From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 00:33:55 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (charme)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:33:55 -0000
Subject: Maybe why LV didn't die at GH (was: A BIAS in the Pensieve)
Message-ID: <d00d9j+4e5j@...>


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.

Charme now:

Ya'll inspired me. :)  You too Mel, as you told me what you felt was
interesting. Read on to see I am not saying Snape is a vampire, or 
even halfvampire. Or a bat animagus. Kudos to Lyn, Mel, and Neri for 
challenging me. I soooo like it when I'm challenged. :)

Taken from Wikipedia:

"In popular western culture, vampires are depicted as unaging, 
intelligent, and mystically endowed in many ways. The vampire 
typically has a variety of notable abilities. These include great 
strength and immunity to any lasting effect of any injury by mundane 
means, with specific exceptions. Vampires can also change into a 
mist, wolf, or bat; and some can control the minds of others. They 
typically have extended canines or fangs. It is believed that 
vampires have no reflection, as traditionally it was thought that 
mirrors reflected your soul and creatures of evil have no soul.
Fiction has extended this belief to an actual aversion to mirrors, as
depicted in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula when the vampire casts 
Harker'sshaving mirror out of the window"

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just raising my eyebrow at the
"control the minds of others" and "mirrors reflecting your soul."
(Legilimens and mirrors.) True, as Mel says, Snape ages so that's out.
However, that all could be collectively a clue to what follows 
below....


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.

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:


<snipped a little>

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.

Charme:

Another Wikipedia reference:

"Most modern practitioners of vampirism do not believe themselves to 
beundead creatures; rather, they use vampirism as a means of 
practicing magic(k). For example, they claim that they are taking 
life energy or qi from another (usually a willing donor who also 
practices vampirism) to increase their own energy and vitality. 
Vampirists do not necessarily obtain this energy from blood, but will 
use other physical, spiritual or psychic means to obtain this energy 
(for example, there are self-styled "sexual vampires" and "psychic 
vamp."

Now I know I think I read in both Mel, Jo, Pippin and Kneasy's posts 
about possibility of a vampire concept applied to LV. Purely 
speculation on my part of course, but the Dark Mark could both be a 
form of communication as well as the physical way of taking "life 
energy" or a piece of the soul from the DE's (willing donors) - could 
be why they are so sensitive when someone says "Voldemort" in their 
presence as it could (and this is out on a limb)kick off the 
charm/curse/hex whatever that makes LV get what he wants. A wizard 
who says his name might unknowingly be "cursing" the DE who is marked
and within earshot, hence the shuddering and clutching of the Mark we 
see Peter and Snape do when the name is uttered in their presence.  I 
also considered CoS where Tom Riddle tells Harry:

"If I say it myself, Harry, I've always been able to charm the people 
I needed. So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened 
to be exactly what I wanted .... I grew stronger and stronger on a 
diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew powerful, far 
more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to start 
feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a little 
of my soul back into her. . ."


Might keep Voldy alive those Dark Marks, maybe? Charm the people he 
needed (vampish), he wanted souls (Dementor like), and deepest fears 
(Boggart like) Maybe this is Snape's connection:  he is the first 
person we see who introduces the Dark Mark to the septology, perhaps 
he is the one who devised this wicked little method. Up to his 
eyeballs in the Dark Arts and smarter than everybody, he did it with 
the Dark Lord and created a Frankenstein (metaphorically speaking.)  
DD would know about it because Snape told him and *that*, my friends, 
might be why DD trusts Severus Snape.  He'd also know killing TR in 
the DoM would be futile, because LV with his ample source of DE's, 
would be able to restore him again eventually down the road.

Go ahead and add to it or pick it apart.  I'm waitin' :)  This is FUN!

Charme












From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 09:29:53 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:29:53 -0000
Subject: Maybe why LV didn't die at GH (was: A BIAS in the Pensieve)
In-Reply-To: <d00d9j+4e5j@...>
Message-ID: <d01cmh+2ju0@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "charme" <dontask2much at y...> 
wrote:
 
> Might keep Voldy alive those Dark Marks, maybe? Charm the people he 
> needed (vampish), he wanted souls (Dementor like), and deepest 
fears (Boggart like) Maybe this is Snape's connection:  he is the 
first person we see who introduces the Dark Mark to the septology, 
perhaps he is the one who devised this wicked little method. Up to 
his eyeballs in the Dark Arts and smarter than everybody, he did it 
with the Dark Lord and created a Frankenstein (metaphorically 
speaking.)  DD would know about it because Snape told him and *that*, 
my friends,  might be why DD trusts Severus Snape.  He'd also know 
killing TR in the DoM would be futile, because LV with his ample 
source of DE's,  would be able to restore him again eventually down 
the road.
> 
> Go ahead and add to it or pick it apart.  I'm waitin' :)  This is 
FUN!
> 

Carolyn:
Are you saying Voldy didn't control his supporters with Dark Marks 
before Snape came on the scene? Admittedly we don't know when Voldy 
introduced the device, and Snape could have helped him with it, but 
it seems rather late in the day to have thought of it.

If it was a vital device for absorbing life support, as well as 
exerting control, you would have thought Voldy needed it much earlier 
than this.

It also would seem to put Voldy deeply in Snape's debt. The sensible 
action of any smart Evil Overlord would have been to immediately zap 
Snape after rendering this service... but, I forgot, Voldy never 
reads the right rulebook, so maybe not.








From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 10:06:14 2005
From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:06:14 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <cvvufp+f1pl@...>
Message-ID: <d01eqm+v1qj@...>


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

> 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. 

If Voldemort is somehow vampirish, why doesn't he have vampirish 
features? Bat-like, that is, rather than snake-like? Or, do you think 
the (numerous) snake connections are unrelated to Voldemort's 
immortality thing? If you do, how to combine to one solution both the 
vampire (for which there is no evidence, yet) and the snake 
connections?


Naama, also big, BIG Buffy/Angel fan






From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 10:57:05 2005
From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:57:05 +1100
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
Message-ID: <20050301105705.GA26770@...>

As if vampire!Snape wasn't enough, I've come across someone truly twisted: a
Snape/Hermione shipper on deviantart.com, proclaiming her beliefs in pictures,
no less.

http://darksnape.deviantart.com/gallery/

for the full horror. I mean....what...<shakes head>...truly dumbfounded...i
blame the Rickmann Effect.

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 13:15:55 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:15:55 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d00b80+9ghu@...>
Message-ID: <d01pub+spso@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
 
> 
> 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. 


Which makes the vampire!Snape idea even *less* likely since JK's 
being's and monsters (with the sole exception of Remus' werewolf 
form--and I specify Remus because from what we've been told, other 
werewolves lurk about in the forbidden forest and are not as nice as 
him at all) tend towards the most grotesque forms of their folkloric 
models. It would follow that Rowling's vamps would be far more 
likely to resemble Nosferatu than any tuxedoed-Hollywood's-golden 
era-vampire. Now Snape is certainly not presented as being 
physically attractive, but he's certianly not in the league of your 
classic Nosferatu.






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 13:19:37 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:19:37 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <20050301105705.GA26770@...>
Message-ID: <d01q59+l2p7@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> As if vampire!Snape wasn't enough, I've come across someone truly 
twisted: a
> Snape/Hermione shipper on deviantart.com, proclaiming her beliefs 
in pictures,
> no less.> 
> http://darksnape.deviantart.com/gallery/> 
> for the full horror. I mean....what...<shakes head>...truly 
dumbfounded...i
> blame the Rickmann Effect.
> 


The Snape/Hermione ship is worse than the vampire theory, I agree. I 
don't need to look at pictures to understand that. I've seen the 
**fics**.

*cowers*

Absol-UTE-ly Rickman induced.



Mel






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 15:42:57 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:42:57 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d01pub+spso@...>
Message-ID: <d022i1+8sn9@...>


Pippin
> > 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. <<
> 
Mel:
> Which makes the vampire!Snape idea even *less* likely since 
JK's  being's and monsters (with the sole exception of Remus' 
werewolf  form--and I specify Remus because from what we've 
been told, other  werewolves lurk about in the forbidden forest 
and are not as nice as  him at all) tend towards the most 
grotesque forms of their folkloric  models. It would follow that 
Rowling's vamps would be far more  likely to resemble 
Nosferatu than any tuxedoed-Hollywood's-golden  era-vampire.

Pippin:
Well, the House Elves certainly fit your model. On the other hand  
the goblins don't and neither do the centaurs nor the merpeople, 
none of which are as grotesque in canon as some of the myths 
and  folklore about them. Goblins in folklore are not the sort of 
folks you'd trust to run a bank. The mythical centaurs were, with 
one exception, uncivilized boorish rowdies. And while the sirens 
were lovely, the merpeople of Celtic lands were far more 
grotesque than the characters JKR describes. 

JKR seems to borrow freely, one might even say promiscuously, 
from many sources, much to the despair of purists who think 
she should follow Tolkien and disdain Hollywood and any literary 
source later than 1066. But then, JKR doesn't seem to have 
much use for purists, does she?

Pippin






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 15:44:35 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:44:35 -0000
Subject: OT Black Ribboners was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <cvv6ce+gnj2@...>
Message-ID: <d022l3+i9l0@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" 
<melclaros at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> > Unless there's a Black Ribboner involved.
> 
> Ah HA! I knew there was something about you I liked.


So...Do you think Vetinari is a vampire? <veg>

Pippin








From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 17:56:04 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:56:04 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d01eqm+v1qj@...>
Message-ID: <d02abk+rebt@...>


> Naama wrote:
> 
> If Voldemort is somehow vampirish, why doesn't he have vampirish 
> features? Bat-like, that is, rather than snake-like? Or, do you think 
> the (numerous) snake connections are unrelated to Voldemort's 
> immortality thing? If you do, how to combine to one solution both the 
> vampire (for which there is no evidence, yet) and the snake 
> connections?
>

Neri: 
I don't know, but I'm thinking about it.

As I wrote later in that post, I tend to think that the vampire thing
is strictly in the metaphorical level. In this case JKR is free to use
those metaphors she want, change them and combine them with other
metaphors, like the snake thing, to create her own unique blend, so
Voldemort doesn't have to turn into a bat, drink blood and be afraid
of mirrors. He can have also snake-like properties if this serves
JKR's purposes. Although I suspect that the vampire experts around
here will be quick to discover also snake connections of the vampire
myth. 

It is true that the more superficial vampire allusions (cold dungeons,
billowing black cloaks, direct "bat" references) are mostly suggested
in regard to Snape, not Voldemort. But Voldemort still seems to have
some deeper vampirish properties: he is in some sense "undead". He is
a parasite.  He seems to take power from other people fearing him. As
Charme noted lately the description of Ginny possessed by Riddle
sounds vampirish. And Voldemort (or at least his Dark Mark) seems to
exert some source of mind control over Snape and probably the other
Death Eaters. 

I'm not sure how to combine the snake connections with the vampire
connections, mainly because I'm still not clear about what is the role
the snake connection. For example, how does Harry freeing the Boa
Constrictor in SS/PS fits into this?   

Neri







From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 18:27:48 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:27:48 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <20050301105705.GA26770@...>
Message-ID: <d02c74+oakg@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> As if vampire!Snape wasn't enough, I've come across someone truly 
> twisted: a Snape/Hermione shipper on deviantart.com, proclaiming 
> her beliefs in pictures, no less.
> 
> http://darksnape.deviantart.com/gallery/
> 
> for the full horror. I mean....what...<shakes head>...truly
> dumbfounded...i blame the Rickmann Effect.

Oh, grasshopper, you just now discovered the Snape/Hermione ship?  
Take Mel's advice, and don't read the fics.  And you know, there are 
Lucius Malfoy/Hermione Granger shippers out there, too, with art and 
photomanips and fic.

It makes me laugh, but I don't think this fandom, when you escape the 
citadels of people mostly and primarily interested in the books 
themselves, can shock me any more.

-Nora gets back to the reading and the cracking out of knots






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 19:03:52 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:03:52 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d02abk+rebt@...>
Message-ID: <d02eao+93nm@...>



> > Naama wrote:
> > 
> > If Voldemort is somehow vampirish, why doesn't he have 
vampirish  features? Bat-like, that is, rather than snake-like? Or, 
do you think  the (numerous) snake connections are unrelated to 
Voldemort's immortality thing? If you do, how to combine to one 
solution both the  vampire (for which there is no evidence, yet) 
and the snake connections?
> >
> 
> Neri: 
> I don't know, but I'm thinking about it.
> 

Unlike vampires, snakes do not have dead white skin or glowing 
red eyes. Voldy does. The white skin is confirmed for the 
Potterverse vampire. Some legendary vampires had the glowing 
red eyes, but we don't know about Potterverse ones.


Neri:
> As I wrote later in that post, I tend to think that the vampire
thing
 is strictly in the metaphorical level.<

Pippin:
But that is so unlike everything else in her world. Hagrid didn't 
turn out to be a metaphorical giant. It seems that all the other 
major species have or have had representatives on campus, 
(assuming Flitwick is part goblin as the movies imply) so 
shouldn't there be a vampire?

Neri:
 >For example, how does Harry freeing the BoaConstrictor in 
SS/PS fits into this?   <

Pippin:
I anticipate an Androcles and the Lion scenario, where the snake 
is set to kill Harry and recognizes him as a friend. 

Pippin






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  1 22:32:48 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:32:48 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d02eao+93nm@...>
Message-ID: <d02qig+smud@...>



> Neri:
> > As I wrote later in that post, I tend to think that the vampire
> thing
>  is strictly in the metaphorical level.<
> 
> Pippin:
> But that is so unlike everything else in her world. Hagrid didn't 
> turn out to be a metaphorical giant. It seems that all the other 
> major species have or have had representatives on campus, 
> (assuming Flitwick is part goblin as the movies imply) so 
> shouldn't there be a vampire?
> 

Neri again:

I think JKR uses mythological and folklore materials in two main ways.
When the creatures or artifacts are mere plot devices, JKR describes
them in the conventional way, or frequently as a parody. Typical
examples: giants, dragons, fairies, trolls, centaurs, brooms, wands.

In contrast, sometimes creatures and artifacts become central not only
to the plot, but also as a theme. This is when they acquire strong
metaphorical meaning, and this is when JKR gives them her unique
personal interpretation (although the original mythological and
literary influences can still be easily identified). Typical examples:
house elves, dementors, the mirror of Erised, Harry's scar, Lily's
ancient magic, the Unforgivables, the patronus.

For me, Potterverse vampires sound very much like the first group.
Voldy's immortality, the Dark Mark and Death Eaters sound very much
like the second.

Neri







From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 00:53:57 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 00:53:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
References: <d02c74+oakg@...>
Message-ID: <42250EA5.000004.01524@KATHRYN>

 

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> As if vampire!Snape wasn't enough, I've come across someone truly 
> twisted: a Snape/Hermione shipper on deviantart.com, proclaiming 
> her beliefs in pictures, no less.
> 
> http://darksnape.deviantart.com/gallery/
> 
> for the full horror. I mean....what...<shakes head>...truly
> dumbfounded...i blame the Rickmann Effect.


Well the site scared me a little because the images are all quite young
Hermione and Sev. Personally I can't see that - mainly because I couldn't
see Severus ever doing anything with a Student. *But* having said that I
could certainly see an older Hermione with Severus. They both seem quite
intelligent and somewhat studious, they would both have been through some
similar experiences too since it seems they will both be heavily involved in
the war with Voldemort. Also Hermione doesn't seem the type to be too swayed
by physical appearances (with the exception of Lockhart and I'm not sure
that was his looks so much as Ron didn't even realise she was alive and
there's this famous, charming teacher who she automatically respects because
she seems to respect all the teachers and all that overtakes her normal
sense for a while).

So I guess it depends on your definition of a Severus/Hermione shipper as to
whether i am one. I certainly don't ship them the way many people ship
Ron/Hermione or Harry/Hermione, but they're an interesting couple to
consider and the dynamics are fascinating, especially as a fiction writer.
Plus add in the fact that, certainly prior to OoP, if you want to write a
het ship that isn't Hermione/Ron or Hermione/Harry there's darn few suitable
women to ship with anyone - which is probably why a) there are so many darn
Mary Sues around and b) why Hermione gets more sex than almost any other HP
character in the world of fanfic ;)

The Hermione/Severus shippers I hate are the ones that write about a Severus
who has suddenly morphed into this utterly charming, stunningly handsome man
with soft hair and normal skin tone (all due to the love of a good woman no
doubt) and a Hermione who seems to have matured into a supermodel, whose
hair is under perfect control and, while I accept her body is going to
change as she grows up, I don't think she's ever going to have the figure of
say Jordan! Argh. Sorry, pet peeve.

And as for the Alan Rickman effect - do you have any clue how irritating we
Snape lovers usually find comments like that to be? I adore Sev because he's
snarky and sarcastic and intelligent and passionate in his beliefs and quite
quite nasty. I believe he is incredibly sexy but not at all physically
attractive and I swear that while Alan is absolutely delicious I have never
harboured any kind of feelings for the Sheriff of Nottingham in any way or
whatshisname in Galaxy Quest for that matter! I could go on at length about
sexy Severus but I won't because to those of us who can see it it's obvious
and to the rest of you it's about as understandable as someone standing up
and swearing undying devotion to one of the goblins and nothing I can say is
going to change that - which is fine by me, if everyone thought the same way
this would be a much more boring group.

K

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




From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 00:59:39 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:59:39 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d022i1+8sn9@...>
Message-ID: <d0335r+haq3@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
The mythical centaurs were, with 
> one exception, uncivilized boorish rowdies.

As are Rowling's. If you have any doubts about that, ask Umbridge. How
many times has Fierenze (her exception) had to save someone from his
cronies?

 And while the sirens 
> were lovely, the merpeople of Celtic lands were far more 
> grotesque than the characters JKR describes.

Well technichally those are selkies.

 
>But then, JKR doesn't seem to have 
> much use for purists, does she?


Honestly, I don't think she's put as much thought into any of this as
most of us have. For the most part, she's written what she needs to
write to serve her plot. If she needs goblins to work in a bank then
that's what she writes. If *I* were to write goblins, they'd likely
end up as lawyers. You can't deny *that* would be pretty grim.

Mel






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:00:41 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:00:41 -0000
Subject: OT Black Ribboners was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d022l3+i9l0@...>
Message-ID: <d0337p+cthl@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
! I knew there was something about you I liked.
> 
> 
> So...Do you think Vetinari is a vampire? <veg>


No.


Mel






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:16:13 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:16:13 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <42250EA5.000004.01524@KATHRYN>
Message-ID: <d0344t+a8of@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn" <kcawte at n...> wrote:



> And as for the Alan Rickman effect - do you have any clue how
irritating we
> Snape lovers usually find comments like that to be? I adore Sev
because he's
> snarky and sarcastic and intelligent and passionate in his beliefs
and quite
> quite nasty.



Now, now, I've been a Snape fan since the first book, long before Alan
Rickman showed up. You have to admit that 99% of fanfic featuring
Snape has nothing whatsoever to do with the Snape there. A whole flock
of Mary Sues showed up right after Rickman took on the role and
"Sevvy" appeared. *Romances* featuring ingenue Hermione and
Rickmanized Snape abound. I may be wrong (I doubt it) but I don't
think there was a single HG/SS fic in existance before the movies
arrived. (Ah what a blissful time that was!)

On another note, you mention that Snape and Hermione have been through
similar experiences. What similar experiences? From what we've been
led to believe, Snape is pure-blooded wiz, comes from an impoverished
background, was bullied in school (and yes gave as good as he got I'm
sure) came from an abusive home, became a death eater and experienced
god-knows-what. Hermione is muggle-born, comes from a stable family
with *two*-professional parents (no poverty there), immediately
settled into school with nary an adjustment problem, rounded up a
group of friends, is a war-criminal in training--Ah, now I see the
similarities. 






From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:45:36 2005
From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:45:36 +1100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <d0344t+a8of@...>
References: <42250EA5.000004.01524@KATHRYN> <d0344t+a8of@...>
Message-ID: <20050302014535.GC741@...>

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:13AM -0000, melclaros wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn" <kcawte at n...> wrote:

 
>> And as for the Alan Rickman effect - do you have any clue how irritating we
>> Snape lovers usually find comments like that to be? I adore Sev because
>> he's snarky and sarcastic and intelligent and passionate in his beliefs and
>> quite quite nasty.
> 
> Now, now, I've been a Snape fan since the first book, long before Alan
> Rickman showed up. You have to admit that 99% of fanfic featuring Snape has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the Snape there. A whole flock of Mary Sues
> showed up right after Rickman took on the role and "Sevvy" appeared.
> *Romances* featuring ingenue Hermione and Rickmanized Snape abound. I may be
> wrong (I doubt it) but I don't think there was a single HG/SS fic in
> existance before the movies arrived. (Ah what a blissful time that was!)

This answers for me, Mel. That was the whole point of mentioning the site,
Snape/Hermione is quite unthinkable without the Rickman angle. The other
oddity is happy!Snape which is even more unbelievable <weg>

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:47:04 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:47:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
References: <d0344t+a8of@...>
Message-ID: <42251B18.000001.01628@KATHRYN>

 
 melclaros wrote




Now, now, I've been a Snape fan since the first book, long before Alan
Rickman showed up. You have to admit that 99% of fanfic featuring
Snape has nothing whatsoever to do with the Snape there. A whole flock
of Mary Sues showed up right after Rickman took on the role and
"Sevvy" appeared. *Romances* featuring ingenue Hermione and
Rickmanized Snape abound. I may be wrong (I doubt it) but I don't
think there was a single HG/SS fic in existance before the movies
arrived. (Ah what a blissful time that was!)


K

I agree that there is somewhat of a problem with Rickmanized Snape in some
fics, but then there are also a heck of a lot of fics that do the same to
Draco and generally Draco fans don't get comments about this being because
of the kid that plays him. I have no problem with romances involving Snape
per se - just the ones that transform his character. I suspect a large cause
of Snape/Hermione is not Alan but rather Pride and Predice/Wutherin Heights
etc etc. Of course I preferred Darcy when he was acting like a git to the
nicer version at the end (not that I didn't like him too)

melclaros

On another note, you mention that Snape and Hermione have been through
similar experiences. What similar experiences? From what we've been
led to believe, Snape is pure-blooded wiz, comes from an impoverished
background, was bullied in school (and yes gave as good as he got I'm
sure) came from an abusive home, became a death eater and experienced
god-knows-what. Hermione is muggle-born, comes from a stable family
with *two*-professional parents (no poverty there), immediately
settled into school with nary an adjustment problem, rounded up a
group of friends, is a war-criminal in training--Ah, now I see the
similarities. 


K

I think what I said was specifically referring to post-Hogwarts Hermione and
referred to similar experiences *because they will have played central roles
in the war against Voldemort* If I didn't then I apologise that is what I
meant. After the war there will actually be a fairly low percentage of
people who have been deeply involved and seen the sort of adventures/horros
these two will have done. I claim that as a reason why Hermione might be
drawn to him *not* the other way round, Because I honestly believe Severus
would have to be dragged into a relationship with anyone kicking and
screaming because relationships need trust and Severus (with good reason)
doesn't strike me as the most trusting of people (you think!). I suspect
such events will have a deep effect on any of those students who are
involved (and obviously who survive) which would not easily be understood by
eople not involved. To be honest ten years after the war I could see
Hermione being well on the way to becoming the next Snape, especially if she
teaches -she's so good at what she studies I could see her very quickly
coming to hate students who don't/won't understand and don't care. I have
this image of the two of them bonding in the staff room over how absolutely
abhorrant these little brats all are .... 

I don't think we've seen enough about Severus' background to know that his
family wasn't stable. We don't know whether his parents both worked or not
and there's no definitive proof as to how poor he was or wasn't. We also can
t swear to the abusive bit (One terrifying argument does not an abusive home
make - I assume you were basing your assertion on the pensieve scene).
Hermione may not have been bullied on a long term basis but you do remember
why she was in the bathroom with the troll in the first place don't you? I
certainly think Snape might be envious of her close friendships (deep down
at any rate) but according to Sirius he was part of a gang of Slytherins so
maybe he did have close friends, maybe something happened to them, in which
case, since I have money on Ron dying before the end of the series, that
would give him another thing in common with her.

K

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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:48:09 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:48:09 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d0335r+haq3@...>
Message-ID: <d0360p+ibo4@...>


> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" 
<foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> The mythical centaurs were, with 
> > one exception, uncivilized boorish rowdies.

Mel:
> As are Rowling's. If you have any doubts about that, ask 
Umbridge. Howmany times has Fierenze (her exception) had to 
save someone from his cronies?<

Pippin:
?? IIRC, Firenze has never saved anybody from his cronies. 
Firenze saved Harry from Voldemort.   It was Maglorian who 
objected to harming foals.


The centaurs' learning is legendary in the WW "they are reputed 
to be well versed in magical healing, divination, archery and 
astronomy" (FB) --even Umbridge couldn't object to one of them 
teaching divination.  Hagrid had a high opinion of them until he 
tangled with them over Grawp. If somebody brought a giant to 
live in my backyard, I'd object too. 

Pippin previously:
>  And while the sirens  were lovely, the merpeople of Celtic 
lands were far more  grotesque than the characters JKR 
describes.<

Mel:
> Well technichally those are selkies.

Pippin:
Actually, I was thinking of the Irish merrow or moruadh. The 
males are said to have " green teeth, green hair, pig's eyes, and 
red noses. "   Rowling's merpeople seemed to be a toned down 
version. There is an Irish legend about a merman who holds the 
souls of drowned sailors  in his undersea abode -- perhaps the 
inspiration for the second task.

Pippin






From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 01:50:06 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:50:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
References: <20050302014535.GC741@...>
Message-ID: <42251BCE.000004.01628@KATHRYN>


This answers for me, Mel. That was the whole point of mentioning the site,
Snape/Hermione is quite unthinkable without the Rickman angle. The other
oddity is happy!Snape which is even more unbelievable <weg>



Except my point was that I *like* Severus/Hermione and yet do not like the
constant Rickman comments (OK maybe not constant but I've heard this on
about 4 lists this week). Snape is sexy and not because of Alan and yes I
can see Snape/Hermione.

There is I think one extra cause for Sev/Hermione that I forgot about - a
large number of female readers seem to identify with Hermione. Many female
readers find Snape sexy. Consequently I imaging there is quite possibly some
wish fulfilment consciously or not by Sev/Hermion fans.

K

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




From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 02:00:55 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <cvtl97+cst9@...>
Message-ID: <20050302020055.51873.qmail@...>

With all these comments about JKR hiding things with
her comments, I feeled compelled to say something. 
She is in a room full of adoring kid fans during some
of these interviews.  

What do you answer to an older child who asks on
December 23,  "Isn't it true that Santa does not
exist?" in front of his younger siblings!

Imaginary response: "Well since I must never tell a
lie, He is a fake and I guess you kids will just have
to live with the truth.  Sorry for spoiling everything
for everyone else here because someone thought I was
hiding something!"

So, you cannot assume that some of JKR's answers are
not misleading.  She has an obligation to the greater
fandom not to give the ending away 3 years before the
book comes out.  This is not an obligation to Warner
Brothers!  It is an obligation to her faithful kid
fans who don't want to have their Christmas spoiled
(so to speak).

Randy ( who has lived a version of this analogy in his
own home) 


--- "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kumayama at ...>
wrote:

> 
>> 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.  
> 
> > 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 07:38:50 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:38:50 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <d0344t+a8of@...>
Message-ID: <d03qia+5q46@...>


Mel 
 I may be wrong (I doubt it) but I don't think there was a single 
HG/SS fic in existance before the movies arrived. (Ah what a 
blissful time that was!)<
> 

I'm afraid you are mistaken about that.   I agree that 
Schoolgirl!Hermione/ Snape is highly silly and  very far from 
canon for either of them.  However, Lupinlover's Beyond the 
Silver Rainbow came out in September 2000 and my humble 
attempt at parodying the genre was first published on FFnet in 
November that year 

http://www.riddikulus.org/authors/alestrange/imperius.html


Still, if I was Hermione, I probably would have a crush on Snape. 
Don't ask me why.

Pippin






From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 10:47:59 2005
From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:47:59 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d02qig+smud@...>
Message-ID: <d045kv+u3me@...>




I've replied here to several points from Neri's and Pippin's posts.

Neri:

<snip>
It is true that the more superficial vampire allusions (cold 
dungeons, billowing black cloaks, direct "bat" references) are mostly 
suggested in regard to Snape, not Voldemort. But Voldemort still 
seems to have some deeper vampirish properties: he is in some 
sense "undead". He is a parasite. He seems to take power from other 
people fearing him. As Charme noted lately the description of Ginny 
possessed by Riddle sounds vampirish. And Voldemort (or at least his 
Dark Mark) seems to exert some source of mind control over Snape and 
probably the other Death Eaters.


Naama:

The main difference is that vampires have to feed on humans, but 
Voldemort doesn't need to possess in the same way. As we saw in OoP, 
the possession is a form of attack - and, there's no evidence that he 
draws strength from it. (I'm referring here to regular, embodied 
Voldemort - not vapor or diary!Voldemort.) 

BTW - on what do you base the notion that Voldemort takes power from 
people's fear of him? From the name taboo? 


Neri:

I'm not sure how to combine the snake connections with the vampire
connections, mainly because I'm still not clear about what is the 
role the snake connection. For example, how does Harry freeing the 
Boa Constrictor in SS/PS fits into this?


Naama:

My interpretation is that it grounds the Parseltongue revelation 
later in CoS, and otherwise is an amusing adventure that serves to 
show the reader, in real time, Harry's magical abilities. I don't 
think that it necessarily has deeper meanings.


Pippin:

Unlike vampires, snakes do not have dead white skin or glowing
red eyes. Voldy does. The white skin is confirmed for the
Potterverse vampire. Some legendary vampires had the glowing
red eyes, but we don't know about Potterverse ones.


Naama:

Still, Voldemort is *explicitly* connected to snakes. I.e., it's not 
just that he has features that snakes may have (like scaly skin or 
makes hissing noises), but JKR uses the word snake when she describes 
him - and that on several levels (appearance, emotional presence, pet 
of choice ...). Compared with this, his connection with vampirism is 
slight indeed.


Neri:
> As I wrote later in that post, I tend to think that the vampire
>thing is strictly in the metaphorical level.<

Pippin:
But that is so unlike everything else in her world. Hagrid didn't
turn out to be a metaphorical giant. It seems that all the other
major species have or have had representatives on campus,
(assuming Flitwick is part goblin as the movies imply) so
shouldn't there be a vampire?

Naama:
But that's an argument for vampire!Snape, not vampire!Voldemort.



Naama

 







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 12:00:02 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:00:02 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <20050302020055.51873.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d049s2+4h23@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes <estesrandy at y...> wrote:
> With all these comments about JKR hiding things with
> her comments, I feeled compelled to say something. 
> She is in a room full of adoring kid fans during some
> of these interviews.  
> 
> snip> 
> So, you cannot assume that some of JKR's answers are
> not misleading.  She has an obligation to the greater
> fandom not to give the ending away 3 years before the
> book comes out.  This is not an obligation to Warner
> Brothers!  It is an obligation to her faithful kid
> fans who don't want to have their Christmas spoiled
> (so to speak).
> 


I tend to agree, though her answers can fall into a variety
of types.

There's the straightforward factual information - what
House a character is/was in, for example - or their middle
name. We can be fairly sure that no key plot development
hinges on the answer.

Then there're the ones where with regret she refuses to
tell us anything - the answer would reveal too much and
we mark such subjects as worth  watching.

A few questions seem to catch her unprepared, aspects of
the story or suspected plot wrinkles that the fans have 
hatched in their fevered speculation and the question comes 
as a surprise. 
The possibility of a Snape/Vampire connection was one of 
these - "Er - I don't think so" to my mind has the implication 
that Sevvy is not a Vamp, if he were the question would have 
been on a (to her) known character twist and would not be
unexpected and would have been prepared for with either a 
"wait and see", "I can't tell you", "what do you think?" or
some other deflecting reply.
However, a further implication is that there're vampires around
somewhere, maybe peripherally, and Snape could have some
sort of dealings or actions with them either in the past  or in
the future. It all depends on what you mean by "connection."

Then there are the others - answers that deliberately tease.
A prime example of one of these occured in her webcast a year
ago:-

Q: "Can  we believe what the Sorting Hat says?"
A: "Well, it's certainly sincere!" 

I leapt on that one like a starving stoat.
Was this partial confirmation of an idea I'd posted?
It's not smart to take the Hat's words at face value.
What it believes to be true and what is actually true are not necessarily
the same thing. It may even be open to persuasion, or as I put it in
a couple of posts - it may have been fixed by DD at least once (the
sorting in PS/SS) and perhaps twice (the Marauders) - with the best
of intentions naturally.

Or it could have been a red herring thrown in to cause harmless 
speculation by some of the fans on a not very important subject.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Getting positive and/or critical information on future events in HP falls
within the ambit of the Chance brothers - Fat and Slim. Negative or
unimportant information is more likely, though some negative information
could be as revealing as any. 

We're as likely to be misled (but not lied to) as to be enlightened by
some of the answers. It really is most provoking.
 

Kneasy









From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 13:16:44 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <d03qia+5q46@...>
Message-ID: <d04ebs+rhkq@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> I'm afraid you are mistaken about that.   I agree that 
> Schoolgirl!Hermione/ Snape is highly silly and  very far from 
> canon for either of them.  However, Lupinlover's Beyond the 
> Silver Rainbow came out in September 2000 


Every day I learn something more disturbing about this fandom. The 
reason for this abberation was mentioned up earlier. Sheer laziness 
on the part of the "writers" of these stories. Need a female 
character? Ok, toss Hermione in.



Mel






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 13:27:43 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:27:43 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <42251B18.000001.01628@KATHRYN>
Message-ID: <d04f0f+gn2v@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn" <kcawte at n...> wrote:

> I agree that there is somewhat of a problem with Rickmanized Snape 
in some
> fics, but then there are also a heck of a lot of fics that do the 
same to
> Draco and generally Draco fans don't get comments about this being 
because
> of the kid that plays him. 


Well yeah, they do and so has Rowling. But yes, the howling is 
distinctly less. Part of the difference is that there isn't a twenty 
year age difference between Draco and Hermione nor is there the 
problem that Snape is a TEACHER and there are LAWS against that sort 
of thing. Now whatever Snape's past, he does seem to be a stickler 
for the rules and IMHO there is no way he'd fiddle with a student 
(and that goes for the Snape/Harry garbage out there as well).

The problem I personally have with the adult Hermione fics is that 
these fics all seem to be written under the delusion that between 
1960 and 1980 there was not one single female witch born who would 
be remotely capeable of matching wits and temper with Severus Snape. 
Oh please. Conversely that a smart, supposedly accomplished war 
criminal...sorry hero...Hermione wouldn't be able to find any other 
suitable mate that a 50+ year old washed up--whatever he ends up as?

I understand your speculation on Hermione's possible experiences 
Post War, but it's just that: speculation. There's no way we can 
know any of that will pan out any more than we can know if either 
Snape or Hermione will ultimately survive. I know who I'd *prefer* 
survive, but that's another topic.

All we have to go on now is what we've been shown of their supposed 
background. No, we don't know that Hermione's parents don't come 
home and get drunk every night, but you have to admit it doesn't 
seem likely. No, we can't say that because we saw one vicious 
argument in Snape's pensive he came from an abusive home (notice I 
never said HE was abused, only that the environment was abusive) but 
we know that people don't generally *cower* during the occasional 
tiff here and there.

Anyway, as you can tell, "Shipping" is not a hobby of mine.
 






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 13:34:53 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:34:53 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d049s2+4h23@...>
Message-ID: <d04fdt+ppfp@...>


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



> The possibility of a Snape/Vampire connection was one of 
> these - "Er - I don't think so" to my mind has the implication 
> that Sevvy is not a Vamp, if he were the question would have 
> been on a (to her) known character twist and would not be
> unexpected and would have been prepared for with either a 
> "wait and see", "I can't tell you", "what do you think?" or
> some other deflecting reply.


Exactly. 




> Getting positive and/or critical information on future events in 
HP falls
> within the ambit of the Chance brothers - Fat and Slim. Negative or
> unimportant information is more likely, though some negative 
information
> could be as revealing as any. > 
> We're as likely to be misled (but not lied to) as to be 
enlightened by
> some of the answers. 


Listening to/reading these interviews is guaranteed to bring on a 
raging migraine.  I used to put it down to being stunned and 
unprepared by her sudden celebrity status but she's had plenty of 
time to get used to it now. Now she's just leading people along. The 
string of "almost" deaths in OoP was the last straw. For how many 
years had she been bemoaning that "someone" was going to die in the 
book, and "oh how horrible" it will be and "I cried when I wrote it" 
blah blah--then she took every opportunity for a cheap fake-out of 
her readership. 
As a reader, I found that insulting, to be honest. I'd started 
carefully vetting what interviews of hers I'd read (I'd stopped 
listening a long time ago, "um....er....uh..." gets old fast) but 
now I won't even *read* published interviews.






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 14:22:41 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:22:41 -0000
Subject: Rowling's interviews (was A BIAS in the Pensieve)
In-Reply-To: <d04fdt+ppfp@...>
Message-ID: <d04i7h+2rss@...>


Mel wrote:
>
> Listening to/reading these interviews is guaranteed to bring on a 
> raging migraine.  I used to put it down to being stunned and 
> unprepared by her sudden celebrity status but she's had plenty of 
> time to get used to it now. Now she's just leading people along.

Um.  What do you expect?  What do you think she should do?  Spoil 
the plot, or just efuse to answer all questions?

 The 
> string of "almost" deaths in OoP was the last straw. For how many 
> years had she been bemoaning that "someone" was going to die in 
the 
> book, and "oh how horrible" it will be and "I cried when I wrote 
it" 
> blah blah--then she took every opportunity for a cheap fake-out of 
> her readership. 
> As a reader, I found that insulting, to be honest. I'd started 
> carefully vetting what interviews of hers I'd read (I'd stopped 
> listening a long time ago, "um....er....uh..." gets old fast) but 
> now I won't even *read* published interviews.

