as very accurate, focused Apparition, > ie the whole body, which also allows for 'Splinching' on departure. > Don't ask awkward questions about clothes, wands, spectacles, body > sizes etc, same questions apply to Animagi, especially Peter > Pettigrew and Rita Skeeter. It's Magic! ;-) > Kneasy, if I understand your thinking in post 1158, you are > considering only a 'mental' Possession. I think it's body and soul, > everything. Otherwise, at MoM, while LV is Possessing Harry, what > happens to LV's 'vacant' body. For example, Dumbledore, or Moody > with his roving eye, could find it and destroy it. LV then > (bodiless) stuck in Harry and my theory of 24 hours at Godric's > Hollow would have to replayed. LV's body was vacated at GH because > the body was hit by the bounced AK. > > LV did challenge DD to 'Kill me now, Dumbledore...' while he was > Possessing Harry. > 'If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy...' OoP page 720 > UK. > Since this challenge is from LV, is it bluff, attempted trickery, or > fact ? Could he have been killed inside Harry ? > > The following quote illustrates two points:- > > Just prior to the challenge, OoP page 719 UK, the actual Possession:- > 'Then Harry's scar ***burst open*** and he knew he was dead: it was > pain beyond imagining, pain past endurance - > He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature > with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his > body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound > by pain, and there was no escape- > And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth, so that in his > agony he felt his jaw move...' > Kneasy: Bit rushed, got visitors coming, please excuse any jumps in argument that you can't quite follow - I'm cutting explanations short to save time. Bodies. A very contentious issue. There have been lots of questions about bodies apparently missing after the GH incident. Can't figure out the significance of there being no mention either there or at the Ministry. Is absence of proof, proof of absence? We'll see. There's no problem with a body join - except - why would Voldy want to be in a 15 month old body? Always thought of that as a bit of a handicap, it certainly was when he was in an equivalent position in GoF. As for not being able to tell where one ends and the other begins, could be either of two explanations to my way of thinking. Either yes, the bodies join, or one brain is processing sensations from two bodies. Could it differentiate instantaneously? We have some neuro experts among the members, what do they think? I'm repeating a point, but just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't believe Voldy tried to AK Harry at GH. Only one person ever says he does and that's Crouch!Moody. Kill him, yes. AK? Only C!M says that. Do you trust him? Harry as Harry would cease to exist if Voldy had his way, one definition of death I suppose, but remember Sturgeon's Second Law - "There's more ways to futter a cat than by sticking its head in a seaboot." Wise words. And on Jo's site she made a point of saying that we should be asking why neither Harry nor Voldy died at GH. Easy. It wasn't an AK. > > Kneasy asks 'Why the palaver of the resurrection spell in the > graveyard... if a bit of Harry already in Voldy?' > Until the resurrection LV was relying on animals and Quirrell for a > body. These bodies had their own blood. > LV could not touch Harry until he had his own body, and his own > blood 'seeded' from Harry's blood. > I am making this up as I go along so how am I doing. Kneasy: Not bad. 'Bout 7/10 by my reckoning. > The 'fact' that LV already had a bit of Harry inside him, an unknown > number of brain cells, for the 'mind' link to work does not seem to > count against the AntiVoldy protection, because of the lack of > exclusively Voldy blood supply. Until proper resurrection LV was > Vapour!Mort and Baby!Mort yet still there were scar pains and > dreams/visions. Kneasy: Um. I don't think cells have much to do with it. Could be wrong. Voldy (or so we assume) was totally discoporated after GH. He certainly was after PS. Yet Harry's protection still works. I postulate that someones spirit or essence is individual enough to be identified and to have an identifier. And if it does for Voldy essence, why not for Harry essence? It wouldn't be unreasonable for Harry essence to be identifible by Harry just as Voldy essence is identified by Harry. So for the time being I'll stick with it being an invasion not an exchange. Stubborn old bugger that I am. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 21:30:16 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:30:16 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kneasy: > > Not so. > I don't believe Voldy tried to AK Harry. > > Harry remembers just *one* green flash - and that killed Lily. > The possession attempt was after this, failed and Voldy discorporated. > The scar, plus the embedded bits, is what remains of the possession > attempt. > Neri: I of course considered this explanation. Unfortunately, JKR said in the Edinburgh Book Festival: The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive... http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80 Here she seem to take it as obvious that in GH there was a "killing curse" that rebounded and hit Voldy. Note that she starts the next statement about Voldy with "he says that..." but NOT the statement about the killing curse. So she tells it from her authorial POV, as opposed to something Voldy claims and might be lying or in error. If you don't believe JKR in this, you still need to explain why Voldy was blown to vapor for 13 years. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 22:31:13 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:31:13 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ah, so much in just a short period of time. Mixing several sections of posts into the comments below: First, Kneasy's Possession Theory Assumption #4 from post 1158 : >4. When possession occurs *and is successful* there is a melding of the two minds and whatever powers they contain.< I think the important thing here is that it is not an equal melding of the two minds. Not only must one be able to maintain one's old body (at least when one has one) while entering successfully and disentwining successfully from another, but one must remain the dominant mind/soul in the both bodies during the entire process. This is surely why the act of possession is titled such as it is, and why only the most skilled and powerful of wizards/witches would be able to master it. Thus, one reason why LV would seek to possess his potential adversaries as early in their life as possible. Back to Kneasy: >Voldy is very interested in power, he's spent years traveling the world learning stuff until (in his mind) he's a contender for top-spot. And here's an untrained sprog with sufficient power to be able to challenge him -once Harry grows up and gets his act together.> Yes, I think this is exactly the primary motivation. Voldemorte has spent his life attempting to be the most powerful wizard in existence, so it is simply in character to seek to know and obtain (rather than just eliminate the source of) this power. Back to Kneasy Again: >But the mere fact that identifiably Voldy attributes were lodged in Harry provides strong evidence that an invasion had taken place and was partially successful. We have no idea how the protection worked; my bet is that it was specifically anti-Voldy. Nobody else. Two protections - one was to shut out Voldy,the other, the blood protection, was to give him a safe haven against any malicious magic where Lily's blood dwelt.< Yes again. There was protection was against possession and there was protection against death. Only the protection against possession was invoked that night, though we see the protection against death/harm displayed at the end of SS/PS. Both DD and the Potters surely knew LV might attempt possession. This would go a long ways towards explaining the "Take Me" line of Lilly's at GH, and offers an alternative explanation for her statement "Not Harry," and is why LV calls Lilly a silly girl. He did not necessarily think her silly for trying to protect her child, but surely found her silly for thinking he might be interesting in possessing her rather than the repository of the "power," i.e., Harry. Such a scenario may be why Lilly found fleeing to be futile. While she might have covered enough ground to shield against an AK bolt, she was unlikely to cover enough ground to prevent possession, now that Harry was no longer hidden. Now to Kneasy in post 1162: >I don't believe Voldy tried to AK Harry. Harry remembers just *one* green flash - and that killed Lily. The possession attempt was after this, failed and Voldy discorporated. The scar, plus the embedded bits, is what remains of the possession attempt.< I am in total agreement here. LV never tried to kill HP, except perhaps in the sense that he might have wished to so totally possess him that the original mind/soul would be sucked dry and incorporated into Voldy. But no AK was attempted on or intended for Harry. It was the introjection of LV's mind/soul via attempted possession that was the assault, and it was that assault which (at least some of) the protections were intended to repel. What DD didn't count on was that the violence of the rejection would result in LV having a portion of his mind/soul torn from him, as well as his body. Speaking of body, what more vulnerable time to lose one's body than when all or a portion of one's mind/soul is already split between two. Makes one kind of wonder (as I know others have previously) if there was a mindless/soul-less Riddle body left behind and if so, what become of it (might its disintegration been the actual source of the explosion of the GH house). Confusingly so comments in post 1164: >Just prior to the challenge, OoP page 719 UK, the actual Possession:- 'Then Harry's scar ***burst open*** and he knew he was dead: it was pain beyond imagining, pain past endurance - He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound by pain, and there was no escape-And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth, so that in his agony he felt his jaw move...' 1. The scar bursts open as LV Possesses Harry. I think LV was using the same entry/exit point as in GH. 2. "Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, ". Does this line support my understanding of 'Possession', ie total body of Possessor involved, not solely mind control ?< Me (Lyn) again: I very much agree on the first point, the scar does mark the exit point from the first possession, and both the entry and exit point of the second (by which I mean MOM) possession. It was likely formed by the first possession going wrong, and then remained the point of easiest future entry and exit. Interesting that DD didn't wish to remove it (if he could), and makes one wonder if DD didn't anticipate it becoming a means for LV to enter Harry again in the future and that it would be in the mind/soul of HP that LV would finally be vanquished. Now to Kneasy in 1166: >As for not being able to tell where one ends and the other begins,could be either of two explanations to my way of thinking.Either yes, the bodies join, or one brain is processing sensations from two bodies. Could it differentiate instantaneously? We have some neuro experts among the members, what do they think?< Oh lord, Kneasy, I have generated enough fuss here without know dragging neuropshysiology and cognitive psychology into it the fray!! That said, I must state that my reading of Harry's MOM possession is not one where his body was transformed, but where his independent perception of the world, and his own motor actions were temporarily subordinated to the perceptions and will of another mind (soul). What broke the possession in my view, is that the subordinated Harry still existed and the strength of Harry's emotions with respect to Sirius made him temporarily the more powerful mind/soul in the melding. I would suggest that LV did not abandon Harry because of his distaste for the emotion, but because Harry at that moment of experience became the dominating force, and just like in the Graveyard scene, could have used that power to move back along their connection and overwhelm the mind/soul of the new LV entity. That is why LV hightailed it out of there immediately. We now have two instances where the "power" (be it will, emotion, whatever) has exceeded LV's and this scares the hell out of him (him possibly being SS rather than TR). And finally (for 1166) from Kneasy, >So for the time being I'll stick with it being an invasion not an exchange.< Yep, me too, with the invader having a few things left behind, as well as destroyed in his defeat. Lyn From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 01:11:51 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:11:51 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess Message-ID: If Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow to absorb 'the power' by Possessing Harry before killing him, why, at the rebirthing scene in GoF, having overcome the problem of previously being unable to touch Harry, did he not then Possess Harry before his duel antics ? Voldemort would not have forgotten what caused his downfall or his purpose. He would have harboured the details as vividly as Sirius did for his misfortune. I am outnumbered on this debate about which came first, the Possession or the attempt to kill ! Possession first is logical for the reasons Kneasy and others support, but you are matching Voldemort's intelligence with your own, and so far, there has been no evidence that this is at all justified. As a minority of one, I'll stick, until you convince me otherwise, with Harry hearing but not seeing Lily killed, the green light was the AK aimed at Harry,and the Possession was Voldemort's mode of survival. confusinglyso Phil From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 01:46:52 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:46:52 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: snip > JKR said in the Edinburgh Book Festival: > > The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been > asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't > Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort > die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't > he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the > steps that he took enabled him to survive... > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80 > > Here she seem to take it as obvious that in GH there was a "killing > curse" that rebounded and hit Voldy. Note that she starts the next > statement about Voldy with "he says that..." but NOT the statement > about the killing curse. So she tells it from her authorial POV, as > opposed to something Voldy claims and might be lying or in error. > > If you don't believe JKR in this, you still need to explain why Voldy > was blown to vapor for 13 years. > > Neri Now Lyn, I believe JKR never deliberately lies, and generally doesn't attempt to deceive. But I don't feel I can always accept her statements as factual. The above, of course being more difficult not to accept as an accurate recounting of her intentions as to what happened and will be revealed. Still, I do have troubles reconciling her interview statements with the rest of the information she has given us. Now I know that some of the below can be explained away, but when taken as in total, they all make it difficult for me not to question JKR's statement: 1. Harry hears his (presumably) father's words, his mother's words and LV words to his mother, but never hears the words AK, though presumably he is within a few feet of their utterance. So is JKR saying LV did not mouth the words? 2. Harry sees only a single flash of green light, again taking place within a few feet of him. One gets the impression it was dark or an area of low lighting, so even a light directed elsewhere would likely have resulted so ambient changes in light for detection. 3. In the Grave Yard, the PI only regurgitates the spells against his mother and father, but nothing against Harry. So is JKR saying LV did not use his wand? 4. We have reason to believe the AK leaves no marks, yet Harry has a scar that is attributed to an AK, and it is repeatedly said that LV gave him that mark (but not always that it came from an AK). Is JKR now saying this was a unique feature of this particular AK? 5. We have no evidence that in any other use of an AK that an entire house was blown to smitherines. Again, is JKR now saying that this was an unique result of this particular AK? 6. No one other than Harry has ever been know to survive an AK. Yes, we know,the text has suggested that Harry is unique in this respect. 7. The scar is a locus of pain which is associated with contact with LV and there really isn't any reason to believe any residual from an AK should result in such an effect. Granted no one else has ever "survived" an AK, but has then been anything about an AK that would truly suggest a greater linkage between the giver and receiver in the moments before the receivers death? So again, I know alternate explanations for each of these can be presented, but that is an awful lot of alternatives to have to take in one lump, so to speak. I don't like the seeming inconsistencies between all of the above and JKR's inteview comments (as well as some character's statements as well), but as it stands now, I see her an AK explanation for the events at GH to be at odds with many of the other "facts" she has given us. Lyn From ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 02:03:30 2005 From: ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:03:30 -0000 Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: <20050218051020.41530.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes wrote: > > Actually I have a five year old son who is absolutely > in love with Thomas the Tank Engine and has a poster > above his bed. How were we to know that Ringo > tranforms into a rodent and hides between his musical > career and later TV career? ;0) > A Goldfeesh writes: I Have Proof! In 1978 Ringo had a tv movie "Ringo" in which he had an alter ego named...Rrats, Ognir Rrats to be precise. Need I say more? A Goldfeesh (who saw Ringo and his All-Star Band at the Iowa State Fair some years back) From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 03:25:45 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:25:45 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn: > This would go a long ways towards explaining the "Take Me" line of > Lilly's at GH, and offers an alternative explanation for her > statement "Not Harry," and is why LV calls Lilly a silly girl. He > did not necessarily think her silly for trying to protect her > child, but surely found her silly for thinking he might be > interesting in possessing her rather than the repository of the > "power," i.e., Harry. SSSusan: Now **this** is brilliant! Absolutely, totally, a brilliant reading of this. Folks who're members at that other list may know that I have asked, more than once, for SOME kind of explanation as to why Voldy would ever have said "step aside" to Lily. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, he's not the kind of guy who's just got a soft spot in his heart for a pretty girl, one wouldn't imagine. And he isn't exactly likely to have been related to Lily in some way and inclined to have spared her for that reason. Some suggested, as an outgrowth of LOLLIPOPS, that perhaps Voldy had promised to spare her for Snape's sake. But nothing I've read ever really quite fit both the situation and the (presumed) personality of the villain. THIS fits. Siriusly Snapey Susan, with yet another poorly disguised "I agree!" post. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 05:02:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:02:54 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Lyn wrote: > > I believe JKR never deliberately lies, and generally doesn't attempt to deceive. But I don't > feel I can always accept her statements as factual. The above, of course being more > difficult not to accept as an accurate recounting of her intentions as to what happened > and will be revealed. > > Still, I do have troubles reconciling her interview statements with the rest of the > information she has given us. Neri: Lyn, I'd certainly like to accept that Voldy didn't use an AK against Harry in GH, because then my own theory (VASSAL) becomes so easy it's practically obvious. My problem is that I've seen this style of argument many times, and its logic has always disturbed me. It typically goes like this: "X couldn't have happened like the books/JKR say it happened because..." and here comes a list of things that don't fit nicely with X happening. Of course, if you dig deep enough you'll find many things that doesn't logically fit with any X, since after all HP isn't realty, but fiction, and JKR had never thought things all the way down to the level of every single action, and even if she did she doesn't have the room to tell us each tiny detail in a way that EVERYTHING would fit. So the question is not really if X fits or doesn't fit with canon. The question is, if you consider explanation X against the alternative explanation Y, which of the two fits better with the canon. In our case X is the explanation that Voldy used an AK on Harry, and Y is the explanation that Voldy used only used possession against Harry. Now lets look at your arguments: > Lyn: Now I know that some of the below can be explained away, > but when taken as in total, they all make it difficult for me not to question JKR's statement: > > 1. Harry hears his (presumably) father's words, his mother's words and LV words to his > mother, but never hears the words AK, though presumably he is within a few feet of their > utterance. So is JKR saying LV did not mouth the words? > Neri: Harry also doesn't have any recollection of a being possessed, although according to his experience in the MoM this should be quite traumatic. > 2. Harry sees only a single flash of green light, again taking place within a few feet of him. > One gets the impression it was dark or an area of low lighting, so even a light directed > elsewhere would likely have resulted so ambient changes in light for detection. > Neri: Harry also doesn't remember seeing Voldy's face, but according to Snape explanation regarding Legilimency, possession of someone who does not yet have a connection with you probably requires eye contact or something similar. In fact, is there a single detail in Harry's GH memory that even remotely suggests a possession attempt? The case for an AK is indeed problematic, but the case for possession (if relying only on Harry's memory of the event) is practically non-existent. > 3. In the Grave Yard, the PI only regurgitates the spells against his mother and father, but > nothing against Harry. So is JKR saying LV did not use his wand? > Neri: This is true, but the PI case is kind of problematic already. OTOH Voldy, DD, Harry, Hagrid, the narrator (in the beginnings of both PoA and GoF) and JKR herself in her website all repeat the words "curse" and "rebounded" to describe what happened to Harry and Voldy in GH. Possession isn't described well as a "curse" and it is difficult to imagine it "rebounding". > 4. We have reason to believe the AK leaves no marks, yet Harry has a scar that is attributed > to an AK, and it is repeatedly said that LV gave him that mark (but not always that it came > from an AK). Is JKR now saying this was a unique feature of this particular AK? Neri: We have also seen possession with Quirrell, Ginny, Nagini and Harry himself (in the MoM), and never seen it leaving a scar. Of course you can find reasons why this particular possession did produce a scar. > > 5. We have no evidence that in any other use of an AK that an entire house was blown to > smitherines. Again, is JKR now saying that this was an unique result of this particular AK? Neri: We certainly don't have any evidence that possession can blow an entire house to smithereens, or in fact cause any physical change in the environment. OTOH we do have cases of AK blowing statues (in the MoM battle). > > 6. No one other than Harry has ever been know to survive an AK. Yes, we know,the text > has suggested that Harry is unique in this respect. Neri: So are you saying that Lily's sacrifice was strong enough to turn the greatest dark wizard into vapor for years, but was not strong enough to protect Harry from AK? > > > 7. The scar is a locus of pain which is associated with contact with LV and there really isn't > any reason to believe any residual from an AK should result in such an effect. Granted no > one else has ever "survived" an AK, but has there anything about an AK that would > truly suggest a greater linkage between the giver and receiver in the moments before the > receivers death? Neri: No. OTOH, was there anything about a failed possession attempt killing the possessor ot turning him into vapor? > > So again, I know alternate explanations for each of these can be presented, but that is an > awful lot of alternatives to have to take in one lump, so to speak. I don't like the seeming > inconsistencies between all of the above and JKR's inteview comments (as well as some > character's statements as well), but as it stands now, I see her an AK explanation for the > events at GH to be at odds with many of the other "facts" she has given us. Neri: More at odds than the possession explanation? Almost anything in the books is at odds with anything else if you dig deep enough. The thing is, JKR's words in the Edinburgh Book Festival ring like a sincere attempt to point the readers in the right direction. She points out that Voldemort did "experiments" in order to avoid death, and this indeed fits with the whole theme of "Voldemort" (=flight from death), "Death Eaters" and Voldy saying "there's NOTHING worse than death". So are you saying that when JKR asked this question, she knew that the REAL reason Voldy didn't die is simply because it was not an AK at all? Wouldn't it make this whole question by JKR a one big and well-planned trick? She couldn't have done it just by mistake. And yet in this very question she chose to use the words "the killing curse rebounded". Just think of it that way: if the possession thing wasn't your favorite theory, and someone would have suggested to you the AK explanation and the possession explanation side-by-side, which would have sounded more problematic to you? Neri From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 07:04:48 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:04:48 -0000 Subject: flowers for Haggridd Message-ID: Hi all, The memorial service for Haggridd is the day after tomorrow, in Lake Charles, LA, where he lived for many years. If anyone wants to chip in on flowers, write me offlist, as a few people have done after my notice to HPfGU-OTChatter (thanks). I'll send them on behalf of his friends in the fandom. Take care, Amy Z ------------------------ the next great adventure From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 12:48:45 2005 From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:48:45 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] going way OT (and back again): Parody. Also, FOOD In-Reply-To: <421633F1.000001.01192@KATHRYN> Message-ID: <000201c51681$5c333820$2e350f9a@shasta> Quoth Kathryn, > Slightly more seriously there is a bit of a difference > between the Potterverse and the Discworld in that we expect > the Potterverse to be internally consistent, because it's > adventure/drama whereas because the Discworld is by and large > comedic we don't. I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I think the word parody is extremely important in making sense of JKR's writing. Terry does parody too, but (for my tastes) Jo does it better. She's drier and slyer. She's got the eye of a really good charicaturist - she can hardly wake up without seeing something to pounce on - 50s culture, sporting fever, politician speak, journalism, celebrity idolatry, politically correct sadists - whatever. It's a gift, I think - a genuine insight into the ridiculousness of life. But I think her gift tangles up her plot lines, too. Thing is, she *is* (or thninks she is) trying to create a self-consistent universe - something she isn't amazingly gifted at, anyway - and then she gets bit by one of her parodic plot bunnies and things take off like a rabbit farm on kudzu. (SPEW being a well-documented instance.) Whether you like the results is a question of taste. It's messy cooking, but very hearty, I think. (In comparison AS Byatt is a plate of ornately arranged slivers of raw fish and seeweed, with half the ingredients swiped from Iris' Murdoch's freezer.) I'll eat in her kitchen any time of day. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who actually likes Byatt and Murdoch but has never forgiven Byatt for acting so toffee nosed about HP.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 14:59:06 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:59:06 -0000 Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A Goldfeesh wrote, concering the identification of Ringo Starr with Peter Pettigrew: > I Have Proof! In 1978 Ringo had a tv movie "Ringo" in which he had > an alter ego named...Rrats, Ognir Rrats to be precise. Need I say > more? In the film 'Help', as I recollect, some scientists (or is it the sinister Indians?) try to cut off one of Ringo's fingers. The case is looking pretty solid to me. David From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 16:43:41 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:43:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050219164341.73561.qmail@...> You know the George Harrison as Lupin theory also has some merit. If you remember the photos of Harrison from the "All Things Must Pass" album, he has so much hair he must have been a werewolf! ;0) Perhaps his spiritual journey was his attempt to overcome this life as a werewolf! Now feeling like I have added something truly silly to the HP discussions, I can see my work here is done for the day! Randy --- davewitley wrote: > > A Goldfeesh wrote, concering the identification of > Ringo Starr with > Peter Pettigrew: > > > I Have Proof! In 1978 Ringo had a tv movie > "Ringo" in which he > had > > an alter ego named...Rrats, Ognir Rrats to be > precise. Need I say > > more? > > In the film 'Help', as I recollect, some scientists > (or is it the > sinister Indians?) try to cut off one of Ringo's > fingers. The case > is looking pretty solid to me. > > David > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 18:58:55 2005 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:58:55 -0000 Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: <20050219164341.73561.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes wrote: > You know the George Harrison as Lupin theory also has > some merit. Paul is obviously James. Handsome, dashing, but kind of an asshole. Plus, his name is JAMES Paul McCartney. John is Sirius: brash, a little dangerous, really the smartest of the lot, and then--deep sighs for both--murdered young. I think we've wrapped this case up. Next challenge: the Rolling Stones as Death Eaters. Amy Z ------------------------------------------------------------------ "We don't send people to Azkaban just for blowing up their aunts!" From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 19:25:46 2005 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:25:46 -0000 Subject: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi there. Remember me? I know I should (re)-introduce myself, but this theory is just too juicy to wait. --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > Paul is obviously James. Handsome, dashing, but kind of an > asshole. Plus, his name is JAMES Paul McCartney. In addition, as anyone who has ever listened to Abbey Road backwards knows, Paul is actually dead, and he died years and years ago. If you saw that lame Super Bowl Halftime Show, you *know* it's true -- he's merely a silverly shadow of his former self. That was actually a portrait of Paul McCartney -- probably connected to the same machine that played that stupid footage of cars while they sang Baby You Can Drive My Car. And it was definitely the pale vague Mirror of Erised version of Paul McCartney that wrote all those stupid Wings songs. > > I think we've wrapped this case up. Next challenge: the Rolling > Stones as Death Eaters. Oooh, that one's easy. Keith Richards. There's no question that he came back from the dead. More than once. I mean, just look at the guy. And all the rest of them -- they come and go and drift off and play with drugs so that you can't hardly tell which ones have left forever and which have just fled. And Mick Jagger tries to be evil, but he really does have the mentality of a 16 year old boy playing with anagrams to make himself a scary name. --- JMC From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 19:42:38 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:42:38 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ah, I know this is getting a bit dense, but I'm afraid the context is significant in the following interspersed replies to previously interspersed replies, so there is very minimal snipping to follow. So, for the patient and strong, below: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > Lyn wrote: > snip< > > Still, I do have troubles reconciling her interview statements with > the rest of the > > information she has given us. > > Neri: > Lyn, I'd certainly like to accept that Voldy didn't use an AK against > Harry in GH, because then my own theory (VASSAL) becomes so easy it's > practically obvious. My problem is that I've seen this style of > argument many times, and its logic has always disturbed me. It > typically goes like this: "X couldn't have happened like the books/JKR > say it happened because..." and here comes a list of things that don't > fit nicely with X happening. Of course, if you dig deep enough you'll > find many things that doesn't logically fit with any X, since after > all HP isn't realty, but fiction, and JKR had never thought things all > the way down to the level of every single action, and even if she did > she doesn't have the room to tell us each tiny detail in a way that > EVERYTHING would fit. So the question is not really if X fits or > doesn't fit with canon. The question is, if you consider explanation X > against the alternative explanation Y, which of the two fits better > with the canon. In our case X is the explanation that Voldy used an AK > on Harry, and Y is the explanation that Voldy used only used > possession against Harry. Now lets look at your arguments: New response: Neri, I very much agree with your concerns. I think it is very desirable to consider alternate theories and readings, as well as disconfirming evidence. It's good practice in a multitude of settings, and of course keeps groups like this quite active. My personal sensibilities are quite in accord with your comments and I'd like to think they guide my professional reports, but I'm not sure I can totally follow them when considering some fictional works. If we take SS/PS as an example, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and events in canon would have indicated that Snape was the prinicpal villain, but of course JKR deliberately chose to lead us astray, as she has in many of the other books. So simply comparing one theory against another theory based primarily on the preponderance of consistency with and quantity of canon evidence is, at least IMO, a shaky endeavor. I know you know this, but feel the need to review it in light of your comments above. I want to also directly disuss you comment that if one digs deeply enough one will find things that are logically inconsistent and don't fit because most fiction (and perhaps especially JKR's fiction) is imperfect in the world it both mimicks and creates. I couldn't agree more, yet I do have an expectatation that the logic of those worlds should be most consitent and well though out with respect to the major and pivotal events in the story. Few aspects of the HP story are more significant than those surrounding the events at GH, and few have been more revisited (however breifly) than those. JKR has surely give a lot of though to them, and of course has actually gone so far as to have later editions of volumes changed (specifically the wand order) to make the GH incident cohesive. So while I agree with what I understand to be the thrust of your argument, I would suggest that it may not be most applicable in the events under consideration here. Nonetheless, I think it great you offer possible evidence which would disconfirm that offered my me earlier, but let me now consider how they may not be so disconfirming as you believe. > > > Lyn: > Now I know that some of the below can be explained away, > > but when taken as in total, they all make it difficult for me not to > question JKR's statement: > > > > 1. Harry hears his (presumably) father's words, his mother's words > and LV words to his > > mother, but never hears the words AK, though presumably he is within > a few feet of their > > utterance. So is JKR saying LV did not mouth the words? > > > > Neri: > Harry also doesn't have any recollection of a being possessed, > although according to his experience in the MoM this should be quite > traumatic. Lyn now: Yes, the evidence at the MoM does indicate this, but that is not our only model for possession. We have two extended examples of the possession of others that seem to indicate that possession can have differing effects on the possessed. Quirell is obviously one, and while LV could cause him pain, it certainly didn't seem that Quirell was always in some trauma from being possessed. But more importantly we have the words of Ginny (Page 500 from the American Scholastic hardbound): "Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?" Ginny asked. "Are there big blank periods where you don't know what you've been up to?" ---We can see that possession can be experienced very differently, and have at least one model for having no recollection of the event of possession, so I don't think we can use the MoM incident as disconfirming or even the dominant model of how Harry is affected. Thus I find it quite likely that within JKR's world HP would have no recall of possession at GH [I say in JKR's world, to be liberal, for if held against out scientific understanding of episodic memory, there is even more to suggest HP would not be able to recall any of the events} > > > 2. Harry sees only a single flash of green light, again taking place > within a few feet of him. > > One gets the impression it was dark or an area of low lighting, so > even a light directed > > elsewhere would likely have resulted so ambient changes in light for > detection. > > > > Neri: > Harry also doesn't remember seeing Voldy's face, but according to > Snape explanation regarding Legilimency, possession of someone who > does not yet have a connection with you probably requires eye contact > or something similar. In fact, is there a single detail in Harry's GH > memory that even remotely suggests a possession attempt? The case for > an AK is indeed problematic, but the case for possession (if relying > only on Harry's memory of the event) is practically non-existent. Lyn now. I think much of the answer to this is present in my reply to the question above. Given the instances of possession we are aware of, there appears to be no necessity for eye contact. Consider LV's first possession of an animals when he had no corporial form, Riddles possession of Ginny when he was but a memory without true corporial form, and most of all consider the MoM possession (page 815 of the Scholstic HB) when LV was no where to be seen (i.e., likely not even corporially present, let alone developing eye contact) when the possession to place. Now one might explain away the latter by a pre-existing conduit, but then one has to believe an AK scar serves as a conduit--which I find to be a great stretch than simply to go with the evidence that possession can occur in many forms and by several means. > > > > 3. In the Grave Yard, the PI only regurgitates the spells against > his mother and father, but > > nothing against Harry. So is JKR saying LV did not use his wand? > > > > Neri: > This is true, but the PI case is kind of problematic already. OTOH > Voldy, DD, Harry, Hagrid, the narrator (in the beginnings of both PoA > and GoF) and JKR herself in her website all repeat the words "curse" > and "rebounded" to describe what happened to Harry and Voldy in GH. > Possession isn't described well as a "curse" and it is difficult to > imagine it "rebounding". > Lyn now: Yes, the PI graveyard scene has been problematic, but more so for the AK explanation than for possession. It is one a time where we have clear evidence that JKR has gone back and changed the text (canon) to correct it with respect to true intentions. It is hard for me to accept that in her revisting and revising of this text (and the public admission of error it represented), she did not focus great attention on that scene, and would not have made other necessary corrections. There are few other places in the entire series that I suspect JKR gave more attention to, than that which she felt necessary to publicly revise. And what do we find, even in the revised text, there is no evidence that the wand of LV was used against HP. If that be the case, then it throws much of the charaters' believes and statements into doubt. Take for example Ollivander who unequivocally states that it was the "brother" wand of LV which gave Harry the scar. Here we have the stated understanding of a wand expert (who presumably wasn't there at GH) against direct evidence from the wand itself. In the real world, one would have to go with the direct evidence vs the supposition, even if such supposition was widely held. > > 4. We have reason to believe the AK leaves no marks, yet Harry has a > scar that is attributed > > to an AK, and it is repeatedly said that LV gave him that mark (but > not always that it came > > from an AK). Is JKR now saying this was a unique feature of this > particular AK? > > Neri: > We have also seen possession with Quirrell, Ginny, Nagini and Harry > himself (in the MoM), and never seen it leaving a scar. Of course you > can find reasons why this particular possession did produce a scar. Lyn now: Yes, one posit a reason for it producing a scar, one of which would be that it was traumatically rejected and prematurely ended. > > > > > 5. We have no evidence that in any other use of an AK that an entire > house was blown to > > smitherines. Again, is JKR now saying that this was an unique > result of this particular AK? > > Neri: > We certainly don't have any evidence that possession can blow an > entire house to smithereens, or in fact cause any physical change in > the environment. OTOH we do have cases of AK blowing statues (in the > MoM battle). > Lyn now: Yes,you are quite right that we have not other evidence of a possession blowing a house up, yet we also have no other situation where an extremely powerful wizard attempts at possession were traumatically rejected. Frankly, it find the damage done by deflected or misdirected AKs to argue that an AK alone cannot blow up an entire house. There is no reason to believe that LV was engaging in anything but his most powerful AKs against DD and HP (indeed there is every reason to believe he would feel the need to against DD in the MoM scene), and yet the power of these AK's caused trivial destruction compared to the entire GH house being blown asunder. Now of course, perhaps the GH house was demolished by some other circumstance than either the rejected AK or the rejected possession, but that then requires positing yet other things not explained in canon. > > > > 6. No one other than Harry has ever been know to survive an AK. Yes, > we know,the text > > has suggested that Harry is unique in this respect. Lyn now, Yep, and this goes to the heart of an underlying question about the character of HP. Is he really an everyman who makes good choices in a unique situation, or is he truly a person of exceptional innate power and pre-ordained destiny. Obviously any argument about possession vs AK won't have a lot of influence on the underlying readings. > > Neri: > So are you saying that Lily's sacrifice was strong enough to turn the > greatest dark wizard into vapor for years, but was not strong enough > to protect Harry from AK? Lyn now: I don't see it as an either/or. Lilly's sacrifice (which I don't believe was by itself adequate-- as many others have discussed elsewhere) could have been protective to either or both situations. That his mother died to save him, can be considered as saving him from possession (and the possibly soul killing effects that might come from it) as well as from death by AK. Nowhere am I saying that Lilly's sacrifice as a component of a larger magical strategy might not have been strong enought to protect Harry from an AK, I'm just suggesting that their is a probablility that her sacrifice was also or instead intended to protect Harry from possession. > > > > 7. The scar is a locus of pain which is associated with contact with > LV and there really isn't > > any reason to believe any residual from an AK should result in such > an effect. Granted no > > one else has ever "survived" an AK, but has there anything about an > AK that would > > truly suggest a greater linkage between the giver and receiver in > the moments before the > > receivers death? > > Neri: > No. OTOH, was there anything about a failed possession attempt killing > the possessor ot turning him into vapor? Lyn now: But Neri, until the MoM possession, we have no report of a failed possession attempt other that that of LV at GH. Even in the MoM possession, it was a largely voluntary withdrawal rather than a traumatic repulsion by magic. In contrast, we have several incidents where we see the aftermath of an AK (Cedric, Frank, the elder Riddles, etc.) and all are were notable for leaving no anatomical damage. I actually think it is a greater leap to suggest that a rebounding AK would result in unique anatomical damage to LV , than to suggest that such damage might occur due to another cause. > > > > > So again, I know alternate explanations for each of these can be > presented, but that is an > > awful lot of alternatives to have to take in one lump, so to speak. > I don't like the seeming > > inconsistencies between all of the above and JKR's inteview comments > (as well as some > > character's statements as well), but as it stands now, I see her an > AK explanation for the > > events at GH to be at odds with many of the other "facts" she has > given us. > > > Neri: > More at odds than the possession explanation? Almost anything in the > books is at odds with anything else if you dig deep enough. Lyn now: With respect to your first statement, yes, I do find the AK explanation to be more at odds with what I find to be the most pertinent evidence within the books, and thus do feel the possession theory is at more consisistent with the actually evidence (as opposed to characters statements) available in the canon. I also find possession, as well as AKing, to be a standard modus operandi for LV and to be a very plausible explanation for his "visit" to GH. With regards to the second statement, of course the books deliberately leave open the opportunity for alternate explanations for almost everything. As I see it, part of both our fun and our frustration is this very thing. Neri below > > The thing is, JKR's words in the Edinburgh Book Festival ring like a > sincere attempt to point the readers in the right direction. She > points out that Voldemort did "experiments" in order to avoid death, > and this indeed fits with the whole theme of "Voldemort" (=flight from > death), "Death Eaters" and Voldy saying "there's NOTHING worse than > death". So are you saying that when JKR asked this question, she knew > that the REAL reason Voldy didn't die is simply because it was not an > AK at all? Wouldn't it make this whole question by JKR a one big and > well-planned trick? She couldn't have done it just by mistake. And yet > in this very question she chose to use the words "the killing curse > rebounded". Lyn now: Yes, the Edinburgh comments are a BIG obstacle to the validity of the possession theories. However, I'm never sure, as I began my comments, with how much I should take her interview and other statements as incontrovertible additions to, or explications of canon. > > Just think of it that way: if the possession thing wasn't your > favorite theory, and someone would have suggested to you the AK > explanation and the possession explanation side-by-side, which would > have sounded more problematic to you? > > Neri Lyn now: But I didn't start out with possession theory being my favorite. Indeed, possession theory didn't even exist (at least to my knowledge) when I was first troubled with the "take me" line of Lilly's when I first read SS many years ago. Possession hypothesis came about because that line haunted me and was lacking explanation. Later I read the first preliminary specualtions of Kneasy and began corresponding with him and developing more in our private correspondence and his public explications of the theory. Looking at them now, as dispassionately as I can, I find the possession theory most in keeping with not only the events at GH as we have had them presented, and the later linkages to GH events such as the PI in the graveyard scene, but also with what we know about the personality and activities of both TR (LV) and SS. I certainly understand how alternate readings are plausible and supportable, but yes, I find the possession theory to best explain the events and motivations and likely future resolution of the HP saga. Still open to change, though. :-) Lyn From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 19:54:59 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:54:59 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > Lyn, I'd certainly like to accept that Voldy didn't use an AK against > Harry in GH, because then my own theory (VASSAL) becomes so easy it's > practically obvious. My problem is that I've seen this style of > argument many times, and its logic has always disturbed me. It > typically goes like this: "X couldn't have happened like the books/JKR > say it happened because..." and here comes a list of things that don't > fit nicely with X happening. Of course, if you dig deep enough you'll > find many things that doesn't logically fit with any X, since after > all HP isn't realty, but fiction, and JKR had never thought things all > the way down to the level of every single action, and even if she did > she doesn't have the room to tell us each tiny detail in a way that > EVERYTHING would fit. So the question is not really if X fits or > doesn't fit with canon. The question is, if you consider explanation X > against the alternative explanation Y, which of the two fits better > with the canon. In our case X is the explanation that Voldy used an AK > on Harry, and Y is the explanation that Voldy used only used > possession against Harry. Kneasy: Always look for loopholes. 1. It's fun. 2. It's annoying. 3. It makes for interesting threads. Only Crouch!Moody claims an AK was thrown at young Potter, yet it's also C!M that tells us repeatedly that there is no protection/shield against an AK. Now I may be gullible but in my half-assed way I could almost believe that this might be a clue. Voldy says he intended to kill Potter, DD backs him up and I'm inclined to believe both of 'em - or at least accept that a touch of infanticide was the way the evening's entertainment was due to close. But that was the port and nuts; there were other things on the menu first IMO. I'll admit that proof, solid canon proof is hard to come by. No problem. There's plenty of circumstantial, inferrential or plain old sort-of logical extrapolation to keep us going. Mind you, the really important stuff that's not in the books (Tom and the Chamber, GH, the 24 hours and perhaps Grindelwald) is treated in much the same way. Tell 'em almost nothing and let 'em stew. Sadism, that's what it is, rank sadism. Getting everything to fit - that's verging on the impossible. Some smart bugger will always come along with "But..". Jo has admitted that she is/was a fan of old Aggie Christie. Heaven help us. Some of her plots didn't make sense even if you read the last chapter ten times. She cheated too, held stuff back, kept it from the reader but 'gave' it to Marple, Poirot or whoever to use as a revelation in the final showdown. Not friendly, that. Severe disgruntlement will ensue if that happens with HP. I've had enormous fun, spent an inordinate amount of time, chewed my nails down to my elbows trying to put the HP jigsaw puzzle together in non-obvious combinations. Perversity sometimes pays. There's a patch of sky over there, a dirty deed over here, and look! If you turn this bit upside down it becomes ESE!Sirius! Or is it upside-down? Can't really tell, there's too many pieces still missing. Two books to go, then it's finished, oh, not the story, or not just the story, that's less than half the fun so far as I'm concerned - it's what I've been able to make of the incomplete tale that I'll really miss. Wrong? Who cares? I haven't enjoyed myself so much since the Profumo scandal - and that was 40 years ago. Fortunately with HP we'll probably get more answers. > > Neri: > We have also seen possession with Quirrell, Ginny, Nagini and Harry > himself (in the MoM), and never seen it leaving a scar. Of course you > can find reasons why this particular possession did produce a scar. > Kneasy: Interesting that. It's another little theory of mine that Possession is not wand magic. Tom didn't seem to have a wand and Vapour!Mort certainly couldn't handle one, so how did he nail Quirrell? In which case...ummm. Now that could be an explanation of sorts for why there was no Voldy body at GH. If he touched Harry, the protection kicks in, producing the scar and a blow-back that caused him to crumble just as Quirrell did.... No corpse. Could also explain why he was so keen to prove he could touch Harry in the graveyard. No evidence, but it's worth tucking it away for future reference. From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 20:38:28 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:38:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OT chatter from a child of a lesser god ( I suppose) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050219203828.20034.qmail@...