I don't understand.  Are you saying that she failed to deliver in 
proportion to the build-up?  While I was not personally upset by 
Sirius' death, the event certainly reverberated around the fandom, 
enough for the anniversary of OOP publication to be marked by 
memories of the shock.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'cheap fake-out of her readership'.  
If you mean that we read OOP in expectation that somebody was going 
to die, and so got an extra frisson out of seeing Arthur, Hermione 
etc. injured, isn't she just doing her job?

David






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 14:31:35 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:31:35 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04fdt+ppfp@...>
Message-ID: <d04io7+lor0@...>


Kneasy:
> > The possibility of a Snape/Vampire connection was one of 
> > these - "Er - I don't think so" to my mind has the implication 
> > that Sevvy is not a Vamp, if he were the question would have 
> > been on a (to her) known character twist and would not be
> > unexpected and would have been prepared for with either a 
> > "wait and see", "I can't tell you", "what do you think?" or
> > some other deflecting reply.
> 
Mel:
> Exactly. 


Pippin:
But the vampire clues are subtle, under the radar ones,  just like 
the clues in Book One that Scabbers wasn't an ordinary rat, or 
the clues that Ginny wasn't a shrinking violet,   so an "I can't tell 
you that!" would give away almost as much as a "well-spotted!"

If Snape is eventually revealed to have some vampire heritage, 
we'll be able to see this answer as a teaser for those who 
guessed which simultaneously preserved the shock for those 
who consider it completely unthinkable. Very clever of JKR, if you 
ask me.

Assuming that fans ask her the same questions that we ask 
each other, the vampire issue must have come up quite 
frequently in her mail, so it would hardly be a shock to her.

And as you say, Mel, she seems to enjoy faking people out. I 
thought that was fun in OOP, like the phony deaths in Star Trek, 
The Wrath of Kahn. Everybody knew that a character was going 
to die, so why not run with it?

Pippin
who enjoys finding out that other people have very different takes 
on the canon






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 14:55:33 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:55:33 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <d04ebs+rhkq@...>
Message-ID: <d04k55+f7qr@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" 
<melclaros at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" 
<foxmoth at q...> 
> wrote:
> > I'm afraid you are mistaken about that.   I agree that 
> > Schoolgirl!Hermione/ Snape is highly silly and  very far from 
> > canon for either of them.  However, Lupinlover's Beyond the 
> > Silver Rainbow came out in September 2000 
> 
> 
> Every day I learn something more disturbing about this 
fandom. The  reason for this abberation was mentioned up 
earlier. Sheer laziness  on the part of the "writers" of these 
stories. Need a female  character? Ok, toss Hermione in.
> 


Pippin:
It's not laziness, I think.  It's normal for teenage girls to get 
crushes on their teachers, and even adult women  have been 
known to fall under the spell of a charismatic older man (and 
Snape *is* charismatic.) The explosion of Snape/Hermione fics 
might have more to do with Bill and Monica than with either 
Hermione or Snape, come to think of it.

 Writing Snape/Hermione fic is a safe way to explore  those 
feelings. That the relationship would be  inappropriate  in RL  is 
the whole point.

Many fan fiction writers are obviously much more interested in 
exploring their feelings (and learning to write about them) than in 
creating canon plausible stories--besides which, deciding which 
SHIPS are canon implausible is a minefield in itself.  

Pippin







From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 15:18:49 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:18:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
References: <d04k55+f7qr@...>
Message-ID: <4225D959.000001.01664@KATHRYN>

 
Pippin

Many fan fiction writers are obviously much more interested in 
exploring their feelings (and learning to write about them) than in 
creating canon plausible stories--besides which, deciding which 
SHIPS are canon implausible is a minefield in itself.  


K

I've found that in the hands of a good writer pretty much any ship or
situation can be plausible (I mean let's face it a teenage wizard who can
talk to snakes and who lives in a cupboard under the stairs hardly sounds
plausible on the surface does it?). The problem is that good writers are
often vastly outnumbered by teenagers (at least I assume they're teenagers I
d hate to think there were adults that not only write like this but were
under the impression it was wonderful and want other people to read it) who
have no grasp of plot or continuity, can't spell - and don't possess a spell
checker - and who think grammar is someone you go and visit on her birthday
and who have a desperate desire to either twist the characters until they're
unrecognizable or introduce an American exchange student who has violet eyes
 long blond hair, a stunning figure, makes Hermione look dumb in comparison
and who can single handedly vanquish Voldemort, thus saving the love
interest of choice, while gaining high grades in all her NEWTS, and winning
the house and quidditch cups for her house. (You probably think I'm kidding
don't you? Go and bury yourself in ff.n for a while, especially look for
romances about Harry, and we'll discuss it again later, provided your brain
hasn't dribbled out your ears by then)

There are some very believable and plot-filled (if I just wanted sappy
romance I'd buy a Mills and Boone) Severus/Hermione fics and even a few
Severus/OFC fics, not to mention Draco/Hermione (although they do generally
have trouble turning Draco into a reasonable person plausibly since JKR has
been turning him into such a 2D whining brat). Good grief I've even seen the
occasional Harry/Hermione that doesn't stretch credulity to breaking point .
.. (apologies to any H/H shippers out there, couldn't resist). Part of the
fun of writing (and reading) fanfic is exploring situations and
relationships that would never happen in canon while keeping the characters
in character. In the hands of a good writer *anything* is possible - I just
wish there where more of them out there.

K
(and for anyone who wonders how wide my definition of anything is, I've got a link to a decent Snape/Bloody Baron if you're interested ...))

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




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 15:19:16 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:19:16 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04io7+lor0@...>
Message-ID: <d04lhk+3agn@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy:
> > > The possibility of a Snape/Vampire connection was one of 
> > > these - "Er - I don't think so" to my mind has the implication 
> > > that Sevvy is not a Vamp, if he were the question would have 
> > > been on a (to her) known character twist and would not be
> > > unexpected and would have been prepared for with either a 
> > > "wait and see", "I can't tell you", "what do you think?" or
> > > some other deflecting reply.
> > 
> Mel:
> > Exactly. 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> snip>
> If Snape is eventually revealed to have some vampire heritage, 
> we'll be able to see this answer as a teaser for those who 
> guessed which simultaneously preserved the shock for those 
> who consider it completely unthinkable. Very clever of JKR, if you 
> ask me.
>


I'm afraid I wouldn't.
I'd see it as a lie and a breach of the rules in the Q&A game.
Her honesty and credibility would be shot to pieces.

Kneasy

 







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 15:40:35 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:40:35 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d02qig+smud@...>
Message-ID: <d04mpj+s19q@...>


> Neri again:
> 
> I think JKR uses mythological and folklore materials in two 
main ways. When the creatures or artifacts are mere plot 
devices, JKR describes them in the conventional way, or 
frequently as a parody. Typical examples: giants, dragons, 
fairies, trolls, centaurs, brooms, wands.
> 
> In contrast, sometimes creatures and artifacts become central 
not only to the plot, but also as a theme. This is when they 
acquire strong metaphorical meaning, and this is when JKR 
gives them her unique personal interpretation (although the 
original mythological andliterary influences can still be easily 
identified). Typical examples: house elves, dementors, the mirror 
of Erised, Harry's scar, Lily's ancient magic, the Unforgivables, 
the patronus.
> 

> For me, Potterverse vampires sound very much like the first 
group. Voldy's immortality, the Dark Mark and Death Eaters 
sound very much like the second.
> 

Pippin:
Ah. I would divide the groups differently. Some creatures are 
merely decorative -- the ones with no character attached like the 
delivery dwarfs in CoS or the fairies. But the ones with a 
character carry out the theme. 

I see the belligerant giants, bloodthirsty vampires, untrustworthy 
werewolves, bootlicking House Elves, xenophobic centaurs, 
avaricious goblins, child-devouring hags and sexually 
manipulative veela as metaphors for the things in human nature 
that we despise and project onto the Other.

Though each race is made notorious for its failings, we are also 
introduced to characters that don't fit the mold, and also to 
humans who demonstrate these failings to an even greater 
degree. 

For example, the goblins are supposed to be greedy for 
treasure, yet they faithfully guard the stone and give it up when it 
is required of them, while the human Quirrell tries to steal it. 

Similarly, the centaurs are characterized as xenophobes, but 
Firenze saves Harry while the Draco regards members 
of even his own race as subhuman.

Werewolves are supposed to be untrustworthy, but Lupin is 
(apparently) mildly so, while the human Peter betrayed his 
dearest friends.  House Elves are supposedly servile but not 
even Winky is as  much a sycophant as Avery. Tom 
Riddle/Voldemort is more bloodthirsty than Aragog or any 
vampire.  Umbridge, if she is not a hag herself, out-hags any hag 
in canon, (and if she is, Bellatrix out-hags *her*). Fleur uses her 
flirtatious charm but Lockhart is even more  manipulative than 
she is, and so on.

IMO, the theme is not the Disneyish sugar-coated "Tolerance 
is easy if you would only try."  The message is "Don't kid your 
self. Tolerance is horribly difficult.   It's also our only hope of 
peace, because all the things we can find to despise in the 
Other, they can find in us."

Pippin


 







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 16:47:53 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:47:53 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04lhk+3agn@...>
Message-ID: <d04qnp+fh4r@...>


> > Pippin:
> > snip>
> > If Snape is eventually revealed to have some vampire 
heritage,  we'll be able to see this answer as a teaser for those 
who  guessed which simultaneously preserved the shock for 
those  who consider it completely unthinkable. Very clever of 
JKR, if you  ask me.
> >

Kneasy:
> I'm afraid I wouldn't.
> I'd see it as a lie and a breach of the rules in the Q&A game.
> Her honesty and credibility would be shot to pieces.


Pippin:

Perhaps. But if JKR put the vampire clues in on purpose, then 
she would naturally assume the questioner was  aware of them 
and was being artful, knowing that a more direct question which 
cited the clues would be ignored.

  Would it be unfair of her to answer in kind? 

http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/books/rowli
ng_001023.html

Rowling: Mm hmm. I know exactly what's going to be in five, six 
and seven. And when I've finished that, then we can have the full 
and frank discussion, but until then, if I give full and frank 
answers I'm giving away things about the plot, so I don't want to 
do that.
-------
It's like a carnival game. It's rigged.  What makes it less of a 
cheat is that if you're paying any attention at all, you *know* it's 
rigged. It's hardly as easy to win a big stuffed bunny as it looks, 
but if you can figure out the gimmick, you have a chance.

Pippin






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 17:08:35 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:08:35 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d04mpj+s19q@...>
Message-ID: <d04ruj+k0pu@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
 
> Pippin:
> major snip of one of the best posts I've read<
> 
> IMO, the theme is not the Disneyish sugar-coated "Tolerance 
> is easy if you would only try."  The message is "Don't kid your 
> self. Tolerance is horribly difficult.   It's also our only hope of 
> peace, because all the things we can find to despise in the 
> Other, they can find in us."
> 

Lyn:
Being very (perhaps mercifully) brief as I should already be off to an out-of-town 
conference. 

Just a wonderful post, Pippin. Which touches on why I think it is quite possible (not 
necessarily probable) that Snape will have some vampire heritage or other association. In 
Lupin, JKR has generated a character which for many is seen as a nice guy and JKR labels 
him so in her interviews (I know, you are not of this camp). So any prejudice based on an 
unchosen characteristic is played against other overt characteristics that make many 
sympathetic towards him (ultimately deserving or not). Dislike in this context is presented 
as unfair prejudice.

Thus I think it would be quite in keeping with your remarks that JKR would include a 
character whose overt characteristics aren't very likable, and who is found to have at least 
an association with some innate or otherwise unchosen characteristic that is repugnant. 
Does repugnance towards this innate characteristic become unfair prejudice, in a character 
may already find despicable ? But what if despite these characteristics, he turns out to do a 
very noble and important thing. Does the prejudice become revealed more for what it was? 

So I suggest that Lupin and Snape combine to offer a (hopefully subtle) moral lesson. That 
you can't overlook typically prejudicial characteristics in folks you like, and find similar 
characteristics confirmatory of the "badness" of people you don't like, and have a 
consistent moral stance against prejudice based on personal characteristics unchosen and 
unchangeable.

Running off, literally,

Lyn






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 17:20:02 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:20:02 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <4225D959.000001.01664@KATHRYN>
Message-ID: <d04sk2+5m95@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn" <kcawte at n...> wrote:

> K
>
> The problem is that good writers are often vastly outnumbered by 
> teenagers (at least I assume they're teenagers I'd hate to think 
> there were adults that not only write like this but were under the 
> impression it was wonderful and want other people to read it)

Boy, do I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but you can't blame 
all the ills of the fic world on the teenagers--I've seen just as 
much dreck out of adults.

> who have no grasp of plot or continuity, can't spell - and don't 
> possess a spell checker - and who think grammar is someone you go 
> and visit on her birthday and who have a desperate desire to either 
> twist the characters until they're unrecognizable or introduce an 
> American exchange student who has violet eyes, long blond hair, a 
> stunning figure, makes Hermione look dumb in comparison and who can 
> single handedly vanquish Voldemort, thus saving the love
> interest of choice, while gaining high grades in all her NEWTS, and 
> winning the house and quidditch cups for her house. (You probably 
> think I'm kidding don't you? Go and bury yourself in ff.n for a 
> while, especially look for romances about Harry, and we'll discuss 
> it again later, provided your brain hasn't dribbled out your ears 
> by then)

Mary Sue, we call her.  I actually find Mary Sues far less offensive, 
ultimately, than most of what passes as 'fic written by adults' in 
the fandom.  There's something about the ultimate harmlessness of the 
teenage wish fulfillment as compared to the sheer vileness and kinky 
oneupmanship typical of the field.

I've read a lot of fic.  A *lot*.  What can I say, I was stuck at 
work and cataloging OCLC numbers is enough to drive you insane.  That 
said, I think I've read maybe one or two in all Severus/Hermione fics 
that kept them in anything resembling character, and pretty much 
nothing with Draco and Hermione.  That's not even venturing into the 
pit of Draco/Harry.

> Part of the fun of writing (and reading) fanfic is exploring 
> situations and relationships that would never happen in canon while 
> keeping the characters in character.

The skeptic in me is wary of how things that would never, could never 
happen in canon can still be kept 'in character': if Hermione would 
never do that in canon, how is it in-character for her to do it in 
fic?  My personal theory is that Snape is so popular in fic because 
we know so little for sure about him, and the author can then make 
him over into whatever she (and it is usually she) wants him to be.  
We have EvilBastard!Snape, Aristocratic!Snape (who usually lives in 
Snape Manor and speaks five languages), Saintly!Snape, BDSM!Snape, 
NobleSpy!Snape (usually cared for tenderly by Hermione after a bout 
of the Cruciatus Curse under the hands of Voldemort), SexGod!Snape, 
etc., etc., ad nauseam...

Eh, no harm done, really.  It'll be fun to watch people scream when 
things happen, though.  There was a lot of that post-OotP.

-Nora gets back to troping for fun and profit






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 17:26:01 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:26:01 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory (was Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty
In-Reply-To: <d045kv+u3me@...>
Message-ID: <d04sv9+3su6@...>


> Naama:
> 
> The main difference is that vampires have to feed on humans, but 
> Voldemort doesn't need to possess in the same way. As we saw in 
OoP, 
> the possession is a form of attack - and, there's no evidence that 
he 
> draws strength from it. (I'm referring here to regular, embodied 
> Voldemort - not vapor or diary!Voldemort.) 
> 

Neri:
I agree that the snake allusion is very obvious in Voldemort's case, 
and the vampire metaphor much less obvious. We don't really know what 
it is the mechanism of Voldy's immortality ? is it possession? Death 
eating? Both? Something else? But in any case JKR seems to suggest 
that it is something parasitic in nature. A snake is not a parasite. 
It brings death on others and it (in the mythical sense) cheats 
death, but these are two separate properties. The snake does not 
cheat death by killing others, and certainly not by stealing life 
from others. It's the vampire that does that. 

> Naama:
> BTW - on what do you base the notion that Voldemort takes power 
from 
> people's fear of him? From the name taboo? 
> 

Neri:
This is a very vague notion, but it is suggested by both Bella and 
Snape that the connection between Voldy and the DEs has something to 
do with not pronouncing his name. BTW, both this name taboo and the 
possession thing don't remind us of a vampire much, but also not of a 
snake. They remind us more of a demon. As I wrote, JKR probably 
created something special of her own here by mixing materials from 
mythical snakes, vampires, demons and most likely other things as 
well. But my main point was: Voldy and Snape seem to be connected by 
some Dark Arts magic. It will be simpler and more economical to 
assume that this connection is the same thing that the vampire!Snape 
allusions refer to. If it's not then you either have to supply two 
different explanations (one for the connection and another for the 
vampirism) or you have to assume that all the Snape vampire allusions 
have no meaning in the story. 

> 
> Neri (previously):
> 
> I'm not sure how to combine the snake connections with the vampire
> connections, mainly because I'm still not clear about what is the 
> role the snake connection. For example, how does Harry freeing the 
> Boa Constrictor in SS/PS fits into this?
> 
> 
> Naama:
> 
> My interpretation is that it grounds the Parseltongue revelation 
> later in CoS, and otherwise is an amusing adventure that serves to 
> show the reader, in real time, Harry's magical abilities. I don't 
> think that it necessarily has deeper meanings.
>

Neri:
My personal impression was that the Boa represented Harry himself in 
this case. The Boa was born in captivity and never knew Brazil, the 
same way Harry didn't know his parents and the WW. Setting the Boa 
free was symbolic of setting Harry free from the Dursleys (and maybe 
also setting Harry's magical powers free). In any case, the Boa was 
presented as a nice creature, and this doesn't work well with a 
central Snake!Voldemort theme, but it does fit with JKR typical 
refutation of biological determinism: no kind of creatures is 
presented as all bad (except for things like dementors that are not 
really creatures but representations of pure evil). So this would 
suggest that it's not the snake element in Voldy that makes him evil. 
But if so, what does make Voldy evil? 
 
Neri







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 17:50:27 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <d04sv9+3su6@...>
Message-ID: <20050302175027.16802.qmail@...>

Neri:
>> ... the Boa was presented as a nice creature, and
this doesn't work well with a central Snake!Voldemort
theme, but it does fit with JKR typical refutation of
biological determinism: no kind of creatures is
presented as all bad (except for things like dementors
that are not really creatures but representations of
pure evil). So this would suggest that it's not the
snake element in Voldy that makes him evil. But if so,
what does make Voldy evil?<<


SSSusan:
Erm... choice?

Though that could get us into that endless debate over
whether someone who's "never loved" (and by locigal
extension, according to some, never been loved), could
have true choice.

Siriusly Snapey Susan (not saying she buys the above
argument; just playing devil's advocate here)




From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 18:02:46 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (slytherinspirit)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:02:46 -0000
Subject: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <d04sk2+5m95@...>
Message-ID: <d04v46+3nva@...>



Nora
> 
> I've read a lot of fic.  A *lot*.  What can I say, I was stuck at 
> work and cataloging OCLC numbers is enough to drive you insane.  
That 
> said, I think I've read maybe one or two in all Severus/Hermione 
fics 
> that kept them in anything resembling character, and pretty much 
> nothing with Draco and Hermione.  That's not even venturing into 
the 
> pit of Draco/Harry.
> 
K

To be honest I think I've read more decent Draco/Harry than 
Draco/Hermione, but I wouldn't swear to it. It is actually easier to 
see Draco with a rival than with someone he calls mudblood and 
clearly considers beneath him. On the other hand I think right now I 
prefer fanon Draco to canon Draco anyway. He showed such potential in 
the earlier books but by OoP he was just laughable.

Nora
> > Part of the fun of writing (and reading) fanfic is exploring 
> > situations and relationships that would never happen in canon 
while 
> > keeping the characters in character.
> 
> The skeptic in me is wary of how things that would never, could 
never 
> happen in canon can still be kept 'in character': if Hermione would 
> never do that in canon, how is it in-character for her to do it in 
> fic? 

K

Beacause canon consists of (or will consist of eventaully) seven 
books about Harry, from Harry's pov that stop somewhere around his 
eighteenth birthday so many things can be in character without any 
chance of them being in the books. Plus of course the books are read 
by an awful lot of children and JKR is aware of it so, for example, 
after defeating Voldemort I could certaily see Harry and co (who are 
after all teenagers) throwing a wild drunken celebratory party. Is it 
in character - it certainly could be - will it happen in the books - 
highly unlikely. I suspect that Minerva has many adult and not 
unpleasent conversations with Severus (simply because of their jobs 
and roles as head of house) with no little brats listening in, but we 
won't see it in canon, because we rare;y see anything from anywhere 
other than a camera over Harry's left shoulder (so to speak).These 
are just really simple not very drastic examples but you can go 
further and have a situation where Ron betrays everyone and ends up 
working for Voldemort, I very much doubt that this will happen in 
canon although I have seen people arguing for it, but I could 
certainly see it happening without Ron being at all out of character. 

Given the right motivations and circumstances almost any action can 
be in character, the skill is in creating the right circumstances and 
showing the build up so that something like, for example, Neville 
standing up for himself in Potions and yelling at Snape makes sense. 
Usually it's the writing skill that makes actions ooc rather than 
anything else. The bad writer tells us Neville has gained confidence 
because of the fight at the Ministry and then has him yell at Snape 
to prove it or worse doesn't give us any reason, the good writer 
shows us the changes in Neville slowly through his every word and 
action so that when he yells at Snape we're not stunned into silence, 
or hitting the back button in disgust, but rather cheering him on. 
Heck that's half the problem people have with the changes to Ginny in 
OoP, the changes actually makes sense bearing in mind what Ron has 
told us about how she acts when Harry isn't around and bearing in 
mind what she has gone through up to this point, but we haven't seen 
any of it happening so when she acts the way she does in OoP people 
complain that it makes no sense and that she's out of character.


Then of course you have the world of the AU, which is something I 
personally love about fic. People asking what if. What if Voldemort 
wins? What if Harry had actually been sorted into Slytherin (I 
haven't seen this one done well yet, if anyone has any recs with this 
situation please tell me)? What if Ron and Harry *hadn't* rescued 
Hermione from the troll?  etc etc The possibilities are endless - 
thank goodness.

K







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 18:11:08 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:11:08 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04qnp+fh4r@...>
Message-ID: <d04vjs+ea1g@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Kneasy:
> > I'm afraid I wouldn't.
> > I'd see it as a lie and a breach of the rules in the Q&A game.
> > Her honesty and credibility would be shot to pieces.
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Perhaps. But if JKR put the vampire clues in on purpose, then 
> she would naturally assume the questioner was  aware of them 
> and was being artful, knowing that a more direct question which 
> cited the clues would be ignored.
> 
>   Would it be unfair of her to answer in kind? 
> 
> http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/books/rowli
> ng_001023.html
> 
> Rowling: Mm hmm. I know exactly what's going to be in five, six 
> and seven. And when I've finished that, then we can have the full 
> and frank discussion, but until then, if I give full and frank 
> answers I'm giving away things about the plot, so I don't want to 
> do that.
> -------
> It's like a carnival game. It's rigged.  What makes it less of a 
> cheat is that if you're paying any attention at all, you *know* it's 
> rigged. It's hardly as easy to win a big stuffed bunny as it looks, 
> but if you can figure out the gimmick, you have a chance.


I admit to having strong feelings about  this.
If JKR lies then all the Q&A sessions over the last 6 years are a fraud.
Totally pointless except as an exercise in self promotion.
I would hate to have to come to that conclusion. 
Can you imagine the furore if that happened to be the case?

Now you may be enamoured by Vampire!Snape theory and determined
to hang on to it until grim death, come hell or high water, and to look for
loopholes in Jo's words that to the rest of us are imaginary and to find 
'clues' that to many are at best unconvincing. 
That's your choice. Fine.

But of course you may have to face the uncomfortable possibility that
her clues are lies too. Where will that leave your theories?

Kneasy







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 18:38:56 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:38:56 -0000
Subject: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <20050302175027.16802.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d05180+vqes@...>


> SSSusan:
> Erm... choice?
> 
> Though that could get us into that endless debate over
> whether someone who's "never loved" (and by locigal
> extension, according to some, never been loved), could
> have true choice.
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan (not saying she buys the above
> argument; just playing devil's advocate here)

Neri:
I'm personally sure it is choice, but this is not what I meant. I 
wanted to say that Voldy apparently turned himself (by choice) into 
something evil. The question I was discussing is WHAT is this 
something. I was arguing that, since JKR shows a good, nice snake 
early in the story, the answer is not likely to be "he turned himself 
into a snake". If you'd say "he turned himself into a dementor" I'd 
say it sounds much more probable because dementors were presented as 
pure evil throughout the books. Regarding Potterverse vampires we 
don't have enough information, but I'd say any species that eats 
lollipops, even blood-flavored ones, can't be utterly evil ;-)

Neri







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 19:28:05 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <d05180+vqes@...>
Message-ID: <20050302192805.43937.qmail@...>

SSSusan:
>>> Erm... choice? <<<

Neri:
>> I'm personally sure it is choice, but this is not
what I meant. I wanted to say that Voldy apparently
turned himself (by choice) into something evil. The
question I was discussing is WHAT is this something.<<



SSSusan:
Actually, I was being a bit of a smart ass.  I thought
this was what you might've been getting at that, but
as I wasn't sure.... :-)

So you're asking, then, if he's not snake, if he's not
vampire, if he's not dementor, then what?  

To which I suppose I would ask, are we sure it's *an*
evil thing which he's turned himself into?  Could it
be a conglomerate, a unique hybrid?  [And maybe that's
what you're getting at -- you wonder about the
component parts.] 

Could it just be something JKR will not identify as a
*thing* at all... but perhaps the result of multiple
potions & spells w/o any "thing" entity in the mix at
all?

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 21:47:51 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:47:51 -0000
Subject: Views on clues Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04vjs+ea1g@...>
Message-ID: <d05ca7+e8du@...>


Kneasy:
> I admit to having strong feelings about  this.
> If JKR lies then all the Q&A sessions over the last 6 years are a 
fraud.Totally pointless except as an exercise in self promotion.
 I would hate to have to come to that conclusion. 
 Can you imagine the furore if that happened to be the case?<

Pippin:
Were you furious when you realized that if you had recognized 
that Tom Marvolo Riddle was an anagram of 'I am Lord 
Voldemort'  you could have figured everything out? JKR didn't tell 
us she was going to use anagrams, but she did give us a hint 
with the legend over the Mirror of Erised. The clue is that like 
Erised, Marvolo is a nonsense word.

I maintain that some of JKR's interview answers are coded, and 
the coded ones can be spotted just the way lies in the books 
can. By the use of equivocal language, answers that don't 
address the question, and hesitancy on the part of the speaker.

Bluffing is part of the game. The trick is to spot the 'tells'.

Kneasy:
> But of course you may have to face the uncomfortable 
possibility that her clues are lies too. Where will that leave your 
theories?<

Pippin:
You mean, if I made the utterly shocking discovery that there are 
clues in the books which can be deciphered only if their obvious 
meaning is discarded? Otherwise known as red herrings?  Um, 
I suppose that will leave my theories exactly where they are now. 
Unproven and subject to dismantling by unequivocal canon. I do 
abandon my theories at times, but only when they stop making 
sense to me.  

 If I'm on the right track with ESE!Lupin then JKR *does* give 
misleading statements in her interviews. ESE!Lupin has 
correctly predicted developments in canon, for example that you 
can see the Quidditch pitch from the DADA office, so you can 
appreciate that I am not ready to abandon it. 

Pippin
horribly afraid that JKR will fake an honorable death for Lupin in 
Book Six just to further muddy the waters. Now that would be a 
scurvy trick.







From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 23:08:49 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:08:49 -0000
Subject: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d04io7+lor0@...>
Message-ID: <d05h21+qa8u@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> And as you say, Mel, she seems to enjoy faking people out. I 
> thought that was fun in OOP, like the phony deaths in Star Trek, 
> The Wrath of Kahn. Everybody knew that a character was going 
> to die, so why not run with it?


Well it was overkill. It was fine when we all thought it was Arthur,
but these "close calls" just kept coming. The scene with McGonnogal
read like it was inserted just for that reason. By the time Hermione
got it all I could think of was "fool me once..."






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 23:21:21 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:21:21 -0000
Subject: Rowling's interviews (was A BIAS in the Pensieve)
In-Reply-To: <d04i7h+2rss@...>
Message-ID: <d05hph+ch9o@...>


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

> 
> Um.  What do you expect?  What do you think she should do?  Spoil 
> the plot, or just efuse to answer all questions?



If she has no intention of "giving away" anything (and I don't know
why she WOULD want to give things away) then she should not hold the
"open forum" interviews that inevitably lead to questions she refuses
to answer. OR, out of the 10,000 questions submitted prior to the
event, choose ones she'll answer, not purposely pick out ones she can
play coy over. There's no way anyone's going to convince me that out
of the thousands of questions submitted to online and kids tv
interviews (which solicit for same) they can't find ANY answerable
questions?
If that IS the cast than she needs to quit giving interviews and get
back to writing. Which would be a good idea all around.



> 
> I don't understand.  Are you saying that she failed to deliver in 
> proportion to the build-up?  While I was not personally upset by 
> Sirius' death, the event certainly reverberated around the fandom, 
> enough for the anniversary of OOP publication to be marked by 
> memories of the shock.


I seem to remember a LOT of that "shock" being dampered by, "huh? That
was IT?"
We were numb to it by then. Sirius fans (a club to which I do not
belong) deserved better. We all did.








From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  2 23:26:44 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:26:44 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
References: <d05h21+qa8u@...>
Message-ID: <005501c51f7f$4c4efdc0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Pipin:
> And as you say, Mel, she seems to enjoy faking people out. I 
> thought that was fun in OOP, like the phony deaths in Star Trek, 
> The Wrath of Kahn. Everybody knew that a character was going 
> to die, so why not run with it?

Mel:
Well it was overkill. It was fine when we all thought it was Arthur,
but these "close calls" just kept coming. The scene with McGonnogal
read like it was inserted just for that reason. By the time Hermione
got it all I could think of was "fool me once..."


SSSusan:
I disagree somewhat, Mel.  While I won't lie and say I didn't think each of those false alarms was the real thing, they *did* serve a purpose, imo.  The Arthur one's obvious -- Harry found out he was seeing something *accurate* in his mind.  

The McGonagall one may not be so obvious, but I also think it was important to the plot and to Harry's development.  Look at how he reacted:

"Dumbledore had gone, Hagrid had gone, but he had always expected Professor McGonagall to be there, irascible & 
inflexible, perhaps, but dependably, soundly present."

IOW, I think this was one more step on the way to Harry's believing he's On His Own.  DD's gone.  McGonagall's now at St. Mungo's.  Snape's not to be trusted, of course (in Harry's opinion).  Sirius has been... ahem... "uneven" during this year.  Harry really is going to have to handle things without the aid of one of the adults he thought he could always turn to.  The stunners showed this to Harry *and* ensured (unfortunately) that Harry would take off for the DoM to save Sirius, since there was no trustworthy adult left at Hogwarts to talk him out of it.

Siriusly Snapey Susan




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




From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 02:41:21 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: ok i've seen everything now
In-Reply-To: <4225D959.000001.01664@KATHRYN>
Message-ID: <20050303024121.66736.qmail@...>


--- Kathryn <kcawte at ...> wrote:

SNIP
> K
> (and for anyone who wonders how wide my definition
> of anything is, I've got a link to a decent
> Snape/Bloody Baron if you're interested ...))
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 

I'm sorry!  Spews coffee on his shirt!  For a second I
thought you typed "Snoopy/Red Baron" for a possible
ship.  I've got to stay more alert when I read these
posts!;0)

Randy




	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 07:22:31 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:22:31 -0000
Subject: Views on clues Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d05ca7+e8du@...>
Message-ID: <d06dvn+fn2l@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> Pippin:
> Were you furious when you realized that if you had recognized 
> that Tom Marvolo Riddle was an anagram of 'I am Lord 
> Voldemort'  you could have figured everything out? JKR didn't tell 
> us she was going to use anagrams, but she did give us a hint 
> with the legend over the Mirror of Erised. The clue is that like 
> Erised, Marvolo is a nonsense word.
> 

Kneasy:
No, I wasn't fussed about the anagram, as a plot device I thought it
a bit creaky and contrived, and I did spot the Erised thing straight 
away - mirror writing on a mirror is hardly rocket science.

Pippin:
> I maintain that some of JKR's interview answers are coded, and 
> the coded ones can be spotted just the way lies in the books 
> can. By the use of equivocal language, answers that don't 
> address the question, and hesitancy on the part of the speaker.
> 
> Bluffing is part of the game. The trick is to spot the 'tells'.
> 

Kneasy:
Coded? And I thought I was paranoid.
Why on earth would she 'code' replies?
Code only works if there's a designated receiver with an unscrambler. 
But yes, the trick is to ferret out some sort of reasonable conclusion
from what may be a deliberately obscure reply.

However, I fail to see how "I don't think so" could be classed as
an obscure answer.

> 
> Pippin:
> You mean, if I made the utterly shocking discovery that there are 
> clues in the books which can be deciphered only if their obvious 
> meaning is discarded? Otherwise known as red herrings?  Um, 
> I suppose that will leave my theories exactly where they are now. 
> Unproven and subject to dismantling by unequivocal canon. I do 
> abandon my theories at times, but only when they stop making 
> sense to me.  
> 

Kneasy:
Not my meaning.
Red herrings are expected and part of the fun.
I'm on about something more fundamental.
Suppose for example that after all this time and all the unequivocal 
statements in the books and in Q&As it turned out that Harry *did*  
have other relatives besides the Dursleys. Mark Evans for one.
Many, many fans would be deeply pissed about that and feel that
they'd been cheated.

I class the vampire denial on a par with Mark Evans; an answer that
can only be read one way. 


Pippin:
>  If I'm on the right track with ESE!Lupin then JKR *does* give 
> misleading statements in her interviews. ESE!Lupin has 
> correctly predicted developments in canon, for example that you 
> can see the Quidditch pitch from the DADA office, so you can 
> appreciate that I am not ready to abandon it. 
> 
> horribly afraid that JKR will fake an honorable death for Lupin in 
> Book Six just to further muddy the waters. Now that would be a 
> scurvy trick.

Kneasy:
Nah. Lupin ain't ESE.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. I can see you still haven't got the hang of this. 
Just 'cos he helped Sirius through the veil doesn't mean he's bad.
It was *Sirius* that was ESE.








From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 10:35:50 2005
From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:35:50 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory
In-Reply-To: <d04sv9+3su6@...>
Message-ID: <d06pa6+rgrq@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
>> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I agree that the snake allusion is very obvious in Voldemort's 
>case, and the vampire metaphor much less obvious. We don't really 
>know what it is the mechanism of Voldy's immortality ? is it 
>possession? Death eating? Both? Something else? But in any case JKR 
>seems to suggest that it is something parasitic in nature. A snake 
>is not a parasite. 
> It brings death on others and it (in the mythical sense) cheats 
> death, but these are two separate properties. The snake does not 
> cheat death by killing others, and certainly not by stealing life 
> from others. It's the vampire that does that. 

Naama:
I guess I just don't see much of the parasite in Voldemort. I see no 
evidence that he draws strength from killing or from any other 
Unforgivable curse. I see no evidence that he draws strength from the 
Dark Marks. I also don't see any evidence that he draws strength from 
possession - once he had been embodied. Even when he was vapor and 
possessing animals and people, this seems to have helped him survive, 
but it didn't give him the strength to regain his body. 


> 
> > Naama:
> > BTW - on what do you base the notion that Voldemort takes power 
> from people's fear of him? From the name taboo? 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> This is a very vague notion, but it is suggested by both Bella and 
> Snape that the connection between Voldy and the DEs has something 
>to do with not pronouncing his name. 

But the entire WW (almost) don't say his name. That should give him a 
huge boost, no? And yet, until Pettigrew came to help him, he was 
helpless. It also doesn't sit well with DD saying that fearing a name 
makes you even more fearful of the thing <terrible paraphrase>, which 
puts the emphasis on psychology, not magic.

<snip>
> But my main point was: Voldy and Snape seem to be connected by some 
>Dark Arts magic. 

Again, I just don't see it. I probably missed some of your arguments 
on this point, but I really don't see any evidence for it. Other than 
the regular Dark Mark, what is this special Snape-Voldemort 
connection? 

>It will be simpler and more economical to 
> assume that this connection is the same thing that the vampire!
>Snape allusions refer to. 

Since I take the "erm.. I don't think so" very much at fact value, I 
hereby discount any vampirish allusions as merely coincidental or 
atmospheric only (that is, creating a gothic ambience around Snape, 
but not specifically vampirish). 

 
> Neri:
> My personal impression was that the Boa represented Harry himself 
>in 
> this case. The Boa was born in captivity and never knew Brazil, the 
> same way Harry didn't know his parents and the WW. Setting the Boa 
> free was symbolic of setting Harry free from the Dursleys (and 
>maybe also setting Harry's magical powers free). 

I like that. It certainly resonates.

>In any case, the Boa was 
> presented as a nice creature, and this doesn't work well with a 
> central Snake!Voldemort theme, but it does fit with JKR typical 
> refutation of biological determinism: no kind of creatures is 
> presented as all bad (except for things like dementors that are not 
> really creatures but representations of pure evil). So this would 
> suggest that it's not the snake element in Voldy that makes him 
>evil. But if so, what does make Voldy evil? 
>  

I think, with Susan, that he is evil due to his choices. It's evil to 
want immortality and to become part snake for that. But that doesn't 
mean that snakes, as animals, are evil. 
That's why it doesn't make thematic sense for Voldemort to have 
merged with a demon (or Salazar Slytherin, for that matter), in fact. 
I think it's important that Tom Riddle made himself into Voldemort, 
all by himself, deliberately and without external influence. For him 
to have merged with some evil entity would water down the stark 
reality of evil as choice, which I think is what JKR is going for.


Naama






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 13:48:18 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:48:18 -0000
Subject: Sayning 'Voldemort' (was Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <d06pa6+rgrq@...>
Message-ID: <d074j2+2u92@...>


Naama wrote:

> > > BTW - on what do you base the notion that Voldemort takes 
power 
> > from people's fear of him? From the name taboo? 
> > > 
> > 
> > Neri:
> > This is a very vague notion, but it is suggested by both Bella 
and 
> > Snape that the connection between Voldy and the DEs has 
something 
> >to do with not pronouncing his name. 
> 
> But the entire WW (almost) don't say his name. That should give 
him a 
> huge boost, no? And yet, until Pettigrew came to help him, he was 
> helpless. It also doesn't sit well with DD saying that fearing a 
name 
> makes you even more fearful of the thing <terrible paraphrase>, 
which 
> puts the emphasis on psychology, not magic.

It's my belief that in a future book (for the statisticians among 
you, my Bayesian probability of that book being HPB is about 60%) we 
will learn that:

1) Saying the name 'Voldemort' does have some impact over and above 
the psychological;

2) The conditions under which saying it makes a difference are 
fairly narrow (and magical) so that, for the most part, Dumbledore's 
encouragement to people to say it in normal conversation is 
justified;

3) Hermione, in her macho eagerness to show she is prepared to 
say 'Voldemort' at every available opportunity, will inadvertently 
fulfil those conditions, and so cause trouble for Harry and the 
Order.  There will have been an attempt to warn her, which she will 
have ignored or derided as superstition.

David






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 13:54:22 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:54:22 -0000
Subject: Views on clues Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d06dvn+fn2l@...>
Message-ID: <d074ue+noaj@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
Tom Marvolo Riddle was an anagram of 'I am Lord 
> > Voldemort'  you could have figured everything out? JKR didn't 
tell 
> > us she was going to use anagrams, but she did give us a hint 
> > with the legend over the Mirror of Erised. > > 


> 
> Kneasy:
> No, I wasn't fussed about the anagram, as a plot device I thought 
>it a bit creaky and contrived, 


To say the least. It's awful. I still can't get past making up a 
name using "I am..."  The first thing that popped into my mind, and 
what *still* pops in unbidden each time I read or see the scene in 
the movie is "I AM Batman."

"Erised" is an anagram of Desire--specifically it's desire as seen 
in a mirror. Now THAT makes sense. Marvolo is, as was mentioned, is 
simply a nonsense word thrown in to make the villain's name work--
the very definition of "contrived".



> 
> Kneasy:
> Coded? And I thought I was paranoid.
> Why on earth would she 'code' replies?


Mel:
The wombat screams at midnight. Tread not upon the stupified 
Kneazle. 

Kneasy:
> Code only works if there's a designated receiver with an 
unscrambler. 


Mel:
"Drink more Ovaltine."



> Kneasy:
> It was *Sirius* that was ESE.

Oh for sure.

Mel






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 13:56:16 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:56:16 -0000
Subject: Sayning 'Voldemort' (was Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <d074j2+2u92@...>
Message-ID: <d07520+ldn1@...>


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

> It's my belief that in a future book (for the statisticians among 
> you, my Bayesian probability of that book being HPB is about 60%) 
we 
> will learn that:

<snip>

> 3) Hermione, in her macho eagerness to show she is prepared to 
> say 'Voldemort' at every available opportunity, will inadvertently 
> fulfil those conditions, and so cause trouble for Harry and the 
> Order.  There will have been an attempt to warn her, which she 
>will have ignored or derided as superstition.


Mel:
Oh yay! Anything in which she gets her comupance will be well worth 
reading!

Mel







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 14:52:01 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:52:01 -0000
Subject: Views on clues Re: A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape
In-Reply-To: <d06dvn+fn2l@...>
Message-ID: <d078ah+h4fg@...>


> Kneasy:
> Coded? And I thought I was paranoid.
> Why on earth would she 'code' replies?
> Code only works if there's a designated receiver with an 
unscrambler. 
 But yes, the trick is to ferret out some sort of reasonable 
conclusion from what may be a deliberately obscure reply.
> 
> However, I fail to see how "I don't think so" could be classed as
> an obscure answer.

Pippin:
It's the 'Erm.' That's not a transcription of a  verbal mumble, it 
was  deliberately typed.  We should be asking ourselves why 
she indicated she was uncomfortable. And why she didn't 
explain further, as she usually does when she quashes a theory. 


The designated receivers are those  who have already solved 
the puzzles. She has said that we have all the clues we need. 

IMO, the unscrambler is 'A Treatise of Equivocation'  -- a Jesuit 
manual found among the effects of one of the Guy Fawkes 
conspirators. I haven't found an online text, but the idea was that 
Catholics of that era considered it a sin to lie under oath, but 
decided that it was okay to mislead their interrogators as long as 
God could tell what they really meant.  The treatise detailed the 
ways in which God could tell. 

(  I  wouldn't be surprised to learn that in JKR's world, old Guy 
was prosecuted as a wizard conspirator, not a Catholic one, a 
fact later obscured as part of the separation between the worlds. 
So it's really a wizard that's being burned in effigy every 
November 5 -- no wonder the wizards still think Muggles have it 
in for them!) 

Kneasy:
> I class the vampire denial on a par with Mark Evans; an answer 
that can only be read one way. 

Pippin:
That's where we differ (see above.) 


> Kneasy:
> Nah. Lupin ain't ESE.
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. I can see you still haven't got the hang of this. 
> Just 'cos he helped Sirius through the veil doesn't mean he's 
bad.
It was *Sirius* that was ESE.<

Pippin:
::grin:: okay, so if JKR gives only straight answers, how do you 
account for all those buckets of tears and  her website statement 
that she likes Sirius?

Pippin






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 15:08:11 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:08:11 -0000
Subject: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <d05180+vqes@...>
Message-ID: <d0798r+ln9p@...>



> Neri:
> I'm personally sure it is choice, but this is not what I meant. I 
> wanted to say that Voldy apparently turned himself (by choice) 
into  something evil. The question I was discussing is WHAT is 
this  something. I was arguing that, since JKR shows a good, 
nice snake  early in the story, the answer is not likely to be "he 
turned himself  into a snake". If you'd say "he turned himself into 
a dementor" I'd  say it sounds much more probable because 
dementors were presented as  pure evil throughout the books. <


Pippin:
He didn't turn himself into something evil, though he probably 
thought that's what he was doing. What makes Voldy evil is his 
human weaknesses and the choices they influenced him to 
make.  IMO, Voldemort became an evil snake/vampire/whatever 
because he was an evil human.

It's funny how we easily accept that people differ radically in their 
physical vulnerability -- it's a running gag that Hagrid can't grasp 
that other people aren't as safe from monsters as he is -- but 
resist the idea that moral vulnerability varies. 

Obviously it wasn't choice that made Harry more vulnerable to 
Aragog  or Grawp. Why should it be  choice that made Voldemort 
more vulnerable to evil? Voldemort lacks the ability to love, not by 
choice, any more than Harry chose to have that power in such 
abundance. 

It is easier for Voldemort to choose evil  because he can not 
identify with the suffering that his choices cause. But he is aware 
of it, and IMO that makes him responsible for his choices. 

Pippin










From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 15:48:37 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:48:37 +0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
Message-ID: <818217623abceb273d37d51779ac28ab@...>

A supporting character role in just one book, yet Ludo Bagman makes my 
thumbs itch.

OK - so most of the suspicions about him are based on circumstantial 
evidence, little more than his proximity to events plus he had the 
*opportunity* to pull some cunning strokes - but there's so much of it. 
To a reader on the look-out for double-dealing, no-good, dirty rotten 
slime-balls, Ludo might as well have a giant day-glo arrow above his 
head pointing downwards with "Here he is!" emblazoned on it in 
coruscating lights. If it's all a deliberate mislead by Jo then it's 
not so much a red herring as the entire Russian trawler fleet.

He first pops up at the QWC, hail-fellow-well-met type, ex-jock, 
apparently takes nothing seriously, but as the story unfolds we see 
that his sticky fingerprints are plastered all over the critical bits.

Let's play at investigator; now what can we find to underline in red in 
our little notebooks?

Well, he's the one that allocates the seating in the top-box at  the 
QWC. Note that Arthur (not a favourite at the MoM) gets *eight* tickets 
out of a total of twenty. And they're in the front row. Don't you find 
that a bit odd? And what a coincidence that immediately behind Harry is 
an invisible Barty Crouch Jnr (who promptly nicks Harry's wand) and 
Winky, a House Elf scared of heights.

Can you really imagine that:
a) The Weasley party would get 40% of the VIP seat allocation at the 
biggest event in the WW sporting calendar,
or
b) an Elf would be tolerated in one of the best seats in the stadium
or
c) that an apparently empty seat wouldn't be filled by somebody, 
anybody, once the game started if not before?

There's a choice here. Either Baggy's put the fix in or JKR has blown 
it in the plot device credibility stakes.

As you might expect I'll go with the former. It's more fun and it 
doesn't require me to consider that the divine Jo is a fallible mortal 
after all.

Then there's Bertha.
Admittedly what we know of Bertha is all secondhand, but it's 
fascinating nonetheless.
She works for Ludo and goes missing about a month before the QWC.
But there's more - not only is she cognizant of the QWC, she also knows 
about the forthcoming TWT at Hogwarts *and* that young Master Barty is 
in hiding in chez Crouch.
After a little memory manipulation off she goes on a jolly -  to 
Albania. Where Voldy is known to be hanging out. And meets Peter. Who 
she doesn't recognise as a dead hero. Even though they were at school 
together. And Baggy can't be bothered to look for her. Oops!

What are the odds of a chance encounter between her and Peter?
And do you really believe that Peter would be able to persuade her to 
take a walk in the woods *before* he overpowers her? Nor me. Yet that's 
the way Voldy tells it in the graveyard. Peter convinced her to go for 
a night-time stroll - with no authorial inverted commas (as in OoP when 
DD 'persuaded' Kreacher) to imply a euphemism for coercion.

Now this is  where I start to bounce up and down in my seat. 
Considerations of conspiracy are spurting out of my ears. I can't help 
it. It's all too neat, too pat for coincidence. It's planned.

What if Crouch Snr wasn't the only one to tamper with Bertha's mind? 
Wouldn't it be fun if Ludo'd had a little dabble too? Just a small 
Imperio! "Off you go to the Adriatic, m'dear. Oh, and don't bother to 
pack your sun-screen, you'll not need it." Mmm. Nice.

There's a fair chance that Ludo knew about young Barty.  After the 
fandango in the woods post Dark Mark, Ludo deflects a question about 
where he had disparated to by asking Crouch Snr why he wasn't in his 
seat at the match. A killer of a question when an invisible Barty was 
sitting in it. In fact Bagman's behaviour in that whole forest scene is 
dodgy. And Winky - when Diggory questions her as to who conjured the 
Dark Mark, her eyes  flicker from Diggory, to Bagman and then to 
Crouch. Why Bagman? Is it associated with why she later proclaims that 
Bagman is a bad wizard?

Then there's the Goblet lucky dip.
Most assume that it was DD that  brought up the 'magical contract' 
argument. It  wasn't. Read the passage again. It was Bagman who first 
says that Harry is obliged to compete with later backing from an 
Imperioed Crouch Snr. And inordinately pleased he is about it too. 
Meantime Crouch!Moody played Devils advocate, muttering about powerful 
wizards fiddling he cup, putting Harry at risk. Once Harry has been 
press-ganged it's Baggy who gambles heavily that Harry will win. Now 
why would he be so certain that a  semi-trained student two years 
younger than the other competitors will win? Because he knows the fix 
is in? I smell collusion, conspiracy and foul treachery. Splendid!

Note he ran for it immediately after the third task - before anybody 
really knew what had happened or even what the official result was. 
Escaping Goblins? A bit premature - and I don't recall that there were 
any Goblins there anyway. However - Voldy had been calling to the Dark 
Mark brigade - you don't think...

And to add to the fun and jollity there's this little vignette; the 
Pensieve courtroom scene. Oh, he gets off - but he's guilty as charged 
- he did in actual fact pass information to a Voldy supporter, just as 
the charge-sheet said. He pleaded mitigating circumstances, claiming he 
had no idea that Rookwood was with Voldy - unlikely IMO, since he also 
states that Rooky was a friend of his (Ludo's) father - and with the 
tendency of DEs to make friends among their own, that says more about 
his father than being a justification for leniency.

Such a pity that at the end of GoF young Master Barty gets the snogging 
session of a lifetime (no tongue, please!) before anyone thinks to ask 
if there were any accomplices to his vile conspiracy.
What do  you think his answer would have been?

One thing I'm absolutely certain of - Bagman will turn up somewhere in 
the next two books - and we'll get to see if the suspicions are 
justified.

Kneasy




From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 16:38:22 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:38:22 -0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <818217623abceb273d37d51779ac28ab@...>
Message-ID: <d07ehu+81m8@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> A supporting character role in just one book, yet Ludo Bagman 
makes my 
> thumbs itch.


Ludo is, in fact, the vampire.




Now in all seriousness I couldn't agree more. Forget the Dark Mark 
floating over the QWC, he's got a big red arrow following him 
around. It's mentioned in canon that he's dodgy in all sorts of ways 
and there are things we don't know about him. If anything about 
Ludo's a "red herring" it's Jo trying to put us off the scent with 
the gambling story--that is the LEAST of our problems with Ludo. 

If he turns out to be on the up-and-up, I'll be hitching a ride on 
that fishing fleet.






From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 19:01:24 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:01:24 -0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <d07ehu+81m8@...>
Message-ID: <d07mu4+sut6@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" <melclaros at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> > A supporting character role in just one book, yet Ludo Bagman 
> makes my 
> > thumbs itch.
> 
> 
> Ludo is, in fact, the vampire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in all seriousness I couldn't agree more. Forget the Dark Mark 
> floating over the QWC, he's got a big red arrow following him 
> around. It's mentioned in canon that he's dodgy in all sorts of 
ways 
>sniparoo> If he turns out to be on the up-and-up, I'll be hitching a 
ride on 
> that fishing fleet.

This is one of my favorite theories. I have thought Bagman was bad 
for a year or two. In re-reading GOF, it hit me like a ton of bricks 
for all the reasons cited by Kneasy. There has been debate about this 
previously.  I still think he is also an unregistered animagus ala 
Rita Skeeter. In GOF and OOTP, there is a wasp flying around, and 
Bagman is always dressed, no matter the occasion in his old Wimberly 
Wasp uniform. In GOF, there is a wasp flying around when Hermione is 
helping Harry with some of spells. Wasp!Bagman checking on Harry's 
progress..... In OOTP, a wasp was buzzing around duing the HIstory 
exam in which Harry nodded off, and you know the rest. Could Wasp!
Bagman been spying on Harry? 

Oh, and on a side note, while I am at it, instead of using a pensieve 
to get baby Harry's thoughts, how about Occulemency/Legitimency 
(sorry about the spelling)?

Fran






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 19:23:23 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:23:23 -0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <d07mu4+sut6@...>
Message-ID: <d07o7b+tgue@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely at b...> wrote:
> 
> Oh, and on a side note, while I am at it, instead of using a pensieve 
> to get baby Harry's thoughts, how about Occulemency/Legitimency 
> (sorry about the spelling)?
> 
> Fran


Possible of course. But I don't think it would be as effective as the
Pensive.

Snape very carefully tells us that memories and thoughts are not neatly
filed away and it's pretty much chance which ones you end up seeing.
They could keep finding memory after memory of whatever it is that
pre-occupies kids of 15 months and under - "Hungry", "Wet" "Unhappy"
- all that fascinating stuff.

But if you do a brain-drain into the Pensive - ah! lots of benefits; you can
keep studying the same memory for as long as you like from different
angles for a start, not possible with Legilimancy, I think. And most 
important (and something I'm beginning to wonder happened) you can 
decide just how much to put back. Or maybe put blocks on certain memories. 

Kneasy






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 20:30:23 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <818217623abceb273d37d51779ac28ab@...>
Message-ID: <20050303203023.2180.qmail@...>

Kneasy:
>>One thing I'm absolutely certain of - Bagman will
turn up somewhere in the next two books - and we'll
get to see if the suspicions are justified.<<


SSSusan:
Baggy-in-on-the-conspiracy is one of my favorite
theories.  I was heartily disappointed when he had no
role to play in Book 5.  I, too, am banking on a
spectacular return in 6 or 7.


Kneasy:
>>Such a pity that at the end of GoF young Master
Barty gets the snogging session of a lifetime (no
tongue, please!) before anyone thinks to ask if there
were any accomplices to his vile conspiracy.  What do 
you think his answer would have been?<<

SSSusan:
Heh heh.  Would he have said "Bagman" or would he have
said "FUDGE"?  Or *both*?

Siriusly Snapey Susan





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 20:49:28 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:49:28 +0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy - addendum.
Message-ID: <ba4730e33c41e37c4a54b420f28fe112@...>

A bit extra to add to the Baggy post.
It doesn't really belong with the main theory because it's  something 
that could have happened but didn't.
Though it might explain something I highlighted in the first post.

Idly thumbing through the tome I came across Voldy's rant in the 
graveyard. He makes a comment that everybody has read but so far as I 
can find out, nobody has ever commented on. Or if they have, I can't 
find it.

"... then, of course there was the Quidditch World Cup ... I thought 
his protection might be weaker there, away from his relations and 
Dumbledore, but I was not yet strong enough to attempt to kidnap him in 
the midst of a horde of Ministry wizards." (GoF chap. 33)

Might be dodgy for Voldy, but there is at least one of his supporters 
around who doesn't mind taking a risk or two.

So just how vulnerable was Harry at the QWC?

Most vulnerable in the woods, I think. Panic, people dashing 
everywhere, Harry alone except for Ron and Hermione. Oh - and an evil 
wizard with a wand and an Invisibility Cloak lurking in the bushes. Now 
that situation fair makes one drool. What might have happened if a 
bunch of wizards hadn't turned up shooting random blasts into the 
undergrowth? *Stun*, *stun*, *stun*, pop Harry under the cloak and - 
"Master! Have I got a surprise for you!"

Nice. But a bit difficult to set up, difficult to plan for, too many 
possible variables. Though if it's someone with a lot of nerve or very 
angry.... an opportunistic moment that could have worked with a bit of 
luck.

Second most vulnerable time was in the VIP box. And this could be 
planned for - and perhaps it was, even had the groundwork laid before 
it was called off.
Harry is in a small isolated space, not overlooked, not in anyone's 
line of vision if they're watching the match. And to  escape there's no 
need to fight your way through a  crowd. Seats for 20.
OK. 19 to 1. Need to even out the odds a bit.
3 Malfoys -  they probably wouldn't interfere.
5 Students - Harry, Ron, Hermione, Gred and Forge.
1 Commentator busy with the game.
1  House Elf - who probably wouldn't fight her master's son.
1 Potential Kidnapper in an Invisibility Cloak.

Of the twenty over half are either anti-Harry or can be expected to be 
less effective wizards than full grown adults.
Now this sort of thinking would make sense as to why the Weasleys got 
so many tickets.
And who handed out the tickets that swung the odds? Bagman.

So what was the plan? A quick Confundus! on Harry with his own wand? 
"Oh look! He's overcome by the Veelas!" Big laugh, help him to the back 
of the box to recover, no-one looking, Invisibility Cloak again. Escape 
on a carpet stashed at the back of the box? I always did wonder why 
there was that conversation re: carpets in the camping ground.

Ah! What might have been!
All you need is a little imagination.

Kneasy




From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 20:54:26 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:54:26 -0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <d07o7b+tgue@...>
Message-ID: <d07ti2+3a7g@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely at b...> 
wrote:
> > 
> > Oh, and on a side note, while I am at it, instead of using a 
pensieve 
> > to get baby Harry's thoughts, how about Occulemency/Legitimency 
> > (sorry about the spelling)?
> > 
> > Fran
> 
> 
> Possible of course. But I don't think it would be as effective as 
the
> Pensive.
> 
> Snape very carefully tells us that memories and thoughts are not 
neatly
> filed away and it's pretty much chance which ones you end up seeing.
> They could keep finding memory after memory of whatever it is that
> pre-occupies kids of 15 months and under - "Hungry", "Wet" "Unhappy"
> - all that fascinating stuff.
> 
> But if you do a brain-drain into the Pensive - ah! lots of 
benefits; you can
> keep studying the same memory for as long as you like from different
> angles for a start, not possible with Legilimancy, I think.
<snip> Kneasy

So we know for sure that a brain-drain extracts conscious or 
unconsious thoughts. I was under the impression, probably misguided, 
that using Occ./Leg., the person may not have control over blocking 
what thoughts are seen, and so DD could have gotten past Lazlo's 
heirarchy of needs thoughts that may be in the conscious of a baby
Fran






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 23:15:59 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:59 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory
In-Reply-To: <d06pa6+rgrq@...>
Message-ID: <d085rf+dh70@...>


 
> Naama:
> I guess I just don't see much of the parasite in Voldemort. 

Neri:
When Voldemort takes over the body of another person, he is a
parasite. It's certainly not something a snake does, in RL or in myth.

> Naama:
> But the entire WW (almost) don't say his name. That should give him a 
> huge boost, no? 

Neri:
Perhaps it was the thing that saved his life in GH. I'm not the first
to suggest this theory.

Anyway, Snape's and Bella's responses to saying Voldemort's name are
considerably more pronounced than any responses of non-DEs. There's
something in this.

> 
> > Neri (previously):
> > But my main point was: Voldy and Snape seem to be connected by some 
> >Dark Arts magic. 
> 
> Naama:
> Again, I just don't see it. I probably missed some of your arguments 
> on this point, but I really don't see any evidence for it. Other than 
> the regular Dark Mark, what is this special Snape-Voldemort 
> connection? 

Neri:
I WAS talking about the Dark Mark, which creates a connection that we
probably don't understand yet. It is quite possible that there is
nothing about the Voldemort-Snape connection that is unique from other
DEs, but Snape is the DE that we have a lot of data about (at least in
regard to his daily behavior). What might be special about Snape is
perhaps that he, alone of all DEs, had learned to use this connection
to spy on Voldemort. Again, the main advantage of this possibility
would be simplicity: Voldy's immortality, the nature of the
connection, the vampire allusions and the way Snape spies on Voldy ?
all these mysteries might be solved by a single secret. 

> Naama:
> Since I take the "erm.. I don't think so" very much at fact value, I 
> hereby discount any vampirish allusions as merely coincidental or 
> atmospheric only (that is, creating a gothic ambience around Snape, 
> but not specifically vampirish). 

Neri:
Our opinions are quite similar in this sense. I also take these words
much at face value, but I think the ambience JKR creates around Snape
is gothic WITH vampiric allusions. He indeed has no connection with
vampires, but she suggests vampire-like elements in his personal mystery.

> Naama:
> I think, with Susan, that he is evil due to his choices. It's evil to 
> want immortality and to become part snake for that. But that doesn't 
> mean that snakes, as animals, are evil. 
> That's why it doesn't make thematic sense for Voldemort to have 
> merged with a demon (or Salazar Slytherin, for that matter), 

Neri:
I think that the demon element might make perfect thematic sense.
Signing a contract with a demon is a celebrated way in myth and
literature to symbolize The Choice to become evil, frequently in order
to gain some great dark powers.

Neri   







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  3 23:48:12 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:48:12 -0000
Subject: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
In-Reply-To: <20050302192805.43937.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d087ns+jhqr@...>


> SSSusan:
> So you're asking, then, if he's not snake, if he's not
> vampire, if he's not dementor, then what?  
> 
> To which I suppose I would ask, are we sure it's *an*
> evil thing which he's turned himself into?  Could it
> be a conglomerate, a unique hybrid?  [And maybe that's
> what you're getting at -- you wonder about the
> component parts.] 
> 
> Could it just be something JKR will not identify as a
> *thing* at all... but perhaps the result of multiple
> potions & spells w/o any "thing" entity in the mix at
> all?

Neri:
Any of these might be correct, of course.

If JKR is VERY good at this game and also plays fair, then Voldy would
be something that can be concluded from canon, although it would be
very difficult to guess. 

The advantage of assuming that the vampire-like elements in Snape
description are part of this "something" is that we get much more
information and clues that might be relevant. For example, if Snape is
a vampire in a strictly metaphorical sense, it means that he has to
consume something of other people in order to stay alive, but (since
he's not an actual vampire) it doesn't have to be blood. How about
fear, for example? Snape having to consume other people's fear can
explain why he terrorizes his students, and why he especially goes
after Neville. And if we assume that Snape got this fear sucking thing
from Voldy, this might explain why terrorizing plays such an important
role in Voldemort's strategy. And at least in regard to Diary!Tom we
have direct canon that he needs to consume fear in order to resurrect
himself:  "So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened
to be exactly what I wanted .... I grew stronger and stronger on a
diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets."

Neri







From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar  4 00:33:43 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:33:43 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What makes Voldy evil (was: Plugging my theory)
References: <d087ns+jhqr@...>
Message-ID: <006501c52051$d28d90e0$6601a8c0@...>



> Neri:
> Any of these might be correct, of course.
>
> If JKR is VERY good at this game and also plays fair, then Voldy would
> be something that can be concluded from canon, although it would be
> very difficult to guess.
>
> The advantage of assuming that the vampire-like elements in Snape
> description are part of this "something" is that we get much more
> information and clues that might be relevant. For example, if Snape is
> a vampire in a strictly metaphorical sense, it means that he has to
> consume something of other people in order to stay alive, but (since
> he's not an actual vampire) it doesn't have to be blood. How about
> fear, for example? Snape having to consume other people's fear can
> explain why he terrorizes his students, and why he especially goes
> after Neville. And if we assume that Snape got this fear sucking thing
> from Voldy, this might explain why terrorizing plays such an important
> role in Voldemort's strategy. And at least in regard to Diary!Tom we
> have direct canon that he needs to consume fear in order to resurrect
> himself:  "So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened
> to be exactly what I wanted .... I grew stronger and stronger on a
> diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets."
>
Charme:

You know, Neri, I think you're on to something there.  Maybe it's when 
wizards speak the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, or You-Know-Who or any of the 
other alternative monikers that could "feed" Voldy. If it's true that's how 
he gets stronger, then the Ministry releasing the news "He's 
baaaaaaaaa-aaack" might make fear rampant, and he could only get stronger 
from that, couldn't he?

Charme 






From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar  4 11:59:27 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:59:27 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory
In-Reply-To: <d085rf+dh70@...>
Message-ID: <d09iiv+r8hq@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
> 
>  
> > Naama:
> > I guess I just don't see much of the parasite in Voldemort. 
> 
> Neri:
> When Voldemort takes over the body of another person, he is a
> parasite. It's certainly not something a snake does, in RL or in 
myth.
> 

There is one reference to a parasite which I believe is deeply 
significant. Throughout OotP JKR repeatedly describes Harry's 
negative emotions as snake like:

`Harry's temper rose to the surface like a snake rearing from the 
long grass.'
`But Harry's anger at Snape continued to pound through his veins 
like venom.'

However, after Harry throws off Voldy's possession in the MoM all 
those references disappear and we get the following:

`The guilt filling the whole of Harry's chest like some monstrous, 
weighty parasite, now writhed and squirmed.'


<snip>
> 
> > Naama:
> > I think, with Susan, that he is evil due to his choices. It's 
evil to 
> > want immortality and to become part snake for that. But that 
doesn't 
> > mean that snakes, as animals, are evil. 
> > That's why it doesn't make thematic sense for Voldemort to have 
> > merged with a demon (or Salazar Slytherin, for that matter), 
> 
> Neri:
> I think that the demon element might make perfect thematic sense.
> Signing a contract with a demon is a celebrated way in myth and
> literature to symbolize The Choice to become evil, frequently in 
order
> to gain some great dark powers.
> 
> Neri


For me the thematic drive is around the concept of original sin. 

When Adam fell from grace he transmitted to the whole human race not 
only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even 
sin itself, which is the death of the soul.

His descendents inherited sin, all mankind is born with both death 
and sin. Baptism is a symbol of divine protection against the evil 
within. In HP terms the choices we make are based on our ability to 
perceive and conquer our own worst instincts. Our negative thoughts 
and emotions can make us appear strong but they are not true 
strength, in fact they are destructive to us as well as others. 
Making the right choices is dependent on correctly identifying the 
false promise and temptation of the power of evil. Self betrayal is 
the greatest betrayal of all. Those who embrace evil see it as 
empowering, they imagine an inner snake which is symbiotic,  
protecting and nourishing, those who reject evil do so because they 
recognise it for what it is, a parasite. Snakes are not evil in HP, 
parasitic worms are.

In HP positive emotions are the protective force. Whilst negative 
emotions feed the parasite, positive ones are poisonous to it. 
Dementors are driven away by happiness, Harry overcomes legilimency 
twice, once with thoughts of Cho, the second time through compassion 
for what he believes is Snape as a child. Harry throws off Voldy's 
possession with his love for Sirius. Lily protects Harry with love, 
in effect she baptises him.

Several characters, with striking parallels, represent this internal 
struggle. Voldy has taken the wrong route, Snape is ambiguous and 
Neville is quietly on the right path. Harry is engaged in the 
conflict, the outcome still open. The thrust of the books is Harry's 
developing awareness of his legacy both good and evil. This doesn't 
mean that possession theory is inevitable. The conflict can be 
represented in how he defeats Voldy: sacrifice, forgiveness, 
compassion etc. What draws me to the possession theory is that 
whilst this is Harry's story the evil, and thus the fight, is 
shared. The evil transcends individual actions, it is a collective 
responsibility, it is all of mankind's inheritance.

DD confirms that the prophecy means `one of us' (Voldy/Harry) must 
kill the `other one' which I read as the entity they share, this 
creates interesting possibilities for how the final act can be 
played. Harry could defeat the possessor (and save Tom), Voldy 
could  save Harry (if Tom can be revitalised within him), or they 
could act together. Snape, as yet ambiguous, could be the deciding 
actor or Neville as the oft overlooked and humble hero could remind 
us that the smallest acts of kindness can save the day.  Quite 
possibly we could have a combination of all, some, of the above.

Regards
Jo

`Pronouns are the devil, aren't they? You start saying "he" 
and "his" and are breezing gaily along, and you suddenly find you've 
got everything all mixed up. That's life, too, if you look at it in 
the right way.'
`Heavy Weather' - P.G. Wodehouse.






From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar  4 12:13:21 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:13:21 -0000
Subject: Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <d07ehu+81m8@...>
Message-ID: <d09jd1+1co2@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" <melclaros at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> > A supporting character role in just one book, yet Ludo Bagman 
> makes my 
> > thumbs itch.
> 
> 
> Ludo is, in fact, the vampire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in all seriousness I couldn't agree more. Forget the Dark Mark 
> floating over the QWC, he's got a big red arrow following him 
> around. It's mentioned in canon that he's dodgy in all sorts of 
ways 
> and there are things we don't know about him. If anything about 
> Ludo's a "red herring" it's Jo trying to put us off the scent with 
> the gambling story--that is the LEAST of our problems with Ludo. 
> 
> If he turns out to be on the up-and-up, I'll be hitching a ride on 
> that fishing fleet.

Oh he's definitely dodgy! My guess is Bertha was involved in his 
magic carpet scam, that's what she was doing in Albania, he's a 
carpet baggy!

Regards
Jo






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar  5 13:50:59 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for JKR
In-Reply-To: <20050227030311.24214.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050305135059.75413.qmail@...>

While internet searching, I came across some sayings
that I think influenced JKR.

Quote #1:  "That which kills produces life, that which
causes death causes resurrection, that which destroys
creates."

Quote #2:  "There is nothing to hinder a person to see
the light except his love for the darkness."

These are tied to some Rosecrusian sayings that are
also tied to CORNELIUS AGRIPPA who is a real person
who wrote about and believed in Magic in the 16th
century.

I think Quote #1 is the theme for the relationship
between Voldemort and Harry (Evil and Good).  The
circle of life idea and the Eastern theories of
Balance come to mind.

I think Quote #2 is the theme for the existence of
evil ghosts but I am not sure about the friendly
ghosts.  Perhaps fear of the light replaces love for
the darkness in their case.

Randy (Who tends to look for the metaphors rather than
the character issues)


Original topic below:

--- Randy Estes <estesrandy at ...> wrote:

> 
>  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
> 

> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/



From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar  5 21:42:43 2005
From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for JKR
In-Reply-To: <20050305135059.75413.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20050305214243.92386.qmail@...>


--- Randy Estes <estesrandy at ...> wrote:

> 
> While internet searching, I came across some sayings
> that I think influenced JKR.
> 
> Quote #1:  "That which kills produces life, that which
> causes death causes resurrection, that which destroys
> creates."
> 
> Quote #2:  "There is nothing to hinder a person to see
> the light except his love for the darkness."
> 
> These are tied to some Rosecrusian sayings that are
> also tied to CORNELIUS AGRIPPA who is a real person
> who wrote about and believed in Magic in the 16th
> century.
> 
> I think Quote #1 is the theme for the relationship
> between Voldemort and Harry (Evil and Good).  The
> circle of life idea and the Eastern theories of
> Balance come to mind.
> 
> I think Quote #2 is the theme for the existence of
> evil ghosts but I am not sure about the friendly
> ghosts.  Perhaps fear of the light replaces love for
> the darkness in their case.
> 
> Randy (Who tends to look for the metaphors rather than
> the character issues)


If you are interested in Rosicrucian stuff, you might be interested in the theories (nay,
religion) of Hans Rieuwers, who has created a whole belief system out of his research.  He still
has some essays in the HPFGU files:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/

Found under "Harry Potter - Christian Rosycross in Jeans"

and also has his own group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/

His theories are a little out there for a lot of people, but interesting nonetheless.

Catherine





	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/



From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar  5 21:53:42 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:53:42 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] HP Deeper Meanings for JKR
References: <20050305214243.92386.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <003d01c521cd$ccbd7db0$6601a8c0@...>


From: "Catherine Coleman"

>
> If you are interested in Rosicrucian stuff, you might be interested in the 
> theories (nay,
> religion) of Hans Rieuwers, who has created a whole belief system out of 
> his research.  He still
> has some essays in the HPFGU files:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/
>
> Found under "Harry Potter - Christian Rosycross in Jeans"
>
> and also has his own group:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/
>
> His theories are a little out there for a lot of people, but interesting 
> nonetheless.
>
> Catherine

Charme:

I've read his stuff - it's a bit "out there", but you have to give him 
credit for his passion and consistency. The problem for me is that his 
essays don't allow for anything other than the Alchemical Wedding, and I 
feel that the whole concept is probably too difficult for children and the 
mainstream population to absorb or relate.

Just my 2 and 1/4 cents -
Charme 






From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar  6 14:02:26 2005
From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus)
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:02:26 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory
In-Reply-To: <d085rf+dh70@...>
Message-ID: <d0f2hi+mirf@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
<snip> 
> Neri:
> I think that the demon element might make perfect thematic sense.
> Signing a contract with a demon is a celebrated way in myth and
> literature to symbolize The Choice to become evil, frequently in 
>order to gain some great dark powers.
> 

Yes, I agree - but not *merging* with the dark entity. I think it's a 
question of personhood that bothers me here, particularly in a 
Christian context. What defines Voldemort is his monstrous will to 
power - and will is the focal point of personhood. So, I don't really 
know whether it's even meaningful to talk of him as a compound of two 
persons. And if it's some kind of merger of wills, how can sin be 
properly attributed? I mean, if it's not just Tom Riddle's will, can 
we say that the evil deeds Voldemort has done (after the alleged 
merger) are truly his choice? In not, does that sit well with 
JKR's "stimmung" so far?




Naama






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar  6 20:38:19 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:38:19 -0000
Subject: a few nitpicks on Eagle Owls / vampire interview /  hag / Bertha and Peter
Message-ID: <d0fpnr+bkem@...>


Snow wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1283 :

<< 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. >>

In the beginning chapter of GoF, babymort is already in the room at
the end of the passage, with the fire lit, when Frank Bryce and the
reader first encounter him. 

I know it was an EAGLE OWL that flew over Hagrid's cabin -- Bubo bubo,
the Eurasian Eagle Owl, sometimes called Horned Owl, related to Bubo
virgianus, the Great Horned Owl. http://owlpages.com/species/Default.htm

I recall several Eagle Owls but no Eagles (except the Ravenclaw
symbol) in canon so far.

Jo mooseming wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1289 :

<< Take that interview response:
Is Snape a vampire?
Erm, I don't think so >>

World Book Day chat,
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm :
Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires?
JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so.

Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1294 :

<< but aren't you all ignoring the possibility that Umbridge is more
than metaphorically a hag? (snip) Perhaps Dumbledore was able to
rescue her from the centaurs by revealing that she wasn't actually a
human after all. >>

But centaurs like hags even less than they like humans. As Charme
already mentioned in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1284 "a small
footnote on page xiii [of FB] explain[s] that centaurs didn't like
being classified as a "being" with hags and vampires, so they bugged
out to manage their own affairs." 

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1357 :

<< And do you really believe that Peter would be able to persuade her
to take a walk in the woods *before* he overpowers her? >>

Bear in mind that I believe that human Peter was an ordinary slubby
looking bloke, not the Dickensianly grotesque ugliness shown in PoA
movie. Thus it seems totally obvious and pathetic that poor Bertha, a
homely desperate middle-aged spinster (as a homely not-quite
-desperate middle-aged not spinster, I relate!), would have been more
than happy to walk out with any age-appropriate unmarried wizard; she
may have SUGGESTED the private stroll (in vague hope of seducing him)
in the course of a conversation that began by her exclaiming: "Peter
Pettigrew! I thought you were blown to bits by that evil traitor! They
sent your Order of Merlin to your mother!" Then Peter could have
responded by spinning a tale of having awakened injured and amnesiac
in some unknown place and having only recently regained his memory and
thus being on the way back to Britain to resume his identity...






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar  6 21:43:38 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:43:38 -0000
Subject: Plugging my theory
In-Reply-To: <d0f2hi+mirf@...>
Message-ID: <d0ftia+64nv@...>



> Naama: 
> Yes, I agree - but not *merging* with the dark entity. I think it's a 
> question of personhood that bothers me here, particularly in a 
> Christian context. What defines Voldemort is his monstrous will to 
> power - and will is the focal point of personhood. So, I don't really 
> know whether it's even meaningful to talk of him as a compound of two 
> persons. And if it's some kind of merger of wills, how can sin be 
> properly attributed? I mean, if it's not just Tom Riddle's will, can 
> we say that the evil deeds Voldemort has done (after the alleged 
> merger) are truly his choice? In not, does that sit well with 
> JKR's "stimmung" so far?
> 

Neri:
Tom set the basilisk on Myrtle when he was 16, then killed his father,
grandfather and grandmother when he was 18. These were his choices,
and he made them before his transformations. And if Tom indeed turned
himself into something inhuman, then I'm sure he did it of his own
free will too. There's a good reason why such a decision is often
described as signing a contract with the devil or with a demon ? to
prevent any doubt that it was a choice and a binding decision. So IMO
the question if Voldemort has free will now, after he had turned
himself into some kind a of monster, is not critical. However, I think
JKR suggests that he does have free will even now. She made a point of
showing that the prophecy came to be only because of Voldemort's
choice. If he didn't try to kill "the one" he wouldn't have marked
him, and then there wouldn't be "the one". 