> I can add to this only by saying that I proposed that U2's Bono is Harry all grown up! Perhaps the other 3 bandmembers are Ron, Neville, and Seamus Finnigan. Although, Ron in the movies looks a little like a young Mick Jagger lately. Perhaps he'll turn into a Death Eater! "Once you start me up, I'll never stop!" yeah yeah yeah ;0) Randy --- joywitch_m_curmudgeon wrote: > > Hi there. Remember me? I know I should > (re)-introduce myself, but > this theory is just too juicy to wait. > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" > > wrote: > > > Paul is obviously James. Handsome, dashing, but > kind of an > > asshole. Plus, his name is JAMES Paul McCartney. > > In addition, as anyone who has ever listened to > Abbey Road backwards > knows, Paul is actually dead, and he died years and > years ago. If > you saw that lame Super Bowl Halftime Show, you > *know* it's true -- > he's merely a silverly shadow of his former self. > That was actually > a portrait of Paul McCartney -- probably connected > to the same > machine that played that stupid footage of cars > while they sang Baby > You Can Drive My Car. And it was definitely the > pale vague Mirror > of Erised version of Paul McCartney that wrote all > those stupid > Wings songs. > > > > > I think we've wrapped this case up. Next > challenge: the Rolling > > Stones as Death Eaters. > > Oooh, that one's easy. Keith Richards. There's no > question that he > came back from the dead. More than once. I mean, > just look at the > guy. And all the rest of them -- they come and go > and drift off and > play with drugs so that you can't hardly tell which > ones have left > forever and which have just fled. And Mick Jagger > tries to be evil, > but he really does have the mentality of a 16 year > old boy playing > with anagrams to make himself a scary name. > > --- JMC > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 20:56:36 2005 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:56:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] going way OT (and back again): AS Byatt In-Reply-To: <000201c51681$5c333820$2e350f9a@shasta> Message-ID: <20050219205636.56570.qmail@...> > Whether you like the results is a question of taste. It's messy cooking, > but very hearty, I think. (In comparison AS Byatt is a plate of ornately > arranged slivers of raw fish and seeweed, with half the ingredients > swiped from Iris' Murdoch's freezer.) I'll eat in her kitchen any time > of day. > > Baaaaaa! > > Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who actually likes Byatt and Murdoch > but has never forgiven Byatt for acting so toffee nosed about HP.) Yes - exactly! Robust peasant food as opposed to a over dressed cold fish. On Byatt - I've never forgiven her either - she's not on my list of favourite writers anymore. This is after years of being quite a fan, to the extent of going to readings as well (although these were generally pretty dull - I always thought she took herself far too seriously). The memory of that show of sniffiness is at the back of my mind every time I try and read something she writes, and has soured my enjoyment. I still don't understand her problem either - she does write fairy tales. Her whole argument seems to be based around the fact that she doesn't think that Harry thinks deeply enough about things - this from the woman who over-analyses everything *to death*. I think she also needs to distinguish between the emotional and the intellectual. So going back to Mike's food analogy - I get a strong impression that she *thinks* very deeply about things, but doesn't *feel* as strongly about about anything. The woman also lacks a sense of humour. As much as I love some of her novels, she's yet to make me laugh. I expect some people will think that changing one's opinion on someone because of their views on a book is a bit extreme - but I think I'm in good company. Richard Eyre admitted to doing exactly the same thing over Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Catherine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 23:11:11 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (harpdreamer) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:11:11 -0000 Subject: going way OT (and back again): AS Byatt In-Reply-To: <20050219205636.56570.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: (Lots of Snippage) > I expect some people will think that changing one's opinion on someone because of their views on a book is a bit extreme - but I think I'm in good company. Richard Eyre admitted to doing exactly the same thing over Captain Corelli's Mandolin. > > Catherine No, I don't. This isn't exactly the same, but when I found out that Ezra Pound was a Nazi sympathiser, I stopped reading his poetry. And he had been one of my favourite poets. I'd do the same to an author who had disparaging things to say about Tolkien or (to a lesser extent) JKR (or any of my other favourite authors). I'd like to see *them* try to write a six-part fantasy novel (with copious notes) and try to keep everything straight (and age appropriate!). Parker From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 23:45:11 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:45:11 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess Message-ID: Barry Arrowsmith Kneasy "Lyn J. Mangiameli" kumayama "nkafkafi" Neri "pippin_999" Pippin "susiequsie23" Siriusly Snapey Susan Thank you all for your interpretations of GH. This started out trialing the idea that Possession is very focused Apparition, with its associated risk of Splinching. One of my starting assumptions was that Harry had been Possessed at GH, using the 'mind' link as evidence. However, following the MoM Possession, which I suggested may be 'Unsplinching', Dumbledore seems happy to look at Harry. Do you all think the Voldy essence has gone, the 'mind' link broken, or was Dumbledore 'safe' because Voldy had other distractions, consoling Bellatrix, excuses to make to remaining supporters, etc ? Harry was very angry in Dumbledore's study, yet there was no LV inspired notion to attack DD. The intelligent, logical view I get from your posts is that Voldy went to GH to absorb 'the power', which is assumed would be achieved by Possession. I agree that makes the most sense, yet at his rebirthing he told his gathered Death Eaters that he had tried to kill Harry. And, at the rebirthing, he again had opportunity to absorb the power, yet did not, even though he could touch Harry without harm to himself. There also seems to be a number of permutations of events at GH. It is accepted that James was killed first. Then Lily is killed. Here's where the permutations start:- 1a) she is killed by direct intent 1b) she is killed because she intercepts green light meant for Harry 1c) she is killed by intercepting Possession of Harry ??? 2a) attempted Possession of Harry, LV vapourised, house collapses 2b) attempted AK of Harry, bounce, LV vapourised, house collapses 2c) attempted other curse, bounce, LV vapourised, house collapses 2d) repelled Possession, (couldn't touch Harry), then as 2b or 2c. The logical theory that LV was after 'the power' and needed to Possess Harry to get it should eliminate 1b, and 2b. 1c seems very unlikely, yet LV Possessed Harry in front of Dumbledore, (this strengthens my view that there was no vulnerable LV body remaining in MoM atrium during Possession) The logical theory must choose 1a and 2a. If Harry had witnessed 1a, surely he should have been able to see the Thestrals from year 3 (year 2 via Anglia). I doubt a failed Possession could lead to a house collapse so is 1a then 2d the order of events ? Yet 2a is the only answer to satisfy 'Priori Incantatem'. That is, if Possession is wandless, as I think Apparition is wandless. Another attempt at explaining a trivial point :- Godric's Hollow destroyed by wayward magic. Maybe the Potter home at GH was held up by magic, rather like The Burrow seems to be, and a disturbance in the magic field caused by the repelled Possession or AK! brought about its destruction. Another thought, but much less likely, because the house was under Secret Keeper status, as was 12 Grimmauld Place which appeared and disappeared, the magic influence making it invisible may have mixed dangerously with whatever 'bounced'. confusinglyso Phil 'I expect what you're not aware of would fill several books, Dursley', growled Moody. same here, 5 so far :-) From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 00:08:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:08:54 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn wrote: Yes, the Edinburgh comments are a BIG obstacle to the validity of the possession theories. However, I'm never sure, as I began my comments, with how much I should take her interview and other statements as incontrovertible additions to, or explications of canon. Neri: Why aren't you sure? Because some things don't fit together? But this is also true for the books. This specific question by JKR was obviously intended to help us. It is only an obstacle if you insist on sticking with your theory no matter what. If you are ready to modify or even abandon your theory according to new hints, then this question of JKR is a wonderful thing. It tells us what is one of the real mysteries in the series: why is Voldy death-proof? Kneasy wrote: Always look for loopholes. 1. It's fun. 2. It's annoying. 3. It makes for interesting threads. Neri: Oh sure. I agree. It is more what's frequently comes after that I disagree with: 4. Stick with your theory no matter what. 5. Explain away or simply ignore whatever doesn't fit. Which does make for some interesting threads in the beginning, but after some time tends to dissolve into boring back-and-forth arguments in which no one changes his/her mind. Kneasy wrote: Only Crouch!Moody claims an AK was thrown at young Potter, yet it's also C!M that tells us repeatedly that there is no protection/shield against an AK. Neri: Only C!M says the words AK. But he also calls it, the first time he introduces it, "the Killing Curse" (capitals in the original, GoF, ch.14, p. 215). This is obviously another name for the AK. This name repeats once more, this time used by the narrator: in the MoM battle, immediately after Voldy shoots an AK at Harry, we are told that "he sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting the security guard's desk, which burst into flame" (OotP,ch. 36, p. 813 US). Then JKR says in the Edinburgh talk: "the killing curse rebounded, so he [Voldy] should have died". IMO this is a 99% authorial guarantee that it was an AK that rebounded. If you refuse to let JKR help you, don't blame her for sadism. Here is a suggestion how to keep the good parts of both the AK explanation and the possession explanation. What if stealing someone's powers takes more than simple possession? The possessor first has to take over and connect himself with the victim, as if they become one person with the sum of their powers. Then the possessor needs to kill the victim, so at the moment of death the common powers all stay with the possessor. Voldy indeed came to GH to steal the power that can vanquish the Dark Lord. First he possessed Harry and created this special connection (which like usual possession doesn't require a wand and therefore didn't appear in the Priori Incantatem), then he shot an AK in order to kill Harry. But because the AK rebounded from the protection and hit Voldy, the exact opposite happened and Harry ended up with Voldy's powers and also with a permanent connection with him. This version would fit with JKR's words in Edinburgh, and (shoving and pushing a bit here and there) even with DD's words that "you and he are connected by the curse that failed" (GoF, ch.30, p.600 US). And the reason the AK doesnt appear in the PI is indeed because it failed. How about that? You can even say that Harry doesn't remember the light of the second AK for the same reason he doesn't remember the possession that happened before that: because it was a possession of the Ginny type that you don't remember afterwards. Neri From pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 00:56:03 2005 From: pjcousins at confusinglyso.yahoo.invalid (confusinglyso) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:56:03 -0000 Subject: Re Apparate to Possess Message-ID: <"nkafkafi" in Post 1186 < Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/1088 : << "You should have died [...] rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you." Somehow the idea of Sirius dying for Peter... er, I don't think so - or is that my ESE!Sirius inclinations showing? >> The OoP Penseive scene does not inspire belief that Sirius would die to save Peter for love of Peter *sigh*. But what about dying to save Peter for love of his own heroic self-image? Sean wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ol d_crowd/message/1093 : << Why are Tolkien fans stimulated to investigate language, myth, even calligraphy? What might Potterverse inspire besides shippers and fanfic? I see that Latin is a little more popular, is that all there is? >> Well, we are constantly hearing that the earlier Potter books inspired many children to start reading for pleasure, and going on to read more books than just Potter. I don't know if anyone has been inspired to learn any geography (perhaps mostly of Britain) or folklore by looking up the places and magical creatures mentioned in the oeuvre, but certainly plenty of school-teachers and fact-book writers have taught school courses and written books presenting that information. I believe that JKR would prefer that her readers were motivated to intervene when they saw a child being bullied than that they were motivated to learn to write with quills. Kudos to Mike's http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/1094 Nora in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1100 : << prefers knee-high boots to Mary Janes >> Knee-high boots are only for people whose calves are 'properly' proportioned to their ankles. Calves too big and the boots cannot be put on; calves too skinny and the boots fall down. Nora << ponder[ed] making up a properly McQ .sig file, for fun >> McQ. ???? Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/1148 : << That Dobby emerged from the Malfoy environment with his free will intact and no hatred of wizards generally does not mean that every other House Elf could do so. >> It is not clear to me that Kreachur had any less free will or any more hatred of wizards in general than Dobby. Kreachur loved Mrs Black, the evil Blacks, and presumably more thinly loved all pureblood wizards who were purebloodists. He demonstrated his freedom of will by disobeying his master in order to serve a person (Narcissa) whom he loved. That is the same way that Dobby's freedom of will was demonstrated. If Dobby had originally been a Potter family House Elf, fallen somehow into Malfoy hands (a theory once popular on HPfGU which I do not share), he would be *exactly* parallel to Kreachur; both motivated by love of their 'real' owner rather than by attachment to Good or Evil. I would prefer that they were both motivated by attachment to Good or Evil, because that would be parallel to another pair of parallels: Peter and Severus are exactly parallel: they left school and joined their old friends fighting in a civil war; then they turned traitor to their side of the civil war and spied for the other side and gave information to the other side that led to the death of some, inprisonment of others, of their old friends. Two blokes betrayed their own friends, but one betrayed good people to Evil and one betrayed evil people to Good. Personally this fits my understandingn of the term "situation ethics", in which one cannot make a blanket statement that betrayal is always Wrong, but instead it dependson the situation: betraying Evil is Right and betraying Good is Wrong. Lyn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1180 : << this goes to the heart of an underlying question about the character of HP. Is he really an everyman who makes good choices in a unique situation, or is he truly a person of exceptional innate power and pre-ordained destiny. >> I once read (in a book of literary criticism of Irish "folklore" stories) that every person is a person whose birth was pre-ordained for a life with special destiny. (They didn't say what the special destiny is, maybe to integrate with the Shadow to achieve individualisation or to resist the lures of the Devil and earn entry to Heaven.) From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 03:45:03 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:45:03 +1100 Subject: magic time turner Message-ID: <20050220034503.GB27894@...> During my research^H^H^Hwork for the Catalogue, I came across a rather good question in a post: if Granger got her Time Turner from MacGonagal, Dumbledore must have had access to that one at least, and could have reprogrammed the trophy in GoF or have been able to alter events. Of course it's also possible he already did. If this is true, this would be corroborrating evidence for MAGIC DISHWASHER. My only problem with that theory is that it makes Snape altogether too wonderful. I prefer my Snapes bitter. Prost. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 04:57:31 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:57:31 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Responding to Neri's reply with interspersals below: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Lyn wrote: > Yes, the Edinburgh comments are a BIG obstacle to the validity of the > possession theories. However, I'm never sure, as I began my comments, > with how much I should take her interview and other statements as > incontrovertible additions to, or explications > of canon. > > > Neri: > Why aren't you sure? Because some things don't fit together? But this > is also true for the books. This specific question by JKR was > obviously intended to help us. It is only an obstacle if you insist on > sticking with your theory no matter what. If you are ready to modify > or even abandon your theory according to new hints, then this question > of JKR is a wonderful thing. It tells us what is one of the real > mysteries in the series: why is Voldy death-proof? Lyn now: Ah Neri, I was hoping you would invite more discussion on the Edinburgh interview. You appear to have a much more benevolent view of JKR's motivations than I do. I believe JKR's first loyalty with respect to the HP story is to protect the integrity of her works, for herself, her fans and those who have financially invested in her works (like WB and the publishers). This, includes, along with less lofty tasks such as enforcing copyrights,etc., ensuring that it is her version of the story that is the final one, that it cannot be seen as plagiarized from some fan site, and that it is not revealed until the last volume is published and in the hands of the readers. On the important matters that relate to how the story will end and the mysteries that underlie the individual events, I believe she will go to some trouble to distract if not deceive the theorizing fans if they get too close to discerning that which she needs to keep secret. Sure she is happy to toss out little inconsequential things like birthdays and middle names, if for no reason than it keeps the level of fervor high. But no, I am very skeptical of her statements when it comes to the big themes and future events, if for no other reason that that she cares about her fan's enjoyment of each and every book and chapter (not to mention the little matter that if the ending were to be discerned in advance, it might well reduce the sales of the final book by millions of dollars/pounds). Thus, whenever she cares to say the most about the underlying mysteries, I am the most cautious and skeptical, and the Edinburgh interview may well have been a high point for such discussion. Thus I don't share your view that her statements there were made to "help us." Quite the contrary, I think it quite likely they very deliberately were made to distract us. And though I think her interview is a big obstacle to possesion theory (and I think I would have put it better if I had stated it was a PROMINENT obstacle), it don't necessarily perceive that obstacle as either valid or insurmountable. So, let's look at the pertinent portion of that interview. Here it is" \\\There are two questions that I have never been asked but that I should have been asked, if you know what I mean. If you want to speculate on anything, you should speculate on these two things, which will point you in the right direction. The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way. I don't think that it is guessable. It may be?someone could guess it?but you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you know about the prophesy. I'd better stop there or I will really incriminate myself. The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out?I thought that people would?is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. When I mentioned that question to my husband?I told Neil that I was going to mention it to you ?he said that it was because Dumbledore knows that there are two more books to come. As you can see, we are on the same literary wavelength. [Laughter]. That is not the answer; Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that. If you want to wonder about anything, I would advise you to concentrate on those two questions. That might take you a little bit further./// Now the statements around the first question seem fairly clear, basically coming down to why didn't he die since the killing curse rebounded? The specific section of most interest to me is "The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way." Read on the face of things, this does seem to clearly indicate that a killing curse was delivered, but I'm not so confident that the truth is conveyed at this level. Three alternate possibilites come to mind that are still conguent with the PI scene at the graveyard. 1. That an AK was delivered without a wand and rebounded. The problem here is that there has been no other instance of an AK being performed without a wand, and there is no good explanation why any of Voldy would end up in Harry from an AK, rebounded or not. 2. That the reason why LV did not die from a rebounded AK is that he never delivered one. All the rest of JKR's comments about what it was that prevented his death is distraction. Now I grant you, this is a tortured reading of her words, but no less tortured than some of the prophecy readings I've encountered. 3. That a killing curse (AK or another) was delivered, not external to Harry, but from within Harry during his possession and by LV without a wand. This has some plausibility for me in that it might be a reasonable reaction of a frustrated LV that could not achieve a full possession, may even have happend because he was having difficulties extricating himself from the failed possession, wanted to get rid of the kid, and, just maybe, may have been what he did to Quirrel at the end of PS/SS. Now none of these are an easy fit for JKR's words at Edinburgh, but then a surface reading of her words at Edinburgh doesn't coincide very well with the text she has already given us (the discussion of which is present in my earlier posts in this thread). But the really striking thing in that Edinburgh interview was this "why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. .... Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason..... That is not the answer; Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that." WOW! JKR has just admitted that DD has lied, and thus, that even her supposedly most trustworthy characters might not tell the truth (or the whole truth) in the novels. Now for Kneasy and others to speculate about that is not surprising, but for JKR to admit that came as a surprise to me. But, it points to the fact that both JKR and her most "noble" characters are not about being deceitful. Sure makes it hard, then, to be certain of statements, and leaves me again to take a skeptical view towards any JKR "hints" as you label them. Anyway, there is nothing new in these hints. These have been questions that have been with us from the begining and she did nothing to aid us in discerning an answer. Again, I will say that it is not in JKR's interests, nor even the interests of the bulk of her fans, to have people concentrate on questions that might successfully reveal the mysteries of the series. Neri, I don't see myself insisting on sticking to my theory no matter what. First of all, I don't see possession theory as being mine. I generated some speculations along these lines, shared them with Barry who had some other speculations along these lines, and Barry offered a theory. If any possession theory is owned by anyone, it is owned by Kneasy (Barry). I just have fun with this, and right now the possession theory explains more to me (including SS, TR Diary, Chamber of Secrets, inter alia) than anything else. I don't have any emotional investment in any possession theory as mine. Now let me toss out something unrelated just for fun. What if the thing LV did to keep himself alive is to distribute himself over several locations? What if there is a distributed LV some of whom remains in the Chamber of Secrets, some of whom was in the TR diary, some of whom is in the newly corporial LV, some of whom is in the snake, and some of whom is in HP, amongst other possible places. Thus there is no single LV (or perhaps SS) to kill. Not clones, but a distributed "soul" so to speak. Just something for others to chew on if they amused by it, but not an idea I'm going to try to defend. > > > Kneasy wrote: > Always look for loopholes. > 1. It's fun. > 2. It's annoying. > 3. It makes for interesting threads. > > > Neri: > Oh sure. I agree. It is more what's frequently comes after that I > disagree with: > 4. Stick with your theory no matter what. > 5. Explain away or simply ignore whatever doesn't fit. > > Which does make for some interesting threads in the beginning, but > after some time tends to dissolve into boring back-and-forth arguments > in which no one changes his/her mind. Lyn again: Neri, I don't see that any HP theory that I have encountered has been without some area where it did a good job explaining some events and a lesser job explaining others. As you have often noted, there is a lot of (at least apparent) inconsistency if not error in the HP story, and so it might be impossible for any theory with any specificity to be congruent with every event and statement in the story. Somehow I suspect that when the HP story ends, there will be multiple inconsistencies and inadequate explanations that will remain, but I hope we won't see JKR being considered intransigent in asserting her story line even when it is explanatory of some events but less compatible with others she has written. I think many, if not most theoreticians have been fairly open about the limitations of their theories, and I have tried to be quite open about the pitfalls and weaknesses of possession theory. That said, it offers to my mind a more complete explanation of events in the novels, and is more congruent with my conceptualization of the characters personalities, than any other explanation I have encountered. Of course others will have differing perceptions, but then isn't the sharing of these different perceptions part of the fun of groups like this. > > > Kneasy wrote: > Only Crouch!Moody claims an AK was thrown at young Potter, yet it's > also C!M that tells us repeatedly that there is no protection/shield > against an AK. > > > Neri: > Only C!M says the words AK. But he also calls it, the first time he > introduces it, "the Killing Curse" (capitals in the original, GoF, > ch.14, p. 215). This is obviously another name for the AK. This name > repeats once more, this time used by the narrator: in the MoM battle, > immediately after Voldy shoots an AK at Harry, we are told that "he > sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting > the security guard's desk, which burst into flame" (OotP,ch. 36, p. > 813 US). Then JKR says in the Edinburgh talk: "the killing curse > rebounded, so he [Voldy] should have died". IMO this is a 99% > authorial guarantee that it was an AK that rebounded. If you refuse to > let JKR help you, don't blame her for sadism. Lyn Again: You very much view things as JKR attempting to "help" us. I must re-assert that not all of us have such confidence in her motives. > > Here is a suggestion how to keep the good parts of both the AK > explanation and the possession explanation. What if stealing someone's > powers takes more than simple possession? The possessor first has to > take over and connect himself with the victim, as if they become one > person with the sum of their powers. Then the possessor needs to kill > the victim, so at the moment of death the common powers all stay with > the possessor. Voldy indeed came to GH to steal the power that can > vanquish the Dark Lord. First he possessed Harry and created this > special connection (which like usual possession doesn't require a wand > and therefore didn't appear in the Priori Incantatem), then he shot an > AK in order to kill Harry. But because the AK rebounded from the > protection and hit Voldy, the exact opposite happened and Harry ended > up with Voldy's powers and also with a permanent connection with him. > This version would fit with JKR's words in Edinburgh, and (shoving and > pushing a bit here and there) even with DD's words that "you and he > are connected by the curse that failed" (GoF, ch.30, p.600 US). And > the reason the AK doesnt appear in the PI is indeed because it failed. > > How about that? You can even say that Harry doesn't remember the light > of the second AK for the same reason he doesn't remember the > possession that happened before that: because it was a possession of > the Ginny type that you don't remember afterwards. Lyn at the end: Neri, and I don't mean this confrontationally, but aren't you just exhibiting what you have been accusing others of doing? :-) Not that this isn't just fine with me. From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 09:57:46 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:57:46 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle Message-ID: Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize that the main questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but Voldemort. Aftera all, JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be significant?! Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to think of the two questions: 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? ( (Even before this I thought that since we had been given sufficient information regarding Harry's survival, it was *Voldemort's* that remained as a mystery. I have to admit, though, that DD not trying to kill Voldemort didn't strike me as a mystery.) If Voldemort is the main mystery, then resolving this should give us the answer to these two questions. I.e., it's not about what happened in GH (were Snape/Lupin/Pettigrew there? etc.) and it's not about DD's convoluted strategies, or about ESE!Lupin - the answers should arise from understanding Voldemort. Voldemort's unique state of being >From the very beginning, Voldemort is described as other than human. The first intimation is Hagrid's "there's not enough human left in him to die" (paraphrase). At the end of PS, in what seems almost a fulfilment of this cryptic utterance, we get to actually see Voldemort - and he is indeed described as having inhuman, *snake like* features. In the following books, every time Voldemort makes an appearance there are allusions to his snake like appearance or to his snake companion (or both). Now it screams at me - as though JKR was hammering it into our heads, but until OoP I didn't see the significance. However, when Harry felt Voldemort's presence within him as a snake, I sat up and started taking notice. If the emotional/mental presence of Voldemort is snaky, then it has to mean that, in some very deep way, going a long way beyond appearance, he *is* a snake. This special state - part human, part snake, is unique to Voldemort. Snakiness and Vol-de-mort-ism When Harry meets Tom Riddle, he looks human. DD says that when Riddle surfaced as Voldemort, hardly anyone reconized him as the boy he had been, because he had undergone so many *dark and dangerous transformations*. Since the DEs recognised Voldemort post- resurrection, he must have been snake-like before. We know, from Voldemort's words in the graveyard, that his transformations had one purpose - immortality. From this we can conclude that his snakiness is linked to the search for immortality. Not long ago, I posted on HPfGU on what I called snake immortality and phoenix immortality (msg. 110260). In summary: Snakes are symbols of immortality, due to their ability to shed their skins. The skin that is left behind looks like the snake itself, but is only a shell, a fake. The snake thereby "cheats" death by leaving behind something that looks like it, but escapes with his essential being (body) intact. The phoenix, on the other hand, truly dies. His body turns to ashes. When the phoenix is born again, this is therefore true resurrection. So, in contradistinction to the phoenix, the snake would symbolise immortality achieved through fake dying or cheating death . This, then could be the answer to JKR's first question: In GH, Voldemort, part snake, "shed" an external aspect of himself (his body), but retained his essential being (some kind of spirit, vapor..). Snaky!Voldemort theory can also provide the answer to the second question. A snake sheds it's skin because it outgrows it. So each shedding of the skin marks a stage in the snake's growth. This biological trait connects with Sybil's (second) prophecy, in PoA: the Dark Lord will arise *stronger and more terrible* than before. If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he will have grown stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral sense to not try and kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I could only conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to save lives *now* by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he did manage to resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any worse than before. But if Voldemort will return stronger, more difficult to fight, more difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD to not try and kill him. One person, dual nature Another thing that made me sit up in OoP was the cryptic "divided in essence". Several have conjectured that this refers to Harry and Voldemort. It's possible, but not really satisfying. Harry and Voldemort are two individuals. There is a connection between them, but why should there be any question about them sharing essence? More importantly, the one smoke snake divides into two snakes. It's clear why a snake stands for Voldemort, but surely it's inappropriate as a representing Harry? There is no proof either way, but for now I'd like to consider a different possibility - that it refers only to Voldemort. In fact, going on what I've said before, we *know* that Voldemort is a being that is "divided in essence" - part human, part snake. Thinking of Voldemort in this way - one person, two essences, it struck me quite forcefully how similar it is to the orthdox creed regarding Christ - that he is one person, but two natures - human and divine. The negative parallels are striking. Where Christ is human and divine, Voldemort is human and snake - where snake is the negative of divine both in that divine is more than human and snake (as an animal) is less, and in the Satanic connotations of snakes. Secondly, Christ is *fully* human and fully divine. Voldemort is *partially* human, partially snake. His double natures are both flawed, imperfect, debased. Once I started thinking of Voldemort as a dark, twisted mirror image of Christ, several things fell into place, thematically. For instance - Voldemort took the flesh and blood of others for his own resurrection, where Christ giving his blood and flesh for the redemption of others. Or the really disturbing suffering Harry went through OoP because he insisted on the truth of what he had witnessed. He is a martyr in the original early Christian sense: "The Greek word martus signifies a witness who testifies to a fact of which he has knowledge from personal observation... The disciples of Christ were no ordinary witnesses such as those who gave testimony in a court of justice. ... the witnesses of Christ were brought face to face daily, from the beginning of their apostolate, with the possibility of incurring severe punishment and even death itself. ... the term martus came to be used in the sense of a witness who at any time might be called upon to deny what he testified to, under penalty of death." (from www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) And the obvious - that the only character who resurrects is Voldemort. And that where Christ is pure Love, Voldemort never felt love at all (and therefore doesn't understand it), and basically stands for Hate. Which means... what? The theory of Voldemort was meant to be a "theory of everything". But while this prespective does reveal a coherent structure, I am still very unclear as to it's final significance: What does it *mean* that Voldemort is a dark Christ figure - when the narrative is clearly about Harry? How does the mysterious force that is Harry's (Love, I'm sure) fits with this Voldemort theory? The whole scar thing - the connection between Harry and Voldemort - how will that play out? Finally, how will Voldemort be vanquished? Naama From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 14:58:17 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050220145817.95018.qmail@...> Well I actually like this series of speculations. If Voldemort is more Snake than Human, then maybe Dumbledore liked the idea that Harry's blood was mixed into the Voldemort soup in the graveyard because this made him a little more human and a little less snake. Meaning that he is a little less immortal than he was and therefore a little easier to defeat? One would begin to consider that Harry must choose his own death in book 7 and be reborn like a phoenix to complete the battle imagery that we got in Chamber of Secrets. The Phoenix defeated the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. Gryffindor defeated Slytherin. People who fight to protect others defeated people who fight for their own personal gain. There is allusion to walking through fire in the tasks at the end of the first book. Harry walks through fire just like a Phoenix is consumed by ashes and is reborn. Perhaps Harry will have to do the same at the end of this series. The snake is an obvious symbol of both immortality and evil. The story of the Garden of Eden has the snake trying to convince Eve to taste the fruit and acheive immortality. If the snake is considered to be the evil side, there must be a good side to balance this out like Yin Yang philosophy. Given this balance theory, the phoenix appears to be the symbol of good because it came to Harry's rescue. Harry was like a biblical martyr because he continued to proclaim the powers of his Master (Dumbledore) even when it appeared that all hope might be lost. He risks his own death and believes that he will die when he stabs the Basilisk and is wounded by the tooth. The Phoenix has compassion and healing powers that cause Harry to defeat death. Speaking of balance, I remember reading that Voldemort had an eleven year reign of terror before he attacked Harry. Harry was eleven when he started Hogwarts which gives us 11 years of peace after the 11 years of terror. We now enter the 7 years of battles between Harry and Voldemort in various forms. I can see how you can use Christian themes and apply them to non-Christian subjects. This allows non-Christians to benefit from the ideas without preaching to them in a manner they will not accept. I only say this because JKR says she is a Christian and she is taking a lot of heat for these books. I believe she honestly wants to provide young people with some uplifting life lessons in a context that they will accept. Randy --- naamagatus wrote: > > > > Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize > that the main > questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but > Voldemort. Aftera all, > JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius > Black, Remus Lupin, > Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be > significant?! > > Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to > think of the two > questions: > 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? > 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? ( > (Even before this I thought that since we had been > given sufficient > information regarding Harry's survival, it was > *Voldemort's* that > remained as a mystery. I have to admit, though, that > DD not trying to > kill Voldemort didn't strike me as a mystery.) > > If Voldemort is the main mystery, then resolving > this should give us > the answer to these two questions. I.e., it's not > about what happened > in GH (were Snape/Lupin/Pettigrew there? etc.) and > it's not about > DD's convoluted strategies, or about ESE!Lupin - the > answers should > arise from understanding Voldemort. > > Voldemort's unique state of being > > From the very beginning, Voldemort is described as > other than human. > The first intimation is Hagrid's "there's not enough > human left in > him to die" (paraphrase). At the end of PS, in what > seems almost a > fulfilment of this cryptic utterance, we get to > actually see > Voldemort - and he is indeed described as having > inhuman, *snake > like* features. > > In the following books, every time Voldemort makes > an appearance > there are allusions to his snake like appearance or > to his snake > companion (or both). > Now it screams at me - as though JKR was hammering > it into our heads, > but until OoP I didn't see the significance. > However, when Harry felt > Voldemort's presence within him as a snake, I sat > up and started > taking notice. If the emotional/mental presence of > Voldemort is > snaky, then it has to mean that, in some very deep > way, going a long > way beyond appearance, he *is* a snake. This special > state - part > human, part snake, is unique to Voldemort. > > > Snakiness and Vol-de-mort-ism > > When Harry meets Tom Riddle, he looks human. DD says > that when Riddle > surfaced as Voldemort, hardly anyone reconized him > as the boy he had > been, because he had undergone so many *dark and > dangerous > transformations*. Since the DEs recognised Voldemort > post- > resurrection, he must have been snake-like before. > We know, from > Voldemort's words in the graveyard, that his > transformations had one > purpose - immortality. From this we can conclude > that his snakiness > is linked to the search for immortality. > > Not long ago, I posted on HPfGU on what I called > snake immortality > and phoenix immortality (msg. 110260). In summary: > Snakes are symbols of immortality, due to their > ability to shed their > skins. The skin that is left behind looks like the > snake itself, but > is only a shell, a fake. The snake thereby "cheats" > death by leaving > behind something that looks like it, but escapes > with his essential > being (body) intact. The phoenix, on the other hand, > truly dies. His > body turns to ashes. When the phoenix is born again, > this is > therefore true resurrection. So, in > contradistinction to the phoenix, > the snake would symbolise immortality achieved > through fake dying or > cheating death . > > This, then could be the answer to JKR's first > question: > In GH, Voldemort, part snake, "shed" an external > aspect of himself > (his body), but retained his essential being (some > kind of spirit, > vapor..). > > Snaky!Voldemort theory can also provide the answer > to the second > question. > A snake sheds it's skin because it outgrows it. So > each shedding of > the skin marks a stage in the snake's growth. This > biological trait > connects with Sybil's (second) prophecy, in PoA: the > Dark Lord will > arise *stronger and more terrible* than before. > If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he > will have grown > stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral > sense to not try and > kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I > could only > conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort > because he knew > Voldemort would eventually return again. But it > never really > satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to > save lives *now* > by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he > did manage to > resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any > worse than before. > But if Voldemort will return stronger, more > difficult to fight, more > difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD > to not try and > kill him. > > One person, dual nature > > Another thing that made me sit up in OoP was the > cryptic "divided in > essence". Several have conjectured that this refers > to Harry and > Voldemort. It's possible, but not really satisfying. > Harry and > Voldemort are two individuals. There is a connection > between them, > but why should there be any question about them > sharing essence? More > importantly, the one smoke snake divides into two > snakes. It's clear > why a snake stands for Voldemort, but surely it's > inappropriate as a > representing Harry? > There is no proof either way, but for now I'd like > to consider a > different possibility - that it refers only to > Voldemort. In fact, > going on what I've said before, we *know* that > Voldemort is a being > that is "divided in essence" - part human, part > snake. > > Thinking of Voldemort in this way - one person, two > essences, it > struck me quite forcefully how similar it is to the > orthdox creed > regarding Christ - that he is one person, but two > natures - human and > divine. > > The negative parallels are striking. Where Christ is > human and > divine, Voldemort is human and snake - where snake > is the negative of > divine both in that divine is more than human and > snake (as an > animal) is less, and in the Satanic connotations of > snakes. Secondly, > Christ is *fully* human and fully divine. Voldemort > is *partially* > human, partially snake. His double natures are both > flawed, > imperfect, debased. > > Once I started thinking of Voldemort as a dark, > twisted mirror image > of Christ, several things fell into place, > thematically. > > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 15:02:46 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:02:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] magic time turner In-Reply-To: <20050220034503.GB27894@...> Message-ID: <20050220150246.77944.qmail@...> For someone who is not "inside the Potter beltway", what the heck is MAGIC DISHWASHER ? --- Sean Dwyer wrote: > During my research^H^H^Hwork for the Catalogue, I > came across a rather good > question in a post: if Granger got her Time Turner > from MacGonagal, Dumbledore > must have had access to that one at least, and could > have reprogrammed the > trophy in GoF or have been able to alter events. Of > course it's also possible > he already did. > > If this is true, this would be corroborrating > evidence for MAGIC DISHWASHER. > > My only problem with that theory is that it makes > Snape altogether too > wonderful. I prefer my Snapes bitter. Prost. > > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the > same people you do." > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 15:16:45 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:16:45 -0000 Subject: magic time turner In-Reply-To: <20050220034503.GB27894@...> Message-ID: Sean Dwyer wrote: > if Granger got her Time Turner from MacGonagal, Dumbledore > must have had access to that one at least, and could have > reprogrammed the trophy in GoF or have been able to alter events. > Of course it's also possible he already did. > If this is true, this would be corroborrating evidence for MAGIC > DISHWASHER. > My only problem with that theory is that it makes Snape altogether > too wonderful. I prefer my Snapes bitter. Prost. There is a theory that time-travel is possible, but that there is only one past. Therefore, any changes made by time-travelers have *already* been incorporated into history. In other words, if I tried to travel back in time and stop Lincoln's assassination, I would be doomed to failure. Why? Because if I had succeeded, then Lincoln never would have been assassinated in the first place. Essentially, this theory says that one can travel back into time, but the past can't be changed. It seems to me that JKR subscribes to this theory of time-travel. Harry and Hermione never *change* the past. The things that Harry and Hermione go back and do have *already* happened by the time they put on the time-turner in the infirmary. Harry and Hermione even see their future selves doing these things (such as driving away the dementors) -- they just didn't recognize themselves. So, once Dumbledore *knows* that the events of GoF have happened, he also knows that he can't change them. I'm curious -- why would your theory make Snape wonderful? -- Judy From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 15:23:14 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:23:14 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] magic time turner In-Reply-To: <20050220150246.77944.qmail@...> References: <20050220034503.GB27894@...> <20050220150246.77944.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050220152314.GA22086@...> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 07:02:46AM -0800, Randy Estes wrote: > For someone who is not "inside the Potter beltway", > what the heck is MAGIC DISHWASHER ? deep breath. check for wands. look both ways. ok. i don't think they'll kill him outright. Randy, here is some reading for you: #39662 #40044 #81010 and very likely all the posts Pippin mentions in them. Put simply, it is probably the most influential Potterverse theory of all time and is probably responsible for so much of the List's activities we haven't yet been able to quantify it. You will need a good hearty breakfast and good-wearing boots to climb over this one, it's a doozy. It will change your Potterview if you're not careful. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 15:42:19 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:42:19 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: magic time turner In-Reply-To: References: <20050220034503.GB27894@...> Message-ID: <20050220154219.GB22086@...> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 03:16:45PM -0000, Judy wrote: > So, once Dumbledore *knows* that the events of GoF have happened, he > also knows that he can't change them. The trouble is, you have no idea whether he participated in the events or not. You say rightly, neither did Harry and Hermione, and yet they DID cause those events to pass. As long as noone is aware of his knowledge of events, how is anyone able to challenge DD? The PoA movie took that one step further by very obviously showing DD knowingly participating in the events he knew H & H to be reshaping, suggesting he'd already worked out what would need to happen. Your mind sort of folds up and puts itself away at that point :) > I'm curious -- why would your theory make Snape wonderful? MAGIC DISHWASHER is not my theory, it's Pippins :) To accept some crucial evidence (and there's a LOT of it all tied together), you have to believe that Snape is not only far more talented than you realized (to the point of tactical genius), but that he is the world's greatest actor, and that most if not all his exterior persona is completely bogus to mislead everyone except DD of course who's in on the conspiracy which is such a long story itself, I suggest you read the theory for yourself, it's worth doing BTW. My objection is that I don't believe Snape is putting on a total act. It is possible that he acted the way Pippin believes he did in the Shrieking Shack, in order to make it credible that 13yo wizards defeated him, but I apply Occam's Razor and say it is not necessary to make him Super!Snape to make the scene credible. It doesn't mean that Snape is not conspiring in some way with DD, but the whole point of the theoretic contortions is to make it reasonable that Snape and DD wanted Pettigrew to escape. It's a very clever theory based on a very clever reading of events. It just stretches =my= reading of Snape too far, but as Snape is still such a grey character, it's still viable. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 16:08:30 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:08:30 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Resolving (?) the Riddle References: Message-ID: <010b01c51766$6bea08d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Naama wrote: If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he will have grown stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral sense to not try and kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I could only conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to save lives *now* by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he did manage to resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any worse than before. But if Voldemort will return stronger, more difficult to fight, more difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD to not try and kill him. SSSusan: It may be the sinus head thing I've got going on just now... or it may just be me... but Naama, I'm not following this at all. Can you flesh out more fully *why* it would have been RIGHT for DD to not try to kill Voldy *because* he knew Voldy would be returning stronger later? You mean it's better to deal with a live Voldy than to kill him in case he resurrects later and is worse? Are you thinking that Voldy will ALWAYS be able to resurrect? Or that (only) Harry will manage to actually *eliminate* him, rather than just kill him once more (which would only lead to a yet stronger Voldy to come later)? Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 16:30:45 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:30:45 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Resolving (?) the Riddle References: Message-ID: <00c201c51769$87753ea0$6501a8c0@...> "naamagatus" uttered: > Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize that the main > questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but Voldemort. Aftera all, > JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, > Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be significant?! > Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to think of the two > questions: > 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? > 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? Charme: FINALLY, a topic which has some bite (pardon the pun) and not the same old "Harry this, Snape that." Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! :) Forgive me for having to snip so liberally what I felt to be one the best thought-provoking posts on any of the groups I frequent in many months. >At the end of PS, in what seems almost a > fulfilment of this cryptic utterance, we get to actually see > Voldemort - and he is indeed described as having inhuman, *snake > like* features. > >We know, from > Voldemort's words in the graveyard, that his transformations had one > purpose - immortality. From this we can conclude that his snakiness > is linked to the search for immortality. > > So, in contradistinction to the phoenix, > the snake would symbolise immortality achieved through fake dying or > cheating death . > > Thinking of Voldemort in this way - one person, two essences, it > struck me quite forcefully how similar it is to the orthdox creed > regarding Christ - that he is one person, but two natures - human and > divine. > The negative parallels are striking. Where Christ is human and > divine, Voldemort is human and snake - where snake is the negative of > divine both in that divine is more than human and snake (as an > animal) is less, and in the Satanic connotations of snakes. Secondly, > Christ is *fully* human and fully divine. Voldemort is *partially* > human, partially snake. His double natures are both flawed, > imperfect, debased. Charme: I noticed you were specific about the negative connotation of the snake in Voldemort's case and I agree with you. Here's a "did you know" for the rest of you. Did you know that the early Christians called Christ 'the Good Serpent' because of his words to Nicodemus in the Bible? Serpents in the Bible and early myths and legends were sometimes equated with wisdom. And the Book of Kells, (Ireland's illustrated manuscript of the 4 Gospels in Latin preserved from the Middle Ages) depicts many illustrations of Christ with interlocking or intwined serpents. At Monasterboice, Louth, Ireland, the Cross of Muiredach has carved upon it two interlocking serpents, one heading downward, the other upward. The popularity of the book The Da Vinci Code has brought about much speculation about the Holy Grail, which oddly enough uses symbols of serpents frequently in reference to the Grail bloodline, and often in somewhat unexpected instances. > The theory of Voldemort was meant to be a "theory of everything". But > while this prespective does reveal a coherent structure, I am still > very unclear as to it's final significance: > What does it *mean* that Voldemort is a dark Christ figure - when the > narrative is clearly about Harry? > How does the mysterious force that is Harry's (Love, I'm sure) fits > with this Voldemort theory? > The whole scar thing - the connection between Harry and Voldemort - > how will that play out? > Finally, how will Voldemort be vanquished? Charme: I believe Voldemort took steps to "rebirth" himself in GoF initially by possessing an "baby" of Nagini's which after birth he sustained with unicorn blood and snake venom. Thus, this would appear to make him half snake and half human per Harry's description in GoF when he sees him at the graveyard before his final incarnation in his "original form." Interestingly enough, this "original form" (if a true representation of the the way LV was prior to the incident at GH) brings to mind some Egyptian/Norse myths which claimed snakes could restore life to the dead or incarnate the soul of an ancestor. What if Voldemort used snakes in some way to incarnate the soul of his ancestor prior to GH? If we go back to your concept of DD asking the ""divided in essence" question, Voldemort could be the one who has a dual nature: Tom Riddle's and the soul of his ancestor's. I don't think Harry's powers came from Tom Riddle (WRT to being a Parselmouth), I think they came from either Salazar Slytherin or *his ancestor* as JKR supposedly deliberately typo'd in CoS. How many times does JKR beat us in the head that Salazar Slytherin was a Parselmouth (and so is Tom Riddle) - from whom did they get that trait? These are questions which I feel might be answered in Book 6, and could be that "storyline" which was eliminated from CoS. The scar? You want my take on it all? Here goes: that scar binds Harry and Voldemort as an incompleted AK curse. I don't believe it has finished its work. Maybe the scar is a physical manifestation of the AK curse which couldn't be effectively rebounded on to Voldemort. JKR has said, in interviews, that the shape of the scar is not it's most important feature (although mythically and symbolically, snake shapes were also equated with lightening or thunderbolts.) We know that curses can "bounce" (the Stunners cast by the Ministry officials in GoF at the Trio, for example or Draco and Harry's curses in GoF which bounce *off each other* onto Hermoine and Goyle.) Voldemort protected himself so a curse couldn't bounce back on him (think dragon's blood or snake venom which mythically is supposed to protect one from such things), but once he cast the AK in GH at Harry, Lily's sacrifice rendered Harry protected from it too. His curse bounced between the 2 of them until his protection slightly failed him and that resulting failure was enough to drive Voldemort apart from his body. However, it left the curse still strong enough to have finally rebounded from him to Harry in the form of the scar (mark). This fits the line of the prophecy which states "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not" - other than love and a different disposition, Harry has the power and it's on his forehead just waiting to be freed in the form of an interrupted and not yet completed AK curse. The line in the prophecy which refers to one of them dying at the hand of the other could be all about who has the better protection when that curse is freed from it's limbo state. How it gets released I haven't quite figured out yet...but it does get JKR out of having Harry perceived as a "murderer" if something happens to release it and LV is vanquished. Charme From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 17:35:46 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:35:46 -0000 Subject: Magic Dishwasher authorship.. In-Reply-To: <20050220152314.GA22086@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Randy, here is some reading for you: > > #39662 > #40044 > #81010 > > and very likely all the posts Pippin mentions in them. Put simply, it is probably the most influential Potterverse theory of all time and is probably responsible for so much of the List's activities we haven't yet been able to quantify it. > & Sean later: >MAGIC DISHWASHER is not my theory, it's Pippins :) Carolyn: Could I just quickly point out it's Pip!Squeak's theory, not Pippin's. They are very philosophical about being mistaken for each other by now, but since Pip has just slipped into the member's list here, I wanted to make sure people knew this. As to whether it is the most influential Potterverse theory of all time..well, there's a statement to get people going (I would hastily invest in some combat gear, Sean). Looking at it in terms of its arrival on the HPfGU list, it hit in a period of mounting doubt as to what exactly was going on in the WW - Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory preceded it by about 300 posts, for instance. From then on the two initial posts, Spying Game I & II convulsed the discussion for months, and continue to generate debate even now. Personally, I do think MD had the lasting effect of introducing the notion of PuppetMaster!Dumbledore, whether you agree with that reading or not. Carolyn PS MAGIC DISHWASHER stands for 'Mysterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution'. The history of how this weird acronym came about is amusingly explained in Grey Wolf's post #39854. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 18:28:32 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:28:32 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn wrote: Ah Neri, I was hoping you would invite more discussion on the Edinburgh interview. You appear to have a much more benevolent view of JKR's motivations than I do. I believe JKR's first loyalty with respect to the HP story is to protect the integrity of her works, for herself, her fans and those who have financially invested in her works (like WB and the publishers). This, includes, along with less lofty tasks such as enforcing copyrights,etc., ensuring that it is her version of the story that is the final one, that it cannot be seen as plagiarized from some fan site, and that it is not revealed until the last volume is published and in the hands of the readers. On the important matters that relate to how the story will end and the mysteries that underlie the individual events, I believe she will go to some trouble to distract if not deceive the theorizing fans if they get too close to discerning that which she needs to keep secret. Sure she is happy to toss out little inconsequential things like birthdays and Middle names, if for no reason than it keeps the level of fervor high. But no, I am very skeptical of her statements when it comes to the big themes and future events, if for no other reason that that she cares about her fan's enjoyment of each and every book and chapter (not to mention the little matter that if the ending were to be discerned in advance, it might well reduce the sales of the final book by millions of dollars/pounds). Neri: Hmmm. This is probably my own naivet?, but I have a much more benign image of JKR. Sure, she can be devilishly tricky with her writing, but my impression is that, as with (I suspect) most of us, this is a fantasy hobby. In her case it became a profession, but in RL she is generally a nice good little citizen and even (lets face it) a boring person. I mean, she's the richest woman in the world, and what does she do with all that money? Yachts? Penthouses? Gigolos? Not as far as we know. She has a house, a doctor husband, three kids and a dog, and she spends her days working hard writing a fantasy series and answering nagging questions from fans, many of them children. My impression is that she doesn't care much how many millions Book 7 will make. She cares more about the opinions of her fans. If there's is something she can't tell us, she just says "this would be telling", "this is restricted information" and the like, and when she's giving several answers of this kind in a row she feels she's letting us down, so she comes up with something interesting that she CAN tell us (because, as she said in Edinburgh, it would be very hard to answer this question anyway). In all her history of interviews and chats, was there even one proven case of her tricking us about the story? Lyn: Now the statements around the first question seem fairly clear, basically coming down to why didn't he die since the killing curse rebounded? The specific section of most interest to me is "The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way." Read on the face of things, this does seem to clearly indicate that a killing curse was delivered, but I'm not so confident that the truth is conveyed at this level. Three alternate possibilites come to mind that are still conguent with the PI scene at the graveyard. Neri: You're still ignoring my main point: if the truth isn't "conveyed at this level", this is not just a case of certain details being inconsistent with the books. It means that this whole mystery of "why is Voldy death-proof?" which is hinted also in the books, doesn't exist at all. There's just no point asking what were Voldy's "experiments" and what was he talking about in the graveyard. Voldy didn't die because it was not an AK, period. All the rest is simply JKR's smoke screen. Lyn: But the really striking thing in that Edinburgh interview was this "why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. .... Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason..... That is not the answer; Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that." WOW! JKR has just admitted that DD has lied, and thus, that even her supposedly most trustworthy characters might not tell the truth (or the whole truth) in the novels. Neri: DD was lying only by omission here, and I really never understood why the conspiracy theorists make such a fuss about DD omitting things. Of course he doesn't tells us everything. Personally it was obvious to me that he doesn't since... now let me think... since the first chapter of the first book. It would have been a much shorter and boring series if he told us is all he knows. BTW, when I first read these words of DD in OotP it was already obvious to me (and to most readers, I suspect) that he is hiding here something from Voldy and us. JKR's "admitting" this was hardly a revelation. Her questions were important because they made the "why didn't Voldy die and why didn't DD try to kill him?" an official main mystery of the series. Why are we still playing this game if everything and everyone is suspicious? DD lies, other characters pretend, the narrator is unreliable and JKR lies to us in her website. So does the concept of "canon" have any meaning anymore? Lyn at the end: Neri, and I don't mean this confrontationally, but aren't you just exhibiting what you have been accusing others of doing? :-) Neri: No. I was doing exactly what I preach. I was modifying my theory (or yours, which is really very similar to mine) so it would fit better with more canon sources, including (but not only) JKR's words in Edinburgh. Neri From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 22:04:07 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:04:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Magic Dishwasher authorship.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050220220408.40734.qmail@...> Thanks for the explanation. Please remember that this is the old crowd and not HP4GUs. I left HP4GU in 2001 before any of this was hatched. As for whether Dumbledore is up to something, no matter the final result a man with a twinkle in his eye is always up to something! ;0) Randy --- carolynwhite2 wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer > wrote: > > > Randy, here is some reading for you: > > > > #39662 > > #40044 > > #81010 > > > > and very likely all the posts Pippin mentions in > them. Put simply, > it is probably the most influential Potterverse > theory of all time > and is probably responsible for so much of the > List's activities we > haven't yet been able to quantify it. > > > & Sean later: > >MAGIC DISHWASHER is not my theory, it's Pippins :) > > > Carolyn: > Could I just quickly point out it's Pip!Squeak's > theory, not > Pippin's. They are very philosophical about being > mistaken for each > other by now, but since Pip has just slipped into > the member's list > here, I wanted to make sure people knew this. > > As to whether it is the most influential Potterverse > theory of all > time..well, there's a statement to get people going > (I would hastily > invest in some combat gear, Sean). > > Looking at it in terms of its arrival on the HPfGU > list, it hit in a > period of mounting doubt as to what exactly was > going on in the WW - > Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory preceded it by about 300 > posts, for > instance. From then on the two initial posts, Spying > Game I & II > convulsed the discussion for months, and continue to > generate debate > even now. > > Personally, I do think MD had the lasting effect of > introducing the > notion of PuppetMaster!Dumbledore, whether you agree > with that > reading or not. > > Carolyn > PS MAGIC DISHWASHER stands for 'Mysterious Agendas > Generate > Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly > Hatching Ways to > Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging > Resolution'. > > The history of how this weird acronym came about is > amusingly > explained in Grey Wolf's post #39854. > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 22:49:17 2005 From: snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:49:17 -0000 Subject: OT-Intro Message-ID: Old Crowd Intro First off I would like to introduce myself. I go by the name of Snow on the main list (Kathy King earlier on) but Kathryn is my given name by my father for Kathryn Queen of Scotts. Looking over the members of this old crowd as it is, I feel extremely humble to be in the midst. There are so many among you that intrigued me with your early posts, which actually induced my Harry Potter obsession. I am a 45 year old who lives a stones through from downtown Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; known to be the smoky city in years gone by for its many steel mills but also renowned for its Universities such as Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne and Point Park. I never had the opportunity to attend college but was thrust into the school of hard Knox, I think you learn a lot more there but the pay isn't very substantial. I've been married 19 years with a family of yours mine and ours; two stepsons 28 and 30 who now live in Florida, a mentally handicapped daughter who still resides with us 29, a 17-year-old daughter who's writings you may someday read and my 12 year old baby girl. I am a "jack of all trades master at none", and the epitome of this statement. I can do everything and am good at all but have been paid well for none of it because my kids come first, not that they would allow it to be otherwise, nor would I. I grew up listening to every type of music you can imagine. My father introduced me to such thought provoking music at a young age such as Richard Harris (Dumbledore) and Tom Lehrer along with old country, all the musicals and Disney, which I'm certain helped to mold me into the philosophical minded person I am today. I would have to say my first love is music from every spectrum having advanced from dads music to my brothers love for the 60's music, my sisters radical but also thought producing 70's music right into today's music; a few of my favorites being Lincoln Park, Blink 182 and Greenday. My other hobbies have been quite curtailed since my babies grew into the time consuming blessings they are today but I always liked to fish having been born with a casting rod in my hand. My grandparents owned an old railroad cottage with a view of the Allegheny River in the front yard that was beyond picturesque, which we frequented every summer. My biggest fish to date was a 33 lb. 46 inch Carp and the biggest small mouth bass to be caught from that territory at a whopping 21? inches. I was first introduced to Harry Potter through my youngest daughter, who now regrets it, when she brought home POA, about two years ago, having won it from a school reading program. I liked POA well enough but it was GOF that really got me hooked. I guess my main objective is to beat JKR to the answer of the enormous puzzle she has created, as if... Just when I think I may have found the solution, or part of it, someone confronts me with a detour and I'm back to the drawing board, it's great fun. If I have a favorite character at all I suppose it was Sirius but basically I try not to become emotionally attached to a fictional character that may become a lamb to the slaughter like Sirius. Well I guess that's more than you really want to know about me, so thanks Carolyn for the invite and I hope I have time to contribute something useful to the group. Snow From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 00:15:19 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:15:19 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess (verging on OT) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lot's of snipping below, but I assume anyone still staying with this knows the background --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Lyn wrote: > Ah Neri, I was hoping you would invite more discussion on the > Edinburgh interview. You appear to have a much more benevolent view of > JKR's motivations than I do. >snip< >On the important matters that relate > to how the story will end and the mysteries that underlie the > individual events, I believe she will go to some trouble to distract > if not deceive the theorizing fans if they get too > close to discerning that which she needs to keep secret. > > snip< But no, I am very skeptical of her statements when it > comes to the big themes and future events, if for no other reason that > that she cares about her fan's enjoyment of each and every book and > chapter > > > Neri: > snip< > in RL she is > generally a nice good little citizen and even (lets face it) a boring > person. I mean, she's the richest woman in the world, and what does > she do with all that money? Yachts? Penthouses? Gigolos? Not as far as > we know. She has a house, a doctor husband, three kids and a dog, and > she spends her days working hard writing a fantasy series and > answering nagging questions from fans, many of them children. Lyn now, So? I'm not aware anyone is arguing this one way or another, nor see how it is pertinent to the whether she might be willing to distract theorists who are getting close too close to the "truth." >My > impression is that she doesn't care much how many millions Book 7 will > make. She cares more about the opinions of her fans. Lyn now: Of course she cares how many millions Book 7 will make. Perhaps not for personal gain, but JKR has a responsibility to those who have invested in her stories and brought her books to the world (and later the story to film). Personally, I suspect JKR is not so very thrilled with each and every film as she lets on, but does so out of responsibility to her investors (can you imagine the decline is film receipts if JKR panned a movie like POA). HP is big business, and JKR has been very successful at negotiating those waters, in part because of her agent (who she also feels a responsibility toward) and others she has surrounded herself with. As for fans, of course JKR has done a lot for her fans, but she has also repeatedly stated she will not have the fans wishes and desires interfere with how she will write her story. As I said, maintaining the integrity of her story, and the story being hers, is going to be one of her highest priorities. There is nothing in this that for me takes away from my regard for JKR both personally and as the author of the HP story, rather it is just what I consider to be a reaistic understanding of the multiple responsibilities and motivations she has. Back to Neri: >If there's is > something she can't tell us, she just says "this would be telling", > "this is restricted information" and the like, and when she's giving > several answers of this kind in a row she feels she's letting us down, > so she comes up with something interesting that she CAN tell us > (because, as she said in Edinburgh, it would be very hard to answer > this question anyway). In all her history of interviews and chats, was > there even one proven case of her tricking us about the story? Lyn Now: My personal take, and obviously it is not shared by all, is that this is naive for the reasons I've expressed previously. Your latter question is not naive, however, as you have been careful to limit it to interviews and chates, and set the level of deceit and distraction to one of "tricking." I shall answer more broadly, because I think it more pertient to the larger issue of whether we can rely on all of her statements. JKR, as I presented, has already admitted that she has deceived us in the books by her statement about DD at the Edinburgh interview. She has regularly given us ambiguous answers and selective truths (not to mention errors). I don't fault her for any of that, but in my assessment she has demonstrated she will be evasive, distracting, and yes, deceitful, to maintain the integrity of her writing project. Of course others are free to assess the situation otherwise, and of course we are unlikely to have a sense of the extent to which she has engaged in such things until the end of the book 7 (and then I'm sure we still won't know, or recognize, it all). > > Lyn: > Now the statements around the first question seem fairly clear, > basically coming down to why didn't he die since the killing curse > rebounded? > > Neri: > You're still ignoring my main point: if the truth isn't "conveyed at > this level", Lyn now: Neri, this is a discussion, not an interrogation. Not to mention how would I know what is meant to be your main point? I have countered nearly a dozen of your points, which you merrily then ignore to seize on any limitations I acknowledge. >this is not just a case of certain details being > inconsistent with the books. Lyn again, I don't see an omission of any spell against the young Harry in a climactic passage that has been one revised in print to be a "detail." Some might consider it a significant clue. > It means that this whole mystery of "why > is Voldy death-proof?" which is hinted also in the books, doesn't > exist at all. There's just no point asking what were Voldy's > "experiments" and what was he talking about in the graveyard. Voldy > didn't die because it was not an AK, period. All the rest is simply > JKR's smoke screen. Lyn now: I don't see it that way. LV's "experiments" could well have defended him against death from a possession that went bad, or a protective curse, as much as from an AK. I think it is all too easy to get overly focused about the only way for a Wizard to die (and thus LV) is by AK. Indeed, some folks have posited ways LV might be killed relative to the prophesy that would not involve an AK. LV is seeking immortality as well as defense agains a specific mechanism of death. > > Lyn: > But the really striking thing in that Edinburgh interview was this > "why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in > the ministry. .... Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to > Voldemort, it is not the real reason..... That is not the answer; > Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that." WOW! JKR > has just admitted that DD has lied, and thus, that even her supposedly > most trustworthy characters might not tell the truth (or the whole > truth) in the novels. > > > Neri: > DD was lying only by omission here, and I really never understood why > the conspiracy theorists make such a fuss about DD omitting things. Lyn now: But this wasn't just an ommission, readers were given a reason, and for those who don't do anymore than read the books, they still are left with that as THE reason. To give a reason that "is not the real reason" is to lie. That is an act of commission. Doesn't bother me morally, but it does alert me to be skeptical not only of what DD says, but of the person who puts words into his mouth. >Of course he doesn't tells us everything. Personally it was obvious to me > that he doesn't since... now let me think... since the first chapter > of the first book. It would have been a much shorter and boring series > if he told us is all he knows. BTW, when I first read these words of > DD in OotP it was already obvious to me (and to most readers, I > suspect) that he is hiding here something from Voldy and us. JKR's > "admitting" this was hardly a revelation. Lyn here: The significance is in the deceit and intentional distraction, not in him not telling us everything. It is one thing to accept that we can be told everything, it is another to learn that what we are told may not be true. The former was known and expected, the admission was the revelation. Back to Neri: >Her questions were important > because they made the "why didn't Voldy die and why didn't DD try to > kill him?" an official main mystery of the series. Lyn now: Did they? It may take a while for us to know. And isn't it odd that the "official main mystery of the series" would be announced in an interview and not made unambigously indicated as such in the story itself. > > Why are we still playing this game if everything and everyone is > suspicious? DD lies, other characters pretend, the narrator is > unreliable and JKR lies to us in her website. So does the concept of > "canon" have any meaning anymore? Lyn now, Can't speak for others, but I play because it's fun and mentally stimulating. Guess the truth be told, I can't help myself, I just thing about this stuff. Been playing for years and until recently never even bothered to do so publicly (pestered Kneasy a lot, though). As to the concept of "canon" having meaning, that's all a little too post modern for me. Actually, I approach the HP story in the same way I approach a neuropsych or forensic assessment. I try to gather the best available data sources (ideally including my own testing and interview, but that's not possible with a fictional work), look for areas of consistency and inconsistency, look to resolve inconsistencies where they occur, compare against known syndromes and patterns of behavior, posit a hypothesis based on the above, consider alternate explanations, and then test the hypothesis for best fit to the data. With people (and I'd suggest ficition as well) one never has unimpeachable data. > > > Lyn at the end: > Neri, and I don't mean this confrontationally, but aren't you just > exhibiting what you have been accusing others of doing? :-) > > > Neri: > No. I was doing exactly what I preach. I was modifying my theory (or > yours, which is really very similar to mine) so it would fit better > with more canon sources, including (but not only) JKR's words in > Edinburgh. Lyn ending now: I said what I said because it appears that way to me. Specifically, you stated to Kneasy that you objected to theories that: "Explain away or simply ignore whatever doesn't fit." You both attempt to explain away and ignore the evidence in the graveyard PI. I meant it when I indicated I did not mean my response to be confrontational, what I was trying to point out is that it is very hard for us not to look for explanations that selectively emphasize some data over other. That's not necessarily a matter of stubborness or blindness, but just a legitimate struggle to consider alternatives in a world (fictional or otherwise) that is imperfect as a source of data. The only thing I shall be stubborn about is to continue to disclaim the possession theory as my theory. I am not trying to defend something that I consider mine, I am only exploring various speculations for best fit and for amusement. I do have one theory (unrelated to this discussion) I may share some day, and I have to claim it only because I can't get anyone else to take it from me. Lyn From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 01:26:09 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:26:09 -0000 Subject: Putting the Time Turner into the Magic Dishwasher In-Reply-To: <20050220154219.GB22086@...> Message-ID: First, according to my understanding, MAGIC DISHWASHER is the theory that Dumbledore wants many of the seemingly unfortunate events of the stories to occur, such as Voldemort using Harry's blood to regain a body, because it will eventually set up Voldemort for defeat, and that Dumbledore is in fact "pulling the strings" behind the scenes to cause these things to happen. I said: "It seems to me that JKR subscribes to this theory of time-travel (that one can travel back into time, but the past can't be changed.)...So, once Dumbledore *knows* that the events of GoF have happened, he also knows that he can't change them." And Sean wrote: > The trouble is, you have no idea whether [Dumbledore] participated > in the events or not. Oh, that's certainly true. For all we know, maybe Dumbledore did use a Time Turner to set up the events in the graveyard. But you seemed to be saying more. You seemed to be saying that if Dumbledore objected to Voldemort's return, he would have gone back in time and stopped it. Therefore, since Dumbledore did not go back in time and alter the events in GoF, Dumbledore must have wanted them to happen (or at least acquiesced to them), which would be evidence for MAGIC DISHWASHER. I'm saying that, in the Potterverse, undoing what happened in the graveyard just isn't possible -- changing the past can't be done. So, the fact that Dumbledore didn't try to change the past doesn't tell us anything about the truth of MAGIC DISHWASHER, one way or the other. Sean said that using the Time Turner in PoA required some knowledge of the future, which seems to have been supplied by Dumbledore: >>>The PoA movie took that one step further by very obviously showing DD knowingly participating in the events he knew H & H to be reshaping, suggesting he'd already worked out what would need to happen. Your mind sort of folds up and puts itself away at that point :)<<< Yeah, the really confusing thing about this theory of time travel is that it seems to allow knowledge to be created from nothing. For example, our hypothetical time traveler, Tina, could learn about the cure for AIDS in school in 2025, then come back to 2005 and teach the cure to today's scientists, who would later teach it to Tina. So, where did the cure come from? But in PoA, Dumbledore doesn't really need to know what's going to happen in the future. He just needs to be very, very smart. In the movie, it shows him being very thoughtful (saying, "Hmmm...curious"" or something similar) when he finds that Buckbeak is gone. When Harry and Hermione tell him that Sirius is innocent, he may have deduced that a Time Turner had been used to free Buckbeak -- then all he has to do is tell Hermione to use the Time Turner. Sean said: > My only problem with that theory is that it makes Snape altogether > too wonderful. I asked: > > I'm curious -- why would your theory make Snape wonderful? And Sean said: > MAGIC DISHWASHER is not my theory, it's Pippins :) Oh, OK, I misunderstood what you meant by "that theory." I thought you meant the theory that Dumbledore was using a Time Turner, not MAGIC DISHWASHER in general. I have no real preference, one way or the other, about MAGIC DISHWASHER, although I understand why other people feel so strongly about it. On the other hand, I *am* fond of the theory that Snape is wonderful. :-) -- Judy From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 01:53:05 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:53:05 -0000 Subject: Apparate to Possess (verging on OT) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: >> Back to Neri: >> Her questions were important because they made the "why didn't >> Voldy die and why didn't DD try to kill him?" an official main >> mystery of the series. > > Lyn now: > Did they? It may take a while for us to know. And isn't it odd that > the "official main mystery of the series" would be announced in an > interview and not made unambigously indicated as such in the story > itself. Maybe it's just me, but hasn't "Why the hell is Harry still alive?" *always* been the main mystery of the past? That's the thing that everyone wonders about, Death Eaters talk about at their little get- togethers (an amusing tidbit per website), and maybe some characters know more about than others. [It would be a major shift in how I at least read things if there were deliberate steps taken to prepare a sacrificial defense, as has been proposed.] What is new in JKR's own commentary is not the question itself but a different way of framing it--putting it not as "Why is Harry alive?" but as "Why isn't Voldemort dead", with her own invocation of the killing curse. That strikes me as her helpful little hint for a different way to think about the question that may be illuminating. For my own part, this is the Big Question that the theorists have failed to come up with really good answers for. I'm personally not surprised, as the answer is likely to hinge on one aspect of the Potterverse that is the least clear to me: its metaphysics. What happens when people die? How are connections between people and possession possible? What is the nature of the soul? All of these are in the class of 'things that I know that I do not know, but I know that JKR knows'. I'm pretty certain she has an absolute answer for why Harry lived and why Voldemort didn't die--and I think it will be a very revealing one as to the mechanisms of her world. Hopefully it will be well-enough done so as to be elegant and obvious in retrospect, but unpredictable from the current standpoint. We should play a little game: take JKR's interview and website comments, tally them up against what actually happens next book and the next, and see in how many cases she was outright lying; how many she was being semantically sneaky (prophecy doesn't quite count-- she's as much as said that there are tricks of wording hid in there, so it's not a shock); and how many times her comments really are borne out by at least one fairly straightforward reading of the text. -Nora, never one to shy away, puts a little money on the "Snape is a horrible person" comment falling into the last category From SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 05:30:27 2005 From: SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid (SongBird3411 at songbird3411.yahoo.invalid) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:30:27 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: <00c201c51769$87753ea0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: Charme wrote: >>What if Voldemort used snakes in some way to incarnate the soul of his ancestor prior to GH? If we go back to your concept of DD asking the "divided in essence" question, Voldemort could be the one who has a dual nature: Tom Riddle's and the soul of his ancestor's. I don't think Harry's powers came from Tom Riddle (WRT to being a Parselmouth), I think they came from either Salazar Slytherin or *his ancestor* as JKR supposedly deliberately typo'd in CoS. How many times does JKR beat us in the head that Salazar Slytherin was a Parselmouth (and so is Tom Riddle) - from whom did they get that trait? These are questions which I feel might be answered in Book 6, and could be that "storyline" which was eliminated from CoS. << Mindy: Okay, this is my first post here, and I am sorry I don't have something more illuminating to say. Also sorry that is, in basic form, a "me too" post. However, this topic (as well as the previous one on possession) absolutely fascinates me. The section I snipped covers a lot of the information that has puzzled me. For the longest time I have struggled with the ending of OOTP. The whole MOM scene seems like a big blur to me. However, I get particularly hung up on the possession scene. I am still somewhat confused on the mechanics of possession in the Potterverse. I would love for someone to clear up for me exactly how this works. (Or will I have to see the movie?) Anyway, one detail stands out to me in that scene: the description of Harry's possession as feeling like he was wrapped in snake's coils. I, too, immediately started suspecting that at some level, Voldemort must *be* a snake. The idea that Voldemort has a dual nature begins to clear up the possession thing to me. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have never read any story in which a human can possess another human. It has always been some sort of evil or animal spirit. So, I never quite understood how Voldemort could do it. I am intensely curious to know if any other wizard has this ability, or if this is something unique to Voldemort. If this is unique to Voldemort, then I think Barry's original possession theory gains more weight. This would also serve, to me at least, to make Chamber of Secrets as relevant to the overall story as JKR says it is. Truly, this idea is sounding better to me by the minute. I would love to review the original posts on it. Barry, post numbers? This idea also clears up my confusion of Dumbledore's "divided in essence" question. Perhaps it was solely about Voldemort. This makes a lot more sense to me than it being about Harry. So, thanks to all of you for giving me a lot to think about. Once I work this out in my head, I may post some further speculation. Mindy From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 11:05:51 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:05:51 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: <010b01c51766$6bea08d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: > Naama wrote: > If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he will have grown > stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral sense to not try and > kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I could only > conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew > Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really > satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to save lives *now* > by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he did manage to > resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any worse than before. > But if Voldemort will return stronger, more difficult to fight, more > difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD to not try and > kill him. > > > SSSusan: > It may be the sinus head thing I've got going on just now... or it may just be me... but Naama, I'm not following this at all. Can you flesh out more fully *why* it would have been RIGHT for DD to not try to kill Voldy *because* he knew Voldy would be returning stronger later? You mean it's better to deal with a live Voldy than to kill him in case he resurrects later and is worse? > > Are you thinking that Voldy will ALWAYS be able to resurrect? Or that (only) Harry will manage to actually *eliminate* him, rather than just kill him once more (which would only lead to a yet stronger Voldy to come later)? > Yes, I think that Voldy will always be able to resurrect, and that DD is aware of this. If you remember in PS, DD tells Harry (I don't remember the exact wording) that Voldemort cannot be killed - because he is not human enough. And yes, that the prophecy means that only Harry (Neville?) can vanquish him for good. Naama From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 11:23:30 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:23:30 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: <00c201c51769$87753ea0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > Charme: > > FINALLY, a topic which has some bite (pardon the pun) and not the same old > "Harry this, Snape that." Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! :) Forgive me > for having to snip so liberally what I felt to be one the best > thought-provoking posts on any of the groups I frequent in many >months. I couldn't bring myself to snip this :-). Thank you. > > >Interestingly enough, this "original form" (if a true representation of the the way LV was prior to the incident at GH) brings to mind some Egyptian/Norse myths which claimed snakes could restore life to the dead or incarnate the soul of an ancestor. What if Voldemort used snakes in some way to incarnate the soul > of his ancestor prior to GH? If we go back to your concept of DD asking the "divided in essence" question, Voldemort could be the one who has a dual nature: Tom Riddle's and the soul of his ancestor's. I don't think Harry's powers came from Tom Riddle (WRT to being a Parselmouth), I think they came from either Salazar Slytherin or *his ancestor* as JKR supposedly deliberately typo'd in CoS. How many times does JKR beat us in the head that Salazar Slytherin was a Parselmouth (and so is Tom Riddle) - from whom did they get that trait? These are questions which I feel might be answered in > Book 6, and could be that "storyline" which was eliminated from >CoS. I did think a bit along these lines. It has merit... however, If Voldemort is some mix of Tom and Salazar, then he is two personalities - not two essences. Don't you think that this solution would lessen the theme of personal choice and the autonomy and even the very concept of personhood (which I see as very basic in JKR's work)? > > The scar? You want my take on it all? Here goes: that scar binds Harry and > Voldemort as an incompleted AK curse. I don't believe it has finished its > work. > > Maybe the scar is a physical manifestation of the AK curse which couldn't be effectively rebounded on to Voldemort. JKR has said, in interviews, that the shape of the scar is not it's most important feature (although mythically and symbolically, snake shapes were also equated with lightening or thunderbolts.) We know that curses can "bounce" (the Stunners cast by the Ministry officials in GoF at the Trio, for example or Draco and Harry's curses in GoF which bounce *off each other* onto Hermoine and Goyle.) > > Voldemort protected himself so a curse couldn't bounce back on him (think dragon's blood or snake venom which mythically is supposed to protect one from such things), but once he cast the AK in GH at Harry, Lily's sacrifice rendered Harry protected from it too. His curse bounced between the 2 of them until his protection slightly failed him and that resulting failure was enough to drive Voldemort >apart from his body. One problem with this scenario is that Harry remembers seeing one flash of green, not several. Another thing is that the AK is presented as the one curse for which there is no protection. So, I don't think Voldemort as being protected against it by some external magic - but that his being is such that, though the AK hit him, he didn't fully die. >However, it left the curse still strong enough to have finally rebounded from him to Harry in the form > of the scar (mark). This fits the line of the prophecy which states "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not" - other than love and a different disposition, Harry has the power and it's on his forehead just waiting to be freed in the form of an interrupted and not yet >completed AK curse. But why would an AK curse (even if incomplete) be unknown to the Dark Lord? He is the master of that kind of power. I think that it would go against the deeper themes of the books if Harry wins through the use of dark magic, particularly an Unforgivable. Naama From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 12:00:27 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:00:27 +0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle Message-ID: <899b88e16cec013944a2b594ea9f6058@...> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, SongBird3411 at a... wrote: > > For the longest time I have struggled with the ending of OOTP. The > whole MOM scene seems like a big blur to me. However, I get > particularly hung up on the possession scene. > > I am still somewhat confused on the mechanics of possession in the > Potterverse. I would love for someone to clear up for me exactly how > this works. (Or will I have to see the movie?) Anyway, one detail > stands out to me in that scene: the description of Harry's > possession as feeling like he was wrapped in snake's coils. I, too, > immediately started suspecting that at some level, Voldemort must > *be* a snake. > > The idea that Voldemort has a dual nature begins to clear up the > possession thing to me. I don't know about the rest of you, but I > have never read any story in which a human can possess another > human. It has always been some sort of evil or animal spirit. So, I > never quite understood how Voldemort could do it. I am intensely > curious to know if any other wizard has this ability, or if this is > something unique to Voldemort. > > If this is unique to Voldemort, then I think Barry's original > possession theory gains more weight. This would also serve, to me at > least, to make Chamber of Secrets as relevant to the overall story as > JKR says it is. Truly, this idea is sounding better to me by the > minute. I would love to review the original posts on it. Barry, > post numbers? > > This idea also clears up my confusion of Dumbledore's "divided in > essence" question. Perhaps it was solely about Voldemort. This > makes a lot more sense to me than it being about Harry. > It's not a certainty that my ideas about possession are totally original. In fact I'd be amazed if they were since possession in one form or another occurs in every book (if you assume Sybil is a mouthpiece for somebody or something when uttering prophecies). Unfortunately, Yahoo!Mort being what it is, that's been difficult to confirm and searching the 130,000 back posts with any sort of confidence is a mugs game. Hopefully the new catalogue will provide an answer. The theory developed slowly over months rather than springing full blown onto the page - originally I was more interested in what the hell Voldy actually was and this gradually expanded into considering how this might have affected Harry. So there's a string of posts each venturing a little further into the mire. Probably the most comprehensive overview is "Shared Thoughts" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108664 If you're interested in tracing the theory from first tentative genesis (you masochist, you!) then the following show steps in the elucidation and expansion of the theory. Some contain bits that aren't included in the 'Shared Thoughts' post - mostly to avoid digression and to keep the piece from getting out of control. You'll note that Lyn and Phil were in the game early, Boyd joined the fun soon after and Carolyn and SSS both prodded me to whip it into some sort of shape. Blame them as much as me. Once again I stress that it's an attempt, using what information is available to come up with an explanation for a significant chunk of HP. No claims are made for superior insight. The product of a devious mind perhaps, but no more than that. But right or wrong, it's been fun. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85913 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89817 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89892 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/91823 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/91987 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100775 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/107246 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113741 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/117541 From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 14:29:25 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:29:25 -0000 Subject: Death and magic Message-ID: I've been thinking about death and its varieties in HP and come up with the following observations. Individuals consist of a body, a soul and magical power. Death results from the loss of body either through accident or natural causes and the PS extends life by restoring the body. Accidental disruption of the body as in splinching does not kill you, so in some respects, magical power protects against physical death. Death also results from the loss of the soul as in the dementor's kiss or in an AK which appears to eject the soul from the body. The soul usually moves on at the point of death and we can presume that the magical power is dispersed at that time as ghosts have no magical ability. Voldy is unique because when his soul was ejected from his body he retained some power, enough to possess other beings and therefore survived without becoming a ghost. If magical power holds the key to surviving death then Voldy must have been exceptionally powerful, uniquely powerful, unnaturally powerful. Where did he get that power from? If magical power is dispersed at the time of death it would be a neat trick to be around to appropriate surplus generated when someone dies. Neater still to generate death at your own convenience, say around supper time. If every time Voldy Aks a victim he just happens to consume their magical power then Lily's charm could well have given him chronic indigestion. The resulting evacuation may even have blow up a house or two. Regards Jo From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 15:59:26 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:59:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death and magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050221155926.49346.qmail@...