I agree that Tom probably turned himself into some dark entity rather
than "merged" with some previously existing dark entity. Tom writing
"I *am* Lord Voldemort" is almost like signing a contract. It's a good
enough testimony for me. This is personal, and it's between Harry and
Voldy. I think any other entity will just be in the way.

Neri







From snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 05:20:37 2005
From: snow15145 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:20:37 -0000
Subject: a few nitpicks on Eagle Owls / vampire interview /  hag / Bertha and Peter
In-Reply-To: <d0fpnr+bkem@...>
Message-ID: <d0gob5+uuuv@...>





Snow wrote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1283 :

<< 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. >>

Catlady correctly responded:
In the beginning chapter of GoF, babymort is already in the room at
the end of the passage, with the fire lit, when Frank Bryce and the
reader first encounter him.

I know it was an EAGLE OWL that flew over Hagrid's cabin -- Bubo bubo,
the Eurasian Eagle Owl, sometimes called Horned Owl, related to Bubo
virgianus, the Great Horned Owl. 
http://owlpages.com/species/Default.htm

I recall several Eagle Owls but no Eagles (except the Ravenclaw
symbol) in canon so far.

Snow:

Yep, you're right! I remembered two different instances having to 
deal with Voldemort at the Riddle Manor and combined them 
inadvertently; the one stated above and one on pg. 576 U.S. where 
Harry is in a dream sleep:

"He was riding on the back of an eagle owl, soaring through the clear 
blue sky toward an old, ivy-covered house set high on a hillside. 
Lower and lower they flew, the wind blowing pleasantly in Harry's 
face, until they reached a dark and broken window in the upper story 
of the house and entered
"
"Harry had left the owl's back
he was watching, now, as it fluttered 
across the room, into a chair with its back to him
"

Although this deals with a dream state the eagle owl is still 
representative of a messenger, of sorts, for Voldemort. 

The eagle owl that flew over Hagrid's has always been assumed to be a 
messenger owl between Voldemort and Crouch Jr. and sometimes 
associated with the eagle owl that delivers mail for the Malfoy's. I 
was thinking of the relationship between these instances and Snape as 
Malfoy's lap dog as well as spying on Voldemort along with what type 
of animagus forms Snape would take. 

I suppose it's a bit presumptuous to even assume that Snape may be an 
animagus at all except for the World Book Day Chat where Rowling made 
a type of connection between the Patronus and Animagus forms:

"class 14: If you were a animagus which animal would you be? and why?
JK Rowling replies -> I gave Hermione my idea animagus, because it's 
my favourite animal. You'll find the answer in the Room of 
Requirement, Order of the Phoenix!"

(Rowling was asked in this instance about her likely animagus form 
but replied with Hermione's Patronus form. A bit confusing to me but 
isn't Rowling always confusingly so in her interviews, as it has been 
discussed here recently.)

And then Rowling continues in the same interview to answer about 
Snape:

"Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor 
Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious.
JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but 
that's because it would give so much away. "

Why would Snape's Boggart or Patronus have any bearing on the story 
to give too much away? Now if Rowling was considering his animagus 
form when answering, I could see it affecting the storyline to a 
degree. This is the reason I was making an attempt to find how 
Snape's animagus form would tie in with the scattered clues that have 
been given about Snape's connection with Malfoy as a lap dog and his 
spying responsibilities on Voldemort's activities. There is, of 
course, the vampire type description of Snape to consider that 
Rowling, again, answered in anything but a straightforward reply, 
imo. 

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in the example I referred, 
Catlady, and I hope I was a bit clearer of my intentions. 

Snow







From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 06:48:58 2005
From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (Sean Dwyer)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:48:58 +1100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Half-Hag!Snape
In-Reply-To: <d0fpnr+bkem@...>
References: <d0fpnr+bkem@...>
Message-ID: <20050307064858.GC12967@...>

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0000, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote:

> << Take that interview response:
> Is Snape a vampire?
> Erm, I don't think so >>
> 
> World Book Day chat,
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm :
> Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires?
> JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so.
> 
> Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1294 :
> 
> << but aren't you all ignoring the possibility that Umbridge is more
> than metaphorically a hag? (snip) Perhaps Dumbledore was able to
> rescue her from the centaurs by revealing that she wasn't actually a
> human after all. >>
> 
> But centaurs like hags even less than they like humans. As Charme
> already mentioned in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1284 "a small
> footnote on page xiii [of FB] explain[s] that centaurs didn't like
> being classified as a "being" with hags and vampires, so they bugged
> out to manage their own affairs." 

Anyone for Half-Hag!Snape? There must be a male hag equivalent, and I notice
JKR has been careful not to describe hags in any great detail. It doesn't
preclude Snape from animagus status either. Care to guess Hag characteristics?
Dead-white, unpleasant, and what does it eats, my precious? James doesn't like
hags, but obviously Lily converted him somewhat. The other Marauders are less
convinced....

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 10:16:37 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:16:37 -0000
Subject: a few nitpicks on Eagle Owls / vampire interview /  hag / Bertha and Peter
In-Reply-To: <d0fpnr+bkem@...>
Message-ID: <d0h9m5+qchp@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> 
> Bear in mind that I believe that human Peter was an ordinary slubby
> looking bloke, not the Dickensianly grotesque ugliness shown in PoA
> movie. Thus it seems totally obvious and pathetic that poor Bertha, a
> homely desperate middle-aged spinster (as a homely not-quite
> -desperate middle-aged not spinster, I relate!), would have been more
> than happy to walk out with any age-appropriate unmarried wizard; she
> may have SUGGESTED the private stroll (in vague hope of seducing him)
> in the course of a conversation that began by her exclaiming: "Peter
> Pettigrew! I thought you were blown to bits by that evil traitor! They
> sent your Order of Merlin to your mother!" Then Peter could have
> responded by spinning a tale of having awakened injured and amnesiac
> in some unknown place and having only recently regained his memory and
> thus being on the way back to Britain to resume his identity...


You incorrigible romantic, you!

I'll go along with your contention that Timothy Spall's representation of Peter
owed more to a theatrical caricature from "Wind in the Willows" than
anything else and can be regarded as suspect --  but Bertha as predator
seems a mite fanciful. (Reminds me of an incident in Spike Milligans
'Puckoon' where a determined female gets her target drunk, drags him
to the altar and a ventriloquist from County Cork says "I  do" from the
third pew.)

>From what we know of Bertha all Peter would have to do was whisper 
"It's a secret - come outside, I can't tell you here," and she'd be out like
a ferret up a drainpipe.

What I do believe is that the meeting was no accident. 
Peter and Voldy knew she'd be there, they'd been told so - probably by
ole Baggy. What I haven't figured out is how he communicated with
Voldy - not owls I think, and it could be important when considering the 
DEs as a group if there's some clandestine means of communication we
don't yet know about.

Kneasy






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 19:09:41 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:09:41 +0000
Subject: The Potions Master
Message-ID: <2b5c218f46a18d4e5c32c33352f836c9@...>

Scrabbling around, looking for unconsidered trifles, grasping at 
straws, searching for pointers to the next two books. It's a hard life 
as a fan.

Apart from the beginning the end and perhaps the Mirror, when it comes 
to analysis PS/SS generally gets pushed towards the back these days and 
Chap. 8 rarely gets a mention except to demonstrate how truly horrible 
Sevvy is to Harry. (Though canon doesn't give this view unqualified 
support - after Snape has docked Harry a second point and Harry is 
about to argue, Ron gives him a nudge and tells him "Don't push it..... 
I've heard Snape can turn very nasty."  Not much worse than average, 
then?) However, I'm not so sure that that's its only function; there's 
a possibility that the passage on the potions class is absolutely 
heaving with significance.

".... even stopper death..."
Thus spake Snape in PS/SS.

I seem to recall a post or two on this from way back and the general 
consensus was that ole Sevvy could bottle death, i.e. poisons, which 
wasn't my interpretation at all - though I never got round to saying 
so, being heavily involved in two or three other threads at the time.

Can't speak for those on the other side of the water but in the UK the 
generally accepted usage of stopper (as a verb) is to block, prevent, 
curtail, seal off, obstruct, stop; much the same meaning as the phrase 
"put a cork in it" when you want somebody to shut up. Which would mean 
that Snape can prevent death.

How interesting. Does Voldy  know this?

Of course he may just be getting poetic about the use of potions for 
their curative properties - so might Fleming have claimed that 
penicillin could stopper death if used correctly.
And if he's not?
There's at least two routes to immortality;  the Stone is one and Voldy 
was certain that another way existed, anyway he'd been searching for it 
for years. Maybe Snape knows a way too.  It'd certainly fit with DD's 
inclinations - anyone who knows too much (Sybil for example) gets a job 
at Hogwarts where he can keep an eye on them. It would resurrect 
another old theory - Snape isn't a spy, he's brewmaster, real or 
pretend, to Voldy and the DEs.

Then there is what some consider a foreshadowing - the triple of 
monkshood, wolfsbane and aconite (remember the Bellman - "what I tell 
you three times is true") and the specific against poisons - a bezoar. 
Mind you, I don't think it'll be Harry that's poisoned, not with 
wolfsbane in there. And just to make sure Harry remembers he gets his 
first punishment for not knowing this.

If you look this introductory homily is mostly about death - how it can 
be obtained, how to prevent it, how to give the appearance of it. You 
can't say you haven't been warned.

That 'Draught of Living Death' stuff. Sounds intriguing and open to all 
sorts of interpretations and associations. Why would anyone need to 
sleep that deeply? Um. Romeo and Juliet? And the constituents - 
wormwood: bitter;  a vermifuge and moth repellent - hardly applicable, 
but absinthe, there's a fun beverage with wormwood as an ingredient - 
and too much drives you bonkers, you have hallucinations and fits - 
which is why it was made illegal.

Mix it up with asphodel - which according to the herbals is good for 
menstrual troubles, not something that should worry Harry, but oh yes - 
the mythological links - where it grew was the domain of Hades, ruler 
of the dead and it is according to Homer "an ugly weed with a pretty 
name, a grey and ghostly plant suited to an Underworld inhabited by 
bloodless wraiths."  Dementors, anyone? Or should we be thinking of the 
Veil?

Bitter as mind-bending wormwood, bitter as death and a plant from the 
realm of the dead. It may be the result of an over-active imagination 
(or those pickled onions at lunch) - but if Sirius hasn't got his 
mirror and if he's not a ghost, what're the odds that he could be 
contacted by entering a death-like sleep? Or why should it be Sirius? 
Why not James and Lily? Crazy? Possible - the months before a new book 
tends to be when the most outrageous ideas get thrown up. And 
afterwards they get thrown out. Fun idea though.

But what to make of ".. brew fame and bottle glory...." that's one hell 
of a claim - and how could it be accomplished and under what 
circumstances?

Answers on a postcard please.

Kneasy




From kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 19:35:59 2005
From: kcawte at slytherinspirit.yahoo.invalid (Kathryn)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:35:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Potions Master
References: <2b5c218f46a18d4e5c32c33352f836c9@...>
Message-ID: <422CAD1F.000001.01244@KATHRYN>


Kneasy wrote 

".... even stopper death..."
Thus spake Snape in PS/SS.

I seem to recall a post or two on this from way back and the general 
consensus was that ole Sevvy could bottle death, i.e. poisons, which 
wasn't my interpretation at all - though I never got round to saying 
so, being heavily involved in two or three other threads at the time.

Can't speak for those on the other side of the water but in the UK the 
generally accepted usage of stopper (as a verb) is to block, prevent, 
curtail, seal off, obstruct, stop; much the same meaning as the phrase 
"put a cork in it" when you want somebody to shut up. Which would mean 
that Snape can prevent death.

K

*sigh* Kneasy starts a really interesting debate on a topic relating to my
favourite (because he's the most complex) character and I can't think of a
single intersting thing to add to it. Other (well come on you didn't expect
the fact I have nothing to say to stop me did you?) than to agree with
Kneasy's interpretation of Severus' possible meaning. I automatically took
it to mean this since if he just meant he could make a poison, well let's
face it that's not all that difficult, half the ingredients they seem to use
are deadly poisins. Hardly an advert for the fascination and complexity of
his subject is it - I can create a poison that any half competent wizard can
make. Whereas actually being able to fight death - now that sounds worth
learning about! Of course when I mentioned that possible meaning over on
HPfGUs I got told by several posters that I was misunderstanding and
confusing the word stopper with stop and he simply meant he could make
poisons.

Of course if he *can* prevent death maybe he should rethink his speech since
I don't know that he'd want to advertise that fact to Voldemort. Maybe
rather than stoppering death by prolonging life though he meant brewing
potions that can bring you back from the most serious of injuries? Injuries
that would normally be mortal, or maybe that's just the spin he's putting on
it to Voldemort since he can actually prolong life and is too arrogant to
cut it out of his opening day speech despite the dangers. huh. I could see
that actually - him advertising a capability that it isn't in his interests
to advertise just because he's one of only a few people who can do it and he
s darn proud of himself.

Wow - I start of saying I have nothing to say and then manage two paragraphs
 clearly I'm suffering from a major case of verbosity here!

K

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




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 19:54:13 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] The Potions Master
In-Reply-To: <422CAD1F.000001.01244@KATHRYN>
Message-ID: <20050307195413.70840.qmail@...>

Kneasy wrote: 
".... even stopper death..."
Thus spake Snape in PS/SS.

Can't speak for those on the other side of the water
but in the UK the generally accepted usage of stopper
(as a verb) is to block, prevent, curtail, seal off,
obstruct, stop; much the same meaning as the phrase 
"put a cork in it" when you want somebody to shut up.
Which would mean that Snape can prevent death.

Kathryn added:
Of course when I mentioned that possible meaning over
on HPfGUs I got told by several posters that I was
misunderstanding and confusing the word stopper with
stop and he simply meant he could make poisons.


SSSusan:
I remember that exchange, Kathy, and I was one of the
ones who thought you were *right.*  From the moment I
first read that speech of Snape's, this American
interpreted it along the lines of what Kneasy's
described.  That is, something along the lines of put
a stopper *in* it, or prevent it, or slow it down.

Kathryn:
I could see that actually - him advertising a
capability that it isn't in his interests to advertise
just because he's one of only a few people who can do
it and he's darn proud of himself.

SSSusan:
I think you may be right on this, too, and I've got
more to say on this later... it relates to something
I've been tossing around about Snape for a few days...
but the info I need is elsewhere just now.  

Maybe I can draw another two paragraphs out of you
then, K.

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar  7 22:55:24 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:55:24 -0000
Subject: The Potions Master
In-Reply-To: <2b5c218f46a18d4e5c32c33352f836c9@...>
Message-ID: <d0im4s+ahuc@...>


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

> 
> ".... even stopper death..."
> Thus spake Snape in PS/SS.
> 
> 

I thought Snape was referring to his skill with antidotes. We do 
keep hearing about them.

Pippin







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 00:37:57 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:37:57 -0000
Subject: Whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell?
Message-ID: <d0is55+8f6d@...>


Whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell?

Here's a sentence that Quirrell!Mort says in the end of SS/PS, which
has some interesting implications I failed to notice before:

SS/PS, Ch. 17 p. 293 US:
"See what I have become?" the face said. "Mere shadow and vapour... I
have form only when I can share another's body... but there have
always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds...

"Willing"? Hearts and minds"? This doesn't sound like some small
animals and snakes. So whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell and was
that before or during the time he was vapor? Note the "those" and
"always". We're likely talking here about several people during a long
time. Reminds you of "they, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to
guard myself against mortal death?" (GoF, Ch. 33, p.648 US).  It's the
DEs that Voldy is talking about here. 

The other interesting implication of this SS/PS sentence is that maybe
Voldy can't possess anyone just like that. He needs the person to be
"willing" to let him in. Remember this myth about vampires and demons?
They can't enter a house for the first time unless they are invited.
Quirrell had to be convinced that he was "a foolish young man, full of
ridiculous ideas about good and evil". It seems Voldemort had to show
him first that "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and
those too weak to seek it" before he could actually take control.
Ginny had to share her fears and secrets, steal the diary and hide her
suspicions about what she was doing and couldn't remember. And Harry?
Harry had already had a connection with Voldy, and he was angry at DD
the whole year, and just before he was actually possessed he had tried
to perform an Unforgivable curse. 

Any thoughts?


Neri






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 12:27:02 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:27:02 -0000
Subject: Whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell?
In-Reply-To: <d0is55+8f6d@...>
Message-ID: <d0k5mm+ub00@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> Whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell?
> 
> Here's a sentence that Quirrell!Mort says in the end of SS/PS, which
> has some interesting implications I failed to notice before:
> 
> SS/PS, Ch. 17 p. 293 US:
> "See what I have become?" the face said. "Mere shadow and vapour... I
> have form only when I can share another's body... but there have
> always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds...
> 
> "Willing"? Hearts and minds"? This doesn't sound like some small
> animals and snakes. So whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell and was
> that before or during the time he was vapor? Note the "those" and
> "always". We're likely talking here about several people during a long
> time. Reminds you of "they, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to
> guard myself against mortal death?" (GoF, Ch. 33, p.648 US).  It's the
> DEs that Voldy is talking about here. 
> 
> The other interesting implication of this SS/PS sentence is that maybe
> Voldy can't possess anyone just like that. He needs the person to be
> "willing" to let him in. Remember this myth about vampires and demons?
> They can't enter a house for the first time unless they are invited.
> Quirrell had to be convinced that he was "a foolish young man, full of
> ridiculous ideas about good and evil". It seems Voldemort had to show
> him first that "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and
> those too weak to seek it" before he could actually take control.
> Ginny had to share her fears and secrets, steal the diary and hide her
> suspicions about what she was doing and couldn't remember. And Harry?
> Harry had already had a connection with Voldy, and he was angry at DD
> the whole year, and just before he was actually possessed he had tried
> to perform an Unforgivable curse. 
> 
> Any thoughts?


Ah, Neri.
Do you realise that you've provided another opportunity for Kneasy to
bang on about Possession Theory? Foolish lad. You might regret this.

"... willing to let me into their hearts and minds" could be no more than the
acceptance of his political/philosophical stance,  but it could also be an
indication of much more. Let me briefly expand on that.

"Voldy says.." But what is Voldy?
Tom - a changed Tom - and to PT fans that change was caused by an
outside  factor -  the  Salazar spirit, essence, what you will, entering
his mind. Tom was the one before Quirrell.

Tom accepts Sally willingly, Sally has much more power than Tom could
ever scrape together and Tom craves sufficient power to wreak his revenge
on all those he sees as having slighted him. Sally is the senior partner, 
Tom his means to his ends, the voice that speaks is Sally's. Tom is a 
convenience, little more.

And there's a possibility that Tom hasn't been the only one down the 
ages to enter into a Faustian pact with Sally. Sally's spirit maybe damned 
near eternal, but his body wasn't. So down the ages he may have possessed
many while he searched for *corporate* immortality, slipping out of his lair
in the Chamber, infecting the susceptible, hoping to crack his body problem.
And if he does succeed, watch out, there'll be no hope for anyone. 

As I see it, this is Harry's task - to isolate the essence of evil that is Sally, 
(Sally in Vapour!Mort mode is much more constrained than Sally in possession
of a body, Voldy admits this) and if he can't destroy it at least lock it up out 
of harms way. Of course he might have to go with it....

Assuming that GH was a possession attempt, with Sally up to his old tricks,
then the only real difference between Tom and Harry is that Harry did not/
has not willingly accepted the intrusion, mostly because of the emplaced
protection. He wasn't *offered* a choice. But with the Voldy construct
swanning round his mind in OoP and the possibility that it may get worse
in HBP, that choice may be presented. And yes, it is worrying the way his
attitudes deteriorated once Voldy got in there. The next step could be the
'Temptation' that I was whittering on about a year or more ago. Can't have
an heroic epic without a temptation you know, t'ain't right, against the rules
or something. And it usually occurs at just about the stage we're at now,
right when everything is coming to the boil.

If you're  a fan of this line of thinking then there could have been an earlier
offer, or the precursor to one - the Sorting Hat. "Slytherin can help you on
the way to greatness, no doubt about that." Slytherin House - or, as I think,
Salazar Slytherin?

Interestingly, I see the Ginny episode as Tom in pre-take-over phase; he
himself has been, or is about to be offered the choice, but the pact is not
yet concluded. Hence he calls on Slytherin "the greatest of the Hogwarts four"
to squelch the Potter pest. If SS had already subsumed him he wouldn't need 
to do that.

As an allegory tale with the concept of evil as an actual entity and the dangers
of making a pact with, well, the devil, or a reasonable fascimile thereof, seems
neat and tidy to me.

Kneasy  






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 13:40:13 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:40:13 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
Message-ID: <d0k9vt+n1tv@...>


Ooooh, oooh!  The cover art has been released for the two UK and one 
American edition of HBP.  The UK adult version shows a beat-up old 
textbook, labelled "Advanced Potion Making."

http://www.the-leaky-
cauldron.org/images/2005/03/adulthbpbloomsbury.html

Does this mean our Harry did manage to pass his Potions OWL with a 
high enough mark to get into Snape's NEWT-level Potions class??

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 14:13:52 2005
From: neilward at flyingfordanglia.yahoo.invalid (Neil Ward)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:13:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] New covers -- look at UK adult!
Message-ID: <20050308141353.9414.h032.c000.wm@...>

SSSusan said:

<< Ooooh, oooh!  The cover art has been released for
the two UK and one American edition of HBP. >>

Regarding the regular UK cover, I see Harry Potter is
now styled after a young Woody Allen.  Will it be "Love
and Death" for our hero or "Everything You Always
Wanted to Know About Snape But Were Afraid to Ask"?

Neil

----------------------------------------
Scanned by Emailfiltering.co.uk



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 16:01:58 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:01:58 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0k9vt+n1tv@...>
Message-ID: <d0ki9m+je5m@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Ooooh, oooh!  The cover art has been released for the two UK and one 
> American edition of HBP.  The UK adult version shows a beat-up old 
> textbook, labelled "Advanced Potion Making."
> 
> http://www.the-leaky-
> cauldron.org/images/2005/03/adulthbpbloomsbury.html
> 
> Does this mean our Harry did manage to pass his Potions OWL with a 
> high enough mark to get into Snape's NEWT-level Potions class??
> 


Potions. Yep, the Draught of Death here we come. Hold on a minute,
the American edition seems to show DD and Harry plus a Pensieve.
Well, it's either that or an up-lighter. (You can get it through Mugglenet)
So what's the connection?

Kneasy






From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 16:26:14 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:26:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Fun and games with Baggy
In-Reply-To: <818217623abceb273d37d51779ac28ab@...>
Message-ID: <20050308162614.86229.qmail@...>

I agree with Kneasy that Ludo Bagman is an under-appreciated
character in the books so far and that he probably is, as Winky said,
"a bad wizard!"

I used to work in a very large government department and there were
guys like Bagman dotted here and there in the various layers of the
ministry.  Mostly they kept their heads down, did their (not onerous)
jobs and looked forward to retirement but some were more forthright
and they did the same kind of thing that Bagman seems to do in GOF.  

He's the go-to guy who can make things happen, who knows a wide range
of people and isn't shy about calling in favours, with the unspoken
commitment that he owes you one and he's good for the payment.  I can
definitely see Bagman as the kind of guy who owes so many favours
that he pays each off by doing yet more favours: the currency of
likeability without drawing down his own personal deposit at the
Bank.

He gets into trouble when he actually puts his own resources on the
line and goes up against the goblins of the banking system.  They
don't care about pricey seats at events or the usual stuff Bagman can
produce and for the first time in a long time he can't charm his way
out of things.  And so he takes a flit.

I don't see Bagman as a terribly pro-active person.  He's basically a
lazy, what's-in-it-for-me?, reactive guy, moving when he has to move,
trading on cheap charm because it costs him nothing.  

I think he did for Voldemort what he did best: charm bright and
upcoming young wizards in the MOM, dazzling them with his sporting
background and then doing little favours to make them feel special,
maybe getting them low-level jobs at the MoM, then introducing them
to DE recruiters and not looking back.  I doubt if Bagman ever went
DE-ing himself; he was a procurer, not a foot-soldier in the war.

And he probably told himself that he wasn't doing anything wrong by
making introductions; if the young wizards he passed on did foolish
or criminal things, well, he hadn't told them to do it.

I think this is how Peter Pettigrew first got approached for DE-dom,
when PP was looking to find a new James Potter to coast along in the
wake of.

But I don't think Bagman messed with Bertha's brain or did anything
that didn't have an immediate payback for him.  He's just not that
forward thinking.

Magda


	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/



From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 14:19:55 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:19:55 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0k9vt+n1tv@...>
Message-ID: <d0kcab+h4un@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Ooooh, oooh!  The cover art has been released for the two UK and 
one 
> American edition of HBP.  The UK adult version shows a beat-up old 
> textbook, labelled "Advanced Potion Making."
> 
> http://www.the-leaky-
> cauldron.org/images/2005/03/adulthbpbloomsbury.html
> 
> Does this mean our Harry did manage to pass his Potions OWL with a 
> high enough mark to get into Snape's NEWT-level Potions class??
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

On the Today Show, the cover shows DD and Harry looking into a 
pensieve or some sort of bowl on a column...

The publisher at scholastic said that the new minister of magic is in 
this book alos that we find out more about Voldy....

Fran






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 18:37:25 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: US cover (was: New covers -- look at UK adult!)
In-Reply-To: <d0kcab+h4un@...>
Message-ID: <20050308183725.84195.qmail@...>

Fran:
On the Today Show, the cover shows DD and Harry
looking into a pensieve or some sort of bowl on a
column...


SSSusan:
I'm starting to think (and hope) that the reason there
is *green* light emanating from what looks like a
pensieve is that perhaps Harry is getting to look at a
memory from GH.  That is, it's AK-green that's
swirling around.

Whose memory would it be?  DD's?  Snape's?







From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 18:35:39 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:35:39 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0ki9m+je5m@...>
Message-ID: <d0kr9r+aneh@...>


Kneasy: 
> Potions. Yep, the Draught of Death here we come. Hold on a minute,
> the American edition seems to show DD and Harry plus a Pensieve.
> Well, it's either that or an up-lighter. (You can get it through 
Mugglenet)
> So what's the connection?
> 

Potioncat:
Can we assume it was just an artistic call to have Harry left handed 
on one book and DD (if that's who it is) left handed on the other? Or 
was it really important that Snape held his wand in his left hand 
part of the time in movie!PoA?

My monitor is very dark. Is the Advanced Potions book on top of 
another book or is on on a wooden box?

Does anyone want to hear about poor plannning? My two kids will come 
home from camp the day HBP comes out. My only hope is that they will 
have really really missed their friends. "No, really, run along, 
don't worry about me..."






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 19:22:26 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:22:26 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0kr9r+aneh@...>
Message-ID: <d0ku1i+mc9e@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> wrote:
> Can we assume it was just an artistic call to have Harry left handed 
> on one book and DD (if that's who it is) left handed on the other? Or 
> was it really important that Snape held his wand in his left hand 
> part of the time in movie!PoA?
> 

Artistic I don't know, but with mirror images you have to think Mirror.

The Mirror is showing a vision of DD and Harry looking into the
Pensive - or is it the Pensieve showing a memory of DD and Harry in 
the Mirror? Or is that the wrong cover? Bugger.
Alternatively, there's this barbecue and Harry's sausage has dropped 
off his stick into the fire. DD to the rescue. Or Galadriel's Mirror took a 
wrong turn at the Gollum Gulper (Fine Foods for Fine Folks) and DD
sees a fine eyeball specimen that would suit as a Xmas pressie for 
Moody. Hmm. The plot thickens. Moody beats DD to death with wooden
leg, blows Harry's buttocks off, declares himself Evil Overlord.
Couldn't happen to a nicer feller.


> My monitor is very dark. Is the Advanced Potions book on top of 
> another book or is on on a wooden box?


It looks like a desk-top, schoolkids for the use of.
Pretty sub-standard, there's not even any  obscene graffiti.


> 
> Does anyone want to hear about poor plannning? My two kids will come 
> home from camp the day HBP comes out. My only hope is that they will 
> have really really missed their friends. "No, really, run along, 
> don't worry about me..."


Ha!
You want to talk about poor planning?
HBP comes out half-way through the Open Golf Championship from
St. Andrews - and with the BBC offering 12 hours a day minimum non-stop,
no interruption coverage, too. Someone has blundered.

Kneasy






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 19:30:22 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:30:22 -0000
Subject: Whom did Voldy possess before Quirrell?
In-Reply-To: <d0k5mm+ub00@...>
Message-ID: <d0kuge+muhg@...>


> > Neri wrote:
> > SS/PS, Ch. 17 p. 293 US:
> > " but there have
> > always been those willing to let me into their hearts and 
minds..."
>

> Kneasy: 
> Ah, Neri.
> Do you realise that you've provided another opportunity for Kneasy 
to
> bang on about Possession Theory? Foolish lad. You might regret this.
> 

Neri again:
I've never discounted the Possession Theory completely and I'm 
keeping an eye on it (BTW, does it to have some cool 
name? "Possession Theory" might be confused with theories in which it 
is Tom who does the possession). The thing is, it seems that anything 
Sally can do, there is no real reason why Tom couldn't do himself 
just as well. As you perhaps remember, my own obsession is that I 
prefer theories as simple as they can be made. One of my main 
personal guidelines is: "It's already complicated enough. Don't 
complicate it further unless there is a very good reason to do so". 
For me, adding Sally to the list of all the vapors, essences and 
pieces of mind buzzing around must involve a very good reason, which 
I'm yet to encounter.   

> Kneasy:
> "... willing to let me into their hearts and minds" could be no 
more than the
> acceptance of his political/philosophical stance,  but it could 
also be an
> indication of much more. Let me briefly expand on that.
> 
> "Voldy says.." But what is Voldy?
> Tom - a changed Tom - and to PT fans that change was caused by an
> outside  factor -  the  Salazar spirit, essence, what you will, 
entering
> his mind. Tom was the one before Quirrell.
> 

Neri:
Except that "there have been always those willing" sounds like more 
than one.

> Kneasy:
> Tom accepts Sally willingly, Sally has much more power than Tom 
could
> ever scrape together and Tom craves sufficient power to wreak his 
revenge
> on all those he sees as having slighted him. Sally is the senior 
partner, 
> Tom his means to his ends, the voice that speaks is Sally's. Tom is 
a 
> convenience, little more.
> 

Neri:
As I understood it, one of your main reasons to come up with the PT 
in the first place was Voldy's disappointing performances as the evil 
overlord. But if Sally is the senior partner, then he's the one 
responsible for all the screw-ups. How disappointing.

> Kneasy:
> And there's a possibility that Tom hasn't been the only one down 
the 
> ages to enter into a Faustian pact with Sally. Sally's spirit maybe 
damned 
> near eternal, but his body wasn't. So down the ages he may have 
possessed
> many while he searched for *corporate* immortality, slipping out of 
his lair
> in the Chamber, infecting the susceptible, hoping to crack his body 
problem.
> And if he does succeed, watch out, there'll be no hope for anyone. 
> 

Neri:
This is what I mean by complication. Do we have any good reasons to 
think this was the case, other then to explain this very sentence we 
are discussing? Does it help to solve one of the big mysteries?
 
> Kneasy:
> As I see it, this is Harry's task - to isolate the essence of evil 
that is Sally, 
> (Sally in Vapour!Mort mode is much more constrained than Sally in 
possession
> of a body, Voldy admits this) and if he can't destroy it at least 
lock it up out 
> of harms way. Of course he might have to go with it....
> 
> Assuming that GH was a possession attempt, with Sally up to his old 
tricks,
> then the only real difference between Tom and Harry is that Harry 
did not/
> has not willingly accepted the intrusion, mostly because of the 
emplaced
> protection. He wasn't *offered* a choice. But with the Voldy 
construct
> swanning round his mind in OoP and the possibility that it may get 
worse
> in HBP, that choice may be presented. And yes, it is worrying the 
way his
> attitudes deteriorated once Voldy got in there. The next step could 
be the
> 'Temptation' that I was whittering on about a year or more ago. 
Can't have
> an heroic epic without a temptation you know, t'ain't right, 
against the rules
> or something. And it usually occurs at just about the stage we're 
at now,
> right when everything is coming to the boil.
> 

Neri:
I think Harry was already tempted when he used the Unforgivable (that 
is not to say we won't see the temptation thing again) and here he 
was tempted by Evil in general rather then by Voldy personally. I 
think Tom tempted by impersonal evil powers rather then personally by 
Sally can work just the same.

> Kneasy:
> If you're  a fan of this line of thinking then there could have 
been an earlier
> offer, or the precursor to one - the Sorting Hat. "Slytherin can 
help you on
> the way to greatness, no doubt about that." Slytherin House - or, 
as I think,
> Salazar Slytherin?

Neri:
Again, it is quite possible, but I still don't see the big advantage 
(for the plot, theme, etc.) for using the person Slytherin when the 
House (and the worldview) seems to work just as well.

> Kneasy: 
> Interestingly, I see the Ginny episode as Tom in pre-take-over 
phase; he
> himself has been, or is about to be offered the choice, but the 
pact is not
> yet concluded. Hence he calls on Slytherin "the greatest of the 
Hogwarts four"
> to squelch the Potter pest. If SS had already subsumed him he 
wouldn't need 
> to do that.
> 

Neri:
And yet, Diary!Tom tells us that he had already took the name 
Voldemort and had already had followers. And he was obviously able to 
create the diary and possess Ginny. So Slytherin possessing Tom who 
possessed Ginny, this is becoming too complicated for me.

> Kneasy:
> As an allegory tale with the concept of evil as an actual entity 
and the dangers
> of making a pact with, well, the devil, or a reasonable fascimile 
thereof, seems
> neat and tidy to me.
> 

Neri:
I agree about the main concept, but it seems to me that JKR's 
cosmology is rather more impersonal. Ancient Magic or the Power 
Behind The Locked Door are portrayed as impersonal powers. IMO making 
Evil personal would not be her style.  

No, I prefer a different take on this sentence by Voldy. He used to 
possess his DEs before he was made vapor. Not all the time, of 
course, just occasionally, like he does with Nagini. Or maybe he put 
only a small piece of himself in each of them, you know, not to have 
all the eggs in one basket. This was probably part of his immortality 
project, which is why he said it involved many steps, and why he said 
the DEs know about these steps. And the DEs had to be willing, and 
each DE may have a different reason to let Voldy in. The Dark Mark 
scars are perhaps the openings that Voldy had installed on the DEs, 
to make it easy going in and out, and they may be similar to Harry's 
scar in this sense. Only Snape may have found that this opening is bi-
directional.

Neri  







From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar  8 18:06:58 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:06:58 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0ki9m+je5m@...>
Message-ID: <d0kpk2+r7dd@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Potions. Yep, the Draught of Death here we come. Hold on a minute,
> the American edition seems to show DD and Harry plus a Pensieve.


Yes, yes. Oh. What. A. Surprise. Harry will have Potions again. Who. 
Would. Have. Thought?
I wonder if he'll actually start paying attention this time.

Is it just me who wishes they'd fire GrandPre?






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 03:24:00 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Voldemort in Relgious Overtones
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050309032400.39037.qmail@...>


I have been reading the posts lately about Voldemort's
efforts to stay alive and his relationship to the
Death Eater.  I also read a few of the HP for Seekers
posts over the weekend.

I see some interesting parallels regarding Voldemort
and Biblical themes.  Of course, the Death Eaters have
a mark on them like the Biblical "mark of the beast". 
But I thought of a few other very strange parallels.

Death Eaters implies participating in eating Death.
The Church has believers consume the "body of Christ"
at communion.  The followers all have a partcipation
in the eating of "Everlasting Life".  I guess this is
the opposite of that.

Also, the one follower who will never return to
Voldemort harkens to the one disciple who betrayed
Christ.

The one that really struck me was the idea of Tom
Riddle's diary.  Voldemort was connected with the
diary or written words of Tom Riddle.  IF you read the
first chapter of the Book of John in the New
Testament, it goes something like...

"In the Beginning was the word, and the word was with
God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning
with God." referring to Christ.

If you take think about it in terms of Evil and
Voldemort you could say:

"In the Beginning was the diary, and the diary was
with Tom, and the Diary was Tom.  Voldemort was in the
Beginning with Tom."  Referring to Tom Riddle

This is obviously a very strange analogy to the
ultimate evil guy being Godlike in reverse.

If followers must allow Voldemort into themselves this
also parallels the Christian idea that believers must
allow Christ into themselves and noone else can make
them accept him.  This sounds like the situation with
Death Eaters and Voldemort.  The difference is that
Voldy is born again instead of the beliver being born
again, I guess.

This is all very weird but kind of interesting.

Harry obviously resembles the Christ child in some
regards.  Many others have drawn analogies in the HP
for seekers posts that I read over the weekend.

I just thought the Voldemort analogies were quite
fascinating.  I don't know if this has already been
discussed before or not.

Randy





	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/



From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 04:04:48 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:04:48 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0kpk2+r7dd@...>
Message-ID: <d0lsl0+f02h@...>


Melclaros wrote: 
> Yes, yes. Oh. What. A. Surprise. Harry will have Potions again. 
Who. 
> Would. Have. Thought?
> I wonder if he'll actually start paying attention this time.
> 
> Is it just me who wishes they'd fire GrandPre?

Potioncat:
Grandpre didn't do that cover. The cover with the Potions book is 
supposed to be a photograph by Michael Wildsmith.  Does anyone else 
find it odd that Ignatia Wildsmith was the witch of the month for 
December? Is the author of the potions text a play on Lucretia Borga? 
(Excuse my spelling, please.)

One article I read said that Grandpre is the only one who gets to 
read the book early. Surely the illustrators for the British books 
are able to read it as well?

So Harry takes Potions, big surprise. I expect the Half-blood Prince 
is his private tutor.
KathyW.








From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 01:36:51 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 01:36:51 -0000
Subject: US cover (was: New covers -- look at UK adult!)
In-Reply-To: <20050308183725.84195.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d0ljvj+euvf@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Susan Albrecht 
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> Fran:
> On the Today Show, the cover shows DD and Harry
> looking into a pensieve or some sort of bowl on a
> column...
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> I'm starting to think (and hope) that the reason there
> is *green* light emanating from what looks like a
> pensieve is that perhaps Harry is getting to look at a
> memory from GH.  That is, it's AK-green that's
> swirling around.
> 
> Whose memory would it be?  DD's?  Snape's?

How about Harry's?  Kneasy theorized that DD used a pensieve to get 
the events at GH. Somthing like that anyway.

Also, on the book cover that shows the potion book, the authors name 
is Libalus (?spelling) Borage. I googled Borage and found a meaning 
of courage. Libalus I beleive has soemthing to do with libation.  So 
do we have a drink of courage?

Fran






From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 09:16:10 2005
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:16:10 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050309091610.25772.qmail@...>





Potioncat:
<Grandpre didn't do that cover. The cover with the Potions book is supposed to be a photograph by Michael Wildsmith.  Does anyone else find it odd that Ignatia Wildsmith was the witch of the month for 
December? Is the author of the potions text a play on Lucretia Borga? (Excuse my spelling, please.)

<snip>

So Harry takes Potions, big surprise. I expect the Half-blood Prince is his private tutor.>

 

Sigune:

Tsk. So Dumbledore thinks Snape's *still* not ready for DADA...

Am I happy I ordered the adult edition - the children's cover is definitely the ugliest I saw so far. Wouldn't want it on my bookshelf - it would upset Wilde, Pater and the Aesthetic gang ;-)...


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

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




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 12:43:54 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:43:54 -0000
Subject: I'm puzzled...
Message-ID: <d0mr2a+sjc3@...>


about all this talk of a Pensieve.  Isn't it obvious that the US 
cover shows Harry and Dumbledore looking at a Pillar of Storg??

David, who wants to know why his licence fee is paying for 12 hours 
of golf a day.






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 14:43:50 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:43:50 -0000
Subject: I'm puzzled...
In-Reply-To: <d0mr2a+sjc3@...>
Message-ID: <d0n236+bftj@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> about all this talk of a Pensieve.  Isn't it obvious that the US 
> cover shows Harry and Dumbledore looking at a Pillar of Storg??


*bonk*
By George! You're right! Damn that Grandpre giving away crucial plot 
details!






From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 16:47:51 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:47:51 -0000
Subject: I'm puzzled...
In-Reply-To: <d0mr2a+sjc3@...>
Message-ID: <d0n9bn+r257@...>


David wrote:
> 
> about all this talk of a Pensieve.  Isn't it obvious that the US 
> cover shows Harry and Dumbledore looking at a Pillar of Storg??

Eustace_Scrubb:
Yes and no.  But it all becomes clear when you realize that "GRAIL
STOLE PROF" is an anagram for "Pillar of Storg?."

Well, doesn't it? 

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 20:45:28 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:45:28 -0000
Subject: Ack! (was: I'm puzzled...)
In-Reply-To: <d0mr2a+sjc3@...>
Message-ID: <d0nn98+r6dv@...>


I wrote:
> 
> Isn't it obvious that the US 
> cover shows Harry and Dumbledore looking at a Pillar of Storg??

Someone beat me to it!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/26370

David, getting old






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 14:42:06 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:42:06 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0lsl0+f02h@...>
Message-ID: <d0n1vu+8j67@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> 
wrote:
>
> Grandpre didn't do that cover. The cover with the Potions book is 
> supposed to be a photograph by Michael Wildsmith. 


Which is why it is so much better. 
I know Grandpre didn't do that cover. She DID do the American one 
and it, like the others she's done, is awful. Well at least it 
doesn't feature Snape with a goatee. Thank heaven for small mercies.


>Surely the illustrators for the British books 
> are able to read it as well?


The British books are not illustrated. I have a British copy of PoA 
which mercifully lacks Grandpre's "interpretations".  
She READS them? (yes that's facetious, I've also heard that she gets 
them early) It seems amazing to think she's read them when you look 
at her renditions. It's pretty clear she's never read a description 
of Snape.

Mel






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar  9 22:53:07 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:53:07 -0000
Subject: Ack! (was: I'm puzzled...)
In-Reply-To: <d0nn98+r6dv@...>
Message-ID: <d0nuoj+4fhv@...>


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

> 
> Someone beat me to it!


We'll never tell.

mel







From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 10 03:55:46 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:55:46 -0000
Subject: _The_ Pensieve? or _A_ Pensieve?
Message-ID: <d0ogg2+8tr3@...>


Something I've wondered about for a while...

Is the Pensieve that we've come to know and love the _only_ Pensieve?
 Is it a singular object or may there be more of them out there?

Harry is absolutely certain that the Pensieve he sees in Snape's
office is the same one he saw in Dumbledore's office a year earlier:
"Harry recognized it at once--it was Dumbledore's Pensieve." (OoP,
Canadian ed.,  p. 467)

But it would seem that Dumbledore might not be the only one who would
be happy to clear out a few unnecessary thoughts from time to time or
to examine some at their leisure.  I imagine Nicholas and Perenelle
Flamel would have found it particularly useful, as they had over 600
years worth of memories to deal with.

Anyway, I don't know as this will have any great impact on the outcome
of the series, but I'm curious.  Thoughts?

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 10 04:17:25 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:17:25 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] _The_ Pensieve? or _A_ Pensieve?
References: <d0ogg2+8tr3@...>
Message-ID: <00d601c52528$11155f20$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Eustace:
Something I've wondered about for a while...

Is the Pensieve that we've come to know and love the _only_ Pensieve?
Is it a singular object or may there be more of them out there?


SSSusan:
I'm one who happens to believe that the one we see in Snape's office *is* Dumbledore's.  OTOH, there's a discussion at That Other List about the US cover illustration and how, while it looks like a Pensieve, doesn't seem to quite fit the proportions of the Pensieve we've seen in previous GrandPre drawings/read in the textual description.  Now, while I tend to think it is a Pensieve (in fact, *the* Pensieve we've met before -- that it's just a little artistic license in effect on the cover), there are others who think this is a new Pensieve.

Siriusly Snapey Susan



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




From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 10 15:42:30 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:42:30 -0000
Subject: New covers -- look at UK adult!
In-Reply-To: <d0n1vu+8j67@...>
Message-ID: <d0ppt6+vuef@...>


-Mel wrote:
> It's pretty clear she's never read a description 
> of Snape.

Potioncat:
There's a funny bit somewhere...sorry, I have no idea where...someone 
did a transcript of a question and answer session with Granpre. Quite 
a few of the questions caught her off guard. You'd think she'd take 
notes as she reads the book. Or at least read the Lexicon for ideas!

So I agree. In the earlier post I thought you meant she had done the 
one with the Potions book.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 10 17:29:21 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:29:21 -0000
Subject: I'm puzzled...
In-Reply-To: <d0mr2a+sjc3@...>
Message-ID: <d0q05h+po4l@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> about all this talk of a Pensieve.  Isn't it obvious that the US 
> cover shows Harry and Dumbledore looking at a Pillar of Storg??
> 
> David, who wants to know why his licence fee is paying for 12 hours 
> of golf a day.


It's a vain attempt to make amends for the unmitigated rubbish that's
been perpetrated on the innocent viewer of late. 

Farcical soap plotlines, undramatic drama, unfunny comedy and
'reality' TV as spontaneous as a Blair soundbite. Throw in the
ego-tripping of talentless twonks overdosing on delusions of
adequacy and smug self-satisfaction that has characterised the
dire Red Nose bandwaggon and they have much to make amends for.

This is a bad subject to get me started on.

However, you'll be well aware that one - nay *the* significant anagram
for 'Pillar of Storge' (ignore accent) is 'Reprisal to Golf'. Proof positive, if
proof were needed, that there's been a diabolical plot hatched to ruin my
weekend. Naturally they tried to cover it up by changing the title - ha!
As if that'd fool anyone.

Then they rub salt in the wound by depicting what is obviously a rare and
ancient example of a ball-washer on the dust-jacket. 
Collusion, conspiracy and cover-up.
Have they no shame?

Kneasy






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 10 17:32:58 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:58 -0000
Subject: OT: Telly (was I'm puzzled...)
In-Reply-To: <d0q05h+po4l@...>
Message-ID: <d0q0ca+5oiq@...>


Kneasy wrote, of TV:

> ego-tripping of talentless twonks overdosing on delusions of
> adequacy

I know.  Much better to come to a Harry Potter discussion forum.

David






From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 11 10:35:25 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:35:25 -0000
Subject: Chapter titles HBP
Message-ID: <d0rs9d+31d5@...>


I've been in bed with a horrible cold and somewhat at a loose end so 
surrounded by my HP books I decided to look at the structure of the 
books with a view to the chapter titles JKR has released for HBP.

2 Spinners End
6 Draco's Detour
14 Felix Felicis

The published titles all have a consistent form given their length. 
The first three books are much shorter than the 4th and 5th 
averaging 19 chapters at 14 pages, the longer books have more 
chapters which are only slightly longer, 37.5 at  18.5 pages. HBP is 
also a longer book so should have the same number of chapters unless 
JKR changes her style dramatically.

Events in the books take place at approximately the same chapter 
given the total length.

Leaving Privet Drive occurs in chapters 3,3,3,4,3
Travelling to school occurs in chapters 6,5,5,11,10
First DADA class occurs in chapters 8,6,7,14,12

So for HBP chapter 2 `Spinners End' could be the place Harry goes on 
leaving Privet Drive (as JKR says this is his shortest stay yet). It 
sounds like a place to me possibly Luna or Neville's home. Could it 
be near GH?

Chapter 6 `Draco's Detour' looks likely to occur before travelling 
to school for the start of term.  Which is interesting as the books 
are written from Harry's pov so how would he know? 

Chapter 14 is most likely the first DADA class and so Felix is 
probably the new teacher.
(DADA teacher's name is a chapter title in CoS, GoF,  OotP)

Pointless speculation I know but it passes the time.

Regards
Jo






From melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 11 15:22:59 2005
From: melclaros at melclaros.yahoo.invalid (melclaros)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:22:59 -0000
Subject: OT: Telly (was I'm puzzled...)
In-Reply-To: <d0q0ca+5oiq@...>
Message-ID: <d0sd4j+slbu@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy wrote, of TV:
> 
> > ego-tripping of talentless twonks overdosing on delusions of
> > adequacy
> 
> I know.  Much better to come to a Harry Potter discussion forum.
> 



Where there's never any ego-triping.



*ducks*

Mel






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 11 16:39:20 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:39:20 -0000
Subject: OT: Telly (was I'm puzzled...)
In-Reply-To: <d0sd4j+slbu@...>
Message-ID: <d0shjo+hc3j@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "melclaros" <melclaros at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
> <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> > 
> > Kneasy wrote, of TV:
> > 
> > > ego-tripping of talentless twonks overdosing on delusions of
> > > adequacy
> > 
> > I know.  Much better to come to a Harry Potter discussion forum.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Where there's never any ego-triping.
> 
> *ducks*
> 

How true, how true.
An oasis of thoughtful, judicious, objective discussion.
And if you rubbish my theory I'll rip your lungs out.

Kneasy






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 11 19:18:02 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:18:02 -0000
Subject: Chapter titles HBP
In-Reply-To: <d0rs9d+31d5@...>
Message-ID: <d0sqta+ln1f@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:
 
> Chapter 6 `Draco's Detour' looks likely to occur before travelling 
> to school for the start of term.  Which is interesting as the books 
> are written from Harry's pov so how would he know? 

Anne:
Who hasn't been waiting for another glimpse of Knockturn Alley? 
Here's the perfect opportunity.  Harry could see Draco ducking in
there and take it into his head to follow him (wouldn't he just?), and
then they both end up in a spot of trouble.  It'd be an echo of their
trip into the Forbidden Forest in PS/SS, too; Jo does tend to do write
that way.

It's not that they suddenly burst into heartwarming cooperation,
either; it's just that even though Harry hates Draco, he doesn't want
to see him *dead.*  Draco, of course, will stick with Harry out of
pure self-interest, and there'll be no need for silly feelings of
gratitude, no fear of that.

Meanwhile, of course, buried in all that is the valuable information
Harry needs (let's hope he's paying attention, now that he's older and
wiser).

Jo:
> Chapter 14 is most likely the first DADA class and so Felix is 
> probably the new teacher.
> (DADA teacher's name is a chapter title in CoS, GoF,  OotP)

Anne:
Yeah, and he sounds both competent and like a man of good will.  So
where has he been for the past four years?

It's cool how you analysed the early chapters, Jo.  I hope your cold
it better.

Anne







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 12 00:21:10 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:21:10 -0000
Subject: Chapter titles HBP
In-Reply-To: <d0rs9d+31d5@...>
Message-ID: <d0tclm+sk4a@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> 
wrote:
> 
> I've been in bed with a horrible cold and somewhat at a loose end 
so 
> surrounded by my HP books I decided to look at the structure of the 
> books with a view to the chapter titles JKR has released for HBP.
> 
> 2 Spinners End
> 6 Draco's Detour
> 14 Felix Felicis
> 
> The published titles all have a consistent form given their length. 
> The first three books are much shorter than the 4th and 5th 
> averaging 19 chapters at 14 pages, the longer books have more 
> chapters which are only slightly longer, 37.5 at  18.5 pages. HBP 
is 
> also a longer book so should have the same number of chapters 
unless 
> JKR changes her style dramatically.
> 
<snip> 
> So for HBP chapter 2 `Spinners End' could be the place Harry goes 
on 
> leaving Privet Drive (as JKR says this is his shortest stay yet). 
It 
> sounds like a place to me possibly Luna or Neville's home. Could it 
> be near GH?
> 
> Chapter 6 `Draco's Detour' looks likely to occur before travelling 
> to school for the start of term.  Which is interesting as the books 
> are written from Harry's pov so how would he know? 

Could Harry have something to do with Draco's detour, or it involves 
Harry in someway. Did they detour down Knockturn Alley?
> 
> Chapter 14 is most likely the first DADA class and so Felix is 
> probably the new teacher.
<snip>

Coud Felix not only be the new DADA teacher but THE HALF BLOOD 
PRINCE???

> 
> Pointless speculation I know but it passes the time.

But its fun, right?
> 

Garlic is good for colds....feel better soon!
Fran






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 12 20:20:10 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:20:10 +0000
Subject: Who?
Message-ID: <ab4421348c9007ed3089bca877d5814b@...>

One of the more obvious properties of the HP series  is how little 
change there has been in characters attitudes. After 5 years the 
staunch are still staunch,  the dodgy are still untrustworthy and Snape 
is still Snape. And no, I don't  think Percy has changed at  all; nor 
Seamus come to that.

Those that were Voldy supporters have remained so - even if they hid 
the dagger behind a  smile and a cloak for maximum effect. And if there 
are any traitors in the Order then they've been so since about the time 
of Harry's birth.  Not many new recruits on the horizon, though Voldy  
stands a chance of attracting a few of the Slytherin persuasion - but 
not old DD, the Order is a *secret* order, almost nobody knows it 
exists, so how can anyone with a yen to fight for truth and justice 
join up?

It's a further indication that there'll be no  big battles in HP; it's 
not a war of numbers but of skirmish and ambuscade, more along the 
lines of street gangs than the strategic  glories of Clauswitz. Some 
fans expect (or hope) that the House Elves will  rise up en masse to 
assert their freedom. Unlikely IMO. They are firmly attached to their 
households and will lean the way their masters lean; that is their 
nature after all. As many, perhaps more, will be like Kreacher than 
will be like the Hogwarts housekeeping crew, since it's the old rich 
families, i.e. the likes of the Malfoys, that'll have House Elves 
anyway.

You can forget the Giants, a double handful of remnants sliding back 
into savagery. Centaurs - no chance. They'll remain in their bosky 
glades muttering of the iniquities of wizards. Goblins - be nice if 
they turned nasty, if you get my meaning, though from what Bill says at 
the beginning of OoP they're more likely to remain in the background  
as a potential problem than to launch ravening hordes sounding their 
chilling war cry of "Pay off your Mortgage or Die!" on the innocent 
house-holders of Harpenden.

What of the Wizarding World?
They're much like the general population in the real world - when 
there's a problem, a danger, it's somebody else that's supposed to fix 
it. They seem quite happy to swamp the newspapers and the Ministry with 
owls but actually *doing* something, that never seems to occur to them. 
Which is odd, since every adult witch and wizard has the magical 
equivalent of an AK47 stuffed in his pocket. Come next Halloween and 
the DEs are banging on the door - "Trick or treat!" and spells start 
zapping out of the letterbox, well, it could make Voldy's mob pause for 
thought.

So in reality the whole 'war' boils down to Voldy and maybe 50 DEs 
against DD and whoever is the Order, and with the Ministry bods faffing 
about on the sidelines. And at the moment it seems pretty much 
dead-locked, which brings me back to my original point; the best way to 
break the deadlock is for somebody to switch. Somebody or some bodies 
are going to change their minds for the first time in the books.
Any bets on who and why?

Kneasy




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 13 00:15:39 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:15:39 -0000
Subject: mostly the new book covers, also hags and wormwood
Message-ID: <d100nb+qtkp@...>


Melclaros and Potioncat have agreed that they don't like Mary
Grandpre's cover and illustration art. Maybe I Will be the first 
to say that I do like Mary Grandpre's HP art.

Sean Dwyer wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1376 :

<< There must be a male hag equivalent >>

I would like for the male of hags to be ogres, as ogres eat the same
thing and the names are vaguely similar, but I recall no mention of
ogres in HP. Maybe the male of hags are trolls, as we have seen many
trolls and all appear to be male. This is magic -- the male offspring
of a hag and a human might resemble his mother more than his father or
the male of his mother's species. 

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1378 :

<< wormwood >>

IIRC 'a star named Wormwood' plays some role in the Book of
Revelation, and 'Chernobyl' means 'wormwood' ('chern-' means 'black'). 

SSSusie wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1384 :

<<  The cover art has been released for the two UK and one American
edition of HBP. The UK adult version shows a beat-up old textbook,
labelled "Advanced Potion Making."Does this mean our Harry did manage
to pass his Potions OWL with a high enough mark to get into Snape's
NEWT-level Potions class?? >>

Or Harry DIDN'T get into NEWT Potions, for which he would have bought
a shiny new textbook, but RON did, and Ron bought a very old beat-up
used textbooks (from the junk shop where Percy was looking a book
title PREFECTS WHO GAINED POWER) because his finances are still tight.
And it turns out that Ron's book has notes written in it by a former
student -- Tom Marvolo Riddle, maybe? -- that are a Useful Clue.

Iris wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1393 :

<< Second clue: Harry and Dumbledore, probably into danger, surrounded
by fire (UK children) >>

Are you sure that white-bearded wizard on that cover is Dumbledore? To
 me, his face is too round and his nose is NOT long, thin, pointed, or
broken at least twice.

Fran wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1397 :

<< Also, on the book cover that shows the potion book, the authors
name is Libalus (?spelling) Borage. I googled Borage and found a
meaning of courage. >>

I thought borage was an herb, and I thought the author's surname on
the textbook was Boring. Licentius Boring.






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 14 02:46:43 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:46:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HP Filk   Fixing a Plot   JKR
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050314024643.30558.qmail@...>

Sung to the tune of Fixing a Hole 
by the Beatles

Fixing a Plot 
(sung by JKR as she muses on our posts)

I'm fixing a plot where the fans get in
And stop my mind from wandering
Where it will go
I'm filling the cracks that I left in the books
And kept my fans always wondering
Where it will go

And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Because it's mine I'm right
Because it's mine.
See the people standing there who disagree and never
win
And wonder why they don't get all the answers!

I'm painting my story in the colourful way
And when my story starts wandering
There it will go

And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Because it's mine.

Silly people run around they worry me
And never ask me why they don't get any answers!
I'm taking the time for the next HP book
As the fans keep screaming for it yesterday
And I'm so slow

I'm fixing a plot where the fans get in
And stop my mind from wandering
Where it will go

(As she wanders off to the coffee shop)

Randy ;0)






		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 14 16:03:48 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:03:48 +0000
Subject: Think about Neville
Message-ID: <32a6abf3a8b3a3d81066c12f61cad274@...>

When you think about it,  prophecies are funny things. The odds  are 
that some sort of self-fulfillment will occur rather than the 
ineluctable progression of events outside the control of those 
concerned. Every researcher knows of the risks of bias, of 
"Experimenters Expectation" where no matter how rigorous the protocol 
the results all too often reflect what one expected or hoped to find. 
The surest way of avoiding this is with "double blind" testing, though 
even that has demonstrated odd results on rare occasions.

The Prophecy Bank in the Dept. of Mysteries is more than just a filing 
system IMO. Englobing a prophecy, sticking it in a rack, telling the 
one who reported it to keep his mouth shut and then sitting back to 
await events may go some way to improving the chances of events 
progressing without expectations of the public, the participants or the 
observers/evaluators getting in the way. Of course when you've got some 
Delphic old bat talking in riddles, determining whether or no the 
*supposed* outcome has been fulfilled is a trifle dodgy. If you're none 
  too certain what the old fool was on about in the first place, how can 
you be certain that the prophecy under consideration was intended to 
foretell whatever has transpired? It may in fact have been about 
something totally unconnected. It can all get very hairy and the more 
obscure the prophecy the greater the chances that misinterpretations, 
jumpings to conclusions or wish-fulfillment may intervene.

Somebody in the Ministry shows a healthy scepticism for Sybil's 
mutterings - there's that question mark in front of Harry's name. Not 
so DD, he's convinced he knows what it's all about. No, wait. I'll 
rephrase that - he convinces Harry that he knows what it's all about, 
which is not quite the same thing. He does after all have his little 
plan and for it to work Harry has to cooperate. Convincing him that 
it's all a foregone conclusion would help enormously.

The problem is, there's too much of what seems like self-fulfillment 
going on for my tastes, most of it from Voldy. He knows part of 
Trelawny's mystic mutterings, enough to affect his actions - and others 
may too. It struck me a few days ago - one of the FAQs - why did the 
DEs drop in on the Longbottoms for tea and torture? Usually the 
response is that Frank was an Auror and may have heard things, they may 
have been at GH on the fateful night, all that sort of speculation. But 
there's a canon fact that may be significant - Neville was the other 
alternative. It can hardly be coincidence that the only  family the DEs 
question is the one that Voldy would be visiting after he'd dealt with 
the Potters. You don't really think that he'd take the risk of leaving 
one of the only two possible contenders for top spot gurgling happily 
in his cot, do you? Not Voldy; he'd nail both of 'em to make sure. And 
the DEs must have known. Note that the Longbottoms were attacked "when 
everybody thought they were safe" - had they just come out of hiding, 
perhaps? Did the DEs leave it so long because they couldn't find them 
until they did?

All that emotive guff from DD about Voldy choosing Harry because he 
identified with his Muggle origins is a load of tripe. He chose Harry 
because thanks to a traitor he could find him, something he couldn't do 
with Neville.

Another FAQ - why didn't Bella's Bunch kill the Longbottoms? Perhaps 
they didn't dare. Perhaps they believed that Voldy had to kill them to 
fulfill the terms of the (to them incomplete) Prophecy. There could 
even be another prophecy involved; Alice's obsession with Droobles 
(which can form orb-like bubbles) may be a desperate and confused 
attempt to communicate this.

One of the conditions of that Prophecy ".. and the Dark Lord will mark 
him as his equal..." has always  bothered me a bit, 'cos Harry isn't 
his equal. No way. Young Potter has invariably escaped Voldy's evil 
clutches by the skin of his teeth and the help of protective spells 
(twice), wands and DD. None were the product of his own magical 
abilities or volition. Even throwing off the possession attempt at the 
Ministry wasn't a matter of his own choice, it happened because of some 
innate attribute possibly emotional in origin and therefore not magical 
at all.

There's no  time-scale on that Prophecy either. No indication when 
these things, including the marking, are supposed to happen. And I keep 
reminding myself - Neville hasn't met Voldy yet. What will happen 
if/when he does? Now there's food for thought. Is Neville still a 
possible Voldy's!Bane? Could he take over if Harry cops it in the neck? 
Is he in fact the one *intended* to sort  out Voldy?

Looked at objectively Neville seems a much more sympathetic character 
anyway - honest, upright, honorable - and he doesn't whine. Harry seems 
flashy and flawed in comparison.

I can hear the protestations already "The  series is about Harry 
Potter, not Neville Longbottom; t'ain't "Neville Longbottom and the 
Half Blood Prince" is it? Stands to reason." So what? Harry's the one 
having all the adventure and angst  throughout the series but that's no 
guarantee that he'll be the one to knock off the villain; Harry could 
be dead by then.

Ah! The possibilities!

Kneasy




From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 14 20:06:56 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <32a6abf3a8b3a3d81066c12f61cad274@...>
Message-ID: <20050314200656.58929.qmail@...>

--- Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> I can hear the protestations already "The  series is about Harry 
> Potter, not Neville Longbottom; t'ain't "Neville Longbottom and the
> Half Blood Prince" is it? Stands to reason." So what? Harry's the
> one having all the adventure and angst  throughout the series but
> that's no guarantee that he'll be the one to knock off the villain;

> Harry could be dead by then.
> 
> Ah! The possibilities!
> 
> Kneasy

You're giving JKR too much credit for wanting to be an author of
fantasy fiction rather than a storyteller of a particular tale. 
Harry's the hero and we're stuck with him, as much of a prat as he
can be.  

Neville is an attractive character, possibly the most attractive in
the book.  Unlike everyone else we've known since Book 1, Neville has
never let us down but instead goes on to higher and higher triumphs
as the series progresses.  He's a great kid.  And he's done it
without the built-in cheering section that Harry has with the
Weasleys and Hermione.  

But I really doubt that he's going to be the saviour of the WW. 
We're just not that invested in him for him to step forward when
Harry falters to save the day.  

People are spending, IMHO, way too much time and effort on the
prophecy.  There's obviously an important plot element that we won't
get until the last book that will shift the kaleidescope one more
time until everything is finally in focus and we'll say "Ah!  That's
what she meant!"  So I think it's pointless to worry over the
phrasing as if we'll discover something obscure suddenly brought to
light.  The prophecy is clear - as far as it goes.  And that won't
change in Book 6.

Magda (miffed because no one commented on her long Ludo Bagman
response to Kneasy's post last week)


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 



From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 14 21:53:20 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:53:20 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <32a6abf3a8b3a3d81066c12f61cad274@...>
Message-ID: <d1514g+tlh5@...>


Kneasy wrote:

> Somebody in the Ministry shows a healthy scepticism for Sybil's 
> mutterings - there's that question mark in front of Harry's name. 

Eustace_Scrubb:  Well, isn't that just because the prophecy was filed
_before_ either Neville or Harry were born?  I don't know that I'd
call that skepticism...just cluelessness.  Interesting "technical"
question though--the prophecy "concerns" not just Voldemort and his
potential vanquisher but also the latter's parents...could they also
(if living) have raised the orb?...for that matter, is the "alarm"
system that allows only those the prophecy concerns to lift the orb
internal or external?  That is, does the DoM staff label determine who
can pick it up or is there something internal to the prophecy that
does this?  If the former, then the fact that Harry picked it up
doesn't necessarily mean the prophecy's _really_ about him.  Anyway,
as Magda points out, it may not be fruitful to spend too much time on
what the prophecy "really" means.
 
> [Voldy] knows part of Trelawny's mystic 
> mutterings, enough to affect his actions - and others may too. 
> It struck me a few days ago - one of the FAQs - why did the DEs 
> drop in on the Longbottoms for tea and torture? Usually the response
> is that Frank was an Auror and may have heard things, they may have 
> been at GH on the fateful night, all that sort of speculation. But 
> there's a canon fact that may be significant - Neville was the
other 
> alternative. It can hardly be coincidence that the only  family the
 
> DEs question is the one that Voldy would be visiting after he'd  
> dealt with the Potters. You don't really think that he'd take the  
> risk of leavingone of the only two possible contenders for top spot
 
> gurgling happily in his cot, do you? Not Voldy; he'd nail both of  
> 'em to make sure. And the DEs must have known. Note that the  
> Longbottoms were attacked "when everybody thought they were safe" -
 
> had they just come out of hiding, perhaps? Did the DEs leave it so  
> long because they couldn't find them until they did?
> 
> All that emotive guff from DD about Voldy choosing Harry because he 
> identified with his Muggle origins is a load of tripe. He chose  
> Harry because thanks to a traitor he could find him, something he  
> couldn't do with Neville.

Eustace_Scrubb:
Ah, now this is very much to the point.  The "why" of the DEs visit to
Frank and Alice seems very likely to be Neville.  Someone else on
HPfGU has named this the "King Herod strategy" and I think it makes a
lot of sense.  I've argued elsewhere that "just when everybody thought
they were safe" is probably quite soon after Godric's Hollow, given
what we know of the reaction of the WW within hours of Voldy's
vaporizing.  We don't even have to postulate that Bella and company
knew anything about a prophecy...Voldy knew _why_ he was going after
the Potters and the Longbottoms.  His minions probably only knew
_that_ he was doing so.  But when he disappeared they went after the
second target--possibly because with the Potters dead they assumed
that the Longbottoms _must_ have been the ones who stymied their boss.

We don't know that the Longbottoms were in hiding...maybe they were,
but as aurors, maybe not--although they may have had Neville sent out
to the country for the duration.  He may simply have needed to wait
until the Potters were betrayed to go after both families.

Of course, this assumes a level of subtlety we haven't necessarily
seen from Voldemort yet--especially the assumption he may not have
felt the need to blab everything to the DEs.  But _I_ sure wouldn't
let Bellatrix in on secrets like that...she'd blurt it all out in the
heat of taunting some auror who'd then manage to escape her.

Anyway, I agree with you that Neville has an important part yet to
play.  I suspect he'll provide Harry with invaluable aid in the final
battle/quest/confrontation/thing.  And if Harry survives to the end of
Book 7, I'm afraid Neville may not.

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 14 22:12:28 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:12:28 -0000
Subject: Back to Baggy (was Think about Neville)
In-Reply-To: <20050314200656.58929.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d1528c+ebsk@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich 
<mgrantwich at y...> wrote:
> --- Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> Magda (miffed because no one commented on her long Ludo Bagman
> response to Kneasy's post last week)
> 

Magda:
I don't see Bagman as a terribly pro-active person. He's basically a
lazy, what's-in-it-for-me?, reactive guy, moving when he has to move,
trading on cheap charm because it costs him nothing.

I think he did for Voldemort what he did best: charm bright and
upcoming young wizards in the MOM, dazzling them with his sporting
background and then doing little favours to make them feel special,
maybe getting them low-level jobs at the MoM, then introducing them
to DE recruiters and not looking back. I doubt if Bagman ever went
DE-ing himself; he was a procurer, not a foot-soldier in the war.


Carolyn (who thinks Neville is just can(n)on fodder), remembers what 
she meant to say last week about Baggy:

The Bagman subplot has always seemed to me to be about high level 
corruption in sport, with allusions to our British footballing 
obsession. I think someone, such as Lucius, will have turned out to 
have nobbled Bagman by encouraging him to gamble, getting him into 
debt so he has been hopelessly compromised and a pawn in the DEs 
hands. 

I can't decide whether he is a DE or not - he would seem too stupid 
and risky to take on, but then look at Goyle & Crabbe Srs.. if their 
sons resemble them, then clearly Voldy was scraping the barrel a bit 
on the recruitment front a while back. But then again, how can you 
possibly have a MoM minister with a dark mark on his arm? Really 
risky that, with people as rabid and suspicious as Moody and Crouch 
Sr pacing the corridors.

So what's the point of the DEs corrupting Quidditch? Well, any 
terrorist movement needs funding, and one way of getting funds is 
match fixing. Impossible ? Look at Mustafa, the referee at the QWC - 
shouldn't think it would be difficult for a few Veela to lead him 
astray; a threesome, and a few photos, and there you go..

And the sporting mafia inside the MoM might be even more sinister. 
The history of Quidditch is clearly exceptionally bloody, and who 
would know more about that than Brutus Scrimgeour, author of 'The 
Beater's Bible'. The first rule in his book is 'take out the Seeker' 
(see QTTA). Now, he wouldn't be the same Scrimgeour who'd been asking 
Kingsley and Tonks funny questions, would he - or his brother or his 
son, maybe? Sport, after all, is only sanitised war.

Carolyn












From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 04:04:30 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:04:30 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <32a6abf3a8b3a3d81066c12f61cad274@...>
Message-ID: <d15mse+pca6@...>


Outstanding discussion, Kneasy. Below, a few comments on it interspersed with most of 
your original.

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> When you think about it,  prophecies are funny things. The odds  are 
> that some sort of self-fulfillment will occur rather than the 
> ineluctable progression of events outside the control of those 
> concerned. Every researcher knows of the risks of bias, of 
> "Experimenters Expectation" where no matter how rigorous the protocol 
> the results all too often reflect what one expected or hoped to find. 
> The surest way of avoiding this is with "double blind" testing, though 
> even that has demonstrated odd results on rare occasions.

Yes, but I suspect the WW is about the last place one would find such investment in 
concern about challenges to scientific validity.
> 
> The Prophecy Bank in the Dept. of Mysteries is more than just a filing 
> system IMO. 

Now Lyn
Yes, precisely. After all, it is the Department of Mysteries where a lot of study and research 
takes place. Actually interesting that so many of the globes are dusty and aren't regularly 
examined. All the more interesting that there are so very many of them. Is this because 
they have been collected over centuries (and thus the orbs are very old technology), or 
because there are so very many of them. You'd almost think that after the prophecy had 
been fullfilled it would no longer be stored on the rack. And other questions are raised, 
such as how many of these globes represent a prophecy that could have been fullfilled in a 
lifetime (such as essentially Harry's), or how many span centuries. Still, an awful lot of 
prophecies given the size of the WW world, and the relative rarity of there occurance and 
discussion in the world HP is familiar with. Likely just a little glitch in consistency required 
for dramatic effect, but if not, then again, that's an awful lot of prophecies given DD 
skepticism about them and the rate that ST (assumedly a rather rare specimen herself) 
produces them.

>Englobing a prophecy, sticking it in a rack, telling the 
> one who reported it to keep his mouth shut and then sitting back to 
> await events may go some way to improving the chances of events 
> progressing without expectations of the public, the participants or the 
> observers/evaluators getting in the way. 

Now Lyn
Assuming that is really all the happens. Wouldn't it be interesting (and almost to be 
expected) if the workers in the DoM have been engaged in attempting to modify the 
contents, thus changing the course of the future? Indeed, JKR has shown us a WW 
"technology," that allows one to possibly manipulate the past, why would not the WW be 
just as interested in manipulating the future?

 
>snip<
> 
> The problem is, there's too much of what seems like self-fulfillment 
> going on for my tastes, most of it from Voldy. He knows part of 
> Trelawny's mystic mutterings, enough to affect his actions - and others 
> may too. It struck me a few days ago - one of the FAQs - why did the 
> DEs drop in on the Longbottoms for tea and torture? Usually the 
> response is that Frank was an Auror and may have heard things, they may 
> have been at GH on the fateful night, all that sort of speculation. But 
> there's a canon fact that may be significant - Neville was the other 
> alternative. It can hardly be coincidence that the only  family the DEs 
> question is the one that Voldy would be visiting after he'd dealt with 
> the Potters. You don't really think that he'd take the risk of leaving 
> one of the only two possible contenders for top spot gurgling happily 
> in his cot, do you? Not Voldy; he'd nail both of 'em to make sure. And 
> the DEs must have known. Note that the Longbottoms were attacked "when 
> everybody thought they were safe" - had they just come out of hiding, 
> perhaps? Did the DEs leave it so long because they couldn't find them 
> until they did?
> 
> All that emotive guff from DD about Voldy choosing Harry because he 
> identified with his Muggle origins is a load of tripe. He chose Harry 
> because thanks to a traitor he could find him, something he couldn't do 
> with Neville.
> 
Now Lyn
I think this is a very good point. Obviously both infants were in hiding, and obviously LV 
wished to kill them both. We all know how access to Harry was achieved, and it certainly 
appears that access to Neville was not obtained prior to his parents came out of hiding. It 
really seems the evidence for LV "choosing" HP as his first target is lacking, instead, he 
went with the path of greatest opportunity. 

> Another FAQ - why didn't Bella's Bunch kill the Longbottoms? Perhaps 
> they didn't dare. Perhaps they believed that Voldy had to kill them to 
> fulfill the terms of the (to them incomplete) Prophecy. 

Now Lyn,
Or perhaps they learned of the result of the earlier attempt at an AK (adminstered by 
whomever) and believed it unsafe to attempt that particular curse. One thing we have yet 
to learn is the mechanisms DD set in motion for Neville's protection. Would they not be the 
same as for Harry? or might they have been more unique to the characteristics of the 
parents. Really, should not Neville have his own sort of protection resulting from his own 
parent's sacrifice of their sanity, or doesn't it count that they merely went insane from the 
excruciating pain they endured. And of course, did they undergo that pain nobly, refusing 
to reveal Neville's whereabouts or some secret vital to the future of the WW, or did they 
just succumb to torture because they never had anything they could tell. The latter kind of 
strips them of any heroism.

>There could 
> even be another prophecy involved; Alice's obsession with Droobles 
> (which can form orb-like bubbles) may be a desperate and confused 
> attempt to communicate this.

Now Lyn,
Got impatient with me not bring this up again I see. :-)
Yes, as you know, I find this intriguing. I truly wonder if those bubbles are indeed intended 
as a communication about The or another prophecy. The one thing their mutilated minds 
remain capable of focusing on is an analog of a prophecy orb. But of course, what is the 
intended message, should there be one. Is it that Neville should be alert to The prophecy 
or another prophecy. But there are other possibilities as well, and they come from the fact 
that the wrappers Alice gives to Neville are always empty. After all, why not give him a a 
wrapper with something useful inside.  Just maybe, it is a way of suggesting that the orb is 
missing, or better still that the orb is empty (i.e., the prophecy is empty--false). Still 
another possibility is that it is to suggest that a new prophecy needs to be generated. I 
truly don't know, but I strongly suspect their is a significant communication about 
prophecy going in here, and the bubbles are the metaphor.
> 
> One of the conditions of that Prophecy ".. and the Dark Lord will mark 
> him as his equal..." has always  bothered me a bit, 'cos Harry isn't 
> his equal. No way. 