> Jo wrote: Sigune: Question: does the Dementor's Kiss really kill? I understood it removed the soul but left the body alive, the result being 'worse than death'. I am ready to accept that my restricted command of the English language may be responsible for this, but for me something 'worse than death' means it is not the same as death. Or else it depends upon how you define 'death': is it purely physical, or rather spiritual? Also, it seems to me that AK evicts the *life* from its victim's body, rather than the soul specifically. But here, again, I may be taking a view with which you may not necessarily agree, namely that: when life goes from a body, the soul goes with it; but when the soul goes from a body, life does not necessarily go with it. Jo continued: < The soul usually moves on at the point of death and we can presume that the magical power is dispersed at that time as ghosts have no magical ability. Voldy is unique because when his soul was ejected from his body he retained some power, enough to possess other beings and therefore survived without becoming a ghost. > Sigune: Or, alternatively, just like magical power, life force is dispersed at the moment of death. But because of Voldy's many pursuits into magic that aims at immortality, his life force was not dispersed by the AK rebound - he just lost his body and became a kind of vapour - his life and soul, but with no physical shape worth speaking of. As magical power seems to be closely linked to the body, he did not have much of it left. Jo: < If magical power holds the key to surviving death then Voldy must have been exceptionally powerful, uniquely powerful, unnaturally powerful. Where did he get that power from? If magical power is dispersed at the time of death it would be a neat trick to be around to appropriate surplus generated when someone dies. Neater still to generate death at your own convenience, say around supper time. > Sigune: Reminds me of Highlander :)... I think the fact that Voldy can/could cheat death has to do with two separate things: his own pretty formidable magical ability (comparable to Dumbledore's) on the one hand, and his specific research into the subject of immortality on the other. There are spells, objects etc that deal explicitly with making/keeping life, like the PS - magic dealing with life and death seems to pose a particular challenge to the gifted witch or wizard - even Dumbledore, who professes death to be only 'the next great adventure', has interestingly been hanging around Nicholas Flamel. Whereas Dumbledore has apparently moved on to other fascinations such as magical oven cleaner, Voldy's fascination with it continues and he applies his power to it. Sigune --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 17:45:59 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:45:59 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jo wrote: > > I've been thinking about death and its varieties in HP and come up > with the following observations. > > Individuals consist of a body, a soul and magical power. Death > results from the loss of body either through accident or natural > causes and the PS extends life by restoring the body. Accidental > disruption of the body as in splinching does not kill you, so in > some respects, magical power protects against physical death. Neri: This is probably my Sci-Fi bias, but I don't interpret splinching as if these people were really cut in half. My interpretation is more like that apparating is bridging two points that are far in three- dimensional space by going through some kind of "wormhole" in an additional dimension. So these splinched people had left one half of their body in a far place, but it was still fully connected through this different dimension. We might find out about this in HBP since Ron should be in the age for his apparition license in March ("Ron! Where did you leave your legs this time?). > Jo: > Death > also results from the loss of the soul as in the dementor's kiss or > in an AK which appears to eject the soul from the body. The soul > usually moves on at the point of death and we can presume that the > magical power is dispersed at that time as ghosts have no magical > ability. Voldy is unique because when his soul was ejected from his > body he retained some power, enough to possess other beings and > therefore survived without becoming a ghost. Neri: I'd add to this that according to Nearly Headless Nick, only wizards can become ghosts, which indeed suggests that magical power has a lot to do with it. According to NHN, real dying is something that he knows nothing about, but they study this in the DoM, suggesting that the people behind the veil are not ghosts but "really" dead. Also, I find it intriguing that NHN stayed behind as a ghost because he was "afraid of dying". Isn't Voldy afraid of death more than anything? NHN was also very sure that Sirius wouldn't stay behind as a ghost. Why? Maybe because Sirius was not afraid of dying? (Sirius to the twins: "you don't understand - there are things worth dying for"). So how about this: Voldy was afraid of dying, so he turned himself into a ghost, but he found a way to retain his body and powers. He was a ghost inside a haunted body, but not actually connected with this body. You really have to read Bujold's fictional theology in the Chalion series to understand how this works. > Jo: > If magical power holds the key to surviving death then Voldy must > have been exceptionally powerful, uniquely powerful, unnaturally > powerful. Where did he get that power from? If magical power is > dispersed at the time of death it would be a neat trick to be around > to appropriate surplus generated when someone dies. Neater still to > generate death at your own convenience, say around supper time. > > If every time Voldy Aks a victim he just happens to consume their > magical power then Lily's charm could well have given him chronic > indigestion. The resulting evacuation may even have blow up a house > or two. > Neri: Ahem, chronic indigestion... not sure that JKR would want to make this the center of the Potterverse metaphysics. In truth, I've always felt that the house blow-up was more the author supplying the appropriate special effects for a tragic climax than an obligatory metaphysical outcome. But in general your suggestion certainly resonate with Hagrid "not sure he was human enough to die by that time". After all, when you become so powerful you must pay the appropriate price. It's customary. Neri From bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 18:12:08 2005 From: bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid (Monika Huebner) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:12:08 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <20050221155926.49346.qmail@...> References: <20050221155926.49346.qmail@...> Message-ID: Eva Thienpont wrote: >Question: does the Dementor's Kiss really kill? I understood it removed the soul but left the body alive, the result being 'worse than death'. I am ready to accept that my restricted command of the English language may be responsible for this, but for me something 'worse than death' means it is not the same as death. Or else it depends upon how you define 'death': is it purely physical, or rather spiritual? I think "worse than death" means that there is nothing left but an empty shell. In Rowling's world people who die can leave an imprint of themselves behind by becoming a ghost, or else they "go on" like Sirius did (at least Nearly Headless Nick said so), so there is some kind of soul involved that lives on. Dementor's feed on the soul, I always thought they "ate" it when they sucked it out of a person, so this really must be worse than death for a wizard. Monika who is hopelessly behind with reading the posts... From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 18:23:50 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:23:50 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <20050221155926.49346.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Eva Thienpont wrote: > > > Sigune: > > Question: does the Dementor's Kiss really kill? I understood it removed the soul but left the body alive, the result being 'worse than death'. I am ready to accept that my restricted command of the English language may be responsible for this, but for me something 'worse than death' means it is not the same as death. Or else it depends upon how you define 'death': is it purely physical, or rather spiritual? Ah yes, we are never actually told what happens to the body so you may be correct. I am working on the basis that death is defined as the separation of body and soul (for which there is absolutely no direct evidence) and the `worse' bit is that the soul is prevented from moving on. Azkaban for eternity. > > Also, it seems to me that AK evicts the *life* from its victim's body, rather than the soul specifically. > Again yes, we are not told what the AK does so you might be right here too. If there is such a thing as *life* force in the HP world then what I'm saying doesn't work, it only works if life is a product of body and soul. > But here, again, I may be taking a view with which you may not necessarily agree, namely that: when life goes from a body, the soul goes with it; but when the soul goes from a body, life does not necessarily go with it. > > My view, purely speculative for the purposes of this theory, is that there is no `life' in life. The combination of body and soul is what is called life. >> > Sigune: > > Or, alternatively, just like magical power, life force is dispersed at the moment of death. But because of Voldy's many pursuits into magic that aims at immortality, his life force was not dispersed by the AK rebound - he just lost his body and became a kind of vapour - his life and soul, but with no physical shape worth speaking of. As magical power seems to be closely linked to the body, he did not have much of it left. > > > I think the fact that Voldy can/could cheat death has to do with two separate things: his own pretty formidable magical ability (comparable to Dumbledore's) on the one hand, and his specific research into the subject of immortality on the other. There are spells, objects etc that deal explicitly with making/keeping life, like the PS - magic dealing with life and death seems to pose a particular challenge to the gifted witch or wizard - even Dumbledore, who professes death to be only 'the next great adventure', has interestingly been hanging around Nicholas Flamel. Whereas Dumbledore has apparently moved on to other fascinations such as magical oven cleaner, Voldy's fascination with it continues and he applies his power to it. > > Sigune > Again yes. Why I like the idea of body + soul = life is that there is evidence already that magical ability can influence this equation, as proved by ghosts and the splinched, it is simply that the influence is limited. For Voldy to have survived at GH he need only to have extended that influence there is no need to propose magic that doesn't already exist as his experimentation is a continuation of existing principals. If his experimentation was aimed at a life force then this is an area not yet evident elsewhere and although feasible it hasn't the same continuity. I'm not saying you are wrong only that I like the neatness of my idea :-) Regards Jo From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 20:56:17 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:56:17 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <20050221155926.49346.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Sigune: > > Question: does the Dementor's Kiss really kill? I understood it removed the soul but left the body alive, the result being 'worse than death'. I am ready to accept that my restricted command of the English language may be responsible for this, but for me something 'worse than death' means it is not the same as death. Or else it depends upon how you define 'death': is it purely physical, or rather spiritual? Potioncat/Kathy I think you've gotten it, your English is much better than you think. Just as the dementors themselves remind readers of depression, the kiss reminds me of two similar RL situations. One is when there has been a brain injury either through stroke or a physical accident. A person's body can remain alive, but most awarness and sense of self are gone. The other is Altzheimers(sp). In that case it's gradual, but at some point the person's body is merely alive. Sad to say, I've watched both, either professionally or personally. I wouldn't wish the kiss on anyone. Kathy From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 01:44:08 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:44:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Resolving (?) the Riddle/Rubber Glue Theory Revealed In-Reply-To: <00c201c51769$87753ea0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: <20050222014408.46391.qmail@...> snips from Charme and Naamagatus > "naamagatus" uttered: > > > > Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize > that the main > > questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but > Voldemort. Aftera all, > > JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius > Black, Remus Lupin, > > Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be > significant?! > > > Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to > think of the two > > questions: > > 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? > > 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? > > > > > Charme: > > FINALLY, a topic which has some bite (pardon the > pun) and not the same old > "Harry this, Snape that." Thank you, thank you, > thank you!!!! :) Forgive me > for having to snip so liberally what I felt to be > one the best > thought-provoking posts on any of the groups I > frequent in many months. > > >At the end of PS, in what seems almost a > > fulfilment of this cryptic utterance, we get to > actually see > > Voldemort - and he is indeed described as having > inhuman, *snake > > like* features. > > > > > >We know, from > > Voldemort's words in the graveyard, that his > transformations had one > > purpose - immortality. From this we can conclude > that his snakiness > > is linked to the search for immortality. >From all of these posts regarding why Voldy did not die and whether he has the essence of a snake, I keep getting the image of the snake shedding his skin. Perhaps Voldemort decided to separate his soul from his body by agreeing to shed his skin or change bodies over time if given immortality. He apparently bore little resemblance to Tom Riddle when an adult. Perhaps he had already shed his Tom Riddle skin before the Harry Potter incident. Once his body is destroyed he must find a new one(like Professor Quirrell), and he has the ability to exist for long periods without one. In each of the books, he has a different form from the one before sort of like having a new skin. Not much new here, but I am talking this through for me. > So, in contradistinction to the phoenix, > > the snake would symbolise immortality achieved > through fake dying or > > cheating death . Harry is beginning to resemble the Phoenix which somehow rises from the ashes of death. He should have died in the first book when he was attacked as a baby. He should have died in the second book, but the Phoenix tears healed his wounds in the nick of time. In the third book, He should have died from the Dementor's kiss, but his own Patronus scared the Dementors away at the last second. He should have died in book four when Voldy says AK but Harry doesn't because the phoenix feather wand saved him. He should have been destroyed by Voldy in book five in MOM, but he does not. I don't remember why he didn't since it has been a while since I read Five. Or maybe, his mother Lilly used the ancient spell she learned in grade school, to save Harry the baby when she said. "I'm Rubber, You're glue Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" ;0) Voldy laughs at the silly school girl but gets zapped before he realizes his mistake! :-0 Randy (who can never really take this too seriously for a very long time having been hit with the silly curse during his early childhood);0) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 03:30:15 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:30:15 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri: > I'd add to this that according to Nearly Headless Nick, only wizards > can become ghosts, which indeed suggests that magical power has a lot > to do with it. According to NHN, real dying is something that he > knows nothing about, but they study this in the DoM, suggesting that > the people behind the veil are not ghosts but "really" dead. > > Also, I find it intriguing that NHN stayed behind as a ghost because > he was "afraid of dying". Isn't Voldy afraid of death more than > anything? NHN was also very sure that Sirius wouldn't stay behind as > a ghost. Why? Maybe because Sirius was not afraid of dying? (Sirius > to the twins: "you don't understand - there are things worth dying > for"). > > So how about this: Voldy was afraid of dying, so he turned himself > into a ghost, but he found a way to retain his body and powers. He > was a ghost inside a haunted body, but not actually connected with > this body. Neri again: I've just found more canon support for this theory. In CoS, Ch. 16, p. 290 US, and old library book is quoted: "the Basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are fixed with the beam of its eyes shall suffer instant death". Sounds almost like an AK, isn't it? But one page later Harry concludes: "Justin must've seen the basilisk through Nearly Headless Nick. Nick got the full blast of it, but he couldn't die *again*" (italics in he original). So maybe Voldy, much like NHN, couldn't die in GH because he was already dead: he turned himself into a ghost haunting his own body, and he found a way to retain his powers nonetheless. But the dead behind the veil are "really" dead, the way even NHN isn't, and they can't come back. Therefore, the only way to "really" kill Voldy is to push him beyond the veil. This might explain for what purpose the veil was brought to the DoM in the first place, and maybe also why Voldy was reluctant to enter the DoM and take the prophecy himself. Neri From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 04:07:32 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:07:32 -0600 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Death and magic References: Message-ID: <001d01c51894$0a11eae0$e058aacf@...> Jo was thinking about death and its varieties in HP and came up with the following observations > If magical power holds the key to surviving death then Voldy must > have been exceptionally powerful, uniquely powerful, unnaturally > powerful. Where did he get that power from?\ This feeds in nicely to my private theory that Death Eaters are so named because the share a magical bond with Voldemort that has everything to do with why he did not die. I think they, as part of their bond to him, lent him power and/or "took on" or "ate" part of Voldemort's death for him, so he didn't have to do it. This stems from a correspondence my husband saw, between the Death Eaters and what they may have done for Voldemort, and the Welsh folk tradition of Sin Eaters, who take on the sin of someone (usually someone dying), perform the penance for them, so that the person will be free of the sin. And, of course, I see it working in the other direction as well--if Voldemort had ever truly died, all his Death Eaters would surely know it, and that's why he's so pissed in the graveyard, because they *knew* he was alive and didn't come to find him. Further, I think there's an excellent chance the DEs are bound to Voldemort for life, and if he dies, they will die as well. Which has always made Snape's choice to serve the good and seek Voldemort's downfall, worth a little more substance to me. ~Amanda From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 08:01:51 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:01:51 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <001d01c51894$0a11eae0$e058aacf@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > This feeds in nicely to my private theory that Death Eaters are so named because the share a magical bond with Voldemort that has everything to do with why he did not die. I think they, as part of their bond to him, lent him power and/or "took on" or "ate" part of Voldemort's death for him, so he didn't have to do it. > > This stems from a correspondence my husband saw, between the Death Eaters and what they may have done for Voldemort, and the Welsh folk tradition of Sin Eaters, who take on the sin of someone (usually someone dying), perform the penance for them, so that the person will be free of the sin. > > And, of course, I see it working in the other direction as well--if > Voldemort had ever truly died, all his Death Eaters would surely know it, and that's why he's so pissed in the graveyard, because they *knew* he was alive and didn't come to find him. Further, I think there's an excellent chance the DEs are bound to Voldemort for life, and if he dies, they will die as well. Which has always made Snape's choice to serve the good and seek Voldemort's downfall, worth a >little more substance to me. > It's an interesting theory, but ... why then were all the DEs so surprised and shocked when they arrived at the graveyard? And why did Voldemort refer to the steps he's taken to ensure his immortality and not to tha link between them? Naaam From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 11:48:22 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:48:22 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <001d01c51894$0a11eae0$e058aacf@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > This feeds in nicely to my private theory that Death Eaters are so named > because the share a magical bond with Voldemort that has everything to do > with why he did not die. I think they, as part of their bond to him, lent > him power and/or "took on" or "ate" part of Voldemort's death for him, so he > didn't have to do it. Ah Death Eaters. What's in a name? Always struck me as an odd handle. JKR never names things without thought, part of the fun in the books is the way she uses names to either entertain (Diagon Alley) or to imply character (Remus Lupin). The eternal has been depicted as a snake with its tail in its mouth forming an unbroken circle, a snake eating itself. Now the Dark Lord's supporters are not, in my opinion, offering themselves up on a platter but there is a shared intention to eat something or someone. Whatever evil doings Voldy is up to he is definitely sharing with his followers, although the dynamic is almost certainly going to place him as the first among equals. So Voldy identifies something to eat and passes his leftovers on to his followers, like the alpha in a pack of dogs. They grow stronger but he remains the strongest. Let us imagine that what they are consuming is magic, this would make the dementors their natural allies. Dementors consume souls, no conflict, shared ambition. They can hunt together. Who are they going to hunt? Sheep, or in the world of HP, muggles. Muggles have souls and they also have latent magic (must do to have magical children,) useless, harmless, clueless and fundamentally lesser beings. Its simply farming if you look at it the right way. WARNING. You are now boarding Flight of Fancy no.42, your pilot today will be Captain Possession. Who do we know who first took this view superior view over muggles? Salazar Slytherin. If Tom was messing about in the Chamber of Secrets he could have come upon potted SS. Say SS first worked out how to consume magic from innocents, then industrialised it using the wizarding world equivalent of a guillotine, might look a bit like a doorway, shove your victim through it strips out magic and the soul and dumps the body elsewhere. Eternal life here we come. Rats! Some of those liberal types think this is wrong. Founding fathers display a limited understanding of the natural order of things and put up a fight, a pretty good fight as it happens. However, pretty much immortal, SS figures he has some time to regroup, so he licks his wounds and crawls off to await his heir. Later, much later than anticipated, Tom opens the chamber, in it is a pile of dust and a vapour!SS, weak but still functional and a bit peckish. They strike a pact, a kind of symbiosis. SS will share his magical buffet with Tom but Tom has to provide the venue. Oh goody now we can play the possession card! SS moves into casa Tom and they re christen the bachelor pad Voldemort. Its party time! Years pass during which symbiont!SS grows stronger, casa voldy is no longer a commune but a republic which answers to the name of the Dark Lord. Then comes a prophecy. A boy who can defeat the Dark Lord. Makes sense to nobble him early and it's a shame to waste good food so why not drop in and eat out. Rats again! SS slips out for a light snack, Tom casts his AK and BANG. SS is splinched, half in Harry, half out. Casa Voldy is vapourised. > Which has always made Snape's choice to serve the good and seek > Voldemort's downfall, worth a little more substance to me. > > ~Amanda What of Snape then? When he changed sides did he reject the evil tyranny or has he aspirations to take on the alpha role? Snape is a proud man, why be a senator when you can be Caesar? usurper!Snape might wish to vanquish Tom but retain the symbiont!SS . He'd hate Harry because Harry now has part of his legacy, but he'd have to help Harry if he wishes to save symbiont!SS. If Snape truly wishes to vanquish the Dark Lord he'd be pretty miffed that Harry has beaten him to the punch and is the one on whom everyone, including him, has to rely. Of course he may not believe in prophecy!Harry in which case he is simply biding his time. The joy is how can the reader distinguish between usurper!snape and assasin!Snape? Regards Jo From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 16:13:28 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:13:28 -0000 Subject: Who knows prophecy contents? Message-ID: As there is a bit of a lull in the action here, I shall ask The Esteemed Old Crowd a question I've also asked at HPfGU. Whom do you believe knows the *full* contents of the prophecy? Is there anyone besides DD & Harry who now know it? Siriusly Snapey Susan From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 18:01:17 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:01:17 -0000 Subject: Who knows prophecy contents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > As there is a bit of a lull in the action here, I shall ask The > Esteemed Old Crowd a question I've also asked at HPfGU. > > Whom do you believe knows the *full* contents of the prophecy? Is > there anyone besides DD & Harry who now know it? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Before GH Full prophecy: Lily and James Potter, Frank and Alice Longbottom, no one else. Partial prophecy: Voldy, Bella, Snape and eavesdropper. Bella because she attacked the Longbottoms, Snape because of his treatment of Neville and Harry. I have suspicions about Uncle Algie too his behaviour looks potentially more sinister after you know of the prophecy. After GH but before attack on MoM in OotP Full prophecy: As before Partial prophecy: Death Eaters (not necessarily all) OP (also not necessarily all) After attack on MoM....??? Harry will tell Ron and Hermione, I'd like him to tell Neville but don't think he will. I'm working on the basis that both sides would want to keep explosive information like this as strictly need to know. Regards Jo From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 21:05:50 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:05:50 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: <001d01c51894$0a11eae0$e058aacf@...> Message-ID: Jo wrote: Let us imagine that what they are consuming is magic, this would make the dementors their natural allies. Dementors consume souls, no conflict, shared ambition. They can hunt together. Neri: To maximize the efficiency of this hunting enterprize they should also team up with a species that eats human flesh. Do we have canon that Potterverse giants eat people? If so, then giants, dementors and DEs can have the perfect coalition. The victim's flesh, soul and magic are all consumed and nothing is wasted. Amanda wrote: This feeds in nicely to my private theory that Death Eaters are so named because the share a magical bond with Voldemort that has everything to do with why he did not die. I think they, as part of their bond to him, lent him power and/or "took on" or "ate" part of Voldemort's death for him, so he didn't have to do it. Neri: I like Amanda's theory and I've been playing with it for some time. A key question seems to be how this eating of Voldy's death works exactly. Is it one DE who eats each death, and if so how is this unfortunate one chosen? Is it random, or does Voldy control which DE will die for him next? Assuming he does, this theory might be used to explain two of the big mysteries: Why did Voldy accept Snape back (assuming he did, of course) and why DD didn't try to kill Voldy in the MoM. The explanation goes like this: in the end of GoF, Voldy says he's mortal again. So after the graveyard scene he needs to rebind some DEs as a defense against the next attacks on his precious life. Exactly at this point Snape returns groveling. He has good recommendations from Lucius and he can use Occlumency to hide from Voldy that his loyalty is to DD (assuming that it is, of course), but still, Voldy can't trust him anymore. Some very good guarantee is obviously required. So Snape suggests that Voldy will bind him as the eater of Voldy's next death. If anybody shoots an AK at Voldy, it is Snape who dies. This is why DD didn't try to kill Voldy in the MoM. This theory of course works only if DD and Snape think that they know how to break this connection in the crucial moment. Naama asked: It's an interesting theory, but ... why then were all the DEs so surprised and shocked when they arrived at the graveyard? And why did Voldemort refer to the steps he's taken to ensure his immortality and not to the link between them? Neri: I don't have a good answer to the first question. Regarding the second, many "steps" might refer to many DEs that he bound. This would also explain why the DEs know about these steps (in the graveyard Voldy says about the DEs: "They who knew of the steps I took to guard myself against mortal death"). If this is true, then it seems that Voldy is not absolutely sure who is the DE that ate his death at GH: "it appears that one of my experiments had worked, for I did not die, though the curse should have done it". However, in the DEs circle there was an empty place for three dead DEs. Two of them we know: Rosier and Wilkes, who were killed by aurors. But the third one was never identified, nor was the reason of his death. Neri From eloiseherisson at fritter_my_wig.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 10:23:04 2005 From: eloiseherisson at fritter_my_wig.yahoo.invalid (eloiseherisson at fritter_my_wig.yahoo.invalid) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:23:04 EST Subject: Death and magic Message-ID: Monika: I think "worse than death" means that there is nothing left but an empty shell. In Rowling's world people who die can leave an imprint of themselves behind by becoming a ghost, or else they "go on" like Sirius did (at least Nearly Headless Nick said so), so there is some kind of soul involved that lives on. Dementor's feed on the soul, I always thought they "ate" it when they sucked it out of a person, so this really must be worse than death for a wizard. Yes, I've always made this assumption too. But we know very little about what the WW actually believes about life after death. My feeling is that if the soul is just consumed by the Dementor, ceases to be, enters oblivion, then it isn't as bad an end as if it had to face some kind of post mortem retribution. There are worse things than oblivion. Now if the WW believes that everyone automatically goes on to some kind of fulfilled existence after death, then oblivion isn't so good. But it could be a lot worse, depending on one's fate after death. In fact in the case of the truly demented, who have lost all sense of identity and pretty well live in an empty shell, the punishment is much greater for the relatives and those who care for them than it is for the victims themselves (I'm talking here of extreme cases, where all individuality and awareness is lost, not those tragic individuals who live in a twilight world where they are aware of their condition). What I find especially intriguing about the "worse than death" epithet is that 1) we have no evidence of a death penalty as such (Aurors being given emergency powers to kill is the nearest we hear about) and 2) the only prison is Azkaban, where incarceration for even a short time will lead almost inevitably to mental damage and a long term lead almost certainly to madness and death. Give me oblivion any day. If that is all the Dementor's kiss does, then it is much more merciful than a life sentence in Azkaban. Perhaps there's a belief that enduring Azkaban is such punishment that crimes are atoned for before entering the "next great adventure", a bit like an earthly purgatory, or the cleansing fires to which heretics were consigned. I have to say, though, that I find the notion a bit far fetched as the wizarding justice mentality we've seen so far seems entirely retributive and we've seen little evidence of any kind of wizarding belief system. All of which leads me to wonder whether the soul does continue to exist at some level, but within the Dementor and in a permanent state of misery. Now *that* would be Hell. ~Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 14:49:20 2005 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:49:20 -0000 Subject: OT: INTRO Message-ID: Greetings Old Crowd, I am Fran Maneely, and post as fhmaneely. How flattering to be asked to join this group! In the past I have read many of the posts of members in this group. Lately, I read posts and lurk, and will post more after book 6 comes out. I am a 47 single mother of 2 dogs (grin) and Aunt to many. My favorite nephew refers to me as Cool Aunt Frannie. I have been a Radiation Therapist, and TAC Engineer for Cisco Systms. My last job was exported overseas, and I have been rethinking my career, and am currently dirfting about and rather lost! I am optimistic as this is the year of the rooster, and according to the place mat at my favorite chinese resturant, I am a rooster. I like fitness walking, yoga and pilates. When I was younger I rode jumpers, played tennis, and windsurfed. Unfortuantely, I have a bit of arthritis now, so I dont do as much as I used to. I really dont watch much tv, and I have satellite. Laugh tracks on comedy shows drive me nuts. Its as if the producers are trying to make you think the show is funnier than it really is or you are really stupid and are unaware of what is humerous. Some of the drama shows are quite good but a little depressing. I really enjoyed Island at War on Masterpiece Theater. There are some shows I try watch, Arrested developement, South Park, The Simpsons, ER and for some strange reason I have been sucked into the O.C. which is just a soap opera, and I have nothing in common with high school angst. I have started reading The Purpose of a Driven Life, which is very good, and I read the Series of Unfortunate Events last month. AS far as music goes, I listen to just about anything except for RAP; just not into it. I still play my vinyl records. Some of my favorites are JOhnny Cash, Hank Williams Sr., Ella Fitzgerald, Dve Brubeck, Rolling Stones from the 60's, Blues, Bluegrass, Jimi Hendrix, The opera La Boheme, The Black Eyed Peas, Southern Culture on the Skids, The P-funk All Stars..... So that is a bit about me, maybe a bit too much (grin)... From scarletdemon666 at scarletsorceress666.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 24 12:52:54 2005 From: scarletdemon666 at scarletsorceress666.yahoo.invalid (scarletsorceress666) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0000 Subject: Death and magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Monika wrote: > > I think "worse than death" means ... SS replied: Perhaps DD meant that for LV there is something worse then being dead and that is living in a world that doesn't function on his hate filled twisted philosophy. To lose the battle for the philosophy of WW to love and honour and have to stay alive to watch that world grow and flourish, but never be able to understand it. Would be worse then dying, which would be swift painful moment and then over for all time. To my way of thinking this is DD's mission to totally destroy LV's philosophy through Harry and not through magic, which we know that LV and Harry are equal in. Once he destroys that way of thinking, then even if LV stays alive he is ineffectual, but LV couldn't stay alive in that kind of world anyway. > > > > > Eloise Wrote: > My feeling is that if the soul is just consumed by the Dementor, ceases to > be, enters oblivion, then it isn't as bad an end as if it had to face some kind > of post mortem retribution. > > >SS Replied: JK described the Dementors as the manifestation of depression, not just feeling a little off, but clinical depression, which leaves you without any desire for life in anyway. This normally requires drug therapy, if you look at the dementors kiss, it could be seen as the drug treatment therapy, which leaves you completely dead, yes you function but you no longer have any responses to life at all, you don't even feel the depression. Which at least before the drugs you did feel tired, sleepy, angry, tearful, after the drugs even that is removed, you just seem to spend a great deal of time smiling sweetly and staring straight-ahead. I can associate more with this version of the dementors than the soul swallowing one, as having a soul requires a belief in another life, and that requires a faith, not all people have a faith, not just a religious faith, but also any spiritual faith, but all beings are subjected to depression. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 24 14:43:43 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:43:43 -0000 Subject: Who knows prophecy contents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Whom do you believe knows the *full* contents of the prophecy? Is there anyone besides DD & Harry who now know it?< Pippin: Let's put two and two together, shall we? Snape goes off on a secret mission at the end of GoF, and all of a sudden, Voldemort is convinced that the Prophecy is the weapon that will tell him how to destroy Harry. Suppose that was the information that allowed Snape to buy his way back into Voldemort's good graces? 'Seize the prophecy and you will be able to destroy Potter once and for all, Master! And if it turns out not to contain the information that I say it does, then kill me!' Now, I think Snape knows this is a lie, which is why Snape agreed to teach Occlumency to Harry. He knew it would be a disaster for himself if Voldemort ever got his hands on the prophecy. Snape made a bad job of it, and eventually had to give up, but I don't believe the failure was intentional. He's just one of those people who are utterly convinced that the best way to make reluctant people do what you want them to do is to put pressure on them. (IMO, one of Rowling's goals is not only to show us that bullying is wrong but that it doesn't work, even when the bully's intentions are noble.) I don't think Dumbledore told Snape what the prophecy actually says. I can't see a need to know. But I think Snape may have been the one of the 'useful spies' who told Dumbledore that Voldemort was after the Potters and the Longbottoms, and, putting two and two together, has come to think this was tied to the prophecy. Harry is sure that Snape *does* know something about what's in the Department of Mysteries and *does* think that he's special and important -- that's why he went snooping in the Pensieve after all. But since Dumbledore says that he alone could have overcome the flaw in his plan (by telling Harry about his destiny) it doesn't seem that he thought any one else knew. I think he is wrong. I believe James told Sirius before he died, and that Sirius told Lupin after they were reunited--probably before the graveyard scene in GoF. This is the meaning of the glance that Sirius and Lupin exchange before they start telling Harry about the 'weapon.' This raises the interesting possibility that Eversoevil!Lupin revealed all or part of the rest of the prophecy to Voldemort, leaving Voldemort with a dilemma: which of his spies is lying? For once his vaunted truthsense does not tell him. No wonder he wants to hear the danged thing for himself! Voldemort certainly acts as if he knows that only he can destroy Harry. In that case, his aim in trying to force Dumbledore and Harry to fight was not to destroy Harry but to destroy Dumbledore, the only one he fears. Pippin From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 24 18:50:58 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:50:58 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know? (was: Who knows prophecy contents?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSusan here: This is what I get for asking two similar, but not fully the same, questions here & at HPfGU. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125061 I get a fascinating response from Pippin here and a couple of equally fascinating responses to the more specific issue of Snape's knowledge of the prophecy from Mooseming & Nora over yonder. Curious that when I read Pippin's ideas -- > Let's put two and two together, shall we? Snape goes off on a > secret mission at the end of GoF, and all of a sudden, Voldemort > is convinced that the Prophecy is the weapon that will tell him > how to destroy Harry. > > Suppose that was the information that allowed Snape to buy his > way back into Voldemort's good graces? 'Seize the prophecy and > you will be able to destroy Potter once and for all, Master! And if > it turns out not to contain the information that I say it does, > then kill me!' > > Now, I think Snape knows this is a lie, which is why Snape > agreed to teach Occlumency to Harry. He knew it would be a > disaster for himself if Voldemort ever got his hands on the > prophecy. Snape made a bad job of it, and eventually had to give > up, but I don't believe the failure was intentional. He's just one > of those people who are utterly convinced that the best way to > make reluctant people do what you want them to do is to put > pressure on them. (IMO, one of Rowling's goals is not only to show > us that bullying is wrong but that it doesn't work, even when the > bully's intentions are noble.) > > I don't think Dumbledore told Snape what the prophecy actually > says. I can't see a need to know. But I think Snape may have > been the one of the 'useful spies' who told Dumbledore that > Voldemort was after the Potters and the Longbottoms, and, > putting two and two together, has come to think this was tied to > the prophecy. -- it all makes perfect sense, of course. So did Mooseming & Nora over at HPfGU. Mooseming commented upon the difference between knowing something and believing it, especially when coupled with a Snape who is arrogant. Her thoughts on arrogance vs. confidence and how this might be playing out with Snape make me [finally] see a way in which it would make SENSE that Snape could actually know the contents of the prophecy and still treat Harry & Neville in the manner in which he does [including those things he does NOT do for them]. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125115 Nora, while concurring with much of Mooseming's comments, pointed out the important difference between knowing something [because someone told you so] and KNOWING something [because you've seen & believed for yourself]. Her take is that Snape does not, in fact, know the contents of the prophecy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125122 In all this I am pleased to be learning that there isn't some grand consensus out there of which I was simply unaware, but that there are all sorts of takes on what this particular individual [Snape] does or doesn't know, how he "got there," and how it might or might not impact his treatment of Harry &/or Neville. I don't feel certain that I know which version of events I buy into most fully, but I am pleased that each makes much more SENSE of Snape than I could make of him myself before. (So gracias.) Pippin said: > Harry is sure that Snape *does* know something about what's in > the Department of Mysteries and *does* think that he's special > and important -- that's why he went snooping in the Pensieve > after all. SSSusan: Pippin, could you expand on this a bit? I understand you're saying that Harry believes Snape knows something about the DoM, but what do you mean in the latter part of the sentence? That Harry went snooping in the pensieve in order to prove to himself that Snape DOES believe Harry is special & important? If that's what you mean, I'd like to know more why you think Harry believes this. I've been rather inclined to the position that Harry takes Snape very much at face value and thus believes Snape hates him and thinks there is nothing special about Harry indeed. Pippin: > But since Dumbledore says that he alone could have overcome > the flaw in his plan (by telling Harry about his destiny) it > doesn't seem that he thought any one else knew. > > I think he is wrong. I believe James told Sirius before he died, > and that Sirius told Lupin after they were reunited--probably > before the graveyard scene in GoF. This is the meaning of the > glance that Sirius and Lupin exchange before they start telling > Harry about the 'weapon.' SSSusan: I definitely think Sirius knew about the prophecy, whether it happened the way you are suggesting or whether DD shared the information with him during Harry's 4th or 5th year. Lupin I have wondered about but haven't been sure of, though you're correct that this look could be explained by their *both* knowing. Pippin: > This raises the interesting possibility that Eversoevil!Lupin > revealed all or part of the rest of the prophecy to Voldemort, > leaving Voldemort with a dilemma: which of his spies is lying? > For once his vaunted truthsense does not tell him. No wonder he > wants to hear the danged thing for himself! > > Voldemort certainly acts as if he knows that only he can destroy > Harry. In that case, his aim in trying to force Dumbledore and > Harry to fight was not to destroy Harry but to destroy Dumbledore, > the only one he fears. SSSusan: Fascinating. You mean Voldy is facing the question, "Is Snape telling the truth and therefore the prophecy will empower me to destroy Potter, or is Lupin telling the truth and the prophecy gives me very little I didn't already know?" Is that a fair summation? It seems to me that we could end up with Voldy trying to force DD & Harry to fight without the ESE!Lupin step in there. But if you're correct that Voldy was actually trying to destroy *DD*, then it would be evidence that he knows the total contents of the prophecy. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 24 22:14:42 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:14:42 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know? (was: Who knows prophecy contents?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin said: > > Harry is sure that Snape *does* know something about what's in the Department of Mysteries and *does* think that he's special and important -- that's why he went snooping in the Pensieve after all. > > SSSusan: > Pippin, could you expand on this a bit? I understand you're saying that Harry believes Snape knows something about the DoM, but what do you mean in the latter part of the sentence? That Harry went snooping in the pensieve in order to prove to himself that Snape DOES believe Harry is special & important? If that's what you mean, I'd like to know more why you think Harry believes this< Pippin: If Harry had no clear idea in his head, it wouldn't be the first time. But I was toying with the idea that he went snooping in Snape's thoughts with the subconscious wish that he was going to find something that would make him feel better about himself. > SSSusan: > Fascinating. You mean Voldy is facing the question, "Is Snape > telling the truth and therefore the prophecy will empower me to destroy Potter, or is Lupin telling the truth and the prophecy gives me very little I didn't already know?" Is that a fair summation? Pippin: Exactly. Pippin From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 00:29:27 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:29:27 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Who knows prophecy contents? References: Message-ID: <027f01c51ad1$10d2baa0$6501a8c0@...> SSS said: > > As there is a bit of a lull in the action here, I shall ask The > Esteemed Old Crowd a question I've also asked at HPfGU. > > Whom do you believe knows the *full* contents of the prophecy? Is > there anyone besides DD & Harry who now know it? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Charme: Yup, I got one. The portraits in DD's office know it. Now what they can do with that info (if anything), I'm not sure. Charme From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 00:13:35 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:13:35 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death and magic References: Message-ID: <01f001c51ace$d9323aa0$6501a8c0@...> > SS replied: > > Perhaps DD meant that for LV there is something worse then being dead > and that is living in a world that doesn't function on his hate > filled twisted philosophy. To lose the battle for the philosophy of > WW to > love and honour and have to stay alive to watch that world grow and > flourish, but never be able to understand it. Would be worse then > dying, which would be swift painful moment and then over for all > time. > >> > >>SS Replied: > > JK described the Dementors as the manifestation of depression, not > just feeling a little off, but clinical depression, which leaves you > without any desire for life in anyway. This normally requires drug > therapy, if you look at the dementors kiss, it could be seen as the > drug treatment therapy, which leaves you completely dead, yes you > function but you no longer have any responses to life at all, you > don't even feel the depression. Which at least before the drugs > you > did feel tired, sleepy, angry, tearful, after the drugs even that is > removed, you just seem to spend a great deal of time smiling sweetly > and staring straight-ahead. > Charme: Ah, philosophy talk. I *like* it :) You're totally on the money in my book, SS, WRT what you theorize is behind DD's "something worse than death" comment to LV. Has anyone else noticed that LV has in effect tried to erase his own humanity throughout the years? He wants to appear as something greater than human, even to the point of killing his own father and family and changing his name. He admits this much in CoS - he wasn't going to keep his filthy Muggle father's name. This leads us to your point about watching a world that in LV's case, he would never completely understand or experience. I apologize in advance if the rest of what I am going to post is OT, but it might (?) spur a whole new discussion. To your point about the Dementors: And what is the lack of desire for life? It's the lack of *hope*, which is the virtue that permits us even in terrible times to rise above our despair and strive to attain peace and happiness. Where does all this lead? Well, boggarts deceive by appearing as a wizard's worst fear. Dementors deceive by "draining" a wizard of his/her happy memories, thereby making the wizard believe there is no hope. LV deceives by manipulating a wizard to follow him by fear, fear that there is no other recourse than to follow him, again no hope. By becoming LV loyalists, Death Eaters are actually emulating LV's desire to deny his humanity, or to appear more than human. Funny, I also think the reason they are hooded when they apparate in the graveyard (GoF) isn't all because they don't wish to reveal themselves to each other - I rather think they wish to appear less human almost as uniform and inhumane as the Dementors. The perception of the absence of humanity could equate to the absence of hope. Charme From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 14:28:39 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: The day after Message-ID: <918c21ad1b4107201585f18ed78ac290@...> I suppose we've all wondered about what went on in that 24 hours between GH and the Dursley's doorstep. And no doubt we've all also wondered just how much DD knows about what happened at GH - and how he came to know it. Explosion at GH around midnight, the owls fluttering around the WW by early morning, Minerva sussing out Privet Drive as Vernon drives to work - the word was most definitely out. All very interesting, indeed appetite whetting for the reader. It's only later when it becomes obvious that the author intends to keep schtum that we realise we are thrown back on our own devices. Now is it credible that Tot!Harry spent the day at the scene of the disaster, covered in brick-dust and needing his nappies changed? Hardly. Especially, particularly, as interested parties would be doing their damnedest to figure out exactly what had happened. Yet this is what we are encouraged to believe, that Hagrid borrowed Sirius's bike and carted Harry across country from GH the following night. Meanwhile DD is sitting somewhere twiddling his thumbs and contemplating the infinite. A likely story. There's been much speculation that Voldy was not alone when he tip-toed through the Potter's tulips. Maybe so. But that doesn't immediately help DD in deciding what to do with Harry. It's unlikely that the henchwizard was knocking on DD's door in the wee small hours to tell all. (Unless it was Snape. Though even then Snape might not be aware of some of the critical bits.) DD wouldn't know in any detail what had happened to the Potters, to Harry or to Voldy; he'd be in much the same state of ignorance as were the DEs when they had a belated round of 'Trick or Treat" at the Longbottom residence. Now if there's one thing it's dangerous to assume about DD it's that he's ignorant. He throws information around like it was money and he's got short arms and deep pockets, but to assume he doesn't know...... dodgy. Very dodgy. "OK," says you, "so how did he find out?" "Easy," says I, "there was an impeccable witness who didn't lie." "Oh yes," says you,"and who would that be then?" "Simple," says I. "Harry." "What?" says you, "rely on a 15 month old who couldn't understand what was happening and probably couldn't put it into words anyway?" "Yep." Because words aren't needed, neither is understanding, all that are required are memories. And a Pensieve. DD and Snape use a wand to transfer memories from mind to Pensieve. Memories that are straight replays - no interpretation, no commentary, no filtering - just the action. As a bonus the scenes can be viewed from a neutral viewpoint, getting perspectives and dialogue that are not apparent to the memory holder. At least that is what appeared to happen in "Snape's worst memory." So is it so incredible to believe that a wand couldn't be pointed at someone else's head and *their* memories transferred? Cor! What a plot device! DD knows everything right from the start! He knows Voldy isn't dead, that he probably will come back. He knows that Harry must be protected, that his destiny is not complete, that he has a function to fulfill. He knows the significance of the scar and how it was caused and why. He knows (as he admits in CoS) that Harry has powers (plural) transferred from Voldy. He knows who else was there. DD doesn't need to guess at "what now?". Given the circumstances he can make his plans accordingly. Best of all, at least for those with a conspiratorial bent, is the possibility, faint but imaginable, that Harry's memories have been edited. That not all of them were replaced. It wouldn't do for Harry to realise too much, too soon, now would it? Kneasy From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 17:42:46 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:42:46 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH Message-ID: There are certain guidelines I use when I explore the HP series. One is that events occurring in "real time" in the series are more reliable sources than "statements of fact" which come from characters. Second is that descriptions of past events are more reliable sources than character's assumptions. However, past events, even if presented in "real time" are often related as isolated events that are either lacking in, or of ambiguous context. (Most pensieve scenes, and Harry's infant memories fall in this category). Third is that characters have a personality and that their past behavior is the best indicator of their future behavior (subject to the reliability of the source of information about their past behavior). With these in mind, here are some factors that intrigue me: The first and foremost is that no spell, AK or otherwise, directed towards baby Harry, was summoned forth during the PI in the graveyard scene. We clearly see the spells that kill James and Lilly, but nothing about Harry. This serves as a definitive indication to me that whatever wand issued spell, if any, that was directed towards Harry at GH was not emitted from the LV (phoenix feather) wand. (This meets my highest standard of proof, as it comes from an event directly occurring in real time before us). Second is the Ollivander statement that the wand that gave you that scar came from the brother to this wand (i.e. the LV wand). This would directly contradict the above, only if we assume the scar was caused by magic that was channeled/emitted by the LV wand. (This however, involves a much lower standard of proof, and indeed, one wonders what was the source of Ollivander's knowledge about the wand causing the scar). Third is the scene of his mother and LV contained in Harry's memory (I will overlook that such a vivid and accurate recollection of such a scene is not compatible with our real world understanding of episodic memory at that age). Here we hear Lilly say "take me" and LV say step aside silly girl. This points towards possession, prior to or instead of death of young HP. (I assess this a moderately high standard of proof as it is presented more as an event unfolding than as merely a memory). Then we have the long history of Tom Riddle as the excellent, indeed brilliant student, who engages in a prolonged search for knowledge. This seeking of knowledge (regardless for what reason) appears as a lasting personality trait associated with TR and the later LV. This leads me to believe that TR/LV would not pass up an opportunity to gain greater knowledge, particularly if such knowledge might enhance his power (seen in his search for the COS as well). (I again associate a moderate standard of proof with this.) This suggests to me that possession of HP would have been at least one of the motivations for LV at GH, and indeed why LV would make a personal visitation rather than employing his DEs to do the dirty work. Then we have the matter that TR as young as 16 had acquired (by whatever means?SS??) the ability to possess others. That possession is a frequent modus operandi for LV (Ginny, adolescent Harry, the animals, Quirrell, etc.) (Very high standard of proof here, both because it has been directly evidenced, but also that it has been repeated). Hence, this makes it likely that LV would use the same approach to solving other problems. Then we have DD being a "student" of TR/LV's behavior (watching him closely) and having a long time to have a sense of what problem solving approaches TR/LV might take (i.e. possession & AK). Thus DD sets up barriers and responses to LV (and specifically LV?the only one likely to have the power to possess) engaging in either possession or AK on Harry. Then we have the point that Phil makes about LV in the graveyard scene, that In GoF Chapter 'The Death Eaters' Page 567 UK'I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist...'from Voldemort to the assembled Death Eaters. This makes one seriously wonder just how much LV truly recalls from GH that night. (Alas, I feel this one only meets a low standard of proof.) Perhaps even some of LV's "memories" are more confabulation (or maybe even sourced from another at the scene) and for "impression management" than true. Then there is the matter of Peter revealing to LV the location of the Potters. (Lots of direct and indirect confirmation of that, including direct from Peter's lips, thus a fairly high standard of proof). But in doing so Peter has proven himself untrustworthy. Would LV (even with legilimancy) be fully confident in one who would betray his former best friend? Therefore I think it likely that Peter was present, and very closely so, at GH that night, just to ensure that LV was not walking into a trap. (Low standard of proof, but logically consistent). Then I think of Peter's reactions to the events in Snape's worst nightmare. His visceral as well as emotional excitement watching the relatively strong James and Sirius tormenting the compromised Snape. This leads me to consider that this as a persisting feature of Peter's personality. If so, then might not Peter get similar enjoyment from LV conquering James at GH. Then there is the matter that Peter was willing to turn on his more powerful friends (James and Sirius) when he could exploit their situation of weakness and that this too might be a personality feature that might be demonstrated again by Peter exploiting a situation of weakness in his new "friend." Then there is the matter that Peter seems particularly talented at causing large explosions. (Fairly high standard of proof, corroborated by Sirius, Peter himself, and the reports of what occurred at the street where Peter and Sirius met). A person's behavior tends to be consistent, particularly in resorting to similar problem solving approaches when under stress. So, this leads me to surmise that LV went to GH that night to at least possess HP with the purpose of learning, and acquiring, if possible, any powers that HP might have that would benefit LV. He brought with him Peter, and likely only Peter, for three reasons. One, he did not fully trust Peter and did not want to enter into a trap. Two, that he was going to be temporarily vulnerable during a possession attempt and did not trust stronger others such as Lucius to be around during such a period of relative vulnerability. And three, he didn't want the other Death Eaters to know that HP might have something that LV didn't (and keep in mind, this is an ongoing theme, from both TR and LV to HP, "you are not really anything special"), and that LV was seeking to gain power from an infant. Furthermore, LV had every intent to kill Peter after he dealt with his other business, leaving no witnesses to the events. LV dispatches James while Peter watches in glee. Then LV moves on to HP but Lilly gets in the way. Lilly makes her "silly" plea, but likely a very thoughtful and deliberate one. After all, she has stayed around and is giving her life to be able to utter these words (and perhaps to buy time for DD to arrive on the scene). Indeed, her words ensure that LV will think about possession and almost invites LV to attempt a possession of HP. She wants him to possess HP because that is where the trap has been set. Not in GH, but in the mind and soul of the infant HP. And sure enough LV does so. Upon attempting to possess HP, LV discovers the trap. He is loosing control of the possession (does this not pre-echo the dueling wands at the graveyard and his failed possession at the MOM?) and is having trouble getting out. LV may or may not at this point have communicated to Peter to kill the kid. Or it may well be that Peter becomes aware of the vulnerability of LV (and also perhaps had a sense of LV's intention to kill him) and decided to kill both LV and the kid. It is then Peter with Peter's wand that launches the AK towards Harry and indeed it does rebound, but not onto Peter, but on the body of LV as the protection/counter-curse was always intended against/for LV. LV's spirit/soul/mind (which some believe is some composite of TR & SS) was until that point still largely trapped within the Harry he had attempted to possess. LV is now stripped of his body and in the disruption surrounding the AK and its repulsion, a portion of his spirit/soul/mind manages to break free from the trap of HP-though with some still left behind. His traumatic exit may have caused the scar, but there is another possibility. Peter remains on the scene. He is aware that not all of LV was destroyed, the kid still lives, and he (Peter) will soon be associated with the events and hunted by both sides. So an alternative is that Peter takes the LV wand and mechanically makes the scar upon HP's forehead with it (making Ollivander's words become true), he destroys the house in an attempt to destroy evidence of what truly took place, and (just maybe) sends word to DD providing DD with a story that contains only what Peter wants DD to know of what has happened. If the latter takes place, this may be why DD was so quick to condemn Sirius as at fault. But Peter knows that some bit of LV is out there, and he doesn't know that LV has no memory of the actual events. Peter must hide from LV as well as from the DE. After being confronted by Sirius, he must also hide from the WW. Thus the explosion with Sirius and the long life as a rat. The situation might have stayed that way indefinitely if it hadn't been for Quirrell who brought LV into Hogworts. Peter could recognize what was happening and it was during this time that Peter came to understand that LV truly didn't recall the actions of Peter at GH. Meanwhile DD knew all along of the attempted trap of LV via the possession, for he had set it up. He also knew that it involved capturing all of the spirit/soul/whatever into HP and perhaps killing them both (echoed at another level in the MOM). With his plans upset by Peter's intervention, he knows that it is unlikely that all of LV escaped and that surely some of LV remains within HP. This residual is the reason why HP is quarantined for 24 hours of observation and then placed outside the WW for long term observation. He needs to see if any magical funny business percolates to the surface spontaneously, and reveals any lingering LV within Harry. At this time he truly doesn't care about the kid, but his focus is solely on the attempt to capture the essence of LV/SS and if any remains. This is also why HP is given the opportunity to confront LV in SS/PS and later. It is always to see if the real LV will begin to come out. It is from these times when HP shows he is not acting from the essence of LV that DD develops his love for HP. But then the essence does beginning to emerge, and the rest takes place as it does in OOTP. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 19:33:37 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Rebecca Bowen) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:33:37 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Some speculations on the night at GH References: Message-ID: <062701c51b70$e791b420$6501a8c0@...> From: "Lyn J. Mangiameli" The first and foremost is that no spell, AK or otherwise, directed towards baby Harry, was summoned forth during the PI in the graveyard scene. Second is the Ollivander statement that the wand that gave you that scar came from the brother to this wand (i.e. the LV wand). This would directly contradict the above, only if we assume the scar was caused by magic that was channeled/emitted by the LV wand. Third is the scene of his mother and LV contained in Harry's memory (I will overlook that such a vivid and accurate recollection of such a scene is not compatible with our real world understanding of episodic memory at that age). Here we hear Lilly say "take me" and LV say step aside silly girl. This points towards possession, prior to or instead of death of young HP. This suggests to me that possession of HP would have been at least one of the motivations for LV at GH, and indeed why LV would make a personal visitation rather than employing his DEs to do the dirty work. Then we have the point that Phil makes about LV in the graveyard scene, that In GoF Chapter 'The Death Eaters' Page 567 UK'I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist...'from Voldemort to the assembled Death Eaters. This makes one seriously wonder just how much LV truly recalls from GH that night. (Alas, I feel this one only meets a low standard of proof.) Perhaps even some of LV's "memories" are more confabulation (or maybe even sourced from another at the scene) and for "impression management" than true. Charme: I can understand and agree with some of your points, Lyn. One I particularly agree with is the significance of LV actually at GH; JKR has said that as we've seen, LV rather likes his hencemen to do his dirty work. So his actual presence there means something I'm sure, however the Potters are a couple who have thrice defied him, no easy mark for the DeathEaters and people LV may have thought he needed to take care of himself based on his supposed limited knoweldge of the prophecy contents. Harry's memory of Lily's "take me instead" and a voice's statement to "step aside, silly girl" could be interpreted to mean possession rather than AK, but I have trouble with it - specifically the statements as Harry remembers them in PoA: "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" "Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...." "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead --" Numbing, swirling white mist was filling Harry's brain.... What was he doing? Why was he flying? He needed to help her... She was going to die.... She was going to be murdered.... He was falling, falling through the icy mist. "Not Harry! Please... have mercy... have mercy.... Presumably, Harry recalls Lily specifically saying "take me, kill me instead." If we are to assume the memory of her statement is correct, then it can be interpreted as "take my life, kill me instead of Harry." I also think another plausible explanation for why, during LV's and Harry's wand episode in the GoF graveyard, we didn't see the curse which took LV out of his body - first LV didn't die (and all the people who came out of his wand did die) and second, what if LV's AK curse was interrupted by Lily's sacrifice? I can easily see where LV wings an AK curse at Harry and Lily *flings herself into its path.* The curse could have passed thru her, killing her, to Harry and releasing whatever protection he had to bounce it back to LV. I don't know how much I believe TR in CoS when he tells Harry that his mother "didn't have to die" but she sacrificed herself for Harry, but it appears to be (on the surface anyway) in line with what DD also tells Harry. (I'm also sure it's not an action, the sacrifice, which TR/LV can even understand given his lack of humanity.) DD himself supports the statement that LV tried to kill Harry, and since DD is JKR's voice in a sense, one I don't think that can discount that. Since we don't know what the effect of an interrupted AK curse would be in this fashion, JKR will have to explain it to us. If true, this could support events transpiring as I've brainstormed above. Lots of mentioning in PoA as well that Peter is the man of explosions, but what if Peter is there in his Animagus form, possibly hiding in the shadows to watch? Possibly he may have transfigured after the failed curse? He could have cause the explosion just trying to use LV's wand to cover his tracks just as he did to escape from Sirius. I also think you're correct that LV doesn't remember everything which transpired there and has only recently pieced parts of it together from Quirrell, Peter, and Ginny. In Peter's case, it's Something which came to mind whilst reading your post - JKR specifically stated in her last appearance that we should be wondering how LV lived and what steps he took to protect himself prior to the showdown with the Potters. What if LV went to GH in the company of a Dementor or 2? Charme From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 20:56:14 2005 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:56:14 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: a real lot of very interesting speculations, many of which I'd bet are correct. One thing sticks out, though. It's really hard for me to believe that Dumbledore devised a plan to capture Voldemort that involved the death of an infant, or even the great likelihood of that death, and even harder for me to believe that he got that infant's parents to go along with it. --Joywitch M. Curmudgeon From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 21:44:42 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:44:42 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: <062701c51b70$e791b420$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: Hi Charm, Some counter-speculations below. All of this is just tossing stuff out for the fun of it. --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca Bowen" wrote: > From: "Lyn J. Mangiameli" > > forgive> > And now I am snipping all of mine > > Charme: > > I can understand and agree with some of your points, Lyn. One I particularly > agree with is the significance of LV actually at GH; JKR has said that as > we've seen, LV rather likes his hencemen to do his dirty work. So his actual > presence there means something I'm sure, however the Potters are a couple > who have thrice defied him, no easy mark for the DeathEaters and people LV > may have thought he needed to take care of himself based on his supposed > limited knoweldge of the prophecy contents. Lyn now, keeping all of Charme's post because it provides canon background. "Thrice defied him." I'm unable to get much of a grasp of what this entails (which obviously is the intention of JKR and not you). Defied covers a lot of territory. Simply saying "no" can be considered defiance, simply failing to act can be considered defiance, actively choosing to join with one's enemy can be considered defiance. I sometimes find that thrice defied is interpreted as meaning the Potters engaged in acts that were of a direct and immediate threat to LV. Frankly, I think may assume too much. Thus, I don't think that LV was necessarily afraid or even worried about the powers of James and Lilly themselves. Indeed, I think his actions with Lilly suggest that he didn't see her as any significant threat at all. One is also given the impression there was little time between James telling Lilly to run and LV appearing before her. Yes James may have fought bravely, even valiantly, but I would suggest that he was a trivial foe for LV (particularly given the MOM duel with DD where his ability to both send and overcome spells was revealed ) and was not a worry at GH. I also would suggest that LV by nature is confident in his wizarding powers, and would not have felt threatened in his ability to prevail over the Potters. Now a DD trap is another matter, but it appears to be little evidence that LV ever considered this. I do agree with you that there are certainly other, more interpretations of the GH events that are more mainstream, though not necessarily that they are more plausible. Back to Charme and her helpful extended quote from canon. >Harry's memory of Lily's "take > me instead" and a voice's statement to "step aside, silly girl" could be > interpreted to mean possession rather than AK, but I have trouble with it - > specifically the statements as Harry remembers them in PoA: > "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" > > "Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...." > > "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead --" > > Numbing, swirling white mist was filling Harry's brain.... What was he > doing? Why was he flying? He needed to help her... She was going to die.... > She was going to be murdered.... > > He was falling, falling through the icy mist. > > "Not Harry! Please... have mercy... have mercy.... > > Presumably, Harry recalls Lily specifically saying "take me, kill me > instead." If we are to assume the memory of her statement is correct, then > it can be interpreted as "take my life, kill me instead of Harry." Lyn now: You bring up for me another line from that scene that has also troubled me. "Not Harry! Please have mercy .have mercy ." Now I know this is usually considered to be the final pleas of a distraught mother, and well they might be, but I find them troublesome. Why would a member of the order, one who has lived through LV's reign of terror, etc. even have it come to mind to think that LV might give any weight to pleas for mercy? It just doesn't quite match with my image of someone who has thrice defied LV and who has set up a defensive charm that might destroy LV and also save HP. Again, her pleas appear to be suggesting more weakness in the face of a LV attack than is warranted. Rather, I am suspicious that they are not again reminding LV of what they want for him to do, indeed virtually inviting LV to attack HP. An uncommon interpretation, I grant you, but one I would suggest is not inconsistent with a prepared plan to save Harry and destroy LV. In the larger scheme of things, did Lilly sacrifice herself solely to save Harry, or might she have quite deliberately sacrificed herself to save the WW as well as her child? Back to Charme: > I also > think another plausible explanation for why, during LV's and Harry's wand > episode in the GoF graveyard, we didn't see the curse which took LV out of > his body - first LV didn't die (and all the people who came out of his wand > did die) and second, what if LV's AK curse was interrupted by Lily's > sacrifice? I can easily see where LV wings an AK curse at Harry and Lily > *flings herself into its path.* The curse could have passed thru her, > killing her, to Harry and releasing whatever protection he had to bounce it > back to LV. Lyn now: I have yet to be satisfied by any explanation that suggests that the effects of a spell emitted from a wand would not be reproduced. We should have some ghostly image for the TR/LV body being destroyed, or the explosion, etc. The idea of an AK passing through one person into another tends to be belied by all the evidence we have of things successfully blocking an AK (tombstones, the many instances at the MOM--which granted, are mostly inanimate). So, I find (of course many may disagree) the burden is on those who believe LV used his wand to AK Harry to come up with a convincing explanation for its absence from the PI in the graveyard. For me, that explanation remains to be offered. Snipping now several other good points Charme made, but ending myself with this: BTW, isn't it interesting that Peter's wand is rather conspicuous by its absence. Peter may have an extremely desperate desire to avoid his wand from ever being subject to PI, not just by the wizarding world, but by LV. Just imagine what might become of Peter if LV ever checked that wand! Lyn From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 22:46:34 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:46:34 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH References: Message-ID: <06c901c51b8b$dbc51ea0$6501a8c0@...> Lyn said: Hi Charm, Some counter-speculations below. All of this is just tossing stuff out for the fun of it. Charme: Amen to that :) I find this sort of exchange (as Kneasy well knows) quite to my liking as it's supposed to be fun and not this full assault perpetrated by other Potter fans against each other on other Boards-Which-Should-Not-Be-Named. I figure if we all put our heads together, we can figure out what She-Who-Writes-In-Riddles is really up to faster than she can produce the next book. ;) Lyn now, keeping all of Charme's post because it provides canon background. "Thrice defied him." I'm unable to get much of a grasp of what this entails (which obviously is the intention of JKR and not you). Defied covers a lot of territory. Simply saying "no" can be considered defiance, simply failing to act can be considered defiance, actively choosing to join with one's enemy can be considered defiance. I sometimes find that thrice defied is interpreted as meaning the Potters engaged in acts that were of a direct and immediate threat to LV. Frankly, I think may assume too much. Thus, I don't think that LV was necessarily afraid or even worried about the powers of James and Lilly themselves. Indeed, I think his actions with Lilly suggest that he didn't see her as any significant threat at all. One is also given the impression there was little time between James telling Lilly to run and LV appearing before her. Yes James may have fought bravely, even valiantly, but I would suggest that he was a trivial foe for LV (particularly given the MOM duel with DD where his ability to both send and overcome spells was revealed ) and was not a worry at GH. I also would suggest that LV by nature is confident in his wizarding powers, and would not have felt threatened in his ability to prevail over the Potters. Now a DD trap is another matter, but it appears to be little evidence that LV ever considered this. Charme ponders: I can completely understand the perception of vagueness around the "thrice defied" part of the prophecy and like you, I have trouble with it whatever it may eventually mean. ( I have major issues with any prophecy overall, but that's a different thread all together.) One area of canon which supports that perhaps the Potters did more than just say "no" is Lucius Malfoy's statement in CoS: "You'll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days, Harry Potter," he said softly. "They were meddlesome fools, too" It's the word "meddlesome" which makes me think "interfering" which denotes action in my mind. Just saying "no" is a "rejection", at least to me. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but what else is a girl who is waiting for HBP to do, aye? :) Thinking out loud here, I believe Death Eaters (not LV) could be trusted to dispose of the Potters, hence one of the reasons LV was there. I mean, look at how sort of ineffective they were against Harry and company in OoP in the DoM - while it's true things geared up a little after the Order members' arrival, LV's right in a way that his faithful DE's allowed Harry Potter to thwart him once again. Therefore, I think he personally had to attend to the Potters, whatever other reasons may come to light. Lyn now: You bring up for me another line from that scene that has also troubled me. "Not Harry! Please.have mercy..have mercy.." Now I know this is usually considered to be the final pleas of a distraught mother, and well they might be, but I find them troublesome. Why would a member of the order, one who has lived through LV's reign of terror, etc. even have it come to mind to think that LV might give any weight to pleas for mercy? It just doesn't quite match with my image of someone who has thrice defied LV and who has set up a defensive charm that might destroy LV and also save HP. Again, her pleas appear to be suggesting more weakness in the face of a LV attack than is warranted. Rather, I am suspicious that they are not again reminding LV of what they want for him to do, indeed virtually inviting LV to attack HP. An uncommon interpretation, I grant you, but one I would suggest is not inconsistent with a prepared plan to save Harry and destroy LV. In the larger scheme of things, did Lilly sacrifice herself solely to save Harry, or might she have quite deliberately sacrificed herself to save the WW as well as her child? Charme replies: Well, let's look at the definition and context of mercy: - Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency. - A disposition to be kind and forgiving: - Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: - Alleviation of distress; relief When I think of these definitions, uncannily what comes to mind is humanity and that virtue applied to DD's calling LV "Tom" rather than by his more inhumane name. Pleas of a distraught mother not withstanding, appealing to the humanity of an aggressor is not uncommon in a life or death situation regardless of who the victim is doing the pleading - mother, sister, brother, friend, etc. While DD doesn't plea, he does use the tactic of trying to appeal to "Tom" as a person (human), instead of this Lord Voldy thingy everyone is scared to death of. I can see your point about the prepared plan; it astonishes me *why* LV let Lily live long enough to have a discussion like this in the first place. A note about the timing of the discussion: it remains to be seen what the exact sequence of events was here, as it seems disjointed and chaotic the way its written in PoA. And who said what when may be a critical factor. Snipping now several other good points Charme made, but ending myself with this: BTW, isn't it interesting that Peter's wand is rather conspicuous by its absence. Peter may have an extremely desperate desire to avoid his wand from ever being subject to PI, not just by the wizarding world, but by LV. Just imagine what might become of Peter if LV ever checked that wand! Charme absolutely delighted: Wouldn't it be something if Peter Pettigrew, the rat traitor who betrayed his friends, turns out to have *purposely* helped LV out of his body at GH in this whole debacle like some of the imprisoned DE's suspect? PoA and Sirius: "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said Black. "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter... They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them....I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort met his downfall" Charme, From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 03:16:05 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:16:05 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_m_curmudgeon" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" > wrote: > > a real lot of very interesting speculations, many of which I'd bet > are correct. > > One thing sticks out, though. It's really hard for me to believe > that Dumbledore devised a plan to capture Voldemort that involved > the death of an infant, or even the great likelihood of that death, > and even harder for me to believe that he got that infant's parents > to go along with it. > > --Joywitch M. Curmudgeon Hello Joywitch, I'm old enough to be one of those who watched the last television episode of MASH with rapt attention. It begins with many of the medical staff on a bus that also contained multiple Korean civilians. They somehow were hiding as a North Korean military patrol passed very close by. In the bus a mother was holding her baby, and it began crying. The cries would have revealed all the people on the bus to certain capture, and likely death, at the hands of the enemy patrol. The protagonist surgeon (Hawkeye for those who are familiar with MASH) spoke quietly but forcefully to the mother to keep the baby quiet or they all would be killed. The baby was quieted, and the enemy passed by. When things were safe for them to move on again, Hawkeye made contact with the mother and was horrified to find the mother suffocated the baby to keep it from jeapordizing the lives of all the many others on the bus. It was a heartwrenching and devestating scene, both for the characters, and for most who watched that final episode. While the parallel is not exact, I think the analogy is close enough to the situation that DD and the Potters faced. The entire WW is in jeapordy. Terror abounds, friends are being killed with anticipated regularity, the good guys are losing. The prophecy indicates that Harry may be the mechanism that will revive a whole world and way of life. Note that DD in OOTP describes the singular caring for Harry he developd AS HARRY GREW OLDER, as the "flaw in my brilliant plan....I cared about you too much...I cared more for your happiness that your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed....What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now your were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." [Scholastic HB edition, 838-839] So DD did indeed devise a plan that might well result in the death of Harry, and I would submit even as an infant, in order to save others. He openly admits to this, and only over time with Harry did he find his feelings were undoing his plan, and in so doing, risking countless others in the WW (Frankly, I think this admission is very ominous for DD having to correct this flaw in the future). So yes, I think DD was willing to sacrifice the infant for the benefit of the good of the entire WW world. Now I suspect DD might have tried to lay safeguards to avoid Harry's death if possible, but he called upon Harry's parents to make the ultimate sacrifice, of not only themselves, but their son. James had to give his life in a futile fight with LV not because he believed he might win or might succeed in protecting his family, but to convince LV that he was not entering the trap that had been set for him. Lilly, in the end, calls for mercy, not so much to just avoid Harry's death and or possession, but to avoid her having to be complicit in it. The power of Lilly's sacrifice is so great because she not only was she willing to sacrifice herself, but also her only son to save the WW. [I'm not religious, but the parallels here are striking]. She almost surely died in the hope that the protections might work and Harry would be survive, but also with the awareness that Harry might well die for to save the WW. I think that LV finally gained awareness of this during OOTP. At one level, he was right, it was not Harry that was so special as it was his parents' complete sacrifice. Why do I think LV knew? because of the possession in the MOM. Note how DD explains it back in his office at Hogworts. "Voldemort's aim in possessing you, as he demonstrated tonight, would not have been my destruction. It would have been yours. He hoped, when he possessed you briefly a short while ago, that I would sacrifice you in the hope of killing him." Now why did LV come to that conclusion? I would suggest it is because LV has finally figured out that this was DD's initial plan. A plan that failed before, but one that DD might follow again. So am I right, who knows but JKR. But is it plausible and consistent with the canon I recall?, I think so. Lyn From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 03:35:13 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:35:13 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn wrote: There are certain guidelines I use when I explore the HP series. One is that events occurring in "real time" in the series are more reliable sources than "statements of fact" which come from characters. Second is that descriptions of past events are more reliable sources than character's assumptions. However, past events, even if presented in "real time" are often related as isolated events that are either lacking in, or of ambiguous context. (Most pensieve scenes, and Harry's infant memories fall in this category). Third is that characters have a personality and that their past behavior is the Best indicator of their future behavior (subject to the reliability of the source of Information about their past behavior). Neri: I agree with all these guidelines but I have several comments, all of them (as I'll show later) very relevant to your theory: 1. Events occurring in "real time" are indeed the most reliable, but the *absence* of an event is a less reliable fact than an event that actually takes place. In the case of an absence it is always possible that it's JKR's omission due to a mistake, or because she didn't want to clutter her description with too much unimportant detail, or because there is some explanation to the absence that we don't know yet. 2. Memories, information from other characters and even real events should be judged according to their overall consistency. If you find some inconsistency in a certain description, this suggests that JKR didn't put much thought into it, and then other "facts" from the same description, espcially absence of events, also lose credibility. 3. While information from other characters is less reliable, sometime we have the same information from several different characters in several different books, and this might outweigh an event occurring in real time if it was described only once and not in a very reliable way. 4. I noticed that you didn't mention at all the status of facts brought by JKR in her chats or in her website, but we already know that we have a disagreement there so I won't be saying anything about this issue. Now to business: Lyn: With these in mind, here are some factors that intrigue me: The first and foremost is that no spell, AK or otherwise, directed towards baby Harry, was summoned forth during the PI in the graveyard scene. We clearly see the spells that kill James and Lilly, but nothing about Harry. This serves as a definitive indication to me that whatever wand issued spell, if any, that was directed towards Harry at GH was not emitted from the LV (phoenix feather) wand. (This meets my highest standard of proof, as it comes from an event directly occurring in real time before us). Neri: The absence of the PI shadow of the AK that hit Harry is an *absence* of an event. It is indeed very intriguing, but it is less reliable from an actual event. Moreover, there's a logical alternative explanation to this absence, as Charme noted: Charme wrote: I also think another plausible explanation for why, during LV's and Harry's wand episode in the GoF graveyard, we didn't see the curse which took LV out of his body - first LV didn't die (and all the people who came out of his wand did die) And Lyn answered: I have yet to be satisfied by any explanation that suggests that the effects of a spell emitted from a wand would not be reproduced. We should have some ghostly image for the TR/LV body being destroyed, or the explosion, etc. Neri now: Actually there are TWO canon cases of *absence* of an emitted spell in PI. In the graveyard Voldy uses his wand to Crucio Harry (GoF Ch. 34, p. 661 US), then he uses the Imperio curse on him (same page) but Harry fights it and refuses to bow. Then Voldy tries to Crucio Harry again, but this time Harry manages to dodge the beam (p. 662) and it cracks the tombstone instead. Just three pages later the PI sequence is described: first Voldemort's wand emits "echoing screams of pain" (the Crucio against Harry), then "a dense, smoky hand" (Wormtail silver hand), then "more shouts of pain" (the Crucio against Avery), then Cedric's echo. This means that the echoes of two unforgivable curses emitted by Voldy's wand are missing: the Imperio and the second Crucio against Harry. I can think of two different ways to explain this absence: Maybe the whole PI business was just a dramatic climax and JKR has never meant it to serve as a clue for any prior history, and therefore did not make sure that all the spells emitted by the wand indeed appear as PI echoes. The other explanation is that the two missing curses had failed: Harry resisted the Imperio, and the second Crucio cracked the tombstone (a physical result), but failed to hurt Harry, which was what it was intended for. Thus it is very probable that the AK against Harry in GH is also absent from the same PI sequence because JKR simply didn't think about it, or because this AK had never achieved its intended purpose (even if it caused the physical result of the house blow-up). I personally tend towards the second explanation, because two characters in two different books stress the fact that the curse *failed* as an explanation of the connection: Dumbledore: (GoF, Ch. 30, p. 600 US) "Because you and he are connected by the curse that failed". Snape: (OotP, Ch. 24, p. 531) "The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord". Note how JKR repeats "The Curse That Failed" in the same context. As opposed to the *absence* of an event, exact recurring of words is not likely to happen by coincidence or by mistake. Lyn: Third is the scene of his mother and LV contained in Harry's memory (I will overlook that such a vivid and accurate recollection of such a scene is not compatible with our real world understanding of episodic memory at that age). Here we hear Lilly say "take me" and LV say step aside silly girl. This points towards possession, prior to or instead of death of young HP. (I assess this a moderately high standard of proof as it is presented more as an event unfolding than as merely a memory). Neri: Actually this is a very unreliable memory. For example, in a previous post you argued that it is not likely that Voldy used an AK against Harry in GH because Harry doesn't remember the words "Avada Kedavra" being said. But Harry also doesn't remember hearing the AK incantation that killed his mother. He remembers hearing his mother pleading and Voldy answering her, and he remembers the green light of the AK curse, so he must have been quite close to them, and yet he does not remember Voldy saying the incantation that killed Lily. So the memory of this event is inconsistent and unreliable, especially in regard to absences, and it should not surprise us if Voldy also shot an AK against Harry, even if Harry doesn't remember the incantation being said or seeing the second green light. As I wrote here before, it is dangerous to base a theory on the suspicious absence of events that, in the opinion of the theorist, *should* have happened. I'm not saying such clues are worthless, and I've used this type myself more than once, but I'd usually try to corroborate a theory with additional and more reliable canon. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 03:38:25 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:38:25 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: <06c901c51b8b$dbc51ea0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > Lyn said: > > Hi Charm, > Some counter-speculations below. All of this is just tossing stuff out for > the fun of it. > > Charme: > > Amen to that :) I find this sort of exchange (as Kneasy well knows) quite > to my liking as it's supposed to be fun and not this full assault > perpetrated by other Potter fans against each other on other > Boards-Which-Should-Not-Be-Named. I figure if we all put our heads together, > we can figure out what She-Who-Writes-In-Riddles is really up to faster than > she can produce the next book. ;) > Lyn again: Yah, this is almost exactly the way it is for me. > > Lyn now, >snip> > "Thrice defied him." I'm unable to get much of a grasp of what this entails > (which > obviously is the intention of JKR and not you). Defied covers a lot of > territory. > > Charme ponders: > > I can completely understand the perception of vagueness around the "thrice > defied" part of the prophecy and like you, I have trouble with it whatever > it may eventually mean. ( I have major issues with any prophecy overall, but > that's a different thread all together.) One area of canon which supports > that perhaps the Potters did more than just say "no" is Lucius Malfoy's > statement in CoS: > > "You'll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days, > > Harry Potter," he said softly. "They were meddlesome fools, too" > > It's the word "meddlesome" which makes me think "interfering" which denotes > action in my mind. Just saying "no" is a "rejection", at least to me. Maybe > I'm assuming too much, but what else is a girl who is waiting for HBP to do, > aye? :) Lyn again. A good point, with evidence that I had forgotten appeared in the book. Makes one very curious what those meddlesome actions were. > > > Lyn now: > You bring up for me another line from that scene that has also troubled me. > "Not Harry! > Please.have mercy..have mercy.." Now I know this is usually considered to be > the final > pleas of a distraught mother, and well they might be, but I find them > troublesome. Why > would a member of the order, one who has lived through LV's reign of terror, > etc. even > have it come to mind to think that LV might give any weight to pleas for > mercy? It just > doesn't quite match with my image of someone who has thrice defied LV and > who has set > up a defensive charm that might destroy LV and also save HP. Again, her > pleas appear to > be suggesting more weakness in the face of a LV attack than is warranted. > Rather, I am > suspicious that they are not again reminding LV of what they want for him > to do, indeed > virtually inviting LV to attack HP. An uncommon interpretation, I grant > you, but one I > would suggest is not inconsistent with a prepared plan to save Harry and > destroy LV. In > the larger scheme of things, did Lilly sacrifice herself solely to save > Harry, or might she > have quite deliberately sacrificed herself to save the WW as well as her > child? > > Charme replies: > > Well, let's look at the definition and context of mercy: > > - Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency. > - A disposition to be kind and forgiving: > - Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: > - Alleviation of distress; relief > > When I think of these definitions, uncannily what comes to mind is humanity > and that virtue applied to DD's calling LV "Tom" rather than by his more > inhumane name. Pleas of a distraught mother not withstanding, appealing to > the humanity of an aggressor is not uncommon in a life or death situation > regardless of who the victim is doing the pleading - mother, sister, > brother, friend, etc. While DD doesn't plea, he does use the tactic of > trying to appeal to "Tom" as a person (human), instead of this Lord Voldy > thingy everyone is scared to death of. I can see your point about the > prepared plan; it astonishes me *why* LV let Lily live long enough to have a > discussion like this in the first place. A note about the timing of the > discussion: it remains to be seen what the exact sequence of events was > here, as it seems disjointed and chaotic the way its written in PoA. And > who said what when may be a critical factor. > Lyn again Interesting reading of the scene--note how it influenced my reply to Joywitch in the post just above. > > > > BTW, isn't it interesting that Peter's wand is rather conspicuous by its > absence. Peter may > have an extremely desperate desire to avoid his wand from ever being subject > to PI, not > just by the wizarding world, but by LV. Just imagine what might become of > Peter if LV ever > checked that wand! > > Charme absolutely delighted: > > Wouldn't it be something if Peter Pettigrew, the rat traitor who betrayed > his friends, turns out to have *purposely* helped LV out of his body at GH > in this whole debacle like some of the imprisoned DE's suspect? PoA and > Sirius: > "You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said Black. "You've been > hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter... > They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them....I've heard > them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think > the double-crosser double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters' on > your information... and Voldemort met his downfall" Lyn again: Can't ever complain about a satisfied customer. :-) BTW, I so appreciate the way you bring direct quotes from canon in to illustrate and clarify the discussion. Appreciatively Lyn From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 04:17:01 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:17:01 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH References: Message-ID: <081b01c51bba$06033e30$6501a8c0@...> >> Charme replies: >> >> Well, let's look at the definition and context of mercy: >> >> - Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; >> clemency. >> - A disposition to be kind and forgiving: >> - Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: >> - Alleviation of distress; relief >> >> When I think of these definitions, uncannily what comes to mind is >> humanity >> and that virtue applied to DD's calling LV "Tom" rather than by his more >> inhumane name. Pleas of a distraught mother not withstanding, appealing >> to >> the humanity of an aggressor is not uncommon in a life or death situation >> regardless of who the victim is doing the pleading - mother, sister, >> brother, friend, etc. While DD doesn't plea, he does use the tactic of >> trying to appeal to "Tom" as a person (human), instead of this Lord Voldy >> thingy everyone is scared to death of. I can see your point about the >> prepared plan; it astonishes me *why* LV let Lily live long enough to >> have a >> discussion like this in the first place. A note about the timing of the >> discussion: it remains to be seen what the exact sequence of events was >> here, as it seems disjointed and chaotic the way its written in PoA. And >> who said what when may be a critical factor. >> > Lyn again > Interesting reading of the scene--note how it influenced my reply to > Joywitch in the post > just above. Charme: Duly noted :) > Lyn again: > Can't ever complain about a satisfied customer. :-) BTW, I so > appreciate the way you > bring direct quotes from canon in to illustrate and clarify the > discussion. > > Appreciatively > > Lyn Charme: Thanks! :) I always worry that if I don't include some piece of canon in discussions like these, my point will be lost or muddied in the virtual medium which is the Internet. It's a double-edged sword though; if you use it too much, you end up looking as Snape described Hermoine: an insuffable know-it all. Thankyewverymuch for a quite refreshing, engaging discussion! Best Wishes, Rebecca From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 05:48:03 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:48:03 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Snip of Neri's personal hermeneutics which comes to the conclusion below< > As I wrote here before, it is dangerous to base a theory on the > suspicious absence of events that, in the opinion of the theorist, > *should* have happened. I'm not saying such clues are worthless, and > I've used this type myself more than once, but I'd usually try to > corroborate a theory with additional and more reliable canon. > Ah Neri, our interactions thus far show we are little able to appreciate each others arguments and approach to analysis. I have no need to convice or convert you, and shall not try. I offer my little speculations--I really find them too modest and tentative to be properly entitled theories--for those who find them enjoyable or thought provoking. I am content knowing that my little speculations may be stimulating and/or fun diversions for some, and not for others. Lyn From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 14:15:37 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:15:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050216125048.52229.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050226141538.56682.qmail@...> > Catherine wrote: > Yes, there is the whole insanity thing to get > around, but why on earth couldn't they have just smashed it? > Dumbledore, after all, had (allegedly) perfect recollection of it. > I can only think of two reasons - one, that Voldemort wasted almost > a whole year trying to get hold of the prophecy, and so bought > Dumbledore some time, and two, that he was trying to lure Voldemort > into revealing himself at the Ministry, which he presumably > expected only to work if Voldemort failed to lure Harry there > first, hence the importance of occlumency.> I don't fault Dumbledore during the summer and fall; having it tantalizingly available as a decoy to keep Voldemort focussed was a good strategy. But once Snape told Dumbledore in the spring that Harry was not practicing and that he was dreaming stronger dreams about the DOM, then Dumbledore should have had it destroyed because he should have known that Harry might be led to make a trip to the MoM. Dumbledore knows what Harry is capable of by this point. Just telling himself, "he's safe at Hogwarts" wasn't good enough. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 14:36:33 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:36:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death and magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226143633.72084.qmail@...> > "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > This feeds in nicely to my private theory that Death Eaters are > so named because the share a magical bond with Voldemort that has > everything to do with why he did not die. I think they, as part of > their bond to him, lent him power and/or "took on" or "ate" part > of Voldemort's death for him, so he didn't have to do it. Personally I think it has more to do with the comment "Eat death", which was the popular snarky comeback in my teen years before it was replaced with "Bite me". I don't think even the dumbest DE joined Voldemort because they wanted to give something up to him or even to put themselves out for him. They're in it for what they can get: elimination of all that muggle-tainted scum in the WW and afterwards the jobs, the wealth, the positions, etc. that the muggle-tainted scum had possessed. Therefore staying on the good side of Mr. High-Maintenance-Dark-Lord is a means to an end, and we saw that when he (apparently) was vanquished they dispersed pretty rapidly. These guys aren't cultees, wandering around devasted at their loss and hotly protesting their continued allegiance; they're not-very-bright opportunists who lit out for deep cover immediately. Yes, I know Bellatrix did but personally I think she was already crackers before she got to Azkaban (and might be the only living thing the Dementors are afraid of). I also think that the Longbottom attack was set up by Lucius as a kamikaze bid to remove Bellatrix from circulating in society and messing up Lucius' standing as well as an attack against Crouch Sr. to make sure he didn't become Minister of Magic with his no-hold-barred vendetta against the DE's. There's no cosmic magical bond between Voldemort and his followers; they're a gang of thugs being led by an intelligent psychopath towards an end that will benefit only the leader, not the lead. It's a phenomena we're very familiar with from history. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 14:48:49 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:48:49 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH References: Message-ID: <099401c51c12$48edcbe0$6501a8c0@...> "nkafkafi" wrote: >> As I wrote here before, it is dangerous to base a theory on the >> suspicious absence of events that, in the opinion of the theorist, >> *should* have happened. I'm not saying such clues are worthless, and >> I've used this type myself more than once, but I'd usually try to >> corroborate a theory with additional and more reliable canon. Charme: Neri, I humbly submit my apologies for what I am about to ask. :) Well, not humbly, but give me credit for the good intentions anyway. ;) I gotta tell ya....I read that paragraph above, guffawed, and spewed Coke through my nose (which shows how much a failure I am at multitasking no less, a considerable shame) thereby necessitating the immediate cleaning of my display. The troublemaking wench I am, I just can't fight the urge (have pity on me, I'm weak) to inquire about it. I have an insatiable, albeit slightly mischievious, curiousity about why it is "dangerous" as you've noted above. Why is speculation on anything in Potterverse "dangerous" no matter how you get to the concept or exchange ideas with another Potterhead? If I were to take that paragraph literally as you've suggested, I'm all aquiver waiting for this "dangerous" fallout to bear its horrendous payload.....what will happen now? Will my computer explode? Will my accessories not match tomorrow????? Heh. :) Waiting for Doom To Pass, Charme From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 16:18:55 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:18:55 -0000 Subject: Kinda OT: Tom's name Message-ID: Orange juice alert: (someone asked me to warn them if I said something that may make them spit it out) Lots of good solid enjoyable discussion going on here, so I'm breaking the pattern for a moment. I was in a bar the other night, and my friend was talking to someone else, who I couldn't hear due to the band. I looked in the mirror and saw the reflection of a sign, and said to myself (because no one else could hear- the band, you know): It's a good thing Tom Riddle's middle name wasn't Sorsoro, or he'd be Lord o' Dis Restroom. Back to your insightful conversations. Ginger, who doesn't think she's had a stupider thought since "Lord of a YMCA" (for Draco Malfoy). From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 16:39:39 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:39:39 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: <099401c51c12$48edcbe0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: > Charme: > > Neri, I humbly submit my apologies for what I am about to ask. :) Well, not > humbly, but give me credit for the good intentions anyway. ;) I gotta tell > ya....I read that paragraph above, guffawed, and spewed Coke through my nose > (which shows how much a failure I am at multitasking no less, a considerable > shame) thereby necessitating the immediate cleaning of my display. The > troublemaking wench I am, I just can't fight the urge (have pity on me, I'm > weak) to inquire about it. > > I have an insatiable, albeit slightly mischievious, curiousity about why it > is "dangerous" as you've noted above. Why is speculation on anything in > Potterverse "dangerous" no matter how you get to the concept or exchange > ideas with another Potterhead? If I were to take that paragraph literally > as you've suggested, I'm all aquiver waiting for this "dangerous" fallout > to bear its horrendous payload.....what will happen now? Will my computer > explode? Will my accessories not match tomorrow????? Heh. :) > > Waiting for Doom To Pass, > Charme Neri: It is only dangerous to a very small sub-group of Potterheads (myself included, unfortunately) who are totally obsessed with finding the ultimate theory that explains everything in the Harry Potter books, and would go to any length to discover it (short of breaking into JKR house and looting her drawers. I think). We poor addicts have a tendency to invest hours on hours of our free (and not-free) time picking the books apart and building huge and intricate theories that might crumble at any moment if you take out a single card from the bottom. Naturally, investing so much time and thought in our theories, we tend to become very protective about them and very hostile to other possibilities. A cure for this terrible condition was not yet discovered (hopefully it will disappear by itself when Book 7 is out) but there may be certain precautions that the addict can take in order to minimize the risks for distress and heartache. So if you are lucky not to be in this risk group, I assure you that you can speculate on HP as much as you want to, with no damage to yourself or to your accessories. Neri From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 16:58:55 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:58:55 +1100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: References: <099401c51c12$48edcbe0$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: <20050226165855.GA22283@...> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:39:39PM -0000, nkafkafi wrote: > Neri: > It is only dangerous to a very small sub-group of Potterheads (myself > included, unfortunately) who are totally obsessed with finding the > ultimate theory that explains everything in the Harry Potter books, > and would go to any length to discover it (short of breaking into JKR > house and looting her drawers. I think). We poor addicts have a > tendency to invest hours on hours of our free (and not-free) time > picking the books apart and building huge and intricate theories that > might crumble at any moment if you take out a single card from the > bottom. Naturally, investing so much time and thought in our theories, > we tend to become very protective about them and very hostile to other > possibilities. A cure for this terrible condition was not yet > discovered (hopefully it will disappear by itself when Book 7 is out) > but there may be certain precautions that the addict can take in order > to minimize the risks for distress and heartache. So if you are lucky > not to be in this risk group, I assure you that you can speculate on > HP as much as you want to, with no damage to yourself or to your > accessories. > > Neri Yeah, how dangerous can it be to speculate that Hermione will be Head Girl in book 6? Who can guess at the hidden power of Harry's magic House-Elf socks?? But I reckon Petunia done it. She's in for it when Vernon gets home. -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 17:04:35 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:04:35 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050226141538.56682.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I don't fault Dumbledore during the summer and fall; having it > tantalizingly available as a decoy to keep Voldemort focussed was agood strategy. > > But once Snape told Dumbledore in the spring that Harry was not practicing and that he was dreaming stronger dreams about the DOM, then Dumbledore should have had it destroyed because he should have known that Harry might be led to make a trip to the MoM. < Pippin: Erm, if Dumbledore destroys the prophecy, then Voldemort has no reason to delay going after Harry until he's heard it. Ditto if Harry is told about the prophecy and Voldemort is able to learn it through the mind link. If Harry had known about the prophecy, he might have known that Voldemort might try to trick him into going to the Ministry. But it really wouldn't have mattered, because in the end what Voldemort used to lure Harry was not the prophecy but Sirius, and he could have pretended to have Sirius captive anywhere. Pippin From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 17:16:14 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:16:14 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH References: Message-ID: <0a4c01c51c26$e1329250$6501a8c0@...> > Neri: > It is only dangerous to a very small sub-group of Potterheads (myself > included, unfortunately) who are totally obsessed with finding the > ultimate theory that explains everything in the Harry Potter books, > and would go to any length to discover it (short of breaking into JKR > house and looting her drawers. I think). We poor addicts have a > tendency to invest hours on hours of our free (and not-free) time > picking the books apart and building huge and intricate theories that > might crumble at any moment if you take out a single card from the > bottom. Naturally, investing so much time and thought in our theories, > we tend to become very protective about them and very hostile to other > possibilities. A cure for this terrible condition was not yet > discovered (hopefully it will disappear by itself when Book 7 is out) > but there may be certain precautions that the addict can take in order > to minimize the risks for distress and heartache. So if you are lucky > not to be in this risk group, I assure you that you can speculate on > HP as much as you want to, with no damage to yourself or to your > accessories. Charme: Thanks for the reply - and for the forgiveness you extended this admitted troublemaker ;) In all seriousness, loved your post back to me. Whew...it's very important my accessories are safe, I have a reputation to uphold. You bring up an interesting concept, though - is there really an ultimate theory which explains Harry Potter? I ask this because if you look at other epics like Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia and His Dark Materials, such literature is also endlessly explored even after the series is complete. Indeed it would appear the analysis and speculation never ends. With that in mind, I applaud your pursuit of knowledge and positive spirit in trying to complete this difficult and passion task in the face of your addiction. ;) Where do I donate for your cure, as I think it's a long road ahead for ya? ;) Charme From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 26 22:04:34 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:04:34 -0000 Subject: Some speculations on the night at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > It is only dangerous to a very small sub-group of Potterheads (myself > included, unfortunately) who are totally obsessed with finding the > ultimate theory that explains everything in the Harry Potter books, > and would go to any length to discover it (short of breaking into JKR > house and looting her drawers. I think). We poor addicts have a > tendency to invest hours on hours of our free (and not-free) time > picking the books apart and building huge and intricate theories that > might crumble at any moment if you take out a single card from the > bottom. Naturally, investing so much time and thought in our theories, > we tend to become very protective about them and very hostile to other > possibilities. A cure for this terrible condition was not yet > discovered (hopefully it will disappear by itself when Book 7 is out) > but there may be certain precautions that the addict can take in order > to minimize the risks for distress and heartache. So if you are lucky > not to be in this risk group, I assure you that you can speculate on > HP as much as you want to, with no damage to yourself or to your > accessories. > There's a quote by Richard Feynman that might be applicable: "Physics is like sex. There may be practical outcomes, but that's not why we do it." Personally, I feel the same way about theorising on HP. Constructing a theory and testing it on a public forum is much more fun than sitting there waiting to be told what's what by the author. Passivity is not fun, in fact it's not much of anything. So some get enthusiastic about a few crazy ideas; who cares? So long as they appear reasonably civilised, wash behind their ears and change their socks occasionally I can't see any problem. I have a visceral hatred for SHIPs, can't stand 'em, but others revel in them so let them get on with it; it's no skin off my nose and I can always ignore them. Which is just what I do. Others feel the same about TBAY. Nobody likes everything that's posted and it doesn't take long to identify which posters are liable to get steam venting from your ears on a regular basis. When they lean towards foaming at the mouth fanaticism, that's something else. But it's my observation (and personal experience - you wouldn't believe some of the mails that have hit my screen) that it's the appearance of opposition to their mania that really sets them off; if nobody mentions their posts they soon go away. Mind you, if you actually enjoy rattling somebody's cage - it can be fun, but you're very naughty. Nah. Fandom's a broad church, most interests can be fitted in without too much trouble. Don't fret about it, is my advice. Kneasy From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 03:03:11 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:03:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for JKR In-Reply-To: <20050216033558.GA5625@...> Message-ID: <20050227030311.24214.qmail@...> Since JKR refers to her Christian beliefs being a possible giveaway, I started doing an internet search which led me down the rabbit hole. I think I found something important. Regarding the attempt by Voldemort to kill baby Harry which backfired: "PLOTINUS." "Plotinus was born at Lykopolis in Egypt in the year 205 A.D. He received his education at Alexandria." "Porphyry, another one of the disciples of Saccas, having become envious of the renown of Plotinus, attempted to use black magic against him, but without success; and finally said that the soul of Plotinus was so strong that the most powerful Will directed against his soul could not penetrate it, and rebounded upon the sender. Plotinus, however, felt that magic influence, and expressed himself to that effect." Then there was another reference that seems to refer to the effect of Lilly's eyes: "MAGIC, ACCORDING TO CORNELIUS AGRIPPA." "Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim was born of a noble family at Coeln (Cologne) on September 14, in the year 1486." "In each man there is such a power, which is the inherent property of his soul by right of the divine origin of the latter; but this power is not equally developed in all men, but stronger in some, weaker in others, and according to the state of its development the possibility to use it differs in different individuals." "By this power two persons being bodily far distant from each other may exchange their thoughts, or one may impress his thoughts upon another, and such a power may be used for good or for evil purposes. Weak-minded persons may thus be fascinated by stronger minds, or be made to fall in love with the person by whom they are thus fascinated. The instrument of fascination is the spirit, and the organ, by which it eminently expresses itself is the eye. Thus the spirit of one person may enter the heart of another by way of the eyes, and kindle a fire therein which may burn and communicate itself to the whole body. If two persons look into the eyes of each other, their spirits come in contact, and mix and amalgamate with each other. Thus love may be caused by a look in a moment of time, like a wound caused suddenly by an arrow. The spirit and the blood of a person thus affected then turn towards him who fascinated it, like the avenging spirit and the blood of a murdered person turns against the murderer." I found a couple of more that refer to Death Eaters which I will post later. Randy --- Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:07:30PM -0500, > susiequsie23 wrote: > > > Is she a Christian? > > > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend > the religious > > right far worse than if I said I thought there > was no God. Every > > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've > said yes, because I > > do, but no one ever really has gone any more > deeply into it than > > that, and I have to say that does suit me, > because if I talk too > > freely about that I think the intelligent > reader, whether 10 or 60, > > will be able to guess what's coming in the > books.'' > > This is a quote I fear encourages many an HPfGU fan > to avoid the wider view of > the books; I don't blame them since it's a very > disappointing gaffe by JKR > IMHO, although not without a certain irony. If Harry > goes off into the > figurative desert, I shall have to write to the > Times. > snip __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 03:32:07 2005 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:32:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for Death Eaters In-Reply-To: <20050227030311.24214.qmail@...> Message-ID: <20050227033207.56382.qmail@...> Regarding a possible origin for the idea of Death Eaters: "MALCHUS PORPHYRIUS." "This philosopher was a disciple of Plotinus, and was born in Batanea, in Syria, in the year 233 A.D. " "The realm of the soul, being semi-material, has its inhabitants possessing semi-material (astral) forms. Some of them arc good, others evil; some are kindly disposed towards man, others are malicious. Both classes have ethereal but changeable bodies; the good ones are masters of their bodies and desires, the evil ones are governed by the desires of their bodies. They are all powers for good or for evil, divine, animal, or diabolic invisible influences creating, by their interior activity, passions, desires, vices, and virtues in the souls of beings. The more evil they are, the more do their forms approach the corporeal state. They then live on the exhalations of matter; they induce men to murder and to kill animals, they enjoy the vapours arising from the victims, and grow fat by absorbing the ethereal substances of the dying. They are, therefore, always ready to incite men to wars and crimes, and they collect in great crowds in places where men or animals are killed." The Death Eaters are thereby described as those who absorb the ethereal substances of the dying. --- Randy Estes wrote: > >> I found a couple of more that refer to Death Eaters > which I will post later. > > Randy > > > --- Sean Dwyer wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:07:30PM -0500, > > susiequsie23 wrote: > > > > > Is she a Christian? > > > > > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to > offend > > the religious > > > right far worse than if I said I thought there > > was no God. Every > > > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've > > said yes, because I > > > do, but no one ever really has gone any more > > deeply into it than > > > that, and I have to say that does suit me, > > because if I talk too > > > freely about that I think the intelligent > > reader, whether 10 or 60, > > > will be able to guess what's coming in the > > books.'' > > > > This is a quote I fear encourages many an HPfGU > fan > > to avoid the wider view of > > the books; > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude > Children's Research Hospital's > 'Thanks & Giving.' > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mGEjbB/5WnJAA/E2hLAA/.DlolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 04:07:51 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:07:51 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for JKR References: <20050227030311.24214.qmail@...> Message-ID: <0c4501c51c81$e8a0ac10$6501a8c0@...> From: "Randy Estes" > > Then there was another reference that seems to refer > to the effect of Lilly's eyes: > > "MAGIC, ACCORDING TO CORNELIUS AGRIPPA." > "Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim was born of a noble > family at Coeln (Cologne) on September 14, in the year > 1486." Charme - I 've been *looking* for that in my quest to try to figure out the "Lily's eyes" mystery! :) Thanks - and kudos to your superior Internet delving, my dear sir.... Charme From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 13:14:11 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:14:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227131412.78271.qmail@...> > Pippin: > Erm, if Dumbledore destroys the prophecy, then Voldemort has > no reason to delay going after Harry until he's heard it. Ditto if > Harry is told about the prophecy and Voldemort is able to learn it > through the mind link. Magda: Obviously Harry should not have been told the contents of the prophecy; Voldemort would have picked them up through the connection. However, destroying the prophecy would have meant that there would no longer be a risk of Harry falling into a trap by leaving the security of Hogwarts - and despite Umbridge's presence, Hogwarts was secure for Harry. And after all the tacit encouragement and praise that Dumbledore gave Harry for four books when he did take matters into his own hands, Dumbledore should have considered the possibility that Harry would do it again. > Pippin: > If Harry had known about the prophecy, he might have known that > Voldemort might try to trick him into going to the Ministry. But it > really wouldn't have mattered, because in the end what > Voldemort used to lure Harry was not the prophecy but Sirius, > and he could have pretended to have Sirius captive anywhere. If Harry had known more about the mental connection - period - he might have known that Voldemort might try to trick him into doing anything at all. That was a bit of knowledge that Harry had but that was never put into a realistic context for him to grasp strongly. I'm not sure that Harry would have believed that Sirius was being held captive somewhere else - the advantage of the MOM/DOM (from Voldemort's POV) was that it was a place that Harry felt he was familiar enough with to get to. Had he seen an image of Sirius somewhere else, he wouldn't have known how to get there. I mean, really, we haven't seen a lot of other WW locations, have we? The Leaky Cauldron, the Burrow, the stores in Diagon Alley - none would have been credible as places to hold a captive. Knockturn Alley - Borgin's shop - better, yes, but would Harry have remembered them from COS? Privet Drive actually might have worked (assuming visions of dead Dursleys) but Voldemort had no idea what it looked like and couldn't have "beamed" an image to Harry's mind. Not to mention that Voldemort had no idea which locations Harry was familiar with or what they might look like in the present day (that is, 60 years after Tom Riddle might have last seen them). So I think the Sirius-as-hostage vision was only plausible in the context of the MOM/DOM - and Voldemort knew it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 14:12:33 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:12:33 -0000 Subject: The day after In-Reply-To: <918c21ad1b4107201585f18ed78ac290@...> Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > I suppose we've all wondered about what went on in that 24 hours > between GH and the Dursley's doorstep. And no doubt we've all > also wondered just how much DD knows about what happened at GH - > and how he came to know it. > DD and Snape use a wand to transfer memories from mind to > Pensieve. Memories that are straight replays - no interpretation, > no commentary, no filtering - just the action. As a bonus the > scenes can be viewed from a neutral viewpoint, getting > perspectives and dialogue that are not apparent to the memory > holder. > Cor! What a plot device! > DD knows everything right from the start! > He knows Voldy isn't dead, that he probably will come back. > He knows that Harry must be protected, that his destiny is not > complete, that he has a function to fulfill. > He knows the significance of the scar and how it was caused and > why. > He knows (as he admits in CoS) that Harry has powers (plural) > transferred from Voldy. > He knows who else was there. > DD doesn't need to guess at "what now?". Given the circumstances > he can make his plans accordingly. Hello. I like it. But I have a question (or two). DD and Snape transfer the memories into the pensieve and jump in to have a look at what happens. What do they see? They see Voldy kill Lily, and see him attack Harry. Something happens - but the end result is that Harry is still alive, with a scar, and Voldy's body is either destroyed or lifeless. How would DD and Snape know that Voldy wasn't dead? How would they know that Voldy transferred powers to Harry? How would DD know that Harry had *not* already fulfilled the terms of the prophecy? Seeing what happened from within the room (rather than from within Harry's head) wouldn't give them all that much to go on. All the powers and curses and protections and minds bouncing around would have to have been very literally visual. You can crank up the special effects and have some explosions and stuff (and even symbolic eerie green lights if you want), but it still wouldn't explain how DD knew Voldy would return, that he'd only marked Harry and not fulfilled the prophecy, and particularly not that he'd given Harry some powers. What could they have witnessed in the pensieve that would tell them so much? Dungrollin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 14:24:37 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:24:37 -0000 Subject: The Protection of the Prophecy Plot (Was: Themes and theories) In-Reply-To: <20050227131412.78271.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoog > > Magda: > Obviously Harry should not have been told the contents of the > prophecy; Voldemort would have picked them up through the connection. > > However, destroying the prophecy would have meant that there would no longer be a risk of Harry falling into a trap by leaving the security of Hogwarts - and despite Umbridge's presence, Hogwarts was secure for Harry. And after all the tacit encouragement and praise that Dumbledore gave Harry for four books when he did take matters into his own hands, Dumbledore should have considered the possibility that Harry would do it again.< Pippin: Now I'm confused. Even if Dumbledore destroys the prophecy Voldemort can still use it to lure Harry. (Ha ha, Dumbledore thinks he's put the prophecy out of my reach forever, but James told *you* about it, didn't he? Talk, Dog-man! Or do I need to loosen your tongue a bit more!") Magda: > If Harry had known more about the mental connection - period - he might have known that Voldemort might try to trick him into doing anything at all. That was a bit of knowledge that Harry had but that was never put into a realistic context for him to grasp strongly. < Pippin: How could that have been done? Harry is a very 'hands on' learner -- verbal admonishments, even when delivered with maximum menace by Snape, go right over his head. It's true Lupin managed to convince him that he was risking too much by going into Hogsmeade, but that was only after Harry had been caught. I doubt Lupin's words would have made much of an impression if Harry had managed to save someone's life while he was in Hogsmeade without leave. Magda: > I'm not sure that Harry would have believed that Sirius was being held captive somewhere else - the advantage of the MOM/DOM (from Voldemort's POV) was that it was a place that Harry felt he was familiar enough with to get to. Had he seen an image of Sirius somewhere else, he wouldn't have known how to get there. < Pippin: This sounds like stretching to me. First of all, Voldemort had never been inside the DoM himself --that's why Dream!Harry couldn't get through the door until after Rookwood escaped from Azkaban. Any location his Death Eaters recalled vividly, Voldemort could plant in Harry's mind. And where there's a will there's a way. Voldemort is well aware that 11 year old Harry managed to get through seven obstacles designed to repel a full grown wizard. Voldemort doesn't seem to have been worried that Harry wouldn't be able to get to the DoM despite having never actually been there (as Hermione points out), and this even though his broom's been confiscated, the Floo network is being watched, and the Knight Bus crew would recognize him. Sirius-as-hostage would have worked anywhere, I'm afraid, because there was no risk Harry would not have taken for Sirius's sake and Harry's own insecurities gave him the psychological need to prove that to himself. It's like Molly's reaction to Rita Skeeter's article about Harry and Hermione. Intellectually, Molly knew that Rita wasn't a trustworthy source, but the siren thought that Harry was in a situation where he *needed* her was like a short circuit in her brain -- her need to to show that she would always protect Harry was too much for her. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 17:18:00 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:18:00 -0000 Subject: The day after In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Hello. > I like it. > But I have a question (or two). > snip> > How would DD and Snape know that Voldy wasn't dead? > How would they know that Voldy transferred powers to Harry? > How would DD know that Harry had *not* already fulfilled the terms > of the prophecy? > > Seeing what happened from within the room (rather than from within > Harry's head) wouldn't give them all that much to go on. All the > powers and curses and protections and minds bouncing around would > have to have been very literally visual. You can crank up the > special effects and have some explosions and stuff (and even > symbolic eerie green lights if you want), but it still wouldn't > explain how DD knew Voldy would return, that he'd only marked Harry > and not fulfilled the prophecy, and particularly not that he'd given > Harry some powers. What could they have witnessed in the pensieve > that would tell them so much? > Dunno if you've ever noticed, but spells have to be cast with the intended recipient in clear view. Bouncing 'em round corners or at someone not at the centre of your field of vision doesn't happen. OK. The Pensieve provides the equivalent of a DVD recording - and one where you can change your angle of viewing too. All voices would be recognisable, all words would be heard and once Voldy hove into Harry's view over the edge of the cradle intent on doing his dastardly deed what happened from then on would be apparent - the spell or possession attempt, the rebound, Voldy's discorporation, the explosion, anything said by the Voldy accomplice, screams of agony from Vapour!Mort - all would be revealed. It'd be like that video of the wedding I went to last summer - a catalogue of horrors recorded for all time. If DD couldn't figure out what had happened - why and how - from that lot, then he'd be a disgrace to his Chocolate Frog card. As for Harry having *already* having fulfilled the terms of the Prophecy, well, he could have done. This is a point I've argued before. In the wash-up scene at the end of OoP DD specifically uses the word 'vanquished' for what happened to Voldy. It only means 'beaten' after all. In its usual sense it most definitely doesn't mean destroyed. Add in a previous interpretation that 'neither can live while the other survives' to mean that Lily and James must die for Harry to live, and if Bob isn't your uncle, he's no further away than second cousin. Of course, nobody believes me (hides slight tremble to lower lip), but what do I care. Onward I struggle, bearing a banner with a strange device.... Kneasy From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 18:45:53 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:45:53 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The day after References: Message-ID: <00e001c51cfc$916fd990$6601a8c0@...> From: "Barry Arrowsmith" > Add in a previous interpretation that 'neither can live while the other > survives' > to mean that Lily and James must die for Harry to live, and if Bob isn't > your > uncle, he's no further away than second cousin. > > Of course, nobody believes me (hides slight tremble to lower lip), but > what > do I care. Onward I struggle, bearing a banner with a strange device.... Charme: Kneasy, my lust, you could be on to something. I refer to this: "With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance for Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet." (Ad for Harry Potter supposedly contained in Publishers Quality Library Service catalog as reported by MuggleNet) That something huge could be that the "other" is "Lily" at least. Possible...possible Charme, who refrains from commenting how much she hates prophecy (oops just did) as this isn't the thread for it.... From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 19:13:00 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:13:00 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape Message-ID: OK folks, what follows is something I've batted around for better than a year now. I've never been able to get any takers to post it as part of their own ideas, so I am left with posting it on my own. or leaving it to lurk in the dark of my mind (I know, some may say a place it should have remained). Given the resurgence of discussion of this general topic on that big group, these thoughts may be timely, or just redundant, but I hope they may provide some amusement if not provoke some thought. A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape Two lines in the Harry Potter series have always haunted me. The first at Godric's Hollow when Lilly states to Voldemort "take me." PoA Chapter 'Grim Defeat' page 134 'Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!' 'Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...' 'Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -' As I've discussed previously, this exchange only makes sense to me in the context of possession, and is what lead me to some private correspondence with Kneasy and contributed to a larger possession theory. The other line that has haunted me is from Snape's Worst Memory (page 647 of the American Hardbound edition) when James' responds to Lily's question of what Snape had ever done to James: "Well, said James, appearing to deliberate the points, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean ." ["exists" being italicized in the original]. Now why use the word "exists" as opposed to say "because he did/does ___ " or "because he believes___" or "because he hangs out with ___" . One of the major themes of the series has been choice, yet here we see one character condemn another not based on behavior or values, but because he "exists," thus suggesting he is someone/something whose repugnance is innate. Now what classes of people are innately repugnant to most in the wizarding world? I would suggest Ron is often a good source of this information, and he has revealed at least Giants and Werewolves and Trolls as examples of those classes considered innately dangerous and/or repugnant. Might there be others? Now James completes his statement to Lilly with the phrase, "if you know what I mean ." Which I think might be read as a reference to obvious characteristics that everyone could see in Snape, but also might be read as a coy statement to imply that James knew something about Snape that should be apparent but obviously Lilly didn't know. So what is it that is an innate characteristic of Snape that might arouse such enmity? I think Rowling has really layered on the clues in this scene from the Pensieve. The scene begins during an examination of Defense Against the Dark Arts. Our attention is primed, so to speak, to frame what follows in this context. We know that Snape has written much more on this topic than those around him?" he had written at least a foot more than his closest neighbors, and yet his writing was minuscule and cramped." Obviously Snape knows a lot about this topic. And we are told very directly the kind of questions on the exam, specifically a question about the signs that identify the werewolf. Remus and his friends are able to write authoritatively on this question because of their direct familiarity with such a creature?makes one wonder if there is a creature(s) Snape is familiar with to a similar degree that would allow him to write with comparable authority. Interestingly, almost too pointedly, twice we are told that this scene is flooded with sunlight ("Sunshine was streaming through the high windows onto the bent heads which shone chestnut and copper and gold in the bright light." The Sunlight was dazzling on the smooth surface of the lake ."). The Pensieve scene gives us several descriptions of the teenage Snape: "stringy, " "pallid," "like a plant kept in the dark," "hair was lank and greasy," and "round-shouldered yet angular, he walked in a twitchy manner that recalled a spider," "oily hair swinging, " "skinny, pallid legs." But I think the chief clue can be found in what James does to Snape. James had almost unlimited options, but in an almost reflexive response to Snape drawing blood, James chose to hang Snape upside down. Now this is the very first time we find a student using this sort of hex or curse on another, though we are quite familiar with the previous ones James made ("Expelliamrus" "Impedimenta" "Scourgify") and the subsequent one Sirius uses ("Locomotor Mortis"). Much discussion of this scene has focused on the revealing of Snape's grey underwear, but I think the more important factor is the up-side-down position. And to what do we most associate hanging up-side-down, but a bat-- a round shouldered, angular, skinny legged, bat. I suggest that this inverted posture was very deliberate on James' part and was intended to reveal Snape for what he was, without overtly saying so. The revealed gray underwear is meant by JKR to serve as both a distraction and as a way of symbolizing that Snape's "dirty laundry" is now hung out in public for all to see. I also think it may have been symbolic that Snape drew blood from James' face, much like a vampire bat sucking blood (again, of all the many possible curses available to Snape at this time of intense stress and compromise, does he choose such a situationally ineffectual one). So I think the allusion to the bat-like Snape as associated with vampires is quite strong, irrespective of JKR's half hearted denial " [Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JKR replies: Erm... I don't think so." There is the possibility that JKR was indicating that though she didn't consider Snape to fulfill the requirements to be a vampire in her world, that he might be considered by some of her characters to be so, or at least closely associated with one.] Now I suspect (and I also suggest that this may be what JKR is skirting around) that Snape is not a "full blood/full power" vampire, what ever that might be in Rowling's world, but is likely a mixed breed or descendent of a vampire. It is this status that may well have had Snape primed to use the "mudblood" epithet towards Lilly. Why?, because by being placed in the up-side-down position Snape was not only humiliated, but he was excruciatingly aware of what it represented and that his secret (and/or shame) was being symbolically disclosed. Quite interestingly, even in his frustration with Lilly, we do not see James (at least as of the prematurely ending of the scene), choosing to reveal Snape's status overtly. So, is it really all that strange that this might truly have been Snape's worst memory? Now another, to my mind important, aspect of the scene is that Lupin is quite noticeably ill at ease throughout the confrontation with Snape. Though he sits on the sidelines, he is clearly disapproving: "Lupin was still staring down at his book, though his eyes were not moving and a faint frown line had appeared between his eyebrows." (page 645), and later in the scene, "Many of the surrounding watchers laughed but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't." (page 647). Now this may very well be due to Lupin's disapproval of the bullying tactics of James and Sirius, but I'll offer another explanation for consideration. What if Lupin also knows of Snape's unchosen vampire association? If so, does this not place Snape and Lupin into a similar category of people who have not chosen and can not escape at least one defining aspect of their being? I shall be even braver and suggest that it was at this time that Lupin began to identify with Snape, and began to feel empathy with him. Throwing all caution to the winds, and without one whit of canon for support, I shall suggest that the Prank occurred not because Sirius was intent on Snape's death, but that Sirius believed it would force Snape to reveal some vampire aspect of himself (be that a bat animagus, the ability to turn into a bat as part of his vampire like powers, or some other aspect of his being that is along these lines) to save himself from the werewolf. For Sirius, it would be a case of poetic justice administered to Snape for snooping into Lupin's compromised status. Now one of the aspects of the Prank that has always been so troublesome is that it was never made public. I submit this is because there were two secrets to maintain, Lupin's and Snape's. To reveal one would have resulted in the other becoming public as well, so some of the source of Snape's lasting resentment may well have been that he had to remain silent about a volitional wrong against him, in order to assure silence about a personal characteristic that he had no choice in acquiring and can not change. I also believe that the Prank cemented a bond between Lupin and Snape, and led to a friendship of sorts. It was his friendship (or at least overtures of that sort) with Snape that caused Lupin to become the Marauder first suspected of being a spy. Again, not a whiff of canon to support this friendship (except, just maybe in its very absence), but there are two pieces of canon that do become interesting to consider in light of these speculations. One is how nonplussed Lupin is with Snape assigning that Werewolf essay, and how Lupin then assigns a Vampire essay. It is almost like this is an inside joke between them. Second, in OOTP when Sirius and Lupin learn of Snape discontinuing the Occulemency lessons, it is Lupin who states he should be the one to talk to Snape. Why Lupin? , because they were once friends. A trivia footnote: There is a specific species of North American bat, the Pallid bat, that is able to catch and eat scorpions, being immune to scorpion venom. It can detect insects simply by listening for footsteps. From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 19:25:57 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:25:57 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > > A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape Oh no. Please tell me I haven't escaped over here only to be hit *first thing* with the vampire thing again. I can't read this whole post, the formatting is atrocious, but it looks suspiciously like the old Vampire!Snape theory AGAIN. It's still all over the main list and that's one of the main reasons I left. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 19:30:57 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:30:57 -0000 Subject: The day after In-Reply-To: <918c21ad1b4107201585f18ed78ac290@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > "OK," says you, "so how did he find out?" > "Easy," says I, "there was an impeccable witness who didn't lie." > "Oh yes," says you,"and who would that be then?" > "Simple," says I. "Harry." > "What?" says you, "rely on a 15 month old who couldn't understand what > was happening and probably couldn't put it into words anyway?" > "Yep." > Because words aren't needed, neither is understanding, all that are > required are memories. And a Pensieve. > > DD and Snape use a wand to transfer memories from mind to Pensieve. > Memories that are straight replays - no interpretation, no commentary, > no filtering - just the action. As a bonus the scenes can be viewed > from a neutral viewpoint, getting perspectives and dialogue that are > not apparent to the memory holder. At least that is what appeared to > happen in "Snape's worst memory." So is it so incredible to believe > that a wand couldn't be pointed at someone else's head and *their* > memories transferred? Evidence to date re contents of the pensieve only comes from adults, whilst what you say is true for thoughts processed via an adult perspective would this apply to a child as young as Harry was? OK so memory is a tricky thing, what we think we remember and can recount, and what remains in the unconscious are not the same thing. Clearly JKR believes Harry has some unconscious memories of the events at GH (dementors act as prompts) but does this imply a small child has a complete video library of real time events? Wouldn't some comprehension be required to lay down such memories? A child so young sees the world very differently to adults, understands it very differently. > > Cor! What a plot device! > DD knows everything right from the start! > He knows Voldy isn't dead, that he probably will come back. > He knows that Harry must be protected, that his destiny is not > complete, that he has a function to fulfill. > He knows the significance of the scar and how it was caused and why. > He knows (as he admits in CoS) that Harry has powers (plural) > transferred from Voldy. > He knows who else was there. > DD doesn't need to guess at "what now?". Given the circumstances he > can make his plans accordingly. Hum but does he know it all? DD knows a great deal more about GH than he's `fessing up to but he's still information gathering. To me, one key point of the 'in essence divided' scene is that DD now has new information, fundamental information, something he views with grim satisfaction probably because although it is not good it is necessary to understanding how to defeat Voldy. If he'd seen all at GH surely he'd know that before. Reading through the beginning of OotP I get the sense that DD is expecting something to happen to Harry, waiting for it, knows exactly the question he wants answered when it happens, he is very specific regarding the information he wants and its an odd question to ask in the circumstances `How did you see this? .. Can you remember where you were positioned as you watched ? DD is using the link between Harry and Voldy to gather information, a very high risk strategy, because he has to. BTW great post, found it inspirational, *what* it inspired is not at all relevant to this post however, that will follow later! Regards Jo From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 19:42:34 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:42:34 -0000 Subject: The day after In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > The Pensieve provides the equivalent of a DVD recording - and one where you can change your angle of viewing too. > All voices would be recognisable, all words would be heard and once Voldy hove into Harry's view over the edge of the cradle intent on doing his dastardly deed what happened from then on would be apparent - the spell or possession attempt, the rebound, Voldy's discorporation, the explosion, > anything said by the Voldy accomplice, screams of agony from Vapour!Mort - all would be revealed. It'd be like that video of the wedding I went to last summer - a catalogue of horrors recorded for all time. I think I might have been there too. At that wedding that is, or one very like it. I like this idea, it makes a lot of sense if you believe, like I do, that a memory stored in a pensieve is completely objective. Then yes, you're right. The memory of a toddler would work just as well as anyone else's. A camera doesn't comprehend what's going on in front of its lens, it simply records it, much like 15 mo old Harry's mind may have done. It would certainly make a nice way to tie up the loose ends, wouldn't it? No arguments allowed, this is who was there and who did what. Who was loyal to whom would be played out in glorious technicolor for all to see. There are people who'd have a big problem with that idea, the ones who believe pensieve memories are subjective and therefore would require some understading of the events and would be tainted by terror and emotion experienced by the rememberer (for lack of a better term). > > If DD couldn't figure out what had happened - why and how - from that lot, then he'd be a disgrace to his Chocolate Frog card. And quite frankly, to a lot of readers, after OoP, he's in danger of becoming that now. > > Add in a previous interpretation that 'neither can live while the other survives'> to mean that Lily and James must die for Harry to live, and if Bob isn't your> uncle, he's no further away than second cousin.> > Of course, nobody believes me (hides slight tremble to lower lip), but what > do I care. Onward I struggle, bearing a banner with a strange device.... I don't know why no one believes you, sure it means some syntax twisting, but it's nothing I would put past Jo Rowling, not by a long shot. We've had FIVE books to show us that what we thought we've read is not, in fact, what we've read at all. Is she setting us up for a rehabilitated Tom Riddle while we're all getting ready for a book seven blood-bath? Could be, could be. Mel From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 19:58:48 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:58:48 -0000 Subject: A BIAS...(mostly OT about formatting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" > wrote: > > > > > A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape > > > Oh no. Please tell me I haven't escaped over here only to be hit > *first thing* with the vampire thing again. I can't read this whole > post, the formatting is atrocious, but it looks suspiciously like the > old Vampire!Snape theory AGAIN. It's still all over the main list and > that's one of the main reasons I left. I quite agree, melclaros, the formatting is atrocious and I've put a fair amount of effort into trying to have my posts to format correctly. I've tried having the box marked "Wrap message text" checked and unchecked, I've tried composing in the box and composing in Word and pasting into the box. I've tried previewing text, then editing text, and it only gets worse. I've tried writing in short lines by manually inserting returns. I've privately sought advice in emails from a couple of experienced posters, and it has all been to no avail. I fear it may be because I am on a Mac and use Safari, but I can't figure out why that should necessarily be the cause. I will be most appreciative of any instruction that will allow me to get my posts well formated! FWIW, your post comes through with the same atrocious formatting on my computer, and I'm sure you didn't intend for it to be that way. As for the content, I'm with you. If you don't think you're going to like the content, then it is often a wise move to simply ignore that post and move to one that will be more enjoyable. Had you read on, you might have found that I don't think Snape is a full vampire (though I strongly suspect he is related to one), and my speculations are a bit different than those I have read on that big group in the couple of years I have followed it. But again, most of us read and contribute because it is fun, and if I'm not providing that for you, then I think you made a wise choice to skip over most of my post. Hoping I may be able to contribute to your enjoyment in the future, Lyn From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 20:04:29 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:04:29 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <019b01c51d07$8c7b6200$6601a8c0@...> "Lyn": OK folks, what follows is something I've batted around for better than a year now. I've never been able to get any takers to post it as part of their own ideas, so I am left with posting it on my own. or leaving it to lurk in the dark of my mind (I know, some may say a place it should have remained). Given the resurgence of discussion of this general topic on that big group, these thoughts may be timely, or just redundant, but I hope they may provide some amusement if not provoke some thought. Charme: The mind...a terrible place for such thoughts and coherent sentences to remain, when they have so much to contribute to Potterverse. :) Better yet, isn't a group like this the symbolic form of a Pensieve? :) Please note my comments inline.... The other line that has haunted me is from Snape's Worst Memory (page 647 of the American Hardbound edition) when James' responds to Lily's question of what Snape had ever done to James: "Well, said James, appearing to deliberate the points, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean.." ["exists" being italicized in the original]. Now James completes his statement to Lilly with the phrase, "if you know what I mean.." Which I think might be read as a reference to obvious characteristics that everyone could see in Snape, but also might be read as a coy statement to imply that James knew something about Snape that should be apparent but obviously Lilly didn't know. So what is it that is an innate characteristic of Snape that might arouse such enmity? But I think the chief clue can be found in what James does to Snape. James had almost unlimited options, but in an almost reflexive response to Snape drawing blood, James chose to hang Snape upside down. Now this is the very first time we find a student using this sort of hex or curse on another, though we are quite familiar with the previous ones James made ("Expelliamrus" "Impedimenta" "Scourgify") and the subsequent one Sirius uses ("Locomotor Mortis"). Much discussion of this scene has focused on the revealing of Snape's grey underwear, but I think the more important factor is the up-side-down position. And to what do we most associate hanging up-side-down, but a bat-- a round shouldered, angular, skinny legged, bat. I suggest that this inverted posture was very deliberate on James' part and was intended to reveal Snape for what he was, without overtly saying so. The revealed gray underwear is meant by JKR to serve as both a distraction and as a way of symbolizing that Snape's "dirty laundry" is now hung out in public for all to see. I also think it may have been symbolic that Snape drew blood from James' face, much like a vampire bat sucking blood (again, of all the many possible curses available to Snape at this time of intense stress and compromise, does he choose such a situationally ineffectual one). Charme now: Brilliant, really, :) I especially like the way you tied and interpreted the "fact he exists" James comment. Other than the legends of bats associated with vampires, maybe it's of interest to you (or perhaps you already know) that during the Middle Ages, Christians considered bats at one time the emissaries of the Devil and then the incarnation of the Devil himself. It has qualities of both the bird and the mouse, causing it to be used as a symbol of androgyne and thought to depict the mystery of creation or life in the universe. Symbolically, bats were also used as a sign of jealously or envy: those emotions seem to lurk and fester in the shadows and don't readily seek the light. Sounds like a appropriate relation to Snapey-poo to me. :) I think perhaps the point Sirius makes about Snape's nose lends some clue to what follows in your thoughts in this note: 'I was watching him, his nose was touching the parchment,' said Sirius viciously. There'll be great grease marks all over it, they won't be able to read a word.' Bats were thought to be myopic - while I know that's been debated in the scientific world both ways whether they are or aren't, but who knows what wizards believe. JKR might have just put that in there as a generalized "clue" most people would be able to get? Mind you, I think bats in the Snape belfry gets her off in the Snape "vampire" concept. So I think the allusion to the bat-like Snape as associated with vampires is quite strong, irrespective of JKR's half hearted denial " [Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JKR replies: Erm... I don't think so." There is the possibility that JKR was indicating that though she didn't consider Snape to fulfill the requirements to be a vampire in her world, that he might be considered by some of her characters to be so, or at least closely associated with one.] Now I suspect (and I also suggest that this may be what JKR is skirting around) that Snape is not a "full blood/full power" vampire, what ever that might be in Rowling's world, but is likely a mixed breed or descendent of a vampire. It is this status that may well have had Snape primed to use the "mudblood" epithet towards Lilly. Why?, because by being placed in the up-side-down position Snape was not only humiliated, but he was excruciatingly aware of what it represented and that his secret (and/or shame) was being symbolically disclosed. Quite interestingly, even in his frustration with Lilly, we do not see James (at least as of the prematurely ending of the scene), choosing to reveal Snape's status overtly. Charme again: I found some additional info to support your thoughts when looking at shamanism. Shamans (and indeed many native medicine men and spiritualists) frequently associated bats with death and rebirth. An upside down hanging position, such as the bat assumes when roosting, is seen as symbolic for learning to transpose one's former self into a newborn being. Thus the bat's appearance may signify the need for transformations, for letting go of old habits or ways of life and adopting new ones. Bat shows how change is necessary although it can be painful to let go of the past. As an animal of night and the dark it can also guide people through the darkness of confusion and help them face their fears. It is sometimes said to grant the gift of clear hearing and of 'listening between the lines'. Can you say "Snape"?? I knew you could. ;) So, is it really all that strange that this might truly have been Snape's worst memory? Now another, to my mind important, aspect of the scene is that Lupin is quite noticeably ill at ease throughout the confrontation with Snape. Though he sits on the sidelines, he is clearly disapproving: "Lupin was still staring down at his book, though his eyes were not moving and a faint frown line had appeared between his eyebrows." (page 645), and later in the scene, "Many of the surrounding watchers laughed.but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't." (page 647). Now this may very well be due to Lupin's disapproval of the bullying tactics of James and Sirius, but I'll offer another explanation for consideration. What if Lupin also knows of Snape's unchosen vampire association? If so, does this not place Snape and Lupin into a similar category of people who have not chosen and can not escape at least one defining aspect of their being? I shall be even braver and suggest that it was at this time that Lupin began to identify with Snape, and began to feel empathy with him. Charme thoughtfully: Yep, that makes sense. I have always thought when reading Snape's interaction when first bringing Lupin his potion in PoA that he sounded, well, almost cordial and conversational, for him anyway? "Ah, Severus," said Lupin, smiling. "Thanks very much. Could you leave it here on the desk for me?" Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry and Lupin. "I was just showing Harry my grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly, pointing at the tank. "Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink that directly, Lupin." "Yes, Yes, I will," said Lupin. "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more. "I should probably take some again tomorrow. Thanks very much, Severus." "Not at all," said Snape, but there was a look in his eye Harry didn't like. He backed out of the room, unsmiling and watchful. The "unsmiling and watchful" I can relate to Snape knowing Sirius, who was Lupin's friend, is loose and that Lupin's a werewolf and Snape's suspicious of Harry being along with Lupin. However, what gets me is the "I made an entire cauldronful if you need more" and the "not at all." From Snape almost conversational, helpful, that. Throwing all caution to the winds, and without one whit of canon for support, I shall suggest that the Prank occurred not because Sirius was intent on Snape's death, but that Sirius believed it would force Snape to reveal some vampire aspect of himself (be that a bat animagus, the ability to turn into a bat as part of his vampire like powers, or some other aspect of his being that is along these lines) to save himself from the werewolf. For Sirius, it would be a case of poetic justice administered to Snape for snooping into Lupin's compromised status. Charme, tongue in cheek: Ooooo, those canon-only addicted Potterheads are gonna *git us.* ;) Quick, where do I send the donation for their support? :) Now one of the aspects of the Prank that has always been so troublesome is that it was never made public. I submit this is because there were two secrets to maintain, Lupin's and Snape's. To reveal one would have resulted in the other becoming public as well, so some of the source of Snape's lasting resentment may well have been that he had to remain silent about a volitional wrong against him, in order to assure silence about a personal characteristic that he had no choice in acquiring and can not change. I also believe that the Prank cemented a bond between Lupin and Snape, and led to a friendship of sorts. It was his friendship (or at least overtures of that sort) with Snape that caused Lupin to become the Marauder first suspected of being a spy. Again, not a whiff of canon to support this friendship (except, just maybe in its very absence), but there are two pieces of canon that do become interesting to consider in light of these speculations. One is how nonplussed Lupin is with Snape assigning that Werewolf essay, and how Lupin then assigns a Vampire essay. It is almost like this is an inside joke between them. Second, in OOTP when Sirius and Lupin learn of Snape discontinuing the Occulemency lessons, it is Lupin who states he should be the one to talk to Snape. Why Lupin? , because they were once friends. A trivia footnote: There is a specific species of North American bat, the Pallid bat, that is able to catch and eat scorpions, being immune to scorpion venom. It can detect insects simply by listening for footsteps. Charme again: I agree this is all probable. I also think James and Sirius, who admitted in the Shrieking Shack that he thought Lupin was the spy, may have suspected Lupin simply because he did have or maintained a friendship during that time with Snape who at that time was known as DE before he converted to spy for DD. If you've watched the PoA movie, which JKR has acknowledged contains foreshadowing for future books, Lupin talks about Lily and her kindness and belief in him. Could be if that's really true, Lily understood and supported Lupin in his friendship with Snape, while James and Sirius were suspect of it. Your "trivia" footnote is more than trivia - bats hear so well, wouldn't this be absolutely perfect for a spy? Bats also eat spiders and cockroaches....where have we seen those before? ;) Great post and many thanks :) Charme From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 20:19:40 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:19:40 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <01d101c51d09$ab2b9b00$6601a8c0@...> From: "melclaros" > Oh no. Please tell me I haven't escaped over here only to be hit > *first thing* with the vampire thing again. I can't read this whole > post, the formatting is atrocious, but it looks suspiciously like the > old Vampire!Snape theory AGAIN. It's still all over the main list and > that's one of the main reasons I left. Charme, rather melodramatically and feigning despair: Oh no. *Please* tell me you didn't just say you thought this was the old Vampire!Snape theory you're hit with *first thing* without reading the post ;) BTW, if you care to share, why would the Vampire!Snape theory (or any theory) drive you away from a group? Not that I buy the extreme vampire thing BTW, but theories and speculation don't drive me away from anywhere I can discuss HP in a collaborative and thought provoking manner. On a serious note, I wonder why the formatting is messed up for you, as it isn't for me. Then again, I am using an email client and maybe that's why? Still Waitin' for Doom Over Here, Charme From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 20:40:39 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:40:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227204040.23761.qmail@...> I don't believe that Snape is a vampire. We're two books away from the end and it's a little late in the game to suddenly spring a major revelation like this about a character who's been on the main stage since Book 1. Especially since this particular character has a lot of backstory/Harry history to come out at the same time. The other issue is: what's the point - plotwise - of Snape being a vampire? Lupin's werewolfishness is integral to the plot in POA and to his character throughout the book. What would Snape's vampirishness contribute to our knowledge of him? Also: Lupin had his head buried in the book because he was torn between doing his duty as a prefect (and what was morally right) and not going against his friends. He was wavering, just like he wavered in POA about telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus and about the Marauder's map. Lupin thinks himself into a state where he's paralyzed. That's what he's doing here. Nor do I see any evidence that Snape and Lupin had any kind of friendship at any time. Certainly not during POA. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 21:20:23 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:20:23 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: <20050227204040.23761.qmail@...> Message-ID: <004b01c51d12$2ba55700$6601a8c0@...> From: "Magda Grantwich" >I don't believe that Snape is a vampire. We're two books away from > the end and it's a little late in the game to suddenly spring a major > revelation like this about a character who's been on the main stage > since Book 1. Especially since this particular character has a lot > of backstory/Harry history to come out at the same time. Charme: Ok, I'll bite (pardon the pun). :) I don't know that it's a little late in the game to spring anything, seeing as the next book is reportedly supposed contain a huge revelation about Lily, who may not have been on the "main stage" but certainly appears to have been referenced quite a bit in the books to date. In keeping with that theme and where Snape is regarded, a whole host of new revelations can come out about him and no matter what they are, all of them will be major simply because we love to analyze his character so much. :) I don't know that I believe this theory is about Snape being a vampire - its more subtle than that. For discussion's sake - curious though, what you think Snape might be then or what his big secret is? Or how references to vampires in the series might mean something else? If they don't, what makes you believe that? I ask this because why does JKR even mention blood flavored lollipops, vampire hunters, and a vampire essay if they don't mean anything to the story. In retrospect, Harry's grandparents (who mean very little to the plot per JKR) don't have even 1/10 of the detail the mentions of vampires do. I think vampires, I think bats. I'm weird that way :) I wonder if in JKR's world vampires *have* children. (I don't know - I'm mentioning it rhetorically) But that's a different thread altogether. > The other issue is: what's the point - plotwise - of Snape being a > vampire? Lupin's werewolfishness is integral to the plot in POA and > to his character throughout the book. What would Snape's > vampirishness contribute to our knowledge of him? Charme: A wild thought about this comment is during one of JKR's interviews early on, the interviewer mentioned that Snape had a curious redemptive pattern to him and asked JKR about it. Her reaction was to ask why the interviewer would think that - apparently, as I perceived when I read the interaction, she was little shaken by that and began asking questions back to the interviewer. Bats, not vampires, are symbolic of redemption, rebirth, change and the like in mythology and legend, hence how the correlation came to mind. And if Snapey Poo is in a redemptive pattern as the interviewer suggested to JKR, this might fit. Doesn't hurt to speculate and that's half the fun of being a Potterhead. I also think Lyn addressed what some vampish qualities (I like what I wrote there, makes Snape sound like a Porn Queen ) might contribute: Snape has had an even harder time than we suspected, and if he's really a DE "reformed" it's a testament to his moral values and ethics. > Also: Lupin had his head buried in the book because he was torn > between doing his duty as a prefect (and what was morally right) and > not going against his friends. He was wavering, just like he wavered > in POA about telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus and > about the Marauder's map. Lupin thinks himself into a state where > he's paralyzed. That's what he's doing here. > Nor do I see any evidence that Snape and Lupin had any kind of > friendship at any time. Certainly not during POA. Charme: Noted. Don't agree with you completely, but understand your POV. So, shall we wager us some FireWhisky? Coupla Honeydukes bars? :) From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 21:27:32 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:27:32 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <20050227204040.23761.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I don't believe that Snape is a vampire. We're two books away from > the end and it's a little late in the game to suddenly spring a major > revelation like this about a character who's been on the main stage > since Book 1. Especially since this particular character has a lot > of backstory/Harry history to come out at the same time. Lyn here: I saw these comments on that big group and personally find them to raise quite legitimate obstacles to the vampire theories. Indeed, most of my time as a HP reader, I too have discounted Snape as a vampire. Still, that line of Jame's did haunt me until I considered a vampire association (see, I still remain unwilling to consider Snape an out and out vampire). But that said, I don't know that I can agree with you that that Rowling would be springing on us any revelation about such an association, nor that if she did, it would be totally out of the character of her writing style (after all, at least within books she has sprung much on us). There are actually quite a few who subscribe to some sort of vampire theory, and I suspect even those who are not sympathetic can admit that their are a lot of individual descriptions and allusions that could raise such speculations. There are many revelations that have occured over time, for example, we didn't learn of Snapes DE status until the fourth book, we did not have James' bullying behavior revealed until the fifth book, and we had the prophecy not revealed until the fifth book. I for one fully expect additional revelations to be made, some of which may not seem all that discordant in the context of clues that have already been planted. > > The other issue is: what's the point - plotwise - of Snape being a > vampire? Lupin's werewolfishness is integral to the plot in POA and > to his character throughout the book. What would Snape's > vampirishness contribute to our knowledge of him? I think my theory may offer that point (of course you may not agree). It explains why the Prank was not made public, and it gives a reason why James and Snape could never reach a resolution (James always has something on Snape that Snape did not have on James).It also explains why Lupin was first considered the spy and may be again, and this may become quite relevant to the overall plot. It places Lupin mid way between Snape and Sirius. It continues with an underlying theme of people being tormented for differences they have no control over (Lupin as a werewolf, Harry as a wizard, Snape with his association to vampires). Sure things can be read differently, but much can also be understood as well by some form of vampire association. > > Also: Lupin had his head buried in the book because he was torn > between doing his duty as a prefect (and what was morally right) and > not going against his friends. He was wavering, just like he wavered > in POA about telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus and > about the Marauder's map. Lupin thinks himself into a state where > he's paralyzed. That's what he's doing here. A very fair and conservative reading that I think is most defensible. However, something similar might have been said in book one about Snape as the evil doer. Obviously JKR has entertained us with story lines that have been based on something other than the most obvious interpretation of the text. I toss mine out as a logically and canonically consistent alternative. It may be wrong, but it certainly would not be the first time that a less obvious interpretation of the text turned out to be the one most consistent with JKRs underlying story. > > Nor do I see any evidence that Snape and Lupin had any kind of > friendship at any time. Certainly not during POA. Charme offers her sense of one instance in an earlier post in this thread. I suggest that there are several hints to this in my thread. If all were obvious, there would be no mystery. Sometimes JKR is quite overt in the information she withholds from us (events at GH for instance, hardly any information on Lilly), other times she is more subtle, only time will tell. Regardless, I think it is great that you are skeptical. If we jumped en mass on every new speculation, there would be chaos. Still, it might not be so bad to take the time to probe and digest some less mainstream ideas. Afterall, few discoveries have been made by those in the mainstream. Lyn From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 21:28:25 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:28:25 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <01d101c51d09$ab2b9b00$6601a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > From: "melclaros" > Oh no. *Please* tell me you didn't just say you thought this was the old > Vampire!Snape theory you're hit with *first thing* without reading the post > ;) BTW, if you care to share, why would the Vampire!Snape theory (or any > theory) drive you away from a group? I read the post--the best I could without becoming dizzy. That's not a dig at the poster, I've seen formatting problems on lots of posts on lots of yahoo groups and there doesn't ever seem to be a specific reason for any of them. Why would it drive me away? Because it's been Done To Death. As the post just above posits, there is no reason for Snape to be anything other than what he is now, a thoroughly unpleasant human who may or may not be a "good guy". The Vampire!Snape crowd has thrown every possible wrench into the works over the past several YEARS (the latest one is mirrors, go look) and every single one of them has been logically and canonically disputed. The Pro-Vamp crowd takes every dispute and says "well we don't know what ROWLING'S vampires are like!" which admittedly is a better excuse than the sunscreen theory or the beaten to death "half-vampire" mess. No, we don't know what JKR's idea of a vampire is, but we do know they can't carry wands and we do know that Professor Snape has been seen quite frequently using his wand with some finesse. In this "new" post alone we have a discussion of The Pensieve Incident in which Snape is a teenager. If he was a vampire then, as is posited by the "it's just that he exists" comment theory, then he'd still "today" as Potionsmaster of Hogwarts all these many years on, be floating around in the body of that gangly teenager as vampires, once they become vampires, cease to age. It's a dead issue, no pun intended, and one that sets most old-timers' teeth on edge right along with The Thestral Question. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 22:28:28 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:28:28 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <00ae01c51d1b$a98511c0$6601a8c0@...> From: "melclaros" > > I read the post--the best I could without becoming dizzy. That's not a > dig at the poster, I've seen formatting problems on lots of posts on > lots of yahoo groups and there doesn't ever seem to be a specific > reason for any of them. Charme: Sorry to go all professional on you, but there are reasons for why formatting posts works from some systems and not from others. Most of them involve the browser or the email client on the desktop the user uses when performing the function. The reason I can read it fine is I receive posts via my email at Yahoo using my Outlook Express email client - my client converts his post properly. Yahoo's message posting application can't. The application on Yahoo's message groups are coded to work with a specific set of protocols and configurations invoked by the client when posting, and developed to include a specific allowable set of tested and compatible clients, both email and browsers. I've already sent a note to Lyn to assess this and slay that scurvy beast, as his email headers actually say he's posting from a different client than he specified in his reply back to the group. This can be a setting on the desktop which is denoting the client he's using isn't his default email or browser client; if it's not set properly, it takes what the default is and applies it to the message posted or sent which may not be compatible with Yahoo. All very facinating and probably extremely boring to you, but hey, I do what I can to spread information technology joy everywhere. :) . > Why would it drive me away? Because it's been Done To Death. As the > post just above posits, there is no reason for Snape to be anything > other than what he is now, a thoroughly unpleasant human who may or > may not be a "good guy". The Vampire!Snape crowd has thrown every > possible wrench into the works over the past several YEARS (the latest > one is mirrors, go look) and every single one of them has been > logically and canonically disputed. The Pro-Vamp crowd takes every > dispute and says "well we don't know what ROWLING'S vampires are > like!" which admittedly is a better excuse than the sunscreen theory > or the beaten to death "half-vampire" mess. No, we don't know what > JKR's idea of a vampire is, but we do know they can't carry wands and > we do know that Professor Snape has been seen quite frequently using > his wand with some finesse. Charme: A good point about Snape and his wand, however where did canon say vampires couldn't carry wands? I wish I knew the remainder of this sentence from GoF: "That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!" said Percy furiously. "Last week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about cauldron thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans-" Non Wizard Part-Humans? So, vampires are considered non wizard but half human? And werewolves are allowed wands? Compare that with this from GoF: "Here, look." Mr. Diggory held up a wand and showed it to Mr. Weasley. "Had it in her hand. So that's clause three of the Code of Wand Use broken, for a start. No non-human creature is permitted to carry or use a wand." Nope, I don't think this is quite the same statement, is it? Let me know if there's more that I missed, because I've done a search on all the books and I can't seem to find it using the keywords I used. And I wonder why it's so important to "stamp out vampires" as Rita Skeeter wrote, even kill them when Honeydukes thinks enough of their market to sell a blood-flavored lollipop. Curiouser and curiouser..... > In this "new" post alone we have a discussion of The Pensieve Incident > in which Snape is a teenager. If he was a vampire then, as is posited > by the "it's just that he exists" comment theory, then he'd still > "today" as Potionsmaster of Hogwarts all these many years on, be > floating around in the body of that gangly teenager as vampires, once > they become vampires, cease to age. > > It's a dead issue, no pun intended, and one that sets most old-timers' > teeth on edge right along with The Thestral Question. Charme, Maybe so WRT your comment regarding vampires ceasing to age, but I'm not yet convinced how they fit into the world JKR's created. But when I devise that....I'll...I'll do *something.* :) The other thing I'd like to ask is what exactly do you not consider a "dead issue?" I mean, what would you like to see that would be different and intriguing for you? From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 23:04:22 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:04:22 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <20050227204040.23761.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Magda wrote: > I don't believe that Snape is a vampire. We're two books away from > the end and it's a little late in the game to suddenly spring a major > revelation like this about a character who's been on the main stage > since Book 1. Especially since this particular character has a lot > of backstory/Harry history to come out at the same time. > > The other issue is: what's the point - plotwise - of Snape being a > vampire? Lupin's werewolfishness is integral to the plot in POA and > to his character throughout the book. What would Snape's > vampirishness contribute to our knowledge of him? Neri: I personally tend to think that the vampire!Snape theory is mistaking a metaphor for a mystery plot. I think that JKR has certainly planted vampire suggestions in her characterization of Snape. All the sweeping around in billowing black cloaks, the black cold eyes, living in the cold dungeons, etc. Moreover, there's a JKR's drawing of Snape that can be seen, held by Herself, in: http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/profsnape.jpg (warning: watching this picture is not recommended for those who think Snape is sexy). Except for the beard, this drawing is uncannily similar to the pictures of Bela Lugosi as count Dracula, for example this classic poster that even became a mail stamp: http://www.animationcelection.com/dracbig.htm And yet, all the attempts to link Snape to Potterverse vampires are shaky at best. Yes, there are several notes in the books about vampires as dark creatures, but not more than there are notes about hags, for example. There is the famous JKR rebuttal "Erm... I don't think so". And as Magda wrote, what would be the point, plot wise, of Snape being a vampire? So IMO the vampire thing is more of a characterization or a metaphor. JKR isn't hinting that Snape IS a vampire, but that there's something vampirish about Snape. What is it exactly is of course open to speculation. Personally, I suspect that Snape is connected with Voldy by some Dark Arts spell that makes Snape cold, perhaps part dead, and possibly in need of consuming other people's fear in order to survive. And such a thing would certainly be a plot point. Neri From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 23:06:56 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:06:56 -0000 Subject: my stupid replies Message-ID: Listies post wise thoughts and insightful theories so complete that I have only the most tangential trivial comments. Naama wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_o ld_crowd/message/1191 : << Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to think of the two questions: (snip) 2) Why didn't DD try to kill [Voldemort] in the MoM? (snip) I have to admit, though, that DD not trying to kill Voldemort didn't strike me as a mystery.) (big snip) until now, I could only conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really satisfied me, >> Pausing to admire your literary flourish of echoing DD's words 'merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit." When I read those words in OoP, I thought the real reason that DD didn't try to kill LV because DD believed from the Prophecy that he couldn't kill LV (because only Harry could) and he didn't want to try and fail and thus cure LV of fearing him. I was surprised when JKR's interview suggested that there was some more complicated reason. Sigune wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/1211 : << Also, it seems to me that AK evicts the *life* from its victim's body, rather than the soul specifically. but here, again, I may be taking a view with which you may not necessarily agree, namely that: when life goes from a body, the soul goes with it; but when the soul goes from a body, life does not necessarily go with it. (snip) Or alternatively, just like magical power, life force is dispersed at the moment of death. >> You've reminded me of one of my old hobbyhorses: all this Transfiguring between animate and inanimate things. Teacups into mice and teapots into tortoises and hedgehogs into pincushions ... When you Transfigure a live hedgehog into a not-alive pincushion, are you killing it? Like killing mice to dissect them in Bio Lab. When you Transfigure a china service into different animals, are you creating living things with life force inside them, are you creating life force? Creating life in a God-like way? Neri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/ 1223 : << This theory of course works only if DD and Snape think that they know how to break this connection in the crucial moment.>> Or if DD trusts Snape to be willing to die to further the goal of vanquishing LV, as Amanda does. That would explain the doubt in DD's voice when, at end of GoF, he asks Snape: Are you willing? Lyn kumayama wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1234 : << Therefore I think it likely that Peter was present, and very closely so, at GH that night, just to ensure that LV was not walking into a trap. >> That's what I believed until OoP revealed that LV really can detect when someone is lying to him (I had previously believed that that was a lie that LV told to frighten his followers). When he could Legilimens Peter to ensure it was not an ambush, he didn't need Peter to walk in front of him into the possible ambush. *sigh* Joywitch wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1236 : << One thing sticks out, though. It's really hard for me to believe that Dumbledore devised a plan to capture Voldemort that involved the death of an infant, or even the great likelihood of that death, and even harder for me to believe that he got that infant's parents to go along with it. >> Remember the really old theory that James and Lily were never in love, in fact each was in love with some other person, but they broke off their other engagements and married each other because DD persuaded them (presumably by a Prophecy) that only a child of theirs could defeat LV? If they were willing to have a baby together only to save the WW, how much bigger a stretch would it be to risk that baby's life for the goal? It might seem a smaller sacrifice to them than to us because they were planning to die themselves as part of the plan. I'm afraid it would break Harry's heart if he learned that his late mother, who died for him, hadn't loved him. Lyn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1261 : << I also think it may have been symbolic that Snape drew blood from James' face, much like a vampire bat sucking blood (again, of all the many possible curses available to Snape at this time of intense stress and compromise, does he choose such a situationally ineffectual one). >> Young Snape's curse may have been aimed to cut James' throat fatally, but James had good enough reflexes to duck so that it missed. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 23:31:51 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:31:51 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri: > I personally tend to think that the vampire!Snape theory is mistaking > a metaphor for a mystery plot. Lyn: Love the phrase "mistaking a metaphor for a mystery plot." Other than this litle theory I tossed out for consideration, your phrase captures the way I've tended to see things. Back to Neri >I think that JKR has certainly planted > vampire suggestions in her characterization of Snape. All the sweeping > around in billowing black cloaks, the black cold eyes, living in the > cold dungeons, etc. > > Moreover, there's a JKR's drawing of Snape that can be seen, held by > Herself, in: > http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/profsnape.jpg > > (warning: watching this picture is not recommended for those who think > Snape is sexy). > > Except for the beard, this drawing is uncannily similar to the > pictures of Bela Lugosi as count Dracula, for example this classic > poster that even became a mail stamp: > http://www.animationcelection.com/dracbig.htm > Lyn: Yep, it seems to me that JKR has intended for us to at least think of Snape according to that image, whether or not she intends him to be one. Back to Neri: > And yet, all the attempts to link Snape to Potterverse vampires are > shaky at best. Yes, there are several notes in the books about > vampires as dark creatures, but not more than there are notes about > hags, for example. There is the famous JKR rebuttal "Erm... I don't > think so". And as Magda wrote, what would be the point, plot wise, of > Snape being a vampire? Lyn: Of course this is the area where we have different assumptions. I rarely take JKR's interviews literally or definitively. Why the hesitation (particularly when she was apparently typing and didn't have to respond instantaneously) and why anything less than an unequivocal "No." To me her response is intended to be neither a positive nor negative disclosure of future events and underlying truth in the series. As for what would be the point with respect to the plot, I have offered several considerations in that regard. You many not find them worthy (and they may not be), but I do think significance to the plot has been addressed. Back to Neri > So IMO the vampire thing is more of a characterization or a metaphor. > JKR isn't hinting that Snape IS a vampire, but that there's something > vampirish about Snape. Lyn again; I like this paragraph, and it is really is part of where I was coming from in the original post. I don't expect Snape to be a full vampire, but there does seem to be a strong suggestion he is somehow associated with vampires. While I personally suspect it is in his ancestry (wouldn't it be interesting if that is what the scene between his presumed father and mother was all about), I don't think it controls his actions, or is his primary identity. I know you don't go even this far, but I'm not sure we are that far apart, either. Back to Neri: >What is it exactly is of course open to > speculation. Personally, I suspect that Snape is connected with Voldy > by some Dark Arts spell that makes Snape cold, perhaps part dead, and > possibly in need of consuming other people's fear in order to survive. > And such a thing would certainly be a plot point. Lyn: At least for me, that is an entertaining speculation. It could be fun if things play out that way too. From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 27 23:59:37 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:59:37 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <014001c51d28$6535f720$6601a8c0@...> > Neri: > I personally tend to think that the vampire!Snape theory is mistaking > a metaphor for a mystery plot. I think that JKR has certainly planted > vampire suggestions in her characterization of Snape. All the sweeping > around in billowing black cloaks, the black cold eyes, living in the > cold dungeons, etc. > > And yet, all the attempts to link Snape to Potterverse vampires are > shaky at best. Yes, there are several notes in the books about > vampires as dark creatures, but not more than there are notes about > hags, for example. There is the famous JKR rebuttal "Erm... I don't > think so". And as Magda wrote, what would be the point, plot wise, of > Snape being a vampire? > > So IMO the vampire thing is more of a characterization or a metaphor. > JKR isn't hinting that Snape IS a vampire, but that there's something > vampirish about Snape. What is it exactly is of course open to > speculation. Personally, I suspect that Snape is connected with Voldy > by some Dark Arts spell that makes Snape cold, perhaps part dead, and > possibly in need of consuming other people's fear in order to survive. > And such a thing would certainly be a plot point. Charme: Neri! How ya doin'? How's the cure coming? ;) You made me curious, so I had to check. And please note, with the proper technology (and geeky Potterheads who can't wait for JKR to get off her duff and make eBooks of the series), this takes about 5 minutes. Hags mentioned: (keyword "hag" or "hags") PS/SS - 1 CoS - 2 PoA - 1 GoF -2 OoP - 6 (a majority in describing or referring to Umbridge, and used especially by Hermoine) Total 12 Vampires mentioned: (keyword "vampire" or "vampires") PS/SS - 4 CoS - 6 (5 in reference to Gilderoy Lockhart's book title, in different sentences by or involving multiple major characters reading the book) PoA - 6 (3 in different sentences referencing Snape's assignment in DADA) GoF - 2 OoP - 2 Total 18 I think he's vampish, or somehow he's "associated" (notice, I did not say he's a vampire) with them. I also liked what you said about it being a metaphor for him, which I interpreted to be what Lyn posted. I'm still stuck on what threat vampires themselves were supposed to be towards wizards, because in my search, I also ran across this in OoP when Harry is taking his History of Magic OWL: "(How was the Statute of Secrecy breached in I 749 and what measures were introduced to prevent a recurrence?) but had a nagging suspicion that he had missed several important points; he had a feeling vampires had come into the story somewhere." What measures indeed? And where do vampires come into the story? If they are such a threat and there are such people in the WW as vampire hunters who *kill* them...it's all very baffling.... Charme From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 00:06:09 2005 From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:06:09 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <42226071.000001.00204@KATHRYN> Neri >I think that JKR has certainly planted > vampire suggestions in her characterization of Snape. All the sweeping > around in billowing black cloaks, the black cold eyes, living in the > cold dungeons, etc. > > Moreover, there's a JKR's drawing of Snape that can be seen, held by > Herself, in: > http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/profsnape.jpg > > (warning: watching this picture is not recommended for those who think > Snape is sexy). > K Thanks for the link to the image Neri, I'd never seen that before. My first impression admittedly is that he looks uncannily like Ming the Merciless and I refuse to picture him like that in my head, not because he's not attractive in it (as a fully paid up member of the Snape is Sexy school of thought I would refute the idea that sexiness and handsomeness are necessarily even vaguely related, I have never considered him to be physically attractive), but rather because if I was imagining him like that I'd never be able to take him seriously again. I also don't think he's a vampire (I was absolutely certain he wasn't but I do wonder a little now because really why couldn't JKR just give a categorical "No" in that case?) but that is a very stereotypical vampire pose. Any moment he's going to give an evil laugh and vanish in a puff of smoke - actually I don't know about a vampire pose now I come to think of it but rather it's a move every male pantomime villain in history has used at some point - if he offers to exchange new cauldrons for old, don't take him up on it, mark my words! Really I think the whole vampire thing originally was born from the whole dramatic, sweeping movement thing she keeps seeming to attribute to Snape, whereas I think what she was really trying to convey was the slightly old-fashioned, stern schoolmaster image of teachers in public schools/Tom Brown's Schooldays etc. I imagine if she'd really described a lot of the minor staff we might find similar descriptions - has anyone done an analysis into descriptions of McGonagall? Because I'm sure some of the same descriptions could be found about her if anyone really tried (I can't prove that canonically, having not analysed it, it's just an impression I get). Maybe even about some of the other main staff if it wasn't for the fact that vampires are rarely imagined as being three feet tall (Flitwick) and tend to have a fairly decent fashion sense (unlike Dumbledore) K [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 00:56:13 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:56:13 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Charme: >>> Oh no. *Please* tell me you didn't just say you thought this was the old Vampire!Snape theory you're hit with *first thing* without reading the post ;) BTW, if you care to share, why would the Vampire!Snape theory (or any theory) drive you away from a group? <<< Mel: >> I read the post--the best I could without becoming dizzy. That's not a dig at the poster, I've seen formatting problems on lots of posts on lots of yahoo groups and there doesn't ever seem to be a specific reason for any of them. Why would it drive me away? Because it's been Done To Death. As the post just above posits, there is no reason for Snape to be anything other than what he is now, a thoroughly unpleasant human who may or may not be a "good guy". << SSSusan: With a brief comment here. I've never been a fan of vampire!Snape, and I confess to arriving at the point of Lyn's post which discussed the "It's more that he *exists*..." remark and thinking, "Oh, come on. It's just to be taken at face value." BUT! After I read on, I really appreciated her take on the possibility of a bat or vampire connection. Why? Because one thing which has NEVER made sense to me is Snape's behavior post-prank. Here is this person, convinced these guys had tried to KILL him -- and who still, to this day, feels compelled to remind DD of the fact ["Surely you recall what they tried to do to me, Headmaster" (paraphrased)], but yet he DID NOT SPILL THE BEANS AT THE TIME. We know that DD forbade Snape's telling, but what in the world could DD have held over Snape to have prevented him from telling? Expulsion, you might argue, but even if that were taken as a possibility, then WHY would Snape not *despise* DD to this day for bribing him into silence, for risking the safety & well-being of all those Hogwarts students by making him stay silent? Yet clearly he does not detest DD. Rather, he clearly respects and trusts DD, follows his orders. Why does he do this? Today we might say he follows orders because DD accepted him back, trusts him in return. But if Snape was *that* livid about the Marauders' behavior towards him, including the prank and the humiliation scene we see in the pensieve memory, I find it very hard to believe that DD's instructing him to keep quiet about a *werewolf* at the school would have been effective at that time. UNLESS DD had something quite compelling to "remind" Snape of. Something perhaps like his own status as a feared & mistrusted being. The one part of Lyn's post which I have trouble accepting fully is the following: >>> I also believe that the Prank cemented a bond between Lupin and Snape, and led to a friendship of sorts. It was his friendship (or at least overtures of that sort) with Snape that caused Lupin to become the Marauder first suspected of being a spy. Again, not a whiff of canon to support this friendship (except, just maybe in its very absence), but there are two pieces of canon that do become interesting to consider in light of these speculations. One is how nonplussed Lupin is with Snape assigning that Werewolf essay, and how Lupin then assigns a Vampire essay. It is almost like this is an inside joke between them. Second, in OOTP when Sirius and Lupin learn of Snape discontinuing the Occulemency lessons, it is Lupin who states he should be the one to talk to Snape. Why Lupin? , because they were once friends.<<< SSSusan: The reason I question this is that it appears it was *Snape* who let "slip" the fact of Lupin's werewolf status after the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA. Would he do that if they were still cordial & somewhat friendly? Or would you postulate that, because Snape believed Lupin *helped* the murderous Black, Snape would've stopped feeling any sense of amity towards Lupin? Siriusly Snapey Susan From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 01:21:04 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:21:04 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <014001c51d28$6535f720$6601a8c0@...> Message-ID: > Charme: > > Neri! How ya doin'? How's the cure coming? ;) You made me curious, so I > had to check. Neri: In the last day there wasn't much of an improvement, I fear. > Charme: > And please note, with the proper technology (and geeky > Potterheads who can't wait for JKR to get off her duff and make eBooks of > the series), this takes about 5 minutes. > Neri: I've been using this technology for at least two years now. As I've found out in HPfGU, however, we'd better keep it off-list. > Charme: > Hags mentioned: (keyword "hag" or "hags") > PS/SS - 1 > CoS - 2 > PoA - 1 > GoF -2 > OoP - 6 (a majority in describing or referring to Umbridge, and used > especially by Hermoine) > Total 12 > > Vampires mentioned: (keyword "vampire" or "vampires") > PS/SS - 4 > CoS - 6 (5 in reference to Gilderoy Lockhart's book title, in different > sentences by or involving multiple major characters reading the book) > PoA - 6 (3 in different sentences referencing Snape's assignment in DADA) > GoF - 2 > OoP - 2 > Total 18 > Neri: If you want to be geeky and quantitative, that's fine by me. I've just ran a t-test on your numbers (takes about 5 minutes in Excel) and guess what: the difference is not statistically significant. To be specific, the p-value is 0.38. This means (for the non-quantitative types here) that there is a 38% chance to get the difference above just by pure coincidence. Scientists usually don't trust a difference as meaningful unless this chance is 5% at most, but of course, scientists are notoriously boring and overly-suspicious bunch. > Charme: > I think he's vampish, or somehow he's "associated" (notice, I did not say > he's a vampire) with them. I also liked what you said about it being a > metaphor for him, which I interpreted to be what Lyn posted. I'm still stuck > on what threat vampires themselves were supposed to be towards wizards, > because in my search, I also ran across this in OoP when Harry is taking his > History of Magic OWL: > "(How was the Statute of Secrecy breached in I 749 and what measures were > introduced to prevent a recurrence?) but had a nagging suspicion that he had > missed several important points; he had a feeling vampires had come into the > story somewhere." > > What measures indeed? And where do vampires come into the story? If they are > such a threat and there are such people in the WW as vampire hunters who > *kill* them...it's all very baffling.... > Neri: All possible, of course, but like Magda I'm still wondering: what would be the point? How would it play in the plot? The advantage of thinking about Snape as vampish ONLY in a metaphorical sense (with no connection at all to "real" Potterverse vampires) is that it has obvious plot implications, and you don't have to ask yourself what he had for lunch or why JKR lied to us. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 01:57:07 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:57:07 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: >snip down to the statistical stuff< > > Charme: > > Hags mentioned: (keyword "hag" or "hags") > > PS/SS - 1 > > CoS - 2 > > PoA - 1 > > GoF -2 > > OoP - 6 (a majority in describing or referring to Umbridge, and used > > especially by Hermoine) > > Total 12 > > > > Vampires mentioned: (keyword "vampire" or "vampires") > > PS/SS - 4 > > CoS - 6 (5 in reference to Gilderoy Lockhart's book title, in > different > > sentences by or involving multiple major characters reading the book) > > PoA - 6 (3 in different sentences referencing Snape's assignment in > DADA) > > GoF - 2 > > OoP - 2 > > Total 18 > > > > > Neri: > If you want to be geeky and quantitative, that's fine by me. I've just > ran a t-test on your numbers (takes about 5 minutes in Excel) and > guess what: the difference is not statistically significant. To be > specific, the p-value is 0.38. This means (for the non-quantitative > types here) that there is a 38% chance to get the difference above > just by pure coincidence. Scientists usually don't trust a difference > as meaningful unless this chance is 5% at most, but of course, > scientists are notoriously boring and overly-suspicious bunch. > Lyn now: It can be fun to be "geeky and quantitative" sometimes but in this case a t-test is not appropriately applied and thus the results are not meaningful. A frequency table (which, of course is what Charme did) is appropriate, but the assumptions for a t-test is that the event can occur randomly. Now if it were the use of a word like "other" that might be used undeliberatively, you might consider its use at least quasi-random and get by with it (and indeed I am sure you are aware there are analysis routines that do just this). However, words like hag and vampire are selected deliberately and thus are no longer open to random inclusion in the text, thus a t-test would be misapplied for this sort of data. > snipping some interesting canon background provided by Charme> > > Neri: > All possible, of course, but like Magda I'm still wondering: what > would be the point? How would it play in the plot? The advantage of > thinking about Snape as vampish ONLY in a metaphorical sense (with no > connection at all to "real" Potterverse vampires) is that it has > obvious plot implications, and you don't have to ask yourself what he > had for lunch or why JKR lied to us. > Lyn again: But Neri, I know I in the flagship post in this thread, and most others who have entertained some aspect of it, have never said we believe Snape is a full vampire, only that he has some association to vampires (an association that might still damn him in the eyes of some, not unlike how Hagrid or MM are not full giants-or even identify much with them--, but the knowledge of their lineage diminishes him in the eyes of some). If such were the case, it would be easy for Rowling to say she does not consider Snape a vampire (i.e, "I don't think so.") without lying or most of us considering her engaging in a lie. You keep asking what point it would play in the plot, even though I have given several examples of how it could, and both Charme and SSSusan have mentioned the significance in their own views. To reiterate just one that SSS discussed as well, it would explain why Snape remained silent about the Prank, and why he may have retained resentment over it. As just an aside, would it really be all that strange for DD to have admitted more than one student that most would have considered unfit to attend Hogwarts? Frankly, it seems more likely to me that DD would have been responsible to opening the school to many young students who would previously have been denied admission due to prejudice. Snape having an innate status that lends to prejudice would only buttress some of the points JKR is making, Indeed, isn't there somewhat of an underlying theme througout the books that we all have some inward "flaw/deficiency," and it is how we overcome that that so shapes our character. Lyn From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 02:01:44 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:01:44 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <00ae01c51d1b$a98511c0$6601a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > A good point about Snape and his wand, however where did canon say vampires > couldn't carry wands? It's in Fantastic Beasts etc. I'd look it up but I'd have to go into my kid's rooms for it and I'm not prepared to risk my life over it. Vampires are classified as beings and like house-elves and other non-human magical creatures may not carry wands. I wish I knew the remainder of this sentence from > GoF: > > "That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!" said Percy furiously. > "Last week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about cauldron > thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't > specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the Treatment > of Non-Wizard Part-Humans-" I fail to see how this relates to Severus Snape in any way, shape or form. Actually it points to a huge flaw in how vampires are treated in Rowlings world. They're non-human magical creatures and thus marginalized. We're told there are Vampire Hunters who go around "stamping out" vampires (or at least there are folk who think they should be) and while all that's going on, as you noted, Honeydukes is selling them blood-flavored lollies. Or are they. IIRC, it's stated that someone "thinks" that's what/who they're for. > > > Non Wizard Part-Humans? So, vampires are considered non wizard but half > human? And werewolves are allowed wands? Compare that with this from GoF: > > "Here, look." Mr. Diggory held up a wand and showed it to Mr. Weasley. "Had > it in her hand. So that's clause three of the Code of Wand Use broken, for a > start. No non-human creature is permitted to carry or use a wand." Ta Da. It appears werewolves are considered fully human while vampires are not human at all--at least in Rowling's Potterverse. And yes, I see the complete and utter illogic there. The other thing I'd like to ask is > what exactly do you not consider a "dead issue?" I mean, what would you like > to see that would be different and intriguing for you? There are Far, FAR more interesting topics to discuss and always have been. My two favorite topics from my days on that other list (this is The "Old Crowd" isn't it?) are: 1) what went on at Godric's Hollow and what was Snape's role in it--as I am one of those convinced he was there; and 2) Was Snape in fact the eavesdropper? Discuss amongst yourselves. From snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 03:03:14 2005 From: snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:03:14 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Lyn, great post! Lyn: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape >snip< when James' responds to Lily's question of what Snape had ever done to James: "Well, said James, appearing to deliberate the points, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean ." ["exists" being italicized in the original]. >snip< Now James completes his statement to Lilly with the phrase, "if you know what I mean ." Which I think might be read as a reference to obvious characteristics that everyone could see in Snape, but also might be read as a coy statement to imply that James knew something about Snape that should be apparent but obviously Lilly didn't know. >snip< The Pensieve scene gives us several descriptions of the teenage Snape: "stringy, " "pallid," "like a plant kept in the dark," "hair was lank and greasy," and "round-shouldered yet angular, he walked in a twitchy manner that recalled a spider," "oily hair swinging, " "skinny, pallid legs." >snip< But I think the chief clue can be found in what James does to Snape. James had almost unlimited options, but in an almost reflexive response to Snape drawing blood, James chose to hang Snape upside down. >snip< So I think the allusion to the bat-like Snape as associated with vampires is quite strong, irrespective of JKR's half hearted denial " [Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JKR replies: Erm... I don't think so." There is the possibility that JKR was indicating that though she didn't consider Snape to fulfill the requirements to be a vampire in her world >snip< Throwing all caution to the winds, and without one whit of canon for support, I shall suggest that the Prank occurred not because Sirius was intent on Snape's death, but that Sirius believed it would force Snape to reveal some vampire aspect of himself (be that a bat animagus, the ability to turn into a bat as part of his vampire like powers, or some other aspect of his being that is along these lines) to save himself from the werewolf. Snow: I was just considering this aspect of Snape myself. I personally like the twist you put on Snape as being related to a vampire rather than an animagus form of a bat. All of the posts that I have read only consider Snape as turning into a bat or vampire, animagically (is that a word). Snape appears to have the qualities of a vampire but he may not actually be one. In this respect Rowling can answer the question as to whether or not Snape is a vampire in a diverse manner. If Snape is a half-breed, we know that he is not pureblood; he may only be affected to vampire tendency to the degree of characteristics of a vampire i.e. pallid skin, preferring the dark, or even lack of reflection but not the blood sucking transformation of a vampire. It is the latter reference to the vampire that virtually has me sold as to whether or not Snape has any relation to vampirism. Consider the Foe-glass in GOF and Snape's response to it; Snape is staring at it as though he had never seen his own reflection. That scene has always puzzled me until I related it with Snape having some characteristic of a vampire that cannot see his reflection. I don't believe that Snape has all the abilities of a vampire but that he does carry a distinct characteristic to a vampire because of his blood relationship. Snape's animagus form, which JKR has said she would not comment on because it would give too much away, would need to be reevaluated in this consideration. I may suggest that because of the bat or bird like form that a vampire would take, Snape's animagus form could be, say, an eagle. Another puzzlement, to me, is the fact that in the beginning chapter of GOF, babymort is carried into the room of the Riddle manor by an eagle. There is also an eagle that flies over Hagrid's cabin that most writers have attributed to correspondence between Voldemort and Crouch Jr. as Moody. I'm not at all certain that Snape is helping Voldemort in such a manner as this, unless it was advised by Dumbledore to do so, because I truly believe that whatever Snape is, he has actually changed sides. Lyn: I also believe that the Prank cemented a bond between Lupin and Snape, and led to a friendship of sorts. Snow: It may, however, be one-sided. Lupin felt sympathy to Snape but not vice versa because Lupin could relate to such prejudice and feel empathy and Snape never considered it because he lacks such insight to others emotions. Again, great post Lyn! Snow From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 03:06:56 2005 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:06:56 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape References: Message-ID: <029d01c51d42$90569e90$6601a8c0@...> >> A good point about Snape and his wand, however where did canon say > vampires >> couldn't carry wands? > > > It's in Fantastic Beasts etc. I'd look it up but I'd have to go into > my kid's rooms for it and I'm not prepared to risk my life over it. > Vampires are classified as beings and like house-elves and other > non-human magical creatures may not carry wands. > Charme: Lucky for me, I've got my own copy, so no life risking necessary. :) There's only one mention of vampires (as they are not a beast, but a being as you said) and that is actually in a small footnote on page xiii explaining that centaurs didn't like being classified as a "being" with hags and vampires, so they bugged out to manage their own affairs. I'm still looking for where it explains this specifically what you've stated, because I'm very interested to see it. Should you come across it down the road, I'd love to know where you found it (it's not even on Lexicon - and they have a vampire "section" and "code of wand use" under the MoM pages.) In the mean time, I'll keep looking. Weird, though. Goblins are mentioned a bit, along with hags, centaurs and trolls, but no mention of elves or vampires in the opening "history" portion of the book. Just makes you wonder. > I wish I knew the remainder of this sentence from >> GoF: >> >> "That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!" said Percy > furiously. >> "Last week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about > cauldron >> thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't >> specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the > Treatment >> of Non-Wizard Part-Humans-" > > I fail to see how this relates to Severus Snape in any way, shape or > form. Actually it points to a huge flaw in how vampires are treated in > Rowlings world. They're non-human magical creatures and thus > marginalized. We're told there are Vampire Hunters who go around > "stamping out" vampires (or at least there are folk who think they > should be) and while all that's going on, as you noted, Honeydukes is > selling them blood-flavored lollies. Or are they. IIRC, it's stated > that someone "thinks" that's what/who they're for. Charme: It's Hermoine who specifies they're for vampires, she "expects" in PoA. Forgive me for posting that quote to you in the first place, but I thought perhaps it might relate if we knew what the "Guidelines" were, that's all. As there is no entry in Fantastic Beasts for them, and there is for werewolves, I thought it might be someplace else in the books and I missed it. > The other thing I'd like to ask is >> what exactly do you not consider a "dead issue?" I mean, what would > you like >> to see that would be different and intriguing for you? > > There are Far, FAR more interesting topics to discuss and always have > been. My two favorite topics from my days on that other list (this is > The "Old Crowd" isn't it?) are: 1) what went on at Godric's Hollow and > what was Snape's role in it--as I am one of those convinced he was > there; and 2) Was Snape in fact the eavesdropper? > > Discuss amongst yourselves. Charme: Thanks - I'll keep those in mind. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 03:17:46 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:17:46 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A reply to SS Susan's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > snip of lots of good stuff to deal directly with the following point< > The one part of Lyn's post which I have trouble accepting fully is > the following: > >>> I also believe that the Prank cemented a bond between Lupin and > Snape, and led to a friendship of sorts. It was his friendship (or > at least overtures of that sort) with Snape that caused Lupin to > become the Marauder first suspected of being a spy. Again, not a > whiff of canon to support this friendship (except, just maybe in its > very absence), but there are two pieces of canon that do become > interesting to consider in light of these speculations. One is how > nonplussed Lupin is with Snape assigning that Werewolf essay, and how > Lupin then assigns a Vampire essay. It is almost like this is an > inside joke between them. Second, in OOTP when Sirius and Lupin > learn of Snape discontinuing the Occulemency lessons, it is Lupin > who states he should be the one to talk to Snape. Why Lupin? , > because they were once friends.<<< > > SSSusan: > The reason I question this is that it appears it was *Snape* who > let "slip" the fact of Lupin's werewolf status after the Shrieking > Shack scene in PoA. Would he do that if they were still cordial & > somewhat friendly? Or would you postulate that, because Snape > believed Lupin *helped* the murderous Black, Snape would've stopped > feeling any sense of amity towards Lupin? > Lyn Now: It does seem incompatible, doesn't it? But I think you already have provided the basis to reconcile the events.To flesh it out: I doubt that Lupin and Snape could ever have become close friends in the way that James and Sirius were--if for no other reason than that they were both too internally tormented and socially precarious--but I do suspect they developed a mutual appreciation for each other's circumstance, and that there was a moderately long overture to a friendship. The problem was likely in that perhaps only Lilly could fully reconcile that Lupin might be a friend to both his fellow Marauders and Snape. Otherwise, I am suggesting that the closer Lupin drew to one side, the more he was alientated by the other. What a terrible spot for the socially fragile Lupin, what a torment. But I suspect that Lupin did continue to support Snape and may have even been instrumental in Snape leaving the DE. Just for the fun of rank speculation, what if Snape was assigned to kill a specific Order Member--Lupin? Regardless, to come back to your concern, you note that Snape only reveals Lupin after Lupin has a reconciliation with Sirius in the Shreiking shack. In that scene Lupin is forced into a situation of choosing between Snape and Sirius, and Lupin sides with Sirius. I would suggest that this fractured the delicate friendship, at least temporarily, in a way that Lupin could predict and anticipate. Indeed, the Shrieking Shack may well have been a greater moment of courage than we have recognized in Lupin, for which he knew he would pay a price. In the end, the friendship with Snape was fractured, but perhaps never entirely eliminated. It should be interesting to see what kind of relationship exists between Lupin and Snape, now that Sirius has left the picture. All, of course, presented as an alternative to entertain and amuse, but nothing more than unencumbered speculation taking flight. Lyn From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 03:44:28 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:44:28 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn now: It can be fun to be "geeky and quantitative" sometimes but in this case a t-test is not appropriately applied and thus the results are not meaningful. A frequency table (which, of course is what Charme did) is appropriate, but the assumptions for a t-test is that the event can occur randomly. Now if it were the use of a word like "other" that might be used undeliberatively, you might consider its use at least quasi-random and get by with it (and indeed I am sure you are aware there are analysis routines that do just this). However, words like hag and vampire are selected deliberately and thus are no longer open to random inclusion in the text, thus a t-test would be misapplied for this sort of data. Neri: (Warning: "geeky and quantitative" stuff ahead) Words like "other" are also used for some reason, not randomly. Scientists believe *everything* happens because of some reason and nothing is truly random (or at least, nothing above quantum level), and yet they use t-test all the time. The question is not if it's random, but if the reason JKR chose the word is indeed the reason that we hypothesize. That is, suppose JKR describes the clientele of the Hog's Head and she thinks: " I must throw in some non-human here to make it more colorful. Now what will it be? A hag? A vampire? A banshee? A veela? OK, lets have a hag because it just seems the sort that would hang in the Hog's Head". In this case you'd expect that overall vampires would be mentioned a similar number of times as other non-humans. But suppose JKR goes like: "what non-human should I use? Wait! I must put in some vampires and also supply some information about them, so when I reveal in Book 7 that Snape is half vampire they won't say I didn't play fair". In such a case you'd expect that vampires would be mentioned considerably more than other non-humans that don't play a key role in the story. This is the usual situation in which t-test is used. Now, if you really want to catch me in a statistical error you could have said something like "t-test assumes a normal distribution and you don't know that. You should have used a non-parametric test" which is perfectly true, only non-parametric tests have less power than parametric tests, so I sincerely doubt that a non-parametric test would have found a significant difference where t-test didn't. Lyn: You keep asking what point it would play in the plot, even though I have given Several examples of how it could, and both Charme and SSSusan have mentioned the Significance in their own views. To reiterate just one that SSS discussed as well, it would explain why Snape remained silent about the Prank, and why he may have retained resentment over it. Neri: You can always suggest how to connect something to the plot. I guess what Magda and I meant is to ask "what major mystery would it solve?" I mean, Snape being a vampire or half vampire or whatever is a quite a big bang. Bigger than Hagrid being half giant. Bigger even than Lupin being a werewolf, which was a one-book mystery, not a five-book mystery. It doesn't look like JKR would make Snape part vampire only to plug a minor plot hole about the prank or something like that. It should be something very important. I mean, if you said that he spies on Voldy and the DEs by turning into a bat and hanging over their heads, well I'm not sure I'd buy that, but at least it would be a worthy reason to make Snape a vampire. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 05:13:53 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:13:53 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Lyn now: > It can be fun to be "geeky and quantitative" sometimes but in this > case a t-test > is not appropriately applied and thus the results are not meaningful. > A frequency table > (which, of course is what Charme did) is appropriate, but the > assumptions for a t-test is > that the event can occur randomly. Now if it were the use of a word > like "other" that > might be used undeliberatively, you might consider its use at least > quasi-random and get by with it (and indeed I am sure you are aware > there are analysis routines that do just this). > However, words like hag and vampire are selected deliberately and thus > are no longer open to random inclusion in the text, thus a t-test > would be misapplied for this sort of > data. > > > Neri: > (Warning: "geeky and quantitative" stuff ahead) > Words like "other" are also used for some reason, not randomly. > Scientists believe *everything* happens because of some reason and > nothing is truly random (or at least, nothing above quantum level), > and yet they use t-test all the time. The question is not if it's > random, but if the reason JKR chose the word is indeed the reason that > we hypothesize. That is, suppose JKR describes the clientele of the > Hog's Head and she thinks: " I must throw in some non-human here to > make it more colorful. Now what will it be? A hag? A vampire? A > banshee? A veela? OK, lets have a hag because it just seems the sort > that would hang in the Hog's Head". In this case you'd expect that > overall vampires would be mentioned a similar number of times as other > non-humans. But suppose JKR goes like: "what non-human should I use? > Wait! I must put in some vampires and also supply some information > about them, so when I reveal in Book 7 that Snape is half vampire they > won't say I didn't play fair". In such a case you'd expect that > vampires would be mentioned considerably more than other non-humans > that don't play a key role in the story. This is the usual situation > in which t-test is used. Now, if you really want to catch me in a > statistical error you could have said something like "t-test assumes a > normal distribution and you don't know that. You should have used a > non-parametric test" which is perfectly true, only non-parametric > tests have less power than parametric tests, so I sincerely doubt that > a non-parametric test would have found a significant difference where > t-test didn't. > Lyn now: Some might consider me to be well trained as a "scientist" and as one who uses SPSS almost daily and who has taught statistics to doctoral students, I'm not unfamiliar with the proper selection and application of a fair number of statistical tests. Yes, I could have discussed the assumptions required for parametric vs nonparametric tests, homoscedasticity, power and the like, which is really nothing more than Statistics 101, but all of that as it applies to the kind of differences you were suggesting you could test rests on the basic foundation of chance, so why not skip to what is not only foundational but also apprehendable to the general audience, which is that Rowling's choice of words is not random, they are driven by a story line. I am confident you don't believe that she chose her words by pulling them from a hat, and I am also confident you know that there are greater complexities to her choice of words than you are indicating. It isn't "geeky" to generate pseudo-statistical arguments, it is deceptive, though I don't think you meant for it to be. > Lyn: > You keep asking what point it would play in the plot, even though I > have given > Several examples of how it could, and both Charme and SSSusan have > mentioned the > Significance in their own views. To reiterate just one that SSS > discussed as well, it would > explain why Snape remained silent about the Prank, and why he may have > retained resentment over it. > > > Neri: > You can always suggest how to connect something to the plot. I guess > what Magda and I meant is to ask "what major mystery would it solve?" > I mean, Snape being a vampire or half vampire or whatever is a quite a > big bang. Bigger than Hagrid being half giant. Bigger even than Lupin > being a werewolf, which was a one-book mystery, not a five-book > mystery. It doesn't look like JKR would make Snape part vampire only > to plug a minor plot hole about the prank or something like that. It > should be something very important. I mean, if you said that he spies > on Voldy and the DEs by turning into a bat and hanging over their > heads, well I'm not sure I'd buy that, but at least it would be a > worthy reason to make Snape a vampire. Lyn again: Yet I would hope you can allow from the posts that have been made, that at least for some of us, a "worthy reason" for Snape to have some association to Vampires and thus perhaps some vampire-like characteristics, has been suggested. Obviously the things that satisfy some of us, don't satisfy you. Of course if it we all agreed, then there wouldn't be much point to these speculations and discussions, and that would be a real loss of enjoyment, at least for me. So keep firing away Neri, it keeps us all thinking and discussing, and indeed, even coming up with new speculations. Lyn From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 06:52:30 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:52:30 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn now: Some might consider me to be well trained as a "scientist" and as one who uses SPSS almost daily and who has taught statistics to doctoral students, I'm not unfamiliar with the proper selection and application of a fair number of statistical tests. Yes, I could have discussed the assumptions required for parametric vs nonparametric tests, homoscedasticity, power and the like, which is really nothing more than Statistics 101, but all of that as it applies to the kind of differences you were suggesting you could test rests on the basic foundation of chance, so why not skip to what is not only foundational but also apprehendable to the general audience, which is that Rowling's choice of words is not random, they are driven by a story line. I am confident you don't believe that she chose her words by pulling them from a hat, and I am also confident you know that there are greater complexities to her choice of words than you are indicating. It isn't "geeky" to generate pseudo-statistical arguments, it is deceptive, though I don't think you meant for it to be. Neri: You are certainly a better-trained statistician than me, and I apologize if you were offended by my "warning". It was not directed at you, but as a kind of OT warning for members that find such stuff boring. I agree with you very much about the inadequacy of my pseudo-statistics, and I think you'll probably agree with me that if vampires were mentioned 18 times and hags 12 times, it doesn't imply that vampires are more important to the story than Hags. My original meaning (before Charme started counting) was just to say that an argument like "JKR mentions vampires and therefore Snape could be a half vampire" is not a stronger argument than "JKR mentions hags and therefore McGonnagall could be a half hag". Lyn again: Yet I would hope you can allow from the posts that have been made, that at least for some of us, a "worthy reason" for Snape to have some association to Vampires and thus perhaps some vampire-like characteristics, has been suggested. Obviously the things that satisfy some of us, don't satisfy you. Of course if it we all agreed, then there wouldn't be much point to these speculations and discussions, and that would be a real loss of enjoyment, at least for me. So keep firing away Neri, it keeps us all thinking and discussing, and indeed, even coming up with new speculations. Neri: I was of course only stating my opinion when I talked about "worthy reason". But it seems that many members here and in HPfGU don't believe the vampire thing even in the strictly metaphorical sense. Actually, only two weeks or so ago there was a fun pole in the OTC list of HPfGU that included also the question "is Snape a vampire?" I think that out of 20 or 30 people who answered it, only Pippin and myself answered something other than a firm "no". So, as someone who thinks that there actually MIGHT be something in the vampire thing, I was trying to put my finger on why many people don't like this speculation. Neri From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 09:04:34 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:04:34 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > I was of course only stating my opinion when I talked about "worthy > reason". But it seems that many members here and in HPfGU don't > believe the vampire thing even in the strictly metaphorical sense. > Actually, only two weeks or so ago there was a fun pole in the OTC > list of HPfGU that included also the question "is Snape a vampire?" I > think that out of 20 or 30 people who answered it, only Pippin and > myself answered something other than a firm "no". So, as someone who > thinks that there actually MIGHT be something in the vampire thing, I > was trying to put my finger on why many people don't like this > speculation. > > Neri I come from the `Snape is not a vampire' camp because I believe that the idea is tired and lazy, if it were true then JKR would be a less satisfactory author for me and I don't want to be disappointed. We've seen unregistered animagi, mixed blood prejudice, hidden mixed blood etc possibly more than enough, I really would be unhappy to see it as Snape's secret. To be honest I've skipped most vamp Snape posts because they tend to fall into the entrenched `oh yes he is`, `oh no he isn't' exchanges. Also I'm not overly keen on the whole vamp mythology, it has never really spoken to me (this from a huge Buffy fan btw!). And yet the posts here have been so compelling I've revisited my position. The problem I have is, as I say, that its unoriginal given the rest of the series, so I started contemplating how JKR could make it different and interesting. Take that interview response: Is Snape a vampire? Erm, I don't think so Could the rest of the answer be `but if he *chose* to be he could be`. In keeping with vamp mythology to become a vamp you have to drink your sire's blood, in other words you have to opt to be a vamp or a victim. Now that is consistent with HP themes, the theme in fact. Haggrid and Lupin have no choice regarding their heritage but vamp! Snape might have actually sought out vamp power. This would give him a parallel to Voldy's immortality quest. More grist to the mill. Young Snape may have made a very poor decision which he regrets and that haunts him still. Perhaps he's not safe yet. If Snape is keeping his vampirism at bay by force of will, not giving into temptation or similar, he'd certainly have an excuse for being cranky! No sympathy with Harry's `I can't' response to occlumency whatsoever, Harry hasn't got a clue about the battle Snape has to undergo daily. He'd view Lupin with both pity and envy. Pity because Lupin has lost the battle, envy because the struggle is over and he's blameless. If taking bat form threatens his control over his latent vampirism then DD's request would be a great one indeed. Plenty of room for the reader and Harry to doubt Snape's true identity, plenty of room for Snape to become a traitor (to himself as well as others), JKR can play this one to the wire. Yes, I'm definitely beginning to see how this could work Regards Jo From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 10:15:01 2005 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:15:01 +1100 Subject: POSSIBLE SPOILERS: book 6+7 hints Message-ID: <20050228101500.GA10980@...> Made the mistake of going by mugglenet didn't I? So what do we think of THESE choice tidbits? HP has an even shorter stay with Dursleys. Is he to be the new DADA teacher? Or are they just going to pin a medal on him? Why are his mothers eyes, her charm-work wand, and her and James' profession so important? Apparently Godric's Hollow will be covered at the beginning of book 6, sharpen your theories! Harry gets romantic with *someone* Is it Luna? Snapes' boggart and Patronus are very important. bwhahahaha Sean the evil spoiler penguin. -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 12:39:54 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:39:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's fashion sense (was A BIAS in the Pensieve) In-Reply-To: <42226071.000001.00204@KATHRYN> Message-ID: Kathryn wrote: > Maybe even about some of the other main staff if it wasn't for the fact that > vampires are rarely imagined as being three feet tall (Flitwick) and tend to > have a fairly decent fashion sense (unlike Dumbledore) Why don't you think Dumbledore has decent fashion sense? I agree he doesn't follow traditional vampire chic, but I think he has his own sense, no doubt honed in his Naughty Nineties days. Knowing his keen interest in Muggle affairs, he's probably trying to persuade Snape to dance to 'Take Your Mama Out All Night' as we speak. David, who thinks it's dangerous to assume that the phrase 'dangerous to assume' is anything other than a figure of speech meaning 'may be wrong' From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 12:41:29 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:41:29 -0000 Subject: Tweaking Hogwarts Message-ID: In the books so far JKR has tweaked events in the school so that the atmosphere changes enough to make each year slightly different and therefore interesting. Also she has used generic school institutions for dramatic effect eg. houses, sports, after school clubs, interschool competitions, detentions. I've been wondering what she could introduce to make the school subtly different for the next two years and what institutions she has still to take advantage of. In my school experience for the first 5 years we belonged to a form (we didn't have houses) to which we were assigned on the first day of school. All our timetabling was based on which form we belonged to, for some classes we might combine with other forms but for the most part there was not much inter form mixing. A great many of our school contemporaries remained relatively unknown to us. Some inter form friendships did exist but they tended to be based on relationships developed outside of school or through hobby groups. On entering the last two years (called collectively the 6th form, lower and upper, just to confuse you) this all changed. As students concentrated on fewer subjects the classes were made up of a different mix of people, which form you had previously belonged to no longer applied. Will JKR will follow this model and can we look forward to some new dynamics between characters and houses? In the 6th form we also gained greater freedom, we had free lessons (where we were supposed to study in the library), could leave the school grounds during the school day and were taken on field trips. Also we were encouraged to engage in work experience and attend careers fairs. On the social side there was the 6th form common room, the debating society and of course the ghastly school disco. What use, if any can JKR make of the above? The field trip and work experience have potential for me. Although not directly associated with the 6th form JKR still has to explore the possibilities of the school play. In the bigger picture we might expect to see greater security, political canvassing, mass hysteria and propaganda wars. More items/people might be hidden in the school grounds for safekeeping. Does any of the above strike people as having `legs', which and why? What other devices could JKR use to liven up the school for us? Regards Jo From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 12:51:24 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:51:24 +0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape Message-ID: <59b3f81496a77d0bde66aa80751f4a6c@...> Oh dear Lyn, you've resurrected one of the most contentious and divisive theories in the history of fandom. Fortunately since the toc population tends towards the more civilised end of the market nobody has yet thrown a wobbly. Good oh. For what it's worth I don't think that ole Sevvy is of the vamp tendency or associated with them (but see below). Though when I consider it further it may be that I don't want him to be one. It'd be a disappointment. Not that that has much bearing on the matter, the personal likes and dislikes of readers hardly count in the greater scheme of things. Yes, there're what *can* be taken as hints or allusions in canon, mind you the characteristics of traditional vampires would have to be altered somewhat - though Jo is quite capable of doing so, she's done it with other creatures without too much trouble. A half-vampire perhaps? Mmm. Difficult to imagine - the consummation of a relationship between human and vamp would be a bit fraught to say the least. Neck guards and full dental extraction would tend to dampen the magic moment. Unless there's a Black Ribboner involved. The almost total blackout on information re: vampires in HP is a worry and unlikely to be accidental. We know they exist in the Potterverse, are considered dangerous beasts, but not much else. This in itself raises questions. Traditionally (and I don't count TV or film perversions as being traditional) a bite can transform the victim into a predator - very much a parallel with Lupin and lycanthropy - but lycanthropy is considered an illness, vampirism is the mark of the beast. Can one change species in the Potterverse? Thesis anyone? An aside - there does seem to be an undercurrent between Sevvy and Lupin. I did once toy with the idea that they were related, Remus Lupin as a name for a werewolf being much too appropriate to be accidental - causing thoughts of noms-des-guerres or concealed identities. JKR pretty much put the kibosh on that by revealing that Lupin is a half-blood (one of the few, maybe the only time she has used that actual phrase, which gives one to consider just who HBP might be). And since Snape is Head of Slytherin - well, it lowers the odds. Could Sevvy be a bat animagus? Yes, though many fans think the unregistered animagus thread is overdone already and would sling the book at the wall if another turned up. And unregistered he would have to be - Hermione has checked the register covering the last century and Sevvy is what? 40ish? And if he were I'd've expected a bat or two flitting about in the twilight somewhere in the canon, but no, can't call one to mind. Associated with vampires, then. Could be, could be - though maybe not in the way you mean. IMO the best fit for a vampire in HP is Voldy. Random thoughts and not much canon in this post; doesn't consider many of the points in your suggested hypothesis either. A poor response. In mitigation I have to admit that personal prejudices colour my views of Snape. He's the one of the few characters in my mind's eye whose imagined appearance and demeanour hasn't been modified by the film interpretations. He remains a gloriously nasty customer, though with the probability that there are events in his past that have made him what he is. It'd be hard to reconstruct him, though I accept that I could be forced to. Kneasy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 13:01:39 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:01:39 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: I think you'll probably agree with me that if vampires were mentioned 18 times and hags 12 times, it doesn't imply that vampires are more important to the story than Hags. My original meaning (before Charme started counting) was just to say that an argument like "JKR mentions vampires and therefore Snape could be a half vampire" is not a stronger argument than "JKR mentions hags and therefore McGonnagall could be a half hag". Pippin: Statistical analysis is all Geek to me, but aren't you all ignoring the possibility that Umbridge is more than metaphorically a hag? The PoA video game chocolate frog cards inform us that hags have been known to masquerade as witches, and Umbridge does have those pointed teeth. Perhaps Dumbledore was able to rescue her from the centaurs by revealing that she wasn't actually a human after all. As for connecting vampires to the main plot, I direct you to this quote: He disappeared after leaving the school...travelled far and wide...consorted with the very worst of our kind,underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable." --CoS ch17 We know that some of those transformations were directed at achieving immortality and that vampires are considered "undead", commonly live (or exist?) for spans of several hundred years (both PoA choc frog cards), and are notoriously hard to kill (GoF). So it's hardly far-fetched to think that some of LV's experiments were vampire-related. It's also been hinted that those experiments will have to be reversed if LV is to die. Consider also that Dumbledore could have placed Harry with a wizarding family and hoped for the best --after all he could have moved Harry to the Dursleys any time if danger threatened. That he didn't argues that he *knew* Voldemort was coming back, and where would details about the experiments Voldemort has made have come from if not Snape? Speaking of hints, JKR said in Edinburgh that Snape's ancestry has been hinted at, which ipso facto means there's a mystery. The only other guesses I've heard are "related to Sirius" which isn't bangy enough for seven books, and "related to Lily" which is ruled out by JKR's answer about why Dumbledore can't be related to Harry. If Snape could provide the blood protection, then Harry would be as safe at Hogwarts as he is at the Dursleys. Neri: So, as someone who thinks that there actually MIGHT be something in the vampire thing, I was trying to put my finger on why many people don't like this speculation. > Pippin: Because it makes Snape's coldness natural to him, which I am afraid tramples the dearest fantasies of those who would like to think that if only some warm-hearted witch -- too insightful to be deluded by appearances-- had offered him affection, he might not be what he is. Eurgh! Gimme vampires any day. Pippin who has been posting about Vampire!Snape for four years, but who is old enough that being mistaken for a novice at anything is a compliment :-) From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 13:11:54 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:11:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Tweaking Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050228131154.35273.qmail@...> > What use, if any can JKR make of the above? The > field trip and work experience have potential for me. SSSusan: There's also the possibility of a new subject area or new professor coming to the fore, since, depending upon OWLs earned, our gang may begin focus in new (or advanced) subject areas. Maybe Hermione will insist that if Ron wants to date her, he must take Muggle Studies. [hahaha] Jo: > Although not directly associated with the 6th form > JKR still has to explore the possibilities of the > school play. SSSusan: The notion of a Hogwarts school play is interesting, indeed! Which of the kiddos whom we've met would appear in such an animal? Too bad Fred & George have departed -- could definitely have seen them stealing a scene or two. Ernie MacMillan strikes me as one who'd enjoy a good Shakespearean tragedy. Or how 'bout Draco, spouting "To be, or not to be," perhaps? Luna, for sure, would participate. And Neville? Could this be his hidden dream? Or maybe he'd just be stage manager. Ron would do lights. Hermione could knit hats. Harry? I have no idea about Harry.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 13:29:50 2005 From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:50 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: <59b3f81496a77d0bde66aa80751f4a6c@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Unless there's a Black Ribboner involved. Ah HA! I knew there was something about you I liked. > The almost total blackout on information re: vampires in HP is a worry and unlikely to be accidental. I don't think it's accidental, I think it's just not very important. It is late in the game now to introduce a whole new element and unless Jo plans to bring in an army of vampires to assist one side or t'other in the final showdown there's really no reason to persue the characteristics of a Rowling vampire. I don't think she's given the subject much, if any thought at all, which is why we have Lupin being considered human and being allowed his wand while we're told that beings (which include house elves, goblins, ghosts, merfolk an vampires and the like) can not even though one starts out human and supposedly becomes a vampire in much the same way one becomes a werewolf. Lupin was escorted off the grounds in a carraige--we heard nothing of him being stripped of his wizard status and sent to a zoo, or into the forest, did we? No, in fact he showed up again, a member in good standing of the Order. > > Could Sevvy be a bat animagus? Yes, though many fans think the > unregistered animagus thread is overdone already and would sling >he book at the wall if another turned up. Th Half-Creature's been done as well, we don't need another of those. It's fine the first time, but if it showed up again, this late in the game it would appear to be a cheap plot device for sure. > in the way you mean. IMO the best fit for a vampire in HP is Voldy. Now you're talking. >> Snape. He's the one of the few characters in my mind's eye whose > imagined appearance and demeanour hasn't been modified by the film > interpretations. He remains a gloriously nasty customer, though with > the probability that there are events in his past that have made him > what he is. It'd be hard to reconstruct him, though I accept that I > could be forced to. That is precisely what is so alluring about Snape. We have had to reconstruct him pretty much after every book. Those of you who know me from way back know I'm an unabashed Snape apologist. I think he's by far the most interesting character in the series for the reason that we know very little about him and every detail we learn only leads to more, more complex questions. And there are far more intersting questions than, "is he an animagus" and "is he a you-know- what?" Mel From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 14:41:24 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:41:24 -0000 Subject: Tweaking Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <20050228131154.35273.qmail@...> Message-ID: > SSSusan: > The notion of a Hogwarts school play is interesting, > indeed! Which of the kiddos whom we've met would > appear in such an animal? > > Too bad Fred & George have departed -- could > definitely have seen them stealing a scene or two. > > Ernie MacMillan strikes me as one who'd enjoy a good > Shakespearean tragedy. > > Or how 'bout Draco, spouting "To be, or not to be," > perhaps? > > Luna, for sure, would participate. And Neville? > Could this be his hidden dream? Or maybe he'd just be > stage manager. > > Ron would do lights. Hermione could knit hats. > Harry? I have no idea about Harry.... Neri: Harry of course would take no interest in the project, but the day of the show Draco would be trampled by a hippogriff so Harry will be called to play the lead instead of him. Then it will turn out that Hamlet's skull is a portkey and Harry will be punctually transported for the final showdown with Voldy. Neri From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 16:46:30 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:46:30 -0000 Subject: Tweaking Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > The notion of a Hogwarts school play is interesting, > > indeed! Which of the kiddos whom we've met would > > appear in such an animal? > > > > Too bad Fred & George have departed -- could > > definitely have seen them stealing a scene or two. > > > > Ernie MacMillan strikes me as one who'd enjoy a good > > Shakespearean tragedy. > > > > Or how 'bout Draco, spouting "To be, or not to be," > > perhaps? > > > > Luna, for sure, would participate. And Neville? > > Could this be his hidden dream? Or maybe he'd just be > > stage manager. > > > > Ron would do lights. Hermione could knit hats. > > Harry? I have no idea about Harry.... > > > Neri: > Harry of course would take no interest in the project, but the day of > the show Draco would be trampled by a hippogriff so Harry will be > called to play the lead instead of him. Then it will turn out that > Hamlet's skull is a portkey and Harry will be punctually transported > for the final showdown with Voldy. > > Neri he he he or how about Macbeth the comedy (WW version) ghosts, Scottish castle, witches??? Harry as spear carrier number two (his spear would turn out to be essential to the plot). Then again an old fashioned review where the pupils send up the staff, Hermione could impersonate McGonagall, Ron could play his mad hero DD and Neville could *do* Snape! Regards Jo From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 18:15:03 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:15:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050228181503.51615.qmail@...> >>Magda Grantwich wrote: >> >> The other issue is: what's the point - plotwise - of Snape being >> a vampire? Lupin's werewolfishness is integral to the plot in POA >> and to his character throughout the book. What would Snape's >> vampirishness contribute to our knowledge of him? >"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > > I think my theory may offer that point (of course you may not > agree). It explains why the Prank was not made public, and it gives > a reason why James and Snape could never reach > a resolution (James always has something on Snape that Snape did > not have on James).... > Regardless, I think it is great that you are skeptical. If we > jumped en mass on every new > speculation, there would be chaos. Still, it might not be so bad to > take the time to probe > and digest some less mainstream ideas. Afterall, few discoveries > have been made by those in the mainstream. I believe we'll find that the Prank was not made public because the person who would have been punished the most by it was the totally innocent party: Lupin. I don't see what Snape's non-existent vampirishness had to do with it. And thanks for your kind advice in your last paragraph, even though it seems a little - patronizing. I did consider the Snape-vampire theory the first time I heard it (years ago) and rejected it for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. I have not seen any argument in favour of the theory that causes me to change my mind. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 20:21:13 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:21:13 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Combining answers to several posts: Pippin wrote in #1294: Statistical analysis is all Geek to me, but aren't you all ignoring the possibility that Umbridge is more than metaphorically a hag? The PoA video game chocolate frog cards inform us that hags have been known to masquerade as witches, and Umbridge does have those pointed teeth. Perhaps Dumbledore was able to rescue her from the centaurs by revealing that she wasn't actually a human after all. Neri: Pippin, I suspect that this kind of argument doesn't help the vampire theory with many members. You know, one feels that SOME Hogwarts teachers should be just plain all-human wizards. Neri wrote previously: So, as someone who thinks that there actually MIGHT be something in the vampire thing, I was trying to put my finger on why many people don't like this speculation. Pippin answered: Because it makes Snape's coldness natural to him, which I am afraid tramples the dearest fantasies of those who would like to think that if only some warm-hearted witch -- too insightful to be deluded by appearances-- had offered him affection, he might not be what he is. Eurgh! Gimme vampires any day. Neri now: I don't pretend to understand anything about fandom sociology, but aren't vampires supposed to be sexy and fashionable? I'd think that many fans' dearest fantasies would actually go very well with vampire! Snape. Especially when we know so little about Potterverse vampires, so each of us can, in his/her fantasy, set the temperature of Snape's coldness to the level that he/she likes. Pippin: As for connecting vampires to the main plot, I direct you to this quote: He disappeared after leaving the school...travelled far and wide...consorted with the very worst of our kind,underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable." --CoS ch17 We know that some of those transformations were directed at achieving immortality and that vampires are considered "undead", commonly live (or exist?) for spans of several hundred years (both PoA choc frog cards), and are notoriously hard to kill (GoF). So it's hardly far-fetched to think that some of LV's experiments were vampire-related. It's also been hinted that those experiments will have to be reversed if LV is to die. Jo explored a similar idea (#1289): In keeping with vamp mythology to become a vamp you have to drink your sire's blood, in other words you have to opt to be a vamp or a victim. Now that is consistent with HP themes, the theme in fact. Haggrid and Lupin have no choice regarding their heritage but vamp! Snape might have actually sought out vamp power. This would give him a parallel to Voldy's immortality quest. More grist to the mill. Young Snape may have made a very poor decision which he regrets and that haunts him still. Perhaps he's not safe yet. If Snape is keeping his vampirism at bay by force of will, not giving into temptation or similar, he'd certainly have an excuse for being cranky! No sympathy with Harry's `I can't' response to occlumency whatsoever, Harry hasn't got a clue about the battle Snape has to undergo daily. He'd view Lupin with both pity and envy. Pity because Lupin has lost the battle, envy because the struggle is over and he's blameless. If taking bat form threatens his control over his latent vampirism then DD's request would be a great one indeed. Plenty of room for the reader and Harry to doubt Snape's true identity, plenty of room for Snape to become a traitor (to himself as well as others), JKR can play this one to the wire. Yes, I'm definitely beginning to see how this could work And Kneasy (#1296): Associated with vampires, then. Could be, could be - though maybe not in the way you mean. IMO the best fit for a vampire in HP is Voldy. Neri: Yes, I tend to agree with this direction of thinking. It's Voldy who is the honcho vampire, and Snape got himself involved in this and is now trapped, but he's also resisting it, and he might be using it in order to spy on Voldy. My only problem with this is that we already have some intriguing clues about Voldy's dark connection with Snape: the Dark Mark, pronouncing Voldy's name, Occlumency, possession, the Unforgivables, the Malfoy connection and so on, but most of it doesn't seem very vampire related. And remember that the dementors also have some vampire-like characteristics, but they still seem to be something different than Potterverse vampires. So I see three options here: 1) A theory that Voldy made himself a master vampire and the DEs, including Snape, are junior vampires. In such a theory we need to explain how all the Voldy/DEs elements above fit into the vampire mythology. 2) A theory in which Snape was after similar goals as Voldy, but he chose to become a vampire to achieve them, while Voldy used a different way. 3) Assume that this "Voldy is the master vampire who initiated Snape" is true, but strictly in a metaphorical sense. JKR is using the common myth of vampires as one of several sources of inspiration, but she's developing it in her own very special way, as the connection between Voldy and the DEs, which actually no direct connection with Potterverse vampires. Personally I think the third option would allow JKR the most freedom, and prevent any complicated duplicity between vampire immortality and non-vampire immortality. To me it feels like JKR's style, to be influenced but not to conform to any common mythology in her central plot and themes. Neri From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 28 23:58:56 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:58:56 -0000 Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Neri: > Pippin, I suspect that this kind of argument doesn't help the vampire theory with many members. You know, one feels that SOME Hogwarts teachers should be just plain all-human wizards.< Pippin: But why? Perhaps you see the mixed species characters as merely a gimmick? I see them as the inevitable outcome of a closed society whose numbers are dwindling (If we hadn't married Muggles, we'd have died out) that largely refuses to hire or wed the Muggles and the Muggleborn -- surely the limited number of acceptable mates and new hires would open doors for the desperate and the unscrupulous, just as it does in real life. The wizards' refusal to recognize that this is happening also has its parallels in RL. > Neri now: > I don't pretend to understand anything about fandom sociology, but aren't vampires supposed to be sexy and fashionable? I'd think that many fans' dearest fantasies would actually go very well with vampire!Snape. Especially when we know so little about Potterverse vampires, so each of us can, in his/her fantasy, set the temperature of Snape's coldness to the level that he/she likes. Pippin: I can only speak for myself, but I suspect you are mixing apples and oranges. The cooly elegant ageless vampire whose glamour tempts one to a life of endless decadence, vs the grown up ugly duckling whose bitterness is but the armor of a shattered soul against the heartless world. They don't mix. But as JKR is not, IMO, a romantic, and her world is nowhere near the escapist-friendly place it appears to be at first glance, part-vampire!Snape's inadequacies as a fantasy figure wouldn't bother her. Pippin