Now Lyn
Not unless that "mark" is sharing a bit of SS secondary to an attempted/aborted 
possession. It may have be that a touch of the presence of SS in both of them that is the 
mark that makes them equal.

>Young Potter has invariably escaped Voldy's evil 
> clutches by the skin of his teeth and the help of protective spells 
> (twice), wands and DD. None were the product of his own magical 
> abilities or volition. Even throwing off the possession attempt at the 
> Ministry wasn't a matter of his own choice, it happened because of some 
> innate attribute possibly emotional in origin and therefore not magical 
> at all.

Now Lyn, 
Maybe so, but maybe not. I give Harry more choice in these matters and I think his 
strength has been in the bravery  and determination of his choices. As you know, I 
personally don't think it was his love for Sirius that directly made Harry uninhabitable by 
LV. I think it was that Harry embraced death, the very thing LV fears most. Harry chose to 
die, I consider that volitional. Rightly, wrongly, foolishly, wisely, Harry has chosen many 
times to put himself (and thus his life) at risk potentially to achieve what he believed to be 
a worthy outcome. Now might it be that HP and LV are equal, not in magical power, but in 
the power of their choices (different in direction though they may be). Just a thought. 
> 
> There's no  time-scale on that Prophecy either. No indication when 
> these things, including the marking, are supposed to happen. And I keep 
> reminding myself - Neville hasn't met Voldy yet. What will happen 
> if/when he does? Now there's food for thought. Is Neville still a 
> possible Voldy's!Bane? Could he take over if Harry cops it in the neck? 
> Is he in fact the one *intended* to sort  out Voldy?

Now Lyn,
The thing that seems lacking for Neville with respect to the prophecy is that their is no 
appearance thus far of any reason why Neville should have any personal difficultive living 
as long as LV is alive. We know differently with respect to Harry and the intertwined 
conciousness of him and LV.
> 
> Looked at objectively Neville seems a much more sympathetic character 
> anyway - honest, upright, honorable - and he doesn't whine. Harry seems 
> flashy and flawed in comparison.

Lyn now. 
Maybe some of us just relate better to being flashy and flawed. :-)
Until OoTP I largely found Neville a bore. Naw give me the one who isn't a slave to others' 
rules, who is active and brave (though a little dumber and lazier than I would like), who is 
willing to do what he finds right, even at the risk of his life (yah Neville risked the derision 
of some fellow students, but this hardly was of the order of the life risk the others 
accepted).  We wouldn't have found Harry at the Nuremberg trials, more likely he would 
have been one who attempted the assassination. 







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 15:44:29 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:44:29 +0000
Subject: Think about Neville
Message-ID: <9db68716e9cb6f4a6d22a388a427358c@...>

An interesting assortment of responses and I'll attempt to bundle them 
together for a sort of omnibus reply. Take heart, there's a sort of 
logic for doing this because some of the points raised in the responses 
impinge on a possible shuffle into contentious territory.

Firstly Magda:

 > You're giving JKR too much credit for wanting to be an author of
 > fantasy fiction rather than a storyteller of a particular tale.
 > Harry's the hero and we're stuck with him, as much of a prat as he
 > can be.
 >
 > Neville is an attractive character, possibly the most attractive in
 > the book.  Unlike everyone else we've known since Book 1, Neville has
 > never let us down but instead goes on to higher and higher triumphs
 > as the series progresses.  He's a great kid.  And he's done it
 > without the built-in cheering section that Harry has with the
 > Weasleys and Hermione.
 >
 > But I really doubt that he's going to be the saviour of the WW.
 > We're just not that invested in him for him to step forward when
 > Harry falters to save the day.
 >


Kneasy:
I've not yet decided just exactly what sort of writer JKR is and I 
doubt I'd be comfortable doing so until after the conclusion. She sort 
of shifts her ground when we're not  looking - very tricky. PS/SS was a 
children's tale par excellence; so too CoS. PoA? Mmm, no, I don't think 
so, same with GoF and OoP even more so. If this is a bildungsroman then 
the innocent youth looks like ending as an angry young man - something 
many would find unsatisfactory. And the usual conventions of fantasy 
often require flawed heroes to pay the ultimate price.

Meanwhile Nev bumbles along with just as much traumatic baggage,  not 
nearly so many personal advantages, yet he quietly gets on with it and 
is starting to look as if he may be impressive. It first struck me in 
GoF when there was all that palaver about getting partners for the  
Ball. Harry and Ron made a right pig's ear of it, Neville just went and 
did it. Struck me as a very un-Neville way of doing things - I'd have 
expected hesitations, haverings and clumsiness, but no; calm and 
collected, no fuss.
It made me wonder just what Neville was.
And the way Jo loves stacking the deck.... hmm; is this someone else 
who is not what they seem?


 > Eustace_Scrubb:  Well, isn't that just because the prophecy was filed
 > _before_ either Neville or Harry were born?  I don't know that I'd
 > call that skepticism...just cluelessness.  Interesting "technical"
 > question though--the prophecy "concerns" not just Voldemort and his
 > potential vanquisher but also the latter's parents...could they also
 > (if living) have raised the orb?...for that matter, is the "alarm"
 > system that allows only those the prophecy concerns to lift the orb
 > internal or external?  That is, does the DoM staff label determine who
 > can pick it up or is there something internal to the prophecy that
 > does this?  If the former, then the fact that Harry picked it up
 > doesn't necessarily mean the prophecy's _really_ about him.  Anyway,
 > as Magda points out, it may not be fruitful to spend too much time on
 > what the prophecy "really" means.
 >

Kneasy:
Yeah; this goes back to an old post of mine where I surmised that it's 
the globe that is protected, not the prophecy - and it's the Ministry 
folk who do the englobing and setting the protection. They're the ones 
that have to decide who the prophecy concerns - and they could be 
wrong.

Again yes, the question mark was placed before GH - afterwards there  
was an assumption that Harry's name is the one that ought to be there - 
but the question mark remains. Is this meant to indicate continuing but 
overly cautious doubts on the part of the Ministry, administrative 
sloppiness, or a clue to the readers? (Take the list in the left hand, 
the pin in the right, close your eyes and....)

 >
 > Eustace_Scrubb:
 > Ah, now this is very much to the point.  The "why" of the DEs visit to
 > Frank and Alice seems very likely to be Neville.  Someone else on
 > HPfGU has named this the "King Herod strategy" and I think it makes a
 > lot of sense.

Kneasy:
Interesting. Is this recent? I  haven't been reading the HPfGU board 
since the New Year and I can't recall it from the 18 months before 
then. A post number for the start of the thread would be appreciated.

 > We don't even have to postulate that Bella and company
 > knew anything about a prophecy...Voldy knew _why_ he was going after
 > the Potters and the Longbottoms.  His minions probably only knew
 > _that_ he was doing so.  But when he disappeared they went after the
 > second target--possibly because with the Potters dead they assumed
 > that the Longbottoms _must_ have been the ones who stymied their boss.
 >

Kneasy;
Or: they came to the reasonable assumption that any protection Harry 
had, Neville had too. And by finding out what it was, they'd find out 
what had  happened to Voldy.

 >
 > Of course, this assumes a level of subtlety we haven't necessarily
 > seen from Voldemort yet--especially the assumption he may not have
 > felt the need to blab everything to the DEs.  But _I_ sure wouldn't
 > let Bellatrix in on secrets like that...she'd blurt it all out in the
 > heat of taunting some auror who'd then manage to escape her.
 >

Kneasy:
About time, is my opinion. I'm one of many who complain at the inept 
cardboard cut-out representation of the chief villain. If he's so smart 
why don't he show it?  Mind you, it's heart-warming the way Bella is 
reduced to grovelling wreckdom whenever Voldy is actually present - all 
right and proper IMO. But yes, she shouldn't be let out on  her own, 
she can't be trusted as far as Frank's intestines stretch.

 > Now Lyn,
 > Got impatient with me not bring this up again I see. :-)
 > Yes, as you know, I find this intriguing. I truly wonder if those 
bubbles are > indeed intended as a communication about The or another 
prophecy. The > one thing their mutilated minds remain capable of 
focusing on is an             > analog of a prophecy orb. But of 
course, what is the intended message,    > should there be one. Is it 
that Neville should be alert to The prophecy
 > or another prophecy. But there are other possibilities as well, and 
they     > come from the fact that the wrappers Alice gives to Neville 
are always       > empty. After all, why not give him a wrapper with 
something useful inside.  > Just maybe, it is a way of suggesting that 
the orb is missing, or better still > that the orb is empty (i.e., the 
prophecy is empty--false). Still another         > possibility is that 
it is to suggest that a new prophecy needs to be                > 
generated. I truly don't know, but I strongly suspect their is a 
significant     > communication about prophecy going in here, and the 
bubbles are the
 > metaphor.

Kneasy:
Yep. Since you're the 'onlie begetter' of this entertaining 
Droobles/orb twist I think you're entitled -  nay, obliged - to 
postulate that it could be important every time the Longbottoms are 
mentioned.

 >
 > Now Lyn
 > Not unless that "mark" is sharing a bit of SS secondary to an 
attempted/    > aborted possession. It may have be that a touch of the 
presence of SS in > both of them that is the mark that makes them 
equal.

Kneasy:
Yes, you've mentioned this off-site and it looks like a reasonable 
theory : "Possession Theory, Equality variant, consequence of 
incomplete or truncated transfer."

 >
 > Now Lyn,
 > Maybe so, but maybe not. I give Harry more choice in these matters 
and I > think his strength has been in the bravery  and determination 
of his           > choices. As you know, I personally don't think it 
was his love for Sirius that > directly made Harry uninhabitable by LV. 
I think it was that Harry                    > embraced death, the very 
thing LV fears most. Harry chose to die, I             > consider that 
volitional. Rightly, wrongly, foolishly, wisely, Harry has           > 
chosen many times to put himself (and thus his life) at risk 
potentially to     > achieve what he believed to be a worthy outcome. 
Now might it be that    > HP and LV are equal, not in magical power, 
but in the power of their             > choices (different in direction 
though they may be). Just a thought.

Kneasy:
I dunno; altruism is one thing, rash idiocy is something else.
He never, ever, *ever* thinks of consequences. Not only that, he never, 
ever, *ever* has a real plan either.

PS/SS  - "Let's get the Stone before the baddy!"
How?
"We just pop down the trapdoor and evade all those protections that are 
intended to stymie a seriously evil skilled wizard! It's easy!"
Yeah. And then?
"Oh, we'll decide what to do then later."

CoS.
"We'll just pop down the plughole, confront this ginormous 
death-dealing monster, laugh at the Heir, rescue Ginny and Bob's your 
Uncle. Simple."

OoP.
"We'll  fly to London, break into the Ministry, penetrate the most 
closely guarded sanctum in the WW and  rescue Sirius. Piece of cake."
The DEs, Voldy?
"Oh, we'll sort  them out later."

Arrgh!
I think I'll invent a new syndrome just for Harry - IHAND.
Impulsive Half-Assed Numpty  Disorder.

(Note to non-Brits - a numpty can be defined as a non-thinking pillock.)

 >
 > Now Lyn,
 > The thing that seems lacking for Neville with respect to the prophecy 
is     > that their is no appearance thus far of any reason why Neville 
should        > have any personal difficultive living as long as LV is 
alive. We know           > differently with respect to Harry and the 
intertwined conciousness of him  > and LV.
 >

Kneasy:
Ah. You've missed my point,  I think.
See, this is was I was nonchalantly edging towards, whistling and 
admiring the dickie birds, hoping somebody would pick it up and run 
with it so that I could say "Do you know, that's just what I was 
thinking!"

There are supposedly two possible targets for Voldy -  Harry and 
Neville.
It would be reasonable to assume that they both had protection - Harry 
had at least two protections - anti-Voldy and the blood/family dwelling 
varieties.
The anti-Voldy *may* have been triggered by Lily's death, but I doubt 
it - what would have happened if Voldy had just swept Lily aside and 
nailed Harry first?  And since DD was involved the 'Old Magic' may have 
been, probably was, placed on both boys. The blood protection that came 
to Harry on Lily's death would not apply to Neville, Alice is still 
alive.

Voldy has now negated Harry's anti-Voldy protection, he can touch him - 
  but what  about Neville? Was the protective spell removed after Voldy 
went to pieces? Maybe not. DD didn't believe Voldy was destroyed, did 
he? And if it wasn't then Neville  is still Voldy-proof while Harry  
isn't. This could set things up nicely for 
death-of-Harry-revenged-by-Neville or 
Harry-at-Voldy's-mercy-saved-by-Neville depending on your tastes.

If Voldy's choice of first victim was based purely on the availability 
of a betrayer, (and so far as we know no-one suggested that there was 
anything special about Harry *before* GH) and assuming that Voldy 
himself did not transfer 'the power he knows not' (logically unlikely), 
then the chances are even that Neville is the one that has this power. 
Whisper it if you dare - Voldy picked the wrong one. All the problems 
he's had with the pestiferous Potter stem from GH and protection, 
transfer of powers and that bloody wand. At no time has Harry looked as 
if he could knock Voldy off his perch. Perhaps he doesn't have the 
necessary 'power'; perhaps Neville has it instead. After all DD doesn't 
claim that the whatever-it-is that Harry is so full of that caused 
Voldy to abort his possession attempt at the Ministry is the same power 
that will destroy him, now does he?
"Ugly Duckling" anyone?




From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 17:05:51 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:05:51 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <9db68716e9cb6f4a6d22a388a427358c@...>
Message-ID: <d174lf+qo5n@...>


 
>  > Eustace_Scrubb:  Interesting "technical"
>  > question though--the prophecy "concerns" not just Voldemort and his
>  > potential vanquisher but also the latter's parents...could they also
>  > (if living) have raised the orb?...

Annemehr:
Oh, so that's what happened!  The Auror Frank Longbottom, being a
parent first and thus putting the needs of his son before all other
considerations, decides he needs a keek at that prophecy.

Frank: 'Ah, here it is: "Dark Lord and (?)."  I see someone's written
young Potter's name here; they must be pretty sure it's he who
vanquished the Dark Lord, then.  But Dumbledore is *not* sure that
Voldemort's really gone, which would make *my* son the subject of this
prophecy. As Albus is being his usual cagey self and keeping the real
meat of the prophecy secret, I'm going to see what's in here.'

Frank: touches orb; is parted from his mental abilities

[half an hour later]

Alice: 'Frank? Frank! Smedworth told me you'd come down to --  Oh,
dear, I'm too late, then.  Maybe I should have told him Neville is
really James' son, but I didn't think I'd have to.  After all, dear
Nevvy is still the son of Parents Who Defied The Dark Lord Three
Times, so we just went on with Dumbledore's protections... Still, I'd
better have a listen to the prophecy, I suppose, since I'm down here...'

Alice: touches orb; is soon off with Frank for a second honeymoon at
St Mungo's

Later Dumbledore arranges for a few DEs to take the fall, with the
added bonuses of drawing attention away from the DoM, and derailing
the career of a most unsuitable candidate for MfM.  And we *still*
don't know whether it was the *name* Harry Potter on the prophecy that
got the Longbottoms, or the *fact* that Harry is the one.

~Anne, with apologies








From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 17:14:39 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:14:39 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <9db68716e9cb6f4a6d22a388a427358c@...>
Message-ID: <d1755v+6pm1@...>


>  > Eustace_Scrubb:
>  > Ah, now this is very much to the point.  The "why" of the DEs 
>  > visit to Frank and Alice seems very likely to be Neville.  
>  > Someone else on HPfGU has named this the "King Herod strategy" 
>  > and I think it makes alot of sense.
> 
> Kneasy:
> Interesting. Is this recent? I  haven't been reading the HPfGU
> board since the New Year and I can't recall it from the 18 months  
> before then. A post number for the start of the thread would be 
> appreciated.

Eustace_Scrubb:
Well, you're in luck...I kept some off-list emails in connection with
that thread so was able to figure out the general dates and...I
started the thread with Message#99011 on 21 May 2004, titled "LV's
Choice: Potters or Longbottoms or Both?".

The "someone else" was Jim Ferer in #99032, who used the term "King
Herod" solution, _not_ strategy, my bad.


>  > Eustace_Scrubb:  We don't even have to postulate that Bella and 
>  > company knew anything about a prophecy...Voldy knew _why_ he was 
>  > going afterthe Potters and the Longbottoms.  His minions
>  > probably only knew _that_ he was doing so.  But when he  
>  > disappeared they went after the second target--possibly because  
>  > with the Potters dead they assumed that the Longbottoms _must_ 
>  > have been the ones who stymied their boss.
> 
> Kneasy;
> Or: they came to the reasonable assumption that any protection
> Harry had, Neville had too. And by finding out what it was, they'd 
 
> find out what had happened to Voldy.

Eustace_Scrubb:
Yeah, that's a good thought, too.  I'll take that and add it to my
notion that Frank and Alice may _not_ have been in hiding, but that
Neville _was_.  So perhaps Bella's group tortured Frank and Alice not
merely to discover where Voldemort had gone to, but where Neville was
being kept.

Kneasy:  
> Arrgh!
> I think I'll invent a new syndrome just for Harry - IHAND.
> Impulsive Half-Assed Numpty  Disorder.
> 
> (Note to non-Brits - a numpty can be defined as a non-thinking 
> pillock.)

Eustace_Scrubb:
Alas, this non-Brit didn't know what a pillock is, either,until I
googled it.   Now I suppose by admitting this I could be suggesting
that _I_ may be a pillock,or a numpty.  Oh well.

Kneasy:  
> There are supposedly two possible targets for Voldy -  Harry and 
> Neville.
> It would be reasonable to assume that they both had protection 
<SNIP> 
> Voldy has now negated Harry's anti-Voldy protection, he can touch  
> him -  but what  about Neville? And if it wasn't then Neville  is   
> still Voldy-proof while Harry isn't. This could set things up
> nicely  for death-of-Harry-revenged-by-Neville or 
> Harry-at-Voldy's-mercy-saved-by-Neville depending on your tastes.

Eustace_Scrubb:
Yup.  I don't think we fans are the only ones who will turn out to
have read that prophecy wrong.  

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 18:04:00 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:04:00 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1755v+6pm1@...>
Message-ID: <d1782g+h3vg@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" <dk59us at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> >  > Eustace_Scrubb:
> >  > Ah, now this is very much to the point.  The "why" of the DEs 
> >  > visit to Frank and Alice seems very likely to be Neville.> 
Yeah, that's a good thought, too.  I'll take that and add it to my
> notion that Frank and Alice may _not_ have been in hiding, but that
> Neville _was_.  So perhaps Bella's group tortured Frank and Alice 
not
> merely to discover where Voldemort had gone to, but where Neville 
was
> being kept.
> 

Except on JKR's official site in the latest rumours section there is 
this: 

10/12/04 

The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him.

'No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after Neville's 
parents. I can't say too much about this because it touches too 
closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it but the 
Lestranges were not in on the secret.'

So not after Neville, which begs the question why bother with them 
at all? Why would JKR make the attack happen after Voldy is repelled 
by Harry. Why debunk *this* harmless rumour at all? Oh its all too 
fishy with the Longbottoms.

I've just reread PS and CoS and it seems to me that JKR is working 
very hard at making us remember Neville without drawing attention to 
him. Why have a second boy fingered by the prophecy, why write it in 
there only to brush it aside so quickly and flippantly? No Jo, I 
smell a rat?

Regards
Jo







From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 15 18:15:38 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:15:38 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1782g+h3vg@...>
Message-ID: <d178oa+mpao@...>


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

Jo:
> Except on JKR's official site in the latest rumours section there is 
> this: 
> 
> 10/12/04 
> 
> The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him.
> 
> 'No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after Neville's 
> parents. I can't say too much about this because it touches too 
> closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it but the 
> Lestranges were not in on the secret.'
> 
> So not after Neville, which begs the question why bother with them 
> at all? Why would JKR make the attack happen after Voldy is repelled 
> by Harry. Why debunk *this* harmless rumour at all? Oh its all too 
> fishy with the Longbottoms.

Anne:
Subtle.

The Lestranges weren't in on the secret.  Well, they didn't need to
be, because the Lestranges were *sent.*  They were just following
orders.  That doesn't tell us anything about the person who did the
sending, now, does it?  You may immediately imagine Lucius Malfoy, who
*could be* in on the secret, sending the Lestranges after Neville's
parents (remember that Lucius had some familiarity with the prophecy
in OoP).

JKR's FAQ answer tells us the Lestranges weren't sent after Neville,
but they could have been sent after his parents because the one who
sent them knew the Longbottoms were connected to the prophecy and
presumably knew something about it.  I'm not asserting this is true,
just that we have nothing to rule it out.

Anne








From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 16 01:30:29 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:30:29 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1782g+h3vg@...>
Message-ID: <d1827l+rmpn@...>


Eustace_Scrubb:
> > >  > The "why" of the DEs visit to Frank and Alice seems very 
> > >  > likely to be Neville.
> 

Then Jo:
> Except on JKR's official site in the latest rumours section there
is 
> this: 
> 
> 10/12/04 
> 
> The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him.
> 
> 'No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after Neville's 
> parents. I can't say too much about this because it touches too 
> closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it but the 
> Lestranges were not in on the secret.'
> 
> So not after Neville, which begs the question why bother with them 
> at all? Why would JKR make the attack happen after Voldy is
repelled 
> by Harry. Why debunk *this* harmless rumour at all? Oh its all too 
> fishy with the Longbottoms.
> 

And Anne:
>Subtle.
>
>The Lestranges weren't in on the secret. Well, they didn't need to
>be, because the Lestranges were *sent.* 
...
>JKR's FAQ answer tells us the Lestranges weren't sent after Neville,
>but they could have been sent after his parents because the one who
>sent them knew the Longbottoms were connected to the prophecy and
>presumably knew something about it. 

Eustace_Scrubb again:
I don't think JKR's answer necessarily changes my sense that Neville
is the "why" of the visit.  This is in part because of what Anne
points out...the LeStrange/?Crouch? party was "sent."  So maybe Voldy
(or Lucius?) was smart enough _not_ to tell Bellatrix what all the
running around killing defiant Order members was really about. But
whoever it was probably _did_ know about Neville's potential role in
the prophecy. 

If as Kneasy suggests as one possibility, the mission was intended to
find out what protections were involved in order to avoid another
Godric's Hollow fiasco, they'd need to have a chat with Neville's
parents...he couldn't very well tell them himself.  And if they were
worried about booby-traps set for their spells, they wouldn't expect
to be able to kill Neville.  Again, if they believed Neville was
elsewhere, they would have had to work Frank and Alice over to get
them to reveal the secret.  So there are lots of reasons they may have
been sent after Frank and Alice Longbottom, but I still think it
reasonable that all of those reasons boil down to Neville. 

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 16 06:50:04 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:50:04 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <9db68716e9cb6f4a6d22a388a427358c@...>
Message-ID: <d18kus+ar8d@...>


Following up on some back and forth with Kneasy,


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> snip to replies to some of my replies.

>  > Now Lyn,
>  > Maybe so, but maybe not. I give Harry more choice in these matters 
> and I  think his strength has been in the bravery  and determination 
> of his choices. As you know, I personally don't think it 
> was his love for Sirius that directly made Harry uninhabitable by LV. 
> I think it was that Harry embraced death, the very 
> thing LV fears most. Harry chose to die, I consider that 
> volitional. Rightly, wrongly, foolishly, wisely, Harry has 
> chosen many times to put himself (and thus his life) at risk 
> potentially to achieve what he believed to be a worthy outcome. 
> Now might it be that HP and LV are equal, not in magical power, 
> but in the power of their choices (different in direction 
> though they may be). Just a thought.
> 
> Kneasy:
> I dunno; altruism is one thing, rash idiocy is something else.
> He never, ever, *ever* thinks of consequences. Not only that, he never, 
> ever, *ever* has a real plan either.
> 
> PS/SS  - "Let's get the Stone before the baddy!"
> How?
> "We just pop down the trapdoor and evade all those protections that are 
> intended to stymie a seriously evil skilled wizard! It's easy!"
> Yeah. And then?
> "Oh, we'll decide what to do then later."
> 
> CoS.
> "We'll just pop down the plughole, confront this ginormous 
> death-dealing monster, laugh at the Heir, rescue Ginny and Bob's your 
> Uncle. Simple."
> 
> OoP.
> "We'll  fly to London, break into the Ministry, penetrate the most 
> closely guarded sanctum in the WW and  rescue Sirius. Piece of cake."
> The DEs, Voldy?
> "Oh, we'll sort  them out later."
> 
> Arrgh!
> I think I'll invent a new syndrome just for Harry - IHAND.
> Impulsive Half-Assed Numpty  Disorder.
> 
> (Note to non-Brits - a numpty can be defined as a non-thinking pillock.)

Lyn anew,
Does Harry have a fine edged (or yes, even a blunt edged) understanding of consequence? 
no of course he doesn't. That, of course, is the realistic portrayal of a juvenile mind--I say 
this seriously, with an understanding of the developmental neurophysiology that accounts 
for this (progressive myelinization and all that). But does he usually have sufficient 
understanding of the consequences that he can recognize that he is placing the well being 
of others over his own life? I believe the canonical evidence exists for that. Indeed, I would 
submit that a great deal of the appeal of the HP series to children (and maybe even a few 
adults) is that the series portrays youth as capable of making noble and effectual choices, 
despite their inability to fully grasp all the nuances of such choices.  
> 
>  >
>  > Now Lyn,
>  > The thing that seems lacking for Neville with respect to the prophecy 
> is  that their is no appearance thus far of any reason why Neville 
> should have any personal difficultive living as long as LV is 
> alive. We know differently with respect to Harry and the 
> intertwined conciousness of him  and LV.
>  >
> 
> Kneasy:
> Ah. You've missed my point,  I think.

Lyn again,
Yes I believe I did, though I think its a great point. Still, I would suggest you have rather 
quickly passed by mine. Again, what evidence to we have that, per the prophecy, the 
Neville would have any problem with respect the section "for neither can live while the 
other survives ..." Neville appears to be functioning (at least physically) without much 
problem that can be related to LV's living. In contrast, we have considerable evidence that 
Harry is going to have some trouble maintaining an independent existance with LV around.

Back to Kneasy:

> See, this is was I was nonchalantly edging towards, whistling and 
> admiring the dickie birds, hoping somebody would pick it up and run 
> with it so that I could say "Do you know, that's just what I was 
> thinking!"
> 
> There are supposedly two possible targets for Voldy -  Harry and 
> Neville.
> It would be reasonable to assume that they both had protection - Harry 
> had at least two protections - anti-Voldy and the blood/family dwelling 
> varieties.
> The anti-Voldy *may* have been triggered by Lily's death, but I doubt 
> it - what would have happened if Voldy had just swept Lily aside and 
> nailed Harry first?  And since DD was involved the 'Old Magic' may have 
> been, probably was, placed on both boys. The blood protection that came 
> to Harry on Lily's death would not apply to Neville, Alice is still 
> alive.

Lyn anew:
An excellent analysis IMO. JKR/DD has shared no information about the protections on 
Neville, but it is almost inconceivable to believe DD would not have established protections 
for both infants, both on an individual level, as well as a family level (i.e, hiding). And 
really, how dumb is DD to have not known that with DE like Bella on the loose that Order 
Members were not still in jeopardy. A cynic could almost speculate that the Longbottoms 
surfaced to entice the remaining DE desperados into revealing themselves and making 
themselves available for capture. 

Back to Kneasy:  
> 
> Voldy has now negated Harry's anti-Voldy protection, he can touch him - 
>   but what  about Neville? Was the protective spell removed after Voldy 
> went to pieces? Maybe not. DD didn't believe Voldy was destroyed, did 
> he? And if it wasn't then Neville  is still Voldy-proof while Harry  
> isn't. This could set things up nicely for 
> death-of-Harry-revenged-by-Neville or 
> Harry-at-Voldy's-mercy-saved-by-Neville depending on your tastes.

Lyn anew:
I love this. Yes, Neville my very well retain the protections Harry has now lost. Just the very 
thing LV might overlook to his own demise. But it appears that Bella is Neville's primary 
bane, not LV. So I suspect the ultimate show down for Neville will be there and not a 
climactic battle with LV

Back to Kneasy:  
> If Voldy's choice of first victim was based purely on the availability 
> of a betrayer, (and so far as we know no-one suggested that there was 
> anything special about Harry *before* GH) and assuming that Voldy 
> himself did not transfer 'the power he knows not' (logically unlikely), 
> then the chances are even that Neville is the one that has this power. 
> Whisper it if you dare - Voldy picked the wrong one. All the problems 
> he's had with the pestiferous Potter stem from GH and protection, 
> transfer of powers and that bloody wand. At no time has Harry looked as 
> if he could knock Voldy off his perch. Perhaps he doesn't have the 
> necessary 'power'; perhaps Neville has it instead. After all DD doesn't 
> claim that the whatever-it-is that Harry is so full of that caused 
> Voldy to abort his possession attempt at the Ministry is the same power 
> that will destroy him, now does he?
> "Ugly Duckling" anyone?

Lyn anew:
How convenient that Neville should have be stuck with Frank's wand, and never had a 
chance to see which wand best suited him. Ah, what might have happened if Neville had 
been offered a go at the second phoenix feather wand before Harry. Still, I JKR is going to 
tell us that Harry was ordained as the "one" even before GH. As I have conveyed to some  
privately, there is the issue of the similarity TR finds in the physical appearance of himself 
and Harry, and Harry with TR. There is also the evidence, repeatedly driven home by JKR 
that Harry and James look almost identical. So, does this not mean that James and TR look 
much alike? JKR has set the stage for there to be a link to TR that predates GH. I'm not 
necessarily saying it will be a simple one of heritage, it may be something more subtle or 
complex. But the foundation has clearly been laid for a two generational association 
between Potter males and and TR, and if so, there would be something "special" about 
Harry that is independent from GH.  Again, just some thoughts to follow on you most 
intriguing speculations about Neville.  






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 16 21:10:42 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:10:42 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1827l+rmpn@...>
Message-ID: <d1a7ci+2dkm@...>


> Eustace_Scrubb:
> > > >  > The "why" of the DEs visit to Frank and Alice seems very 
> > > >  > likely to be Neville.
> > 
> 
> Then Jo:
> > Except on JKR's official site in the latest rumours section there
> is 
> > this: 
> > 
> > 10/12/04 
> > 
> > The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him.
> > 
> > 'No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after Neville's 
> > parents. I can't say too much about this because it touches too 
> > closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it but the 
> > Lestranges were not in on the secret.'
> > 
> > So not after Neville, which begs the question why bother with 
them 
> > at all? Why would JKR make the attack happen after Voldy is
> repelled 
> > by Harry. Why debunk *this* harmless rumour at all? Oh its all 
too 
> > fishy with the Longbottoms.
> > 
> 
> And Anne:
> >Subtle.
> >
> >The Lestranges weren't in on the secret. Well, they didn't need to
> >be, because the Lestranges were *sent.* 
> ...
> >JKR's FAQ answer tells us the Lestranges weren't sent after 
Neville,
> >but they could have been sent after his parents because the one who
> >sent them knew the Longbottoms were connected to the prophecy and
> >presumably knew something about it. 
> 

Neri:
We are likely to get a hint regarding this soon. In the FAQ pole in 
JKR's website, the leading question (by a huge margin) is "what is 
the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy 
might have referred?" It must have been at least three months since 
this pole was set, so she must answer it soon (or at least I hope 
so). She must have had a good reason to include this question in the 
first place.

Neri







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 16 23:50:27 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:50:27 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d178oa+mpao@...>
Message-ID: <d1ago3+u1u6@...>


Anne:
  That doesn't tell us anything about the person who did the
> sending, now, does it?  You may immediately imagine Lucius 
Malfoy, who *could be* in on the secret, sending the Lestranges 
after Neville's parents (remember that Lucius had some 
familiarity with the prophecy in OoP).<
> 


Pippin:
Lucius? But why make a big mystery out of him? We already 
know he's a DE. Besides, if he was the one who sent the 
Lestranges after the Longbottoms, then why did Voldemort chew 
Lucius out for not trying to find him? No, that "sent" is the biggest 
clue yet that Voldemort's shadowy second-in-command is  an 
undiscovered traitor to the Light. 

Pippin






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 17 02:41:08 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:41:08 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1ago3+u1u6@...>
Message-ID: <d1aqo4+k5ef@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> 
> Anne:
>   That doesn't tell us anything about the person who did the
> > sending, now, does it?  You may immediately imagine Lucius 
> MalfoySnip

> Pippin:
> Lucius? But why make a big mystery out of him? We already 
> know he's a DE. Besides, if he was the one who sent the 
> Lestranges after the Longbottoms, then why did Voldemort chew 
> Lucius out for not trying to find him? No, that "sent" is the 
>biggest clue yet that Voldemort's shadowy second-in-command is  an 
> undiscovered traitor to the Light. 
> > Pippin

Talisman, who has never understood why OoP convinced people to drop 
the ESE! arguments, asks: 

Can you say Fudge?

A certain little someone who had lofty aspirations to be Minister of 
Magic; who socialized with the Crouch family and knew a thing or 
two; who benefited mightily when Jr. was busted and heir-apparent 
Sr.'s career trajectory went lateral? (Not to mention any positive 
light the law enforcement coup might have shed on the Junior 
Minister for Magical Catastrophes.)  Someone who seemed a tad eager 
to soul suck the little pawn in his plan?

Dear Cornelius must have had some way to set the thing in motion.  
Was he a high-ranking DE, after all? Or, did he simply have the ear 
of one? Mightn't he have had a means of access to whatever the 
Ministry knew of the prophecy? Or, did his DE friend provide that, 
too?  All in a clever little plan to get Fudge to the throne, with 
Lucius holding the reins.   After all, now that the Dark Lord has 
gone pffffft, someone has to rule the WW....

Talisman, saying, next you can start wondering why Fudge let Sirius 
out of Azkaban, in order to facilitate soul sucking him, too. 






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 17 11:46:47 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:46:47 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1a7ci+2dkm@...>
Message-ID: <d1bqn7+5c11@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> Neri:
> We are likely to get a hint regarding this soon. In the FAQ pole in 
> JKR's website, the leading question (by a huge margin) is "what is 
> the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy 
> might have referred?" It must have been at least three months since 
> this pole was set, so she must answer it soon (or at least I hope 
> so). She must have had a good reason to include this question in the 
> first place.
> 

Thing is, would anyone believe her if she said it had no significance?
And what does she mean by 'significance' anyway? That it matters that
there was a second boy or that it matters it was Neville? Or that it has
a significance to the future plot arc? Or to past events and backstory?
If we get an answer other than one that boils down to "Yes" and with 
little or no indication of what the actual significance is, I'll be totally
gob-smacked. And so would almost everyone else, I think. 

Not only is Jo very careful about how she answers questions, she's very
careful about how she frames them too. Mind you, she may have got
caught short on this one - most of the sites have a moderate to heavy
infestation of SHIPpers who would perhaps be expected to be panting
for the merest hint that their sad and bizarre eccentricity has the slightest
validity. Must admit, I was a bit surprised (and encouraged) that Q.3. got 
such low support.

Past hints, nudges and winks encourage us to believe that the Longbottoms
(including Neville) are important to understanding what went on at the
time of GH - and importantly, they're still there. Is it unreasonable to
assume that future events will involve them and will, at the very least, lead 
to a major background filler. With my casting of Lockhart as the Obliviate!
maestro probably associated with the DEs and perhaps the despoiler of 
Frank and Alice's minds, I sometimes muse on what would be the reaction
if on his amblings about St Mungo's he happened to wander into their ward. 

Without  a doubt Neville has the potential to be a key part of a major plot
twist. The more one thinks about his place in the plot  the more it gives
one to wonder. Even JKR said that book 5 was a turning point for Neville.
So if he's no longer the well-meaning bumbling kid that the others have
to look out for, just what is his role?

Kneasy 






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 17 12:54:01 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:54:01 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1bqn7+5c11@...>
Message-ID: <d1bul9+49rl@...>


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

 With my casting of Lockhart as the Obliviate!
> maestro probably associated with the DEs and perhaps the despoiler 
of 
> Frank and Alice's minds, I sometimes muse on what would be the 
reaction
> if on his amblings about St Mungo's he happened to wander into 
their ward. 
> 

Carolyn:
?? Lockhart is already in the same ward as Alice & Frank - see OOP Ch 
23, p.452/453. He must see them all day, every day.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 17 17:32:32 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:32:32 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <d1bul9+49rl@...>
Message-ID: <d1cevg+nlru@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> 
> Carolyn:
> ?? Lockhart is already in the same ward as Alice & Frank - see OOP Ch 
> 23, p.452/453. He must see them all day, every day.

Bugger.
Maybe one or more 'em'll get anti-zonked in the next  book.
Be a shame to miss a dramatic scene like that.

Kneasy






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 19 20:00:23 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:00:23 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <32a6abf3a8b3a3d81066c12f61cad274@...>
Message-ID: <d1i0cn+92g8@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith / Kneasy wrote
in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1418 :

<< When you think about it,  prophecies are funny things. The odds 
are that some sort of self-fulfillment will occur rather than the 
ineluctable progression of events outside the control of those 
concerned. >>

Maybe the bias is in selection of which prophecies & their 
fulfilments make good tales. A tale, like that of Oedipus, showing
that the prophecy was fulfilled ONLY because of the efforts people
made to prevent it is attractively ironic and has the moral: you can't
escape your fate. 

Tales of prophecies which came true because they were misinterpreted
(which was easy because they were ambiguous) are also popular -- was
it the King of Lydia who asked the Oracle of Delphi if he should
invade the Persian Empire and the Pythia said "If you do, a great
empire will be destroyed" and he did and it was -- the Lydian Empire
destroyed by the Persians? Or "the Lydians will dance with noisy
feet", which was being marched off in shackles as slaves rather
celebrating a victory dance? 

I think modern people find the latter attractive because of the
sneakiness of the Oracle and the foolishness of the querent, but I
don't know what the Classical Greeks (who apparently DID believe in
Oracles as well as in Fate) found attractive about them.

Tales of a prophecy uttered by the Pythia which came true even tho' 
no one at all involved in it even knew there was a Prophecy only make
good advertisements for taking your questions to Delphi, not good stories.

<< Looked at objectively Neville seems a much more sympathetic
character anyway - honest, upright, honorable - and he doesn't whine.
Harry seems flashy and flawed in comparison. >>

Maybe Neville would seem less sympathetic and Harry more admirable if
the reader was inside Neville's head instead of Harry's head. 

Some of Harry's 'whining' (I admit, only some) is just his own
thoughts that he doesn't speak out loud, and I'm sure Neville has 
some thoughts like that, too.

If the readers were inside Neville's head, we would KNOW whether him
saying "I'm nobody" when Ginny was introducing him to Luna was a sign
of extremely low self-esteem (as so many people read it) or an attempt
to avoid interacting with Loony Luna (as I read it). How admirable
would he seem if we "heard" him glancing into the compartment and
observing: "Urggh, that's Loony Luna from Ravenclaw. She's *weird*; I
don't want to be near her" and then Ginny forced him into the
compartment and he thought: "No! If she learns my name, she might call
'Hi, Neville!' in public and then everyone will be saying (singsong)
'Neville's got a girlfriend. Numpty Neville and Luna Loon holding
hands under the moon' ... " 

(Thanks for teaching me the word 'numpty' which alliterates so nicely.
I suppose it's related to 'numbskull" and "numb-nuts", common USAn
insults.)

If Neville is the Prophecy Boy and the heroic vanquisher of LV after
Harry has *failed*, EpitomeOfGoodness!DD was wrong (not unusual) or
Puppetmaster!DD was using Harry as a decoy to protect Neville.






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 19 23:07:51 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050319230751.20815.qmail@...>

I have often wondered if Neville's ineptitude as a
wizard is the result of some protective spell to hide
his true identity from the bad guys.  

I do think the "Ugly Duckling Scenario" is right up
JKR's alley.  She make me think that she would want to
tell kids that they can become greater than they are
now by perseverance.(SP?)

I also think Dumbledore is an allusion to Beowulf
because he defeated Grindelwald and his name means
bumble bee.  I found this on the internet under
mythology names:

"BEOWULF 
Gender: Masculine 
Usage: Anglo-Saxon Mythology 
Pronounced: BAY-u-woolf   [key] 
Extra Info: Websites 
Options: Contribute Information 

Possibly means "bee wolf" (in effect equal to "bear")
from Old English beo "bee" and wulf "wolf". This is
the name of the main character in the anonymous
8th-century epic poem 'Beowulf'. The poem tells how
Beowulf slays the monster Grendel and its mother, but
goes on to tell how he is killed in his old age
fighting a dragon."

I think this means that Dumbledore will die fighting a
dragon but since he knows the 12 uses of Dragon's
blood, he will find a way to save Harry or someone
else with Dragon's blood while he is mortally wounded.
 This would give him a dramatic exit suitable of his
character.

Randy



--- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry
> Arrowsmith / Kneasy wrote
> in
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1418
> :
> 
> << When you think about it,  prophecies are funny
> things. The odds 
> are that some sort of self-fulfillment will occur
> rather than the 
> ineluctable progression of events outside the
> control of those 
> concerned. >>
> 
> Maybe the bias is in selection of which prophecies &
> their 
> fulfilments make good tales. A tale, like that of
> Oedipus, showing
> that the prophecy was fulfilled ONLY because of the
> efforts people
> made to prevent it is attractively ironic and has
> the moral: you can't
> escape your fate. 
> 
> Tales of prophecies which came true because they
> were misinterpreted
> (which was easy because they were ambiguous) are
> also popular -- was
> it the King of Lydia who asked the Oracle of Delphi
> if he should
> invade the Persian Empire and the Pythia said "If
> you do, a great
> empire will be destroyed" and he did and it was --
> the Lydian Empire
> destroyed by the Persians? Or "the Lydians will
> dance with noisy
> feet", which was being marched off in shackles as
> slaves rather
> celebrating a victory dance? 
> 
> I think modern people find the latter attractive
> because of the
> sneakiness of the Oracle and the foolishness of the
> querent, but I
> don't know what the Classical Greeks (who apparently
> DID believe in
> Oracles as well as in Fate) found attractive about
> them.
> 
> Tales of a prophecy uttered by the Pythia which came
> true even tho' 
> no one at all involved in it even knew there was a
> Prophecy only make
> good advertisements for taking your questions to
> Delphi, not good stories.
> 
> << Looked at objectively Neville seems a much more
> sympathetic
> character anyway - honest, upright, honorable - and
> he doesn't whine.
> Harry seems flashy and flawed in comparison. >>
> 
> Maybe Neville would seem less sympathetic and Harry
> more admirable if
> the reader was inside Neville's head instead of
> Harry's head. 
> 
> Some of Harry's 'whining' (I admit, only some) is
> just his own
> thoughts that he doesn't speak out loud, and I'm
> sure Neville has 
> some thoughts like that, too.
> 
> If the readers were inside Neville's head, we would
> KNOW whether him
> saying "I'm nobody" when Ginny was introducing him
> to Luna was a sign
> of extremely low self-esteem (as so many people read
> it) or an attempt
> to avoid interacting with Loony Luna (as I read it).
> How admirable
> would he seem if we "heard" him glancing into the
> compartment and
> observing: "Urggh, that's Loony Luna from Ravenclaw.
> She's *weird*; I
> don't want to be near her" and then Ginny forced him
> into the
> compartment and he thought: "No! If she learns my
> name, she might call
> 'Hi, Neville!' in public and then everyone will be
> saying (singsong)
> 'Neville's got a girlfriend. Numpty Neville and Luna
> Loon holding
> hands under the moon' ... " 
> 
> (Thanks for teaching me the word 'numpty' which
> alliterates so nicely.
> I suppose it's related to 'numbskull" and
> "numb-nuts", common USAn
> insults.)
> 
> If Neville is the Prophecy Boy and the heroic
> vanquisher of LV after
> Harry has *failed*, EpitomeOfGoodness!DD was wrong
> (not unusual) or
> Puppetmaster!DD was using Harry as a decoy to
> protect Neville.
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 



From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 20 03:39:33 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:39:33 -0000
Subject: Think about Neville
In-Reply-To: <20050319230751.20815.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d1ir9l+l3vr@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes <estesrandy at y...> 
wrote:
 
> I also think Dumbledore is an allusion to Beowulf...<snip>
> I think this means that Dumbledore will die fighting a
> dragon...<snip>
 Randy


Talisman:

You see Dumbledore as Beowulf, huh? Well, it's true enough that
Rowling choose an Anglo-Saxon name for the old guy. 

I must say, I've seen Beowulf in the HP series, myself, but in
rather a different place.

When Harry drives Godric's sword through the Basilisk's head, and
receives a deadly fang in exchange, it reminds me forcefully of the
death of Beowulf.

(I'm rather enamoured of Beowulf's death, and have a framed fin-de-
si?cle etching purporting to depict the event, upon which I gaze
lovingly from time to time.)

Just as Harry was "mortally" wounded while killing the serpent,
Beowulf was pierced by the deadly fang of the wyrm, and died after
killing this final foe.

While Beowulf's death is a "perfect" death for an ancient warrior-
king, it was certainly not the perfect death for a twelve-year-old
boy.

By emulating Beowulf's death, but then saving Harry (via phoenix
tears)I've always read Rowling as conferring Beowulf's mantle
(hero / defender of the people / leader by right)to Harry, who must
live to carry on in that capacity.

You, possibly, see him as Wiglaf?

Talisman, who keeps an Early English Text Society facsimile of the
MS Cotton Vitellius A. xv around so that she can complete her own
translation, some happy day when she is so old and querulous that
everyone will leave her to her own pursuits. And, who would very
much like to die Beowulf's death, but will probably just stroke out
in the process of telling some jerk to eff off.

...?? his ?gen w?s gl?dum forgrunden.
?? g?n g??cyning miht gemunde? m?genstrengo sl?h
hildebille ??t hyt on heafolan st?d n??e gen?ded...


...then the war-king remembered his strength again / with mighty
force struck with his battle-sword / so that it stood in [the
serpent's] head / driven by violence...

Beowulf, lines 2678-2681
transliterated from the MS. Cotton Vitellius A.xv








From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 23 16:37:03 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:37:03 +0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
Message-ID: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>

Connections.
I love making connections.
Joining the dots, seeing the Taj Mahal in a case of chickenpox.
Tying this to that and that to the other.
Slotting together bits and pieces like a jig-saw puzzle to make a 
bigger picture - and besides, it keeps me out of mischief.

All speculation of course, it might be nothing more than the fevered 
ramblings  of a brain addicted to conundrums and labyrinthine 
mysteries. And if they don't exist it won't stop me inventing 'em - and 
HP is  a happy hunting ground for those of that ilk. Particularly the 
back-story. Oh, my word yes. Facts get a mention, then - nothing. Are 
they filler intended to give a bit of colour to background or 
character, or are they important? Are there actual connections to be 
made? Do they in fact exist outside the jangle of gin-induced 
mis-firing neurones?

Nothing in  this post is revelatory, all the individual parts have been 
pondered over at some time or another. Dig into files and you'll find 
that that happy band of posters, the compulsive theorists have trod 
this path before. You might even find my own grubby fingerprints on 
some of the posts. So why bother going over it again?

Well, there's this gap in the history and there are a few isolated 
facts looking for a home,  a few threads that lead nowhere -  and it 
rankles. It's unfinished business. They look as if they *should* be 
connected. To a theorist there's no greater challenge; it's a throwing 
down of the gauntlet, a call to arms. But are we Lochinvar or Don 
Quixote?
Good question....

Talisman has evinced a passion for Beowulf, it's a touch tangential 
perhaps, but since we have to start somewhere, why not use that as a 
jumping off point?

I reckon a fair translation of Grindelwald would be Grendel's Wood. Is 
that significant? Maybe not, though the legend that Grendel was 
half-human might be. Whether this also applies to Grindelwald is 
supposition, though it is a tempting prospect,, 'cos by my reckoning 
Voldy is half-human too - or he used to be.

There's this assumption that old G. was German, what with the name and 
the date of his defeat, but this ain't necessarily so. Is Voldemort 
French? Nope; well the name is, sort of, but Tom is a shining example 
of a Brit git with a massive chip on his shoulder and the French 
connection is merely a by-product of a fancy anagram. (Interestingly 
enough, you can get 'Riddle' out of Grindelwald,  but since it'd leave 
us with a first name of Gnaw or Wang, or maybe Wag. N. Riddle, it's 
unlikely to be a fruitful line of inquiry. Pity.)

No:  what does interest me is that DD  defeated Grindy and held down 
his teaching job at the same time. (And it was a real teaching job - 
Transfiguration - not the bum-polishing sinecure of Headmaster that he 
has now. Apart from feasts he hardly shifts out of his office.) Anyway, 
the point is, how likely is it that DD felled this terrible wizard on a 
weekend excursion to Oktoberfest or whatever? Or as a  break from a 
holiday dalliance with a Rhine-maiden or two? Most unlikely, I'd say. 
Worth considering that Grindy might be more of a local lad - or have 
local connections, anyway.

Anyway, ole Grindy bites the dust, though the manner and extent of his 
defeat is a total unknown. Was it louring clouds, mountain-tops riven 
by awesome spells or did DD smother him in platitudes? Was he destroyed 
or merely disarmed, contained, put back in his box where he can do no 
more harm? Somewhere like the Chamber.....

See, we've been sold a pup on this Chamber thingy. There's old Binns, 
droning on that it's all arrant nonsense and then old DD let's slip 
that the Chamber has been opened *again*. The Binns version was 
essentially the one that Tom was told - was it as inaccurate then as 
when it was repeated to Harry, Hermione et al? Yep. It's that 'don't go 
down the cellar, there's something evil lurking and it wants out' 
speculation again. And it does get out to stretch it's non-existent 
legs every so often, I'm sure.

Not only don't we know how he was defeated, we're also in the dark as 
to how long Grindy had been making a nuisance of himself. Years? If so, 
how many? 'Cos not only is it fun making connections in HP, it's also 
entertaining to draw parallels, especially when the broad outlines have 
already been sketched in by herself. Tom and Harry. (Will there ever be 
a Dick? Hmm. "Every Tom, Dick or Harry" - a synonym for anyone. A tale 
or succession of tales where the main protagonist is Everyman in 
different guises and making different(?) choices when presented with 
the same set of circumstances. Might be a thesis there if you get 
bored.)

But I  digress.
Tom and Harry.
Parallels. How far do you want  to go?
Both sets of parents have one from an old wizarding family, one not.
Harry for sure, Tom perhaps, is born when an evil wizard is rising and 
certainly one is looming large while both are at Hogwarts.
Mothers die. Orphanage/fostering in the Muggle world ensues -  until 
Hogwarts.
Both are outsiders.
Both have greatness dangled under their noses.
Both get wands with Fawkes's feathers as cores.
(Now this *must* be a killer fact. I refuse to believe it's chance. 
It's as much an accident as Mugabe winning elections IMO.)
According to canon both recognise  something of themselves in the 
other. (If you can't see that as a nudge to sit up and take notes, then 
I despair of you, I really do.  Though I'll grudgingly admit that if 
the  two feathers were provided at the same time, a major re-think 
would be in order. But nobody believes that, do they? Nah. 'Course 
not.)

Oh, and there's one other connection - Dumbledore. He's the one leading 
the fight against both would-be EOotU, he's the one that owns the 
phoenix that provides the feathers. He's also  the one who gazes 
penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom wants to 
tell him. Ha! Tom doesn't need to tell him, DD *knows* - that adjective 
'penetrating' ain't there for nothing, you know - just as he knows when 
he pulls the same trick on Harry. So why didn't he do something, you 
may ask. Good question. He does tinker at the edges, things like 
getting Hagrid out of the slammer and into a job, but he doesn't seem 
to be in the business of nipping things in the bud.

Perhaps he can't, or not with any permanence. Perhaps he can defeat 
Evil Masterminds (yes Grindelwald, apparently yes Voldemort), but he 
lacks that certain something that will ensure their total destruction. 
That is a role for someone else. In the current manifestation of evil 
that someone is Harry. And Tom? Bearing in mind all the parallels, what 
was his role? His *original* role?
A goody who fell from grace? A flawed saviour who succumbed to  
temptation and made the wrong choice?

Or was he bait?
A tempting little morsel for evil to snuggle up to, to bring it out of 
it's protective hidey-hole so that it could be destroyed? He could open 
the Chamber (mind you, so could Harry) which  would enable him to play 
with whatever goodies Sally had left behind. But that doesn't 
necessarily mean that whatever was in there couldn't leave if it wished 
- the Basilisk was parading around the pipework just a few days into 
the term. Had Ginny been  possessed that soon? Not according to Tom, he 
was patient, took it slowly as Ginny poured her inner-most secrets into 
the diary - and if the Basilisk can get out of the Chamber other things 
might have been able to do so too when it suited their purpose. "Hello, 
can I  be your friend? We can call ourselves Grindelwald. Isn't  that a 
nice name!"  Which brings us round full circle in our speculative 
theorising.

So what have we got?
Grindelwald
Voldemort
Salazar
The Chamber
Dumbledore
And a load of parallels between Tom and Harry.

Right. Now join 'em up.
My, oh my. Someone could write a book about this lot.
Will it be number 6 or number 7?

Kneasy




From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 23 18:09:49 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:09:49 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>
Message-ID: <d1sbdd+r45m@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Connections.
> I love making connections.
>snip> 
>  Dumbledore. He's the one leading 
> the fight against both would-be EOotU, he's the one that owns the 
> phoenix that provides the feathers. He's also  the one who gazes 
> penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom wants to 
> tell him. Ha! Tom doesn't need to tell him, DD *knows* - that adjective 
> 'penetrating' ain't there for nothing, you know - just as he knows when 
> he pulls the same trick on Harry. So why didn't he do something, you 
> may ask. Good question. He does tinker at the edges, things like 
> getting Hagrid out of the slammer and into a job, but he doesn't seem 
> to be in the business of nipping things in the bud.
> 
> Perhaps he can't, or not with any permanence. Perhaps he can defeat 
> Evil Masterminds (yes Grindelwald, apparently yes Voldemort), but he 
> lacks that certain something that will ensure their total destruction. 
> That is a role for someone else. In the current manifestation of evil 
> that someone is Harry. And Tom? Bearing in mind all the parallels, what 
> was his role? His *original* role?
> A goody who fell from grace? A flawed saviour who succumbed to  
> temptation and made the wrong choice?
> 
> Or was he bait?
> <snip> 


Excellent thought about Grindelwald. I don't have the books in front of me to check for 
sure, but I don't recall anything that clearly demarks the name as referencing an 
individual. Very interesting shift of perspective on that.

The following are some highly speculative points on what is already a speculative theory 
many do not subscribe to.

So well all know the Sally didn't like less than whole bloods. So would SS really be willing 
to share himself in his entirety, i.e, invest his entire powers, with less than a whole blood. 
So yes, if DD is puppetmaster, he might well choose to draw out SS with someone less 
than a whole blood. Better to try to deal with an enemy at less than full force. And perhaps 
why SS as possessor has not yet found a final residence--seeking to reside in those 
potentially powerful, but frustrated that those powerful targets of opportunity are never 
consistent with his standards.  Almost like DD is secretly taunting SS.  Likely not the way it 
is, but these are the thoughts your post generated.

And right on about the legilimacy. Most should have been aware by now that such took 
place between DD and Tom  (as well as Harry) but I think many have not considered (or not 
wished to consider) the implication that DD then knew of Tom's relationship to the 
Chamber (and thus SS). At a minimum, it meant that DD was willing to allow Hagrid to be 
the fall guy, much like he was willing to allow Sirius to be the fall guy (twice). At most, he 
knew the evil potential of what he would allow to develop (why not just see an early end to 
Tom, unless...).  As you've long asserted, it's getting harder and harder to reconcile the DD 
of sheer goodness and the clear implications which follow from the events JKR has already 
put into print.

Ah, it shall all be quite interesting over the next two volumes; I just hope it is not 
dissapointing as well.








From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 23 21:15:35 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:15:35 -0000
Subject: Soul-less Existence
Message-ID: <d1sm9n+cm22@...>


from POA, Chapter 12, "The Patronus":
"They call it the Dementor's Kiss," said Lupin, with a slightly
twisted smile. "It's what dementors do to those they wish to destroy
utterly. I suppose there must be some kind of mouth under there,
because they clamp their jaws upon the mouth of the victim and -- and
suck out his soul."

Harry accidentally spat out a bit of butterbeer.

"What -- they kill --?"

"Oh no," said Lupin. "Much worse than that. You can exist without your
soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But
you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no. .. anything.
There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just exist. As an empty
shell. And your soul is gone forever... lost."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so we know a Dementors' ultimate weapon is the Kiss.  Done to
those they wish to "destroy utterly," says Lupin.  So far we only know
of one individual who's gotten this treatment, Barty Crouch the
Younger.  Dumbledore (and others) have made much of the fact that
young Master Barty was silenced before his testimony could be taken in
open court, thus abetting Fudge in obfuscating about the return of
Voldemort for a year.

But there's so much we don't know about Dementors, the Kiss and its
victims.  How often do the Dementors get to enjoy this treat?  Do they
really differentiate between victims?  What deal did the Ministry do
with them to arrange their gig guarding Azkaban (and did this involve
_all_ Dementors?)  And how long ago?  One guesses that the Ministry
must have some assurances that the guards won't Kiss prisoners
indiscriminately, but who knows?  Are there dozens of Patronus experts
assigned to Azkaban to prevent the Dementors' hunger getting the
better of them?  So many hungry Dementors, so few "approved"
souls...is there anyone who a Dementor would _not_ want to "destroy
utterly"?  Or is it more satisfying to allow the prisoners to keep
their souls so the Dementors can sponge happiness off them
indefinitely?

And what exactly did happen to Barty Jr. after the Kiss?  If we can
believe Lupin, the victim, although worse than dead, isn't in fact,
clinically dead.  Without the soul, the victim has "no sense of self
anymore, no memory," but the brain and heart may still be working.  So
is Barty in a special ward of St. Mungo's with other Kiss victims,
just existing, being fed via tubes?  To what extent are their brains
still working?  

And about those memories...  Are they really gone or does their owner
simply no longer have the means to access them?  Could a legilimens or
someone with a pensieve still extract them from the victims' (still
working) brains and examine them?

Of course in Barty's case, as he had no living relatives to make
decisions for him, perhaps the Minister decided he should be allowed
to conveniently expire or participate in a little memory modification
experiment.
 
Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb
(who ever since reading Kneasy's "Connecting the Dots," has had the
names "Gryffindor...Dumbledore...Dumbledore...Gryffindor" running
through his head for some reason)






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 24 01:23:03 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:23:03 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>
Message-ID: <d1t4pn+d4m7@...>


>  Kneasy wrote:
> <snipped>
> No:  what does interest me is that DD  defeated Grindy and held down 
> his teaching job at the same time. 

Neri:
Dumbledore defeating Grindy at the same time he and Tom were a teacher
and a student at Hogwarts depends on the absolute dating of the
Potterverse, because Grindelwald was defeated in absolute dating ("in
1945") while Tom was a student in story internal dating ("fifty years
ago"). Practically the only thing that connects the two time frames,
and enables us to deduce that these two events happened at the same
time, is NHN deathday cake. There's a lot of discussion if JKR
originally meant to ground the story in absolute dating. Personally
(especially after OotP and her latest timing flints) I tend more to
the opinion that she didn't, and the NHN deathday cake dating was a
one-time blunder. To my knowledge this dating cannot be corroborated
anywhere else in canon. 
 

>  Kneasy:
> Both get wands with Fawkes's feathers as cores.
> (Now this *must* be a killer fact. I refuse to believe it's chance. 
> It's as much an accident as Mugabe winning elections IMO.)
> According to canon both recognise  something of themselves in the 
> other. (If you can't see that as a nudge to sit up and take notes, then 
> I despair of you, I really do.  Though I'll grudgingly admit that if 
> the  two feathers were provided at the same time, a major re-think 
> would be in order. But nobody believes that, do they? Nah. 'Course 
> not.)
> 

Neri:
We already know that the brother wands weren't an accident. The wand
chooses the wizard (Ollivander makes sure we get that - he says it
twice and adds "remember") and the brother wands saw similar things in
Tom and Harry. We also know that Dumbledore knew about this ?
Ollivander contacted him immediately after Harry bought the brother
wand. However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the first
place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate (or,
in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.


>  Kneasy:
> Oh, and there's one other connection - Dumbledore. He's the one leading 
> the fight against both would-be EOotU, he's the one that owns the 
> phoenix that provides the feathers. He's also  the one who gazes 
> penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom wants to 
> tell him. 


Neri:
I think this is movie contamination. At least, in the book Dumbledore
never asks Tom if he wants to tell him something. It's old Dippet who
asks something like that, and it is Harry who makes the connection
with his own answer to Dumbledore:


CoS, Ch. 13, p. 244 US:
Riddle's eyes had widened.
"Sir ? if the person was caught ? if it all stopped ?"
"What do you mean?" said Dippet with a squeak in his voice, sitting up
in his chair. "Riddle, do you mean you know something about these
attacks?"
"No, sir," said Riddle quickly.
But Harry was sure it was the same sort of "no" that he himself had
given Dumbledore.


Tom's interaction with Dumbledore, immediately after Tom leaves the
headmaster office, is rather brief and mild in the book, although
Dumbledore's "penetrating" stare is indeed mentioned:


CoS, Ch. 13 p. 245 US:
Then, as though he had suddenly reached a decision, he hurried off,
Harry gliding noiselessly behind him. They didn't see another person
until they reached the entrance hall, when a tall wizard with long,
sweeping auburn hair and a beard called to Riddle from the marble
staircase.
"What are you doing, wandering around this late, Tom?"
Harry gaped at the wizard. He was none other than a fifty-year-younger
Dumbledore.
"I had to see the headmaster, sir," said Riddle.
"Well, hurry off to bed," said Dumbledore, giving Riddle exactly the
kind of penetrating stare Harry knew so well. "Best not to roam the
corridors these days. Not since
"
He sighed heavily, bade Riddle good night, and strode off. Riddle
watched him walk out of sight and then, moving quickly, headed
straight down the stone steps to the dungeons, with Harry in hot pursuit.
  

It seems that, while making the parallels between Tom and Harry
obvious, JKR avoids making Dumbledore's role identical in both their
cases. It is Dumbledore and Dippet who have parallel roles in the
text, although the movie scriptwriter, trying to make things more
obvious and get rid of Dippet, missed this subtle nuance.

Neri







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 24 12:09:02 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:09:02 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1t4pn+d4m7@...>
Message-ID: <d1uaku+59u0@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Neri:
> Dumbledore defeating Grindy at the same time he and Tom were a teacher
> and a student at Hogwarts depends on the absolute dating of the
> Potterverse, because Grindelwald was defeated in absolute dating ("in
> 1945") while Tom was a student in story internal dating ("fifty years
> ago"). Practically the only thing that connects the two time frames,
> and enables us to deduce that these two events happened at the same
> time, is NHN deathday cake. There's a lot of discussion if JKR
> originally meant to ground the story in absolute dating. Personally
> (especially after OotP and her latest timing flints) I tend more to
> the opinion that she didn't, and the NHN deathday cake dating was a
> one-time blunder. To my knowledge this dating cannot be corroborated
> anywhere else in canon. 
>  
> 

Kneasy:
You  want to argue with the Lexicon, then go right ahead.
Tom's time frame has him as born in 1928 and the school year '44-45
was his final year at Hogwarts. Do you have evidence to dispute this?
If yes, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

> 
> Neri:
> We already know that the brother wands weren't an accident. The wand
> chooses the wizard (Ollivander makes sure we get that - he says it
> twice and adds "remember") and the brother wands saw similar things in
> Tom and Harry. We also know that Dumbledore knew about this ?
> Ollivander contacted him immediately after Harry bought the brother
> wand. However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
> difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the first
> place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate (or,
> in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.
> 
> 

Kneasy:
The "free will" is somewhat limited.
The prospective owner does not browse amongst the stock until he/she
gets that tingling feeling. Ollivander decides which wands the buyer will try.
It's not as if it's a case of 'one wand for life' either, wizards do seem to
change wands at some time or other.

Yes, Harry did try lots of wands, but there again we have absolutely no
idea how many wands other wizards try before being fitted.
No, I  can't agree about fate (or meta-JKR); Harry is part or fractionally
Voldy - it's not chance that 'brother' wands gravitate to a personality
split between two bodies. This brings in considerations of what happened
after GH - did DD know or surmise the significance of the scar? Maybe
it was something he feared but could not confirm - but matching Harry
with the brother to Voldy's wand could be a confirmation of sorts.

The question is - did DD suggest to Ollivander that HP would be a suitable
or potential candidate for a Fawkes feather wand? Or perhaps he mentioned
that the wand might be 'a bit special'. Matching a 'special' wand to a 'special'
and quite famous young wizard would seem natural in the circumstances.

> 
> Neri:
> I think this is movie contamination. At least, in the book Dumbledore
> never asks Tom if he wants to tell him something. It's old Dippet who
> asks something like that, and it is Harry who makes the connection
> with his own answer to Dumbledore:
> 
>snip> 
> Tom's interaction with Dumbledore, immediately after Tom leaves the
> headmaster office, is rather brief and mild in the book, although
> Dumbledore's "penetrating" stare is indeed mentioned:
> 
> It seems that, while making the parallels between Tom and Harry
> obvious, JKR avoids making Dumbledore's role identical in both their
> cases. It is Dumbledore and Dippet who have parallel roles in the
> text, although the movie scriptwriter, trying to make things more
> obvious and get rid of Dippet, missed this subtle nuance.
> 

Kneasy:
Quite so. Always useful to have a LOON around to correct quotations.
However, it's not so much movie contamination as not having the book
to hand. But the use of 'penetratingly' did stick in my memory - and
it *is* there for a purpose, I think. And no, I don't suggest that
DD's role with Tom is 'paralleled' with Harry, it probably isn't, but a
that a connection exists and that in both cases DD knew rather more
about what Tom and Harry had been up to than he lets on.








From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 24 22:10:33 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:10:33 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1uaku+59u0@...>
Message-ID: <d1vdsp+1cgn@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote <snip a lot of good stuff about how DD 
knew what was going on and used Riddle for his own purposes>

Talisman, snaps her spyglass shut and rolls over to a sitting 
position on the grassy knoll overlooking Malfoy Manor.

My, my, my, Kneasy.  You have el grande cajones, mi amigo, and I'm 
not just talking fur.  Forcing my hand, eh? Well, at least part of 
me wants to be forced.  So be it.

I've been talking about DD's plan for Voldemort since Fall 2003, 
though by that time I was fairly disgusted with HP discussion groups 
and rapidly losing interest in further "sharing." 

See, HPfGUs post # 79769, "Going for the Vold," (Thu Sep 4, 2003 
12:22 am);  HPfGUs post # 82031, "Guilty Again," (Wed Oct 1, 2003 
5:35 pm); an old Room of Requirments (a now defunct group) post #192 
from 10/23/03 (if anyone here remembers that.).

I've got the nubbins of an old unpublished draft, last modified 
11/29/04.  

Then, I joined this group and began to consider posting, anew.  I 
wrote to Kneasy on Feb 16, 2005:

"It's true that I could have just <snip>  gone back to talking to 
you about how I think Dumbledore created Voldemort from the get, 
which is not at all inconsistent with your possession theory, though 
it does make young Tom Riddle DD's first victim." 

 I  recall counseling myself, that, if Kneasy started posting on the 
subject, I'd have to jump in, whether or no."  So maybe it was a cry 
for help (as in "help me to get off the pot and post.")

To be fair to myself, I am not as optimistic having fun here as I 
was in February. But, I must subconsciously want to do this, because 
I was dangling the topic at Anne again, just this past Monday. In 
any event, the cat's among the pixies now.

A bit of wasted advice:

Why not review your lists of the ways JKR has "screwed up."  Then, 
just for fun,  try asking: "What if the writer isn't the one 
screwing up?  What if the problem is in the reading?  What will 
happen if I change my assumptions?

If you trust the author, the places where you stub your toes on the 
text are the best places to dig in for a grip on the subtext.  Even 
if you don't *really* trust Rowling, there is no harm in quietly 
giving her the benefit of the doubt. Just as a trial run. You might 
find a much more interesting story.


Back to Kneasy, who wrote:
>Tom and Harry.
>Parallels. How far do you want to go?
>Both sets of parents have one from an old wizarding family, one not.
>Harry for sure, Tom perhaps, is born when an evil wizard is rising 
and
>certainly one is looming large while both are at Hogwarts.
>Mothers die. Orphanage/fostering in the Muggle world ensues - until
>Hogwarts.
>Both are outsiders.
>Both have greatness dangled under their noses.
>Both get wands with Fawkes's feathers as cores.

Talisman encourages:
Don't stop there.  Tom and Harry are just two out of three.  
Remember that Hagrid also tells Harry:  "Yeh know wha' Harry?
When I 
firs' met you, you reminded me o' me a bit
.(GoF 456)  So that makes 
at least three little half-blood orphan boys who have passed under 
DD's wing.

Yep, let's take a look at Hagrid.  Half giant, half wizard.  His 
mother took off when he was "about' three." (GoF 427)  His father 
died in his second year at Hogwarts.  (455) He may have been given 
the gamekeeper job at that time: "Dumbledore was the one who stuck 
up for me after Dad went.  Got me the gamekeepr job.  (455)  Hagrid 
wasn't expelled until his third year (PS/SS59) when he says "but 
Dumbledore let me stay on as gamekeeper. (id)  So was he actually 
gamekeeper from year two, and just allowed to * stay on* after being 
expelled? Or was he helped out in other ways prior to being 
expelled, and then allowed to stay on * as gamekeeper* after? 

No matter, it's clear DD took an active interest in young Hagrid's 
welfare.  There is no evidence that DD tried to send him off to 
Fredwulfa (who may well have been alive), or some paternal 
relatives; nor was he placed with an orphanage, or even with a 
kindly wizarding family. Nope, he was snuggled up right under DD's 
wing.

Compare this to Riddle: By the time he wet his first diaper, Dad was 
long gone and Mom was dead.  Somebody socked him away at the 
orphanage.  Certainly no one tried to spring him.  What about all of 
this knowledge regarding his ancestry, his namesakes, etc., did he 
learn that only after he arrived at Hogwarts?  I'm sure the DD 
apologists will take that view, but he may well have been left of 
the doorstep with a letter in his basket.

Forget who  directed little Tom to the loveless orphanage. Let's 
say, just for argument, that he arrives at Hogwarts --an emotionally 
starved but magically ignorant 11-year-old. (I don't believe this, 
I'm betting he was seething away at the orphanage ever since he 
could read, his noble wizarding blood boiling and his hatred of 
Muggles distilling into a fine liquor.)  Any way, who tells him all 
about his Slytherin roots?  We see that he starts hunting for Great-
to-the-nth-power  Grandpappy Sal's hideout right form his first year 
(CoS  312).  So, who downloaded all this information?

Well, DD is the only canon source for establishing Riddle as 
Voldemort's sole remaining heir (332-333). Rowling makes a point of 
having Hermione emphasize how difficult it would be to trace back a 
thousand years identifying  Slytherin`s descendants.  (196)  This 
should dissuade us from cavalierly inventing other handy informants. 
Only Riddle and DD assert this ancestry, (313-314) and first source 
must be DD.
  
The fact that Riddle talks about his lineage, and family history, 
and also discusses DD, but doesn't indicate that DD ever had 
friendly little chats with him, indicates to me that he got his 411 
in an envelope.

Indeed DD never had any "fatherly" time for poor screwed-up Tom.  A 
little love might have been theraputic.  But, DD never made the 
effort to "take care of" Tom, the way he did Hagrid.  Nothing to 
counteract that emotional emptiness that is the hallmark of the 
psychopath.  And as far as I understand, no one chooses to be a 
psychopath.
Yep, then DD allows Tom to dig about for the Chamber of Secrets 
(can't believe he knew Slytherin's heir was in the house and never 
took an interest in what he was up to); he allows Riddle to get off 
the hook for Myrtle, etc.; then watches Riddle take off for Little 
Hangleton in order to treat himself to a little graduation murder 
party.  (DD is the owner of Riddle Manor; he knew just when to apply 
the anti-Muggle jinx and bid for the property.)

 Slight digression: How do you like this for symmetry? Frank Bryce 
and Hagrid: both falsely accused of Riddle's murders, both kept on 
as groundskeepers.  And speaking of Bryce, who would employ  the 
Muggle? Not LV, not Malfoy, either.  Who would bother paying Muggle 
wages for ~50 years? Especially for an old coot who 1) was allowing 
the place to fall apart (GoF 5);  and, 2 ) would get nosey if Dark 
Wizards wanted to drop by for a bit of evil fun?  No one but DD, who 
also "just happened" to be reading the Little Hangleton papers the 
summer after Wormtail's trip to Albania. He knew LV would be showing 
up for his quarter cup of daddy dust. 

In any event, after Riddle's graduation, DD continues his voyeurism 
by "watching" as the young man "traveled far and wide
sank so deeply 
into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, 
underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he 
resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable.  Hardly 
anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who 
was once Head Boy here."  (CoS 329)

The clever handsome boy to whom no one ever extended love or 
guidance, that is. Wassup DD?

The evidence is largely to come, but I'm betting DD is behind 
whatever happened to blast LV out of his skin on that fateful 
Halloween night at Godric's Hollow.   What is it with his "we may 
never know" business to McGonagall?  (PS/SS 12 )  Yeah, "WE" may 
never know, but HE sure does.  Moreover, unless he is "much 
mistaken" DD knows LV transferred some of his own powers to [Harry] 
the night he gave [him] that scar." ( CoS 333)  Why? Okay 
Parseltongues are rare, notwithstanding Herpo the Foul, and others, 
implied by reference in FBWTFT, at p3.  But, why is it *powers* 
plural?  What other power is Harry evincing by the end of Book 2? 
Sort of a strange thing for DD to be so sure about.     

Then the whole business starts with DD's orchestrations of Voldemort 
and Harry from book to book, which will have to be addressed in 
separate posts.

Finally Harry: Sort of a half blood like Hagrid and Riddle. Mom was 
actually a witch, though.   Had both parents for one year, then both 
dead. Not sent to an orphanage, but not taken to Hogwarts, either.  
Left with nasty blood relatives who are expected to abuse him, with 
no intervention to discourage abuse from years 1-16.  (If you tell 
me about blood protection, I'm going to suggest you haven't been 
paying attention. It really doesn`t add up.) And, to date,  no one 
has downloaded the Potter family history.  I'm mean, if Harry wants 
to get all sulky about deprivation of his entitlements, he'll have 
to get a move on.     

A different recipe for each little boy, but just one crooked-nosed 
Chef.
   

Kneasy:
>He's also the one who gazes
>penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom 
wants to
>tell him. Ha! Tom doesn't need to tell him, DD *knows* - that 
adjective
>'penetrating' ain't there for nothing, you know - just as he knows 
when
>he pulls the same trick on Harry. So why didn't he do something, you
>may ask. Good question. He does tinker at the edges, things like
>getting Hagrid out of the slammer and into a job, but he doesn't 
seem
>to be in the business of nipping things in the bud.

>Snip< 
.And Tom? Bearing in mind all the parallels, what
>was his role? His *original* role?
>A goody who fell from grace? A flawed saviour who succumbed to
>temptation and made the wrong choice?
>Or was he bait?
>Snip<

Talisman: He was certainly one of DD's little pet projects, wasn't 
he?

Then Neri:
>Dumbledore defeating Grindy at the same time he and Tom were a 
teacher
>and a student at Hogwarts depends on the absolute dating of the
>Potterverse, because Grindelwald was defeated in absolute dating 
("in
>1945") while Tom was a student in story internal dating ("fifty 
years
>ago"). Practically the only thing that connects the two time frames,
>and enables us to deduce that these two events happened at the same
>time, is NHN deathday cake. There's a lot of discussion if JKR
>originally meant to ground the story in absolute dating. Personally
>(especially after OotP and her latest timing flints) I tend more to
>the opinion that she didn't, and the NHN deathday cake dating was a
>one-time blunder. To my knowledge this dating cannot be corroborated
>anywhere else in canon.

Talsiman: 
Okay, Kneasy posits that DD defeated Grindlewald while teaching 
Riddle.  I don't always agree with Lexicon interpretations, but the 
timeline seems fair enough.  Still, DD might have whacked the G-man 
during the summer hiatus, or even taken a weekend off  during the 
Fall of 1945.  That would have given Riddle time for a little 
consorting.  Which appeals to me. (P.S. for the record,  I don't 
think Grindlewald is Grendel, or his mother.)

Let's say you don't like any of it, Neri.  Surely you aren't 
suggesting we go with the PS timleline: Nick has only been dead for 
400 years, and the story is taking place in 1892, are you? Or 
suggesting it could take place at any random date, let's say, 
1957?   No, the books were written in the 90's.  The clothing, 
cultural sensibility, and video game technology all fit the 90's. 
Lets just agree that 1945 is fifty years, give or take a few, 
before  whatever date in the 90`s you are comfortable with.

Here is the important implication: the DD we see in CoS is a  bmf 
wizard, in full stride, who 1) has just kicked, 2) is kicking, or, 
3) is about to kick,  serious evil-wizard hiney.  Not someone to be 
flummoxed by a snotty 16- year-old wannabe.


Neri responded to Kneasy:
>We already know that the brother wands weren't an accident. The wand
>chooses the wizard (Ollivander makes sure we get that - he says it
>twice and adds "remember") and the brother wands saw similar things 
in
>Tom and Harry. We also know that Dumbledore knew about this ?
>Ollivander contacted him immediately after Harry bought the brother
>wand. However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
>difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the first
>place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate (or,
>in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.

Talisman: 
Egads, Neri. Let's see if I can follow this argument.  The wand 
exercises free will according to the wizard's fate, proving that DD 
is not in the mix?  If FAITH whispered any of that to you, it's time 
to trot her over to a rehab program. 

You're right about the truism: everything in HPverse happens at 
JKR's pleasure.  However, this is a stronger argument for DD's 
involvement, than not.  The fact that JKR decided that DD's phoenix 
would provide two, and only two, wand cores, and that these wands 
would go to two little "orphan" boys whose futures DD has so 
obviously engineered, is a powerful nexus. The logic points to JKR 
involving DD, uh--sorry--right to the core of the matter.

The entirety of your "canon" contra is Olivander's statement about 
the wand choosing the wizard.  There is zero information regarding 
the criteria wands use to make this choice.  Clearly the wands are 
bewitched.  We are told that certain woods are wand-woods; and we 
have been instructed on how to occupy the resident bowtruckels while 
plucking a few branches, but there is no evidence that any given 
tree, or part thereof, decides to become a wand.  (FBWTFT pg. 5)  
All we know about the branch-to-wand process is that a core (derived 
from a magical beast or being)  is inserted & that the finished wand 
can apparently "think for itself"--at least enough to hook up with  
a suitable wizard. 

 If you can see where the wands "keep their brains," Neri, let me 
know. I can't.  Nor do I have any idea what sort of bewitchment is 
used to empower them, let alone who does the bewitching, or what 
instructions they might be able to put into the mix. I do see that, 
like the Sorting Hat, Riddle's Diary, and the Marauder's Map, some 
wizard has their hand into the process of creating the brain.

Moreover, Olivander's is not the only wand boutique in the WW.  We 
aren't told where Fleur got her wand.  Quite possibly it's a 
homemade unit (for, unlike Harry's, Cedric's, and Krum's no 
professional maker is named).  At the very least it's a custom-made 
job, decked out with a magical tuft from Granny Delacour's noggin. 
(GoF 308)  By showing us this, JKR raises the question of whether 
other wands have been made with particular recipients in mind.   
Krum's wand is a "Gregorovitch creation," the ethnicity of the name 
implies that it is from an emporium local to Durmstrang. (GoF 309) 
Raising the question: do some wizards have to travel all over the 
globe searching for a suitable wand?  Doesn't seem so. How is it 
then, that the right wand seems to be at a convenient location near 
you? 

I suggest that the weight of the evidence is against free-agent 
wands, blind fate, or slovenly plotting.   But, as far as I can 
tell,  DD is still squarely in the mix. 

Kneasy:
> Oh, and there's one other connection - Dumbledore. He's the one 
leading
> the fight against both would-be EOotU, he's the one that owns the
> phoenix that provides the feathers. He's also the one who gazes
> penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom 
wants to
> tell him.

Neri:
>I think this is movie contamination. At least, in the book 
Dumbledore
>never asks Tom if he wants to tell him something. It's old Dippet 
who
>asks something like that, and it is Harry who makes the connection
>with his own answer to Dumbledore <snip> It seems that, while 
making the parallels >between >Tom and Harry obvious, JKR avoids 
making Dumbledore's role identical in >both their cases. It is 
Dumbledore and Dippet who have parallel roles in the
>text, although the movie scriptwriter, trying to make things more
>obvious and get rid of Dippet, missed this subtle nuance.

Talisman:
Let's not quibble.  The relevant point is that DD knew and did 
nothing about it.  He argued that Hagrid was innocent ( 312), but 
did not argue that Riddle was guilty. Though everyone knows DD was 
on to the perp. "Yes, I think he might have guessed." (Id.) A bit of 
an understatement.

There is no movie contamination in the significant facts. As 
to "parallels" we actually see that the relationship drawn between 
DD and Dippet is the inverted, mirror-symmetry that is a prevailing 
characteristic throughout the series.  

When Dumbledore asks Harry whether he would like to tell DD anything 
relevant to the attacks, Harry lies (CoS 209)  but we already 
suspect that DD's "light, bright, sparkling" blue eyes are more than 
charming facial features. (PS/SS 8)  The way Harry's mind then 
begins to flit from one relevant thing to another has suggested to 
many people, way before Book 5,  that DD was going through Harry's 
mind like filing cabinet.  

Over and again, in CoS alone,  we find that DD can see through 
Harry's lies (81), or indeed anything he peeps at, including: the 
petrified cat (142), the gored diary ( 329), the possessed little 
henchwitch  (328 ), and the culpable DE.  (335)  An eyeful and he 
ascertains the truth of the matter. `Course I think he knows most 
things in advance, but that's another post, or five.

Even if the rest of these hints were too subtle for us, Rowling goes 
all out on page 144,  saying: "Dumbledore was giving Harry a 
searching look.  His twinkling light-blue gaze  made Harry feel as 
though he were being X-rayed."  (CoS)  The fact that Harry 
recognizes this same gaze when DD gives it to Riddle is hardly to be 
sneezed at.  It's a big smack in the head that DD knows all about 
Riddle's extra-curricular activities. 

 Later, of course, we`ll find out that DD's a crackerjack Legilimens 
(OoP 832 ) But, most of us already suspected as much. 

 On the other hand, in the conversation where Dippet inquires 
whether Riddle knows anything--and receives the "same kind of no" 
that Harry gave (i.e. a lie)-- Dippet  is shown to have no 
discernment at all (or even basic background information, for that 
matter). (CoS 244) 

 Harry innocent/Riddle guilty. DD preternaturally prescient/ Dippet 
a dip. 

DD sees Riddle is guilty, but doesn't bust his arse at the inquiry/ 
DD sees Ginny  is, er, "innocent" and exculpates her without a 
trial.  Lots of lovely inverted symmetry.



Neri:
>Tom's interaction with Dumbledore, immediately after Tom leaves the
>headmaster office, is rather brief and mild in the book 
 

Talsiman: 
It'd be so nice if Rowling would make a point of  jumping up and 
down and shouting: "A clue! A clue!" wouldn't it?

Neri
>: 
although Dumbledore's "penetrating" stare is indeed mentioned


Talisman: 
Ooops. There she goes.

Let's get back to the matter of Riddle's trial.  Riddle is, among 
other things, a fatuous twerp.  If you believed his explanation 
regarding why he got off, all I can say is that older and wiser 
people have been fooled by Lord Voldemort.

Inasmuch as only the heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber, and 
Slytherin's only heir is Tom, DD has a thunderous bit of evidence to 
point at Riddle.  But, he apparently doesn't even try.  I would be 
very surprised if a little tactful questioning wouldn't have 
elicited this voluntarily from the boastful Riddle, let alone a well-
placed drop of veritaserum, or even a cleverly staged snake attack 
inviting Riddle to hiss a few lines.  It's been done, you know.  

Then there is the matter of DD's own testimony.  I don't care how 
dandy Riddle was as a student, I'm DD's statements regarding the 
outcome of his Legilimency would have been powerful evidence, 
requiring some kind of follow up. Had he bothered to testify.

Please don't tell me that DD just wasn't persuasive enough.  Not 
buying it.  Here we have everyone thinking that, due to his 
extremely poor judgment and taste for homicidal pets, Hagrid has 
brought about a season of terror, culminating in a little girl's 
death.  Moreover, it would seem that even though his pet was 
scampering about causing mayhem and murder, Hagrid chose to continue 
harboring and abetting it.  Right? I mean, that's what Hagrid was 
accused of, and "Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, 
seemed to think Hagrid was innocent."  (312)  

Yet what does DD convince Dippet, to do?
 1) Keep Hagrid on the school grounds;
 2) Let him have/keep the freaking keys to the castle; ( PS/SS 49 )
 3) Insure his access to the Forbidden Forest, with all it's lethal 
creatures, including the precious Aragog; and, 
4) while your at it, pay him to fool around with whatever magical 
beasts might be at hand.

I'd love to hear how DD put this over.  `Course, Dippet was a dip.

There is plenty more evidence that DD is solidly in control, but I 
really need a little nap, I mean, I've got to get back to guard 
duty, now.

Talisman, slipping under an invisibility cloak and signing off for 
the Fellowship of the D.U.S.T. (Dumbledore Undercover Surveillance 
Team.)









From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 24 22:19:09 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:19:09 -0000
Subject: Where'd all those freakin typos come from?
Message-ID: <d1vect+oc2a@...>


Burns my butt!  T






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 00:34:34 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:34:34 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1uaku+59u0@...>
Message-ID: <d1vmaq+veet@...>


> Kneasy:
> You  want to argue with the Lexicon, then go right ahead.
> Tom's time frame has him as born in 1928 and the school year '44-45
> was his final year at Hogwarts. Do you have evidence to dispute this?
> If yes, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

Neri:
Far from me arguing with the Lexicon. On the contrary - I'm arguing
from the Lexicon. If you'll look at the Lexicon's time line:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1900-1950.html 
you'll see that Tom's last year at Hogwarts is listed as "Y-45
(1945)". Y-45 means 45 years before Harry was born (that is, story
internal time). The RL year 1945 is given in parentheses. There's a
very good reason why Steve Vander Ark bothered to convert all the
dates in the Lexicon's timeline to story internal dating. As he
explains in 
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/essays/timeline-facts.html
the whole synchronization of the story's timeline with the RL timeline
depends on a single detail: the date on Nearly-Headless-Nick's
deathday cake. Not only this synchronization cannot be corroborated
anywhere else in the books, but there are contradicting clues, and the
NHN dating itself is problematic, as explained in more detail in
Troles Forchhammer's essay in the Lexicon:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/essays/timeline-mapping-tf.html

Steve also notes that JKR could have easily settled this matter
several times in OotP but pointedly didn't (I'm quoting): 

'One of the best examples is the date which was on the little card by
Harry's prophecy. Instead of just giving the date, Rowling writes that
the date was "sixteen years earlier." Why didn't she write "1980"?'

JKR lists all the times and dates that are known to be important for
the plot in story internal time. For example, Tom's releasing the
basilisk happened "50 years before" the year of CoS. So if it turns
out that the NHN dating is off by (say) two years, nothing terrible
happens except that Tom's last year at Hogwarts, for example, will be
listed in the Lexicon as "Y-45 (1943)" instead of "Y-45 (1945)",
meaning it's still 45 years before Harry was born, but actually in
1943 ? two years *before* Grindelwald was defeated. The dates that JKR
lists using absolute RL dating are mostly for adding color - this
international convention of warlocks in 1567 or that goblin rebellion
in 1748. In this sense, JKR listing the year of defeating Grindelvald
as "1945" not only makes it difficult to synchronize it with the
story's timeline, it also suggests that defeating Grindelvald is a
detail of the second type, and not something important for the plot.  


Neri    







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 00:53:58 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1vdsp+1cgn@...>
Message-ID: <20050325005358.22430.qmail@...>

Snip
 Arrowsmith" 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote <snip a lot of good stuff
> about how DD 
> knew what was going on and used Riddle for his own
> purposes>
Talisman wrote

>> I've been talking about DD's plan for Voldemort
> since Fall 2003, 
> > 
> "It's true that I could have just <snip>  gone back
> to talking to 
> you about how I think Dumbledore created Voldemort
> from the get, 
> which is not at all inconsistent with your
> possession theory, though 
> it does make young Tom Riddle DD's first victim." 
> 
 SNIP SOME MORE
> Talisman encourages:
>   Tom and Harry are just two out of
> three.  
> Remember that Hagrid also tells Harry:  "Yeh know
> wha' Harry?When I 
> firs' met you, you reminded me o' me a bit.(GoF
> 456)  So that makes 
> at least three little half-blood orphan boys who
> have passed under 
> DD's wing.
> 
> Yep, let's take a look at Hagrid.  Half giant, half
> wizard.  His 
> mother took off when he was "about' three." (GoF
> 427)  His father 
> died in his second year at Hogwarts.  (455) He may
> have been given 
> the gamekeeper job at that time: "Dumbledore was the
> one who stuck 
> up for me after Dad went.  Got me the gamekeepr
job.<

My take on all this.....

So after reading this theory of Dumbledore
manipulating the various characters in some grand
experiment, I get the feeling of some scientist
manipulating chemicals to create a new solution (like
and Alchemist).  He uses trial and error until he gets
what he is trying to acheive.

We get the constant idea of blood lines.  Tom Riddle
is the heir of Slytherin and Harry Potter is the heir
of Griffindor (people speculate).  Not to mention the
Noble House of Black and the important family tree. 
We also know that Dumbledore is the wizard who
discovered the 12 uses of dragon's blood.  Which JKR
hints is very important in the future.

I also get the idea of a kind of random mixing of
different breeds such as half giant and half wizard. 
I get the idea of cross pollination of various
flowers.  Let me think how does pollen get distributed
around the earth.  Oh Yeah, Bumblebees... 

Isn't that what Dumbledore means?!  Bumblebee.

He is not necessarily evil, but more like a bumblebee
who randomly flits from flower to flower and creates
the mechanism of transfer of genes.

It seems to me that Hagrid is the embodiment of the
Hufflepuff House.  Harry is the embodiment of
Griffindor and Voldy is the embodiment of Slytherin. 
Who do you think is the embodiment of Ravenclaw?

Four Houses with great ideals (genes) that must be
mixed together with the various other creatures.  This
provides for a fun experiment for Mr. Bumblebee.

Randy






		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 02:00:48 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:00:48 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1sbdd+r45m@...>
Message-ID: <d1vrcg+u414@...>





Lyn J. Mangiameli replying to Kneasy:

Excellent thought about Grindelwald. I don't have the books in front 
of me to
check for
sure, but I don't recall anything that clearly demarks the name as 
referencing
an
individual. Very interesting shift of perspective on that.

The following are some highly speculative points on what is already a
speculative theory
many do not subscribe to.

So well all know the Sally didn't like less than whole bloods. So 
would SS
really be willing
to share himself in his entirety, i.e, invest his entire powers, with 
less than
a whole blood.
So yes, if DD is puppetmaster, he might well choose to draw out SS 
with someone
less
than a whole blood. Better to try to deal with an enemy at less than 
full force.
And perhaps
why SS as possessor has not yet found a final residence--seeking to 
reside in
those
potentially powerful, but frustrated that those powerful targets of 
opportunity
are never
consistent with his standards. Almost like DD is secretly taunting 
SS. Likely
not the way it
is, but these are the thoughts your post generated.
 >snip<

Snow:
For some reason this made me think of JKR's statement on her site 
that if Ginny would have died that Voldemort would have become 
something almost unconquerable:

Section: F.A.Q.
In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died 
and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
"I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it 
would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably."

If Riddle had re-birthed himself using Ginny's soul Tom would have 
possibly become the pureblood that Salazar needed being as his own 
last remaining heir was born half pure grain muggle and therefore of 
little value to the cause. After all Riddle said in the Chamber that 
his diary self was there to someday lead another, not himself in 
particular, to continue Slytherin's noble work:

"I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old 
self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to 
lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble 
work." COS pg. 312 U.S.

Tom had little intention to continue Slytherin's noble work until 
such time that he could renew himself with the qualifications sought 
by the Great Salazar, which of course is purity of blood and the 
nobility that it represents.
Nobility is what pureblood idealism is all about and Ginny is not 
only pureblood but also the first girl to appear in the Weasley clan 
for generations (must be of significance). 
Sirius Black stated that his parents, with their snake emblems, 
thought themselves to be royalty because of their pureblood status:

"Because I hated the whole lot of them; my parents, with their pure-
blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal

OOP  pg. 111 U.S.

Slytherin may have only accepted the pure blood children, back then, 
into his house but went one step further and asked that only the 
purebloods be taught in the entire school. If this were a true 
statement it would make you wonder what house Riddle was actually in 
since he was anything but pureblood. As far as I can remember it's 
always been assumed that Tom was in Slytherin house but what if he 
wasn't and he found that the reason he wasn't in Slytherin house was 
because of his muggle born father. It would be incentive to go 
looking for his mother's side of the family and what he could learn 
about them in an attempt to make himself the royalty he thinks he 
should be associated with. Riddle denounced his father's name and 
counted himself a pureblood but he wasn't. Riddle could, however, 
possibly achieve such a feat by leading another in an attempt to 
complete Slytherin's noble work. A pureblood's soul that could awaken 
Diary!Tom, the last heir, to the pureblooded service that Salazar 
needed. 

Tom's immediate service though was to himself, he needed time, he 
needed to live on until he could supply Slytherin with what Salazar 
desired because he was the last living heir that could do so. The 
quest was on to ensure his own immortality but he would need help in 
doing this. Just a few trusted friends were informed of the newly 
appointed Lord Voldemort's motives. 
Did you notice that no one went to school with Tom, other than Hagrid 
and Myrtle, the majority of the deatheaters being significantly 
younger than Riddle would not have gone to school with him but if you 
use what you've been told about purebloods it would only make sense 
that the Malfoy's Crabbe's and Goyle's etc. aren't a new found 
family. The Malfoy's in particular are the favorite as one of Tom's 
confidants. 
Lucius knowledge of information, that no one else has, makes this 
suspicion verifiable: 

(1)	Lucius attempt with the diary to bring back the heir of 
Slytherin using a pureblood for Tom's rebirth.
(2)	Lucius unflinching response to Harry's accusation that 
Voldemort is part muggle in the Ministry.
(3)	There is also the unique way in which Lucius acted and was 
treated in the graveyard that seems suspiciously like Lucius had the 
goods on Voldemort that Voldy did not wish to have discussed in front 
of the fray. 

Lucius comes from a very long line of purebloods that may have 
supported Salazar in his attempts to rid the school years ago from 
impurities. Lucius father and forefathers were all from the house of 
Slytherin, according to Draco, and hold steadfast to the noble work 
of Slytherin of ridding the school of muggle borns. Lucius doesn't 
appear to be backing Voldemort and Voldy's personal ambitions but 
does represent the personal views of Slytherin himself by his 
Quidditch World Cup escapades. 

Tom Riddle, at first, was working to the dedicated causes of Salazar 
but quickly changed to his own agenda using Slytherin's unique cause 
as his motivation for the deatheaters membership. Tom surrounded 
himself with purebloods and may have even absorbed some of their very 
essence when he joined with them through the dark mark insignia to 
become united under the sign that is representative of Slytherin.  

Voldemort, during his pre-Harry reign, had succeeded in becoming 
almost unconquerable but 'someone' put a carrot in front of the 
horse's nose, via the prophecy, and prompted Voldemort to seek and 
find a new power, a power that could inevitability even kill him and 
he was intrigued by this unknown power to the degree of his own 
demise. Voldemort didn't seek out the Potter's or their son, only the 
power that he had been told this youngster might have been born with. 
Voldemort only came to Godric's Hollow to absorb the power that the 
child had in an attempt to make himself more powerful, not to seek 
out and destroy. 

Just my warped thoughts!

Snow

















From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 12:38:40 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:38:40 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1vmaq+veet@...>
Message-ID: <d210og+904n@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> JKR lists all the times and dates that are known to be important for
> the plot in story internal time. For example, Tom's releasing the
> basilisk happened "50 years before" the year of CoS. So if it turns
> out that the NHN dating is off by (say) two years, nothing terrible
> happens except that Tom's last year at Hogwarts, for example, will be
> listed in the Lexicon as "Y-45 (1943)" instead of "Y-45 (1945)",
> meaning it's still 45 years before Harry was born, but actually in
> 1943 ? two years *before* Grindelwald was defeated. The dates that JKR
> lists using absolute RL dating are mostly for adding color - this
> international convention of warlocks in 1567 or that goblin rebellion
> in 1748. In this sense, JKR listing the year of defeating Grindelvald
> as "1945" not only makes it difficult to synchronize it with the
> story's timeline, it also suggests that defeating Grindelvald is a
> detail of the second type, and not something important for the plot.  
> 
> 

You (and part of the Lexicon) may be right in your assumptions; though
you may not be, 'cos another entry seems very specific with dates.

 http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html

It too may be wrong - because no-one can be quite certain - yet.
And while there's a loophole I'll exploit it ruthlessly, nay, shamelessly.

OK - we're at one of the major divides in fandom, and it's one that has
very little to do with right or wrong but goes to the basic question of
"Why are we all here getting slightly obsessive about an imaginary kid?
What do we get out of it?"

The study of the fans can be almost as entertaining as studying the books.
Now I can only speak for one person - me,  though it's not unreasonable
to assume that others will fall more or less into the same category. By the
same token, observation can give a fair approximation of the differing 
attitudes of still more.

My philosophy can be boiled down to seven simple words:

I'm making hay while the sun shines.

And if the hay turns into mouldy silage then that's OK, the exercise
was good for me - and I've no horse anyway.

There is a possibility that the HP series is indeed intended for children.
The conclusion may turn out to be trite or undemanding or facile. 
We all hope this won't be the case, but it cannot be totally discounted.
It'd be a disappointment to many, though some have expectations
that'd be difficult to realise no matter what.

Meanwhile (and bolstering the hopes of most of the adult fans) it *seems*
to be stuffed full of plots, sub-plots, clues, hints and nudges that run
counter to this possibility. To those of a certain mind-set this looks like
an invitation to let their imaginations off the leash, to soar off into the
wild blue yonder with theories, hypotheses and speculations galore.
More comforting still, JKR seems to actively encourage these practices.
As I've stated time and again and again it doesn't matter a damn whether
these ideas turn out to be correct or not - it's actually constructing these
theories that is the fun part, hostages to fortune though they may be.
HP is just the excuse for letting the imagination run riot.
Which, when you're in your 60s, supposed to be mature, sensible and
all that other rubbish, is an opportunity for fun not to be denied.

Cobbling these ideas together sometimes requires assumptions to be 
made (as with timelines for example), which is OK so long as fixed
canon is not trampled in the dust - though sometimes even 'fixed'
canon is contradicted within the text. What it boils down to is that
unless something is definitively ruled out then it's fair game for the
theorisers.

Others prefer not to play this game. Fair enough. Their choice. I'm
none too sure whereabouts in the spectrum you yourself fall, but I'd
be surprised if you were of the fraction that has no patience with any
speculation whatsoever, those that consider that what is written is
immutable and not open to further interpretation. This group, who
could be considered as the ultra-FAITHs may be correct, but the
boards would be pretty boring (IMO) if we all took that view. They'd
be little more than a succession of "Isn't Sirius lovely, isn't Snape horrible?"
type posts.  That's no fit occupation for a grown lad.

Unfortunately it's more or less certain that after book 7 hits the book-
stores, that's exactly what most of the posts will become -- critiques
of character and plot. No  doubt fans will  still manage to disagree
vehemently with each other, but the arguments will be pretty sterile;
there will be no linking of possible insights into the past and potential 
future developments - which is really what most speculation is about.

Meanwhile I'll try to think of six impossible (HP) things before breakfast
and inflict them on the long-suffering members. Contrary opinions are 
welcome, indeed encouraged. I hope you take the same stance. But to 
return to the points that we were discussing before I launched into this
 ... whatever it is - the speculations in the Lexicon (for that is what they
are) won't persuade me to abandon speculations of my own - though a
really gob-smacking, compelling counter-theory might. 
Very sad, this seeking after sensation.

Speaking of which - must go, Talisman's post needs looking at.

Kneasy








From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 16:37:11 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:37:11 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1vdsp+1cgn@...>
Message-ID: <d21enn+f07t@...>


Anne jumps up in excitement, seeing a sprig of flame which is Talisman
theorising onlist.  Anne runs to get twigs, dry leaves, kerosene --
anything.

All right, this is the best I can do this morning:

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...>
wrote:
<snip things including a couple of posts I must look up>
 
> Back to Kneasy, who wrote:
> >Tom and Harry.
> >Parallels. How far do you want to go?
> >Both sets of parents have one from an old wizarding family, one not.
> >Harry for sure, Tom perhaps, is born when an evil wizard is rising 
> and
> >certainly one is looming large while both are at Hogwarts.
> >Mothers die. Orphanage/fostering in the Muggle world ensues - until
> >Hogwarts.
> >Both are outsiders.
> >Both have greatness dangled under their noses.
> >Both get wands with Fawkes's feathers as cores.
> 
> Talisman encourages:
> Don't stop there.  Tom and Harry are just two out of three.  
> Remember that Hagrid also tells Harry:  "Yeh know wha' Harry?
When I 
> firs' met you, you reminded me o' me a bit
.(GoF 456)  So that makes 
> at least three little half-blood orphan boys who have passed under 
> DD's wing.

Anne pipes up:

Not to mention, DD is responsible for Hagrid's wand as well.  I really
don't think it is even broken anymore, though it may not be quite what
it was.  But back to the orphan theme:

You could say there are even more, although not on the same level as
these three.  There's Neville, who is for all intents and purposes an
orphan. He does have that grandmother, though, the "formidable" one. 
Does that take him right out of the category?  Still, gran is solidly
in DD's camp, and female, and leaves the field wide open for a nice
father-figure.  If Neville is just any other student to DD, I'll eat
my posts.  Too bad there's not much canon to play with - yet.  But
even though we see nothing of DD's interaction with him, we know he's
important, so the interaction must exist.

What about James and Lily?  Sirius lived with James' parents until
Sirius was of age, and by the time Harry was orphaned, apparently so
were James and Lily.  Harry never mentions seeing any grandparents in
wedding photos and the like, either.  How grandparents died is not so
important to the story, perhaps, but the fact they were dead certainly
is.  And young Order proteges, though not orphaned until their upper
teens or thereabouts, are still going to turn very gratefully to the
wise and sympathetic Leader.

Then, of course, there *is* Sirius, another all-intents-and-purposes
orphan, since the age of sixteen...

And half-orphan Dean Thomas, whose story was left on the cutting-room
floor, but who was supposed to discover his true heritage right there
at Hogwarts.  Okay, I'm reaching here, but I couldn't resist; I
thought of him right away.

Talisman (after big snip): 
> Forget who  directed little Tom to the loveless orphanage. Let's 
> say, just for argument, that he arrives at Hogwarts --an emotionally 
> starved but magically ignorant 11-year-old. <snip>  Any way, who
tells him all 
> about his Slytherin roots?  We see that he starts hunting for Great-
> to-the-nth-power  Grandpappy Sal's hideout right form his first year 
> (CoS  312).  So, who downloaded all this information?
> 
> Well, DD is the only canon source for establishing Riddle as 
> Voldemort's sole remaining heir (332-333). Rowling makes a point of 
> having Hermione emphasize how difficult it would be to trace back a 
> thousand years identifying  Slytherin`s descendants.  (196)  This 
> should dissuade us from cavalierly inventing other handy informants. 
> Only Riddle and DD assert this ancestry, (313-314) and first source 
> must be DD.
>   
> The fact that Riddle talks about his lineage, and family history, 
> and also discusses DD, but doesn't indicate that DD ever had 
> friendly little chats with him, indicates to me that he got his 411 
> in an envelope.

Anne:
Don't forget we have one more canon lead for Tom to get some
information: that name, Marvolo.  He was given a wizard grandfather's
name, one unusual enough to stick in the reader's mind, and if it was
the name of a Riddle, I'll eat *Kneasy's* posts.  Once arrived at
Hogwarts, he must have met some people who recognised it, there, at
Hogsmeade, or even Diagon Alley.  Dumbledore must surely have known
the name, and the person behind it.

Who was his head of house, now?  Someone very Slytherinly?  A Dark
wizard?  Someone who'd known his grandfather?  I pursue this line of
inquiry curiously, but it does tend to dead-end -- there is simply no
reference to this shadowy person anywhere.  The only possibility that
might bear any fruit is that he or she had a connection to
Grindelwald.  The only inferences are that this person is unimportant,
or it's a bit of informaion that Jo has held back as giving too much
away.  But if it's the latter, it's unusual for Jo to have been
absolutely silent about him so far.  All right, leave it for a moment,
and go back to Marvolo  family ties.

How *does* the heir of Slytherin know of his heritage, though as
Hermione says, the passage of time makes tracing family trees that far
difficult?  And, if Dumbledore is the one who fed the information to
Tom, where did he himself get it?

Take a cue from the house of a family who cared very much about
lineage: 12 Grimmauld Place.  There was a certain tapestry, and a
book.  Much care was taken to preserve the history of "worthy" family
members, though the unworthy were blasted into oblivion.  Now think,
isn't it highly possible that the primary Slytherin line kept a
record?  Passed something down from generation to generation?  Ancient
scrolls, or a certain object? Though all the lesser lines forgot their
heritage, one preserves it.

Old Marvolo probably had a house.  Some possessions, at least.
Something among them that was passed down from Salazar, proudly, from
generation to generation. Something that was passed to Tom, and there
is every chance he found something in it.  And yes, it may well have
been passed via Dumbledore.
<snip>

Talisman:
>  Slight digression: How do you like this for symmetry? Frank Bryce 
> and Hagrid: both falsely accused of Riddle's murders, both kept on 
> as groundskeepers.  And speaking of Bryce, who would employ  the 
> Muggle? Not LV, not Malfoy, either.  Who would bother paying Muggle 
> wages for ~50 years? Especially for an old coot who 1) was allowing 
> the place to fall apart (GoF 5);  and, 2 ) would get nosey if Dark 
> Wizards wanted to drop by for a bit of evil fun?  No one but DD, who 
> also "just happened" to be reading the Little Hangleton papers the 
> summer after Wormtail's trip to Albania. He knew LV would be showing 
> up for his quarter cup of daddy dust. 

Anne:
Oh, I *like* symmetry -- it's all over the series.  Carbon copies and
mirror images.  Things writ small in one book, and in all caps in the
next.  But not the facile ones (Neville is *so* not Pettigrew) You
know, I just read a scene in GoF, in The Madness of Mr. Crouch, of Ron
and Hermione arguing (over House Elves in this particular instance),
and Harry withdrawing to the owlery - for hours - to escape their
bickering, that could have come straight out of OoP.  And people think
OoP is disjointed from the rest of the series...

But anyway, back to Frank: you're right, it points to DD.  I'm sure I
must have read DD as a possible owner of the Riddle house before,
thrown in as a possibility among the others, but when you put all that
canon together...ooooOOOOOoooooo!

One last thing:
Talisman:
> Moreover, unless he is "much 
> mistaken" DD knows LV transferred some of his own powers to [Harry] 
> the night he gave [him] that scar." ( CoS 333)  Why? Okay 
> Parseltongues are rare, notwithstanding Herpo the Foul, and others, 
> implied by reference in FBWTFT, at p3.  But, why is it *powers* 
> plural?  What other power is Harry evincing by the end of Book 2? 
> Sort of a strange thing for DD to be so sure about.

Anne:
*jumps up and down*
My possession theory! Buried somewhere in HPfGU, but can be easily
accessed here (public archives, you know):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/3231

Just in case anyone's interested...     

That's all I can contribute this morning (such as it is).  Kneasy, can
I buy you a pint or two for starting this thread?

Anne







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 17:19:23 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:19:23 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1vdsp+1cgn@...>
Message-ID: <d21h6r+tm82@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> wrote:
> 
> My, my, my, Kneasy.  You have el grande cajones, mi amigo, and I'm 
> not just talking fur.  Forcing my hand, eh? Well, at least part of 
> me wants to be forced.  So be it.
> 

Kneasy:
Just small, but perfectly formed.

> T:
> I've been talking about DD's plan for Voldemort since Fall 2003, 
> though by that time I was fairly disgusted with HP discussion groups 
> and rapidly losing interest in further "sharing." 
> 
> See, HPfGUs post # 79769, "Going for the Vold," (Thu Sep 4, 2003 
> 12:22 am);  HPfGUs post # 82031, "Guilty Again," (Wed Oct 1, 2003 
> 5:35 pm); an old Room of Requirments (a now defunct group) post #192 
> from 10/23/03 (if anyone here remembers that.).
> 
> I've got the nubbins of an old unpublished draft, last modified 
> 11/29/04.  
> 
> Then, I joined this group and began to consider posting, anew.  I 
> wrote to Kneasy on Feb 16, 2005:
> 
> "It's true that I could have just <snip>  gone back to talking to 
> you about how I think Dumbledore created Voldemort from the get, 
> which is not at all inconsistent with your possession theory, though 
> it does make young Tom Riddle DD's first victim." 
> 
>  I  recall counseling myself, that, if Kneasy started posting on the 
> subject, I'd have to jump in, whether or no."  So maybe it was a cry 
> for help (as in "help me to get off the pot and post.")
> 

Kneasy:
Splendid! And about time too. All this lurking around in offices will
do you no good at  all. Addles the wits, constipates the brain and
engenders nasty fluxes, you know.

> T:
> Why not review your lists of the ways JKR has "screwed up."  Then, 
> just for fun,  try asking: "What if the writer isn't the one 
> screwing up?  What if the problem is in the reading?  What will 
> happen if I change my assumptions?
> 
> If you trust the author, the places where you stub your toes on the 
> text are the best places to dig in for a grip on the subtext.  Even 
> if you don't *really* trust Rowling, there is no harm in quietly 
> giving her the benefit of the doubt. Just as a trial run. You might 
> find a much more interesting story.
> 
>

Kneasy:
Screwed up is a pretty restricted category by my reckoning. I only
count those occasions when there's been an obvious error - Marcus
Flint, the wand order for James and Lily, the 100 year slippage in
NHN's death, stuff like that. Anything else, no matter how contradictory
it seems is grist for the mill. She's had lots of time and opportunity to 
correct mistakes and if they ain't been corrected then they're not mistakes.
Simple.

Trust is even stricter - I trust her to tie up all the loose ends in a
satisfactory manner - or at least acceptable within the story strictures,
and I trust that there must have been some clues to what's going on and
what's going to happen somewhere in the text. I don't care how subtle
or well-disguised they are, just so long as they exist.
Not much to ask, is it? 

> 
> Talisman encourages:
> Don't stop there.  Tom and Harry are just two out of three.  
> Remember that Hagrid also tells Harry:  "Yeh know wha' Harry?
When I 
> firs' met you, you reminded me o' me a bit
.(GoF 456)  So that makes 
> at least three little half-blood orphan boys who have passed under 
> DD's wing.
> 
> Yep, let's take a look at Hagrid.  Half giant, half wizard.  His 
> mother took off when he was "about' three." (GoF 427)  His father 
> died in his second year at Hogwarts.  (455) He may have been given 
> the gamekeeper job at that time: "Dumbledore was the one who stuck 
> up for me after Dad went.  Got me the gamekeepr job.  (455)  Hagrid 
> wasn't expelled until his third year (PS/SS59) when he says "but 
> Dumbledore let me stay on as gamekeeper. (id)  So was he actually 
> gamekeeper from year two, and just allowed to * stay on* after being 
> expelled? Or was he helped out in other ways prior to being 
> expelled, and then allowed to stay on * as gamekeeper* after? 
> 

Kneasy:
The mutual admiration society that is the Hagrid/DD axis is intruiging.
All this "I would trust Hagrid with my life" is more than charitable hyperbole
to my thinking. I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop for 3 books now,
along with a little chat about 'keys'. Locks have keys, but so do puzzles.
Hagrid may be the repository of more than well-meant advice and simple
peasant pleasures - getting pissed, a fondness for livestock and a buxom
wench on his arm. Be very surprised if there weren't a revelation or two
involving Rubeus.

> T:
> Compare this to Riddle: 
> snip chunk of Riddle-ania.


Kneasy:
Yup, it'd be interesting to be enlightened on the life and early times
of Riddle T. However, in defence of DD not instituting group hugs -
something I'm averse to; the old stiff upper lip, y'know - he wasn't 
Headmaster, nor was he Head of Slytherin House. It's quite
possible that his suspicions re: young Tom may have been aroused
late in the game. On the other hand, Tom did get one of Fawkes's 
feathers; that'd bring him to DD's attention right enough.

> T:
> In any event, after Riddle's graduation, DD continues his voyeurism 
> by "watching" as the young man "traveled far and wide
sank so deeply 
> into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, 
> underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he 
> resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable.  Hardly 
> anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who 
> was once Head Boy here."  (CoS 329)
> 

Kneasy:
'Hardly  anyone knew..." No-one except DD and close pals perhaps?
Ollivander and Hagrid know, who else?
Right. So why keep it a secret?  What is the point?
If Voldy wants to keep it quiet then why not spread it around? Why play
to his agenda? Because it means something, it has a bearing on subsequent
events that DD is closely involved in and/or concerned about and too many
knowing too much too soon could cock things up. I can think of no other
reason. Unless Jo is being bloody-minded again.

> T:
> The evidence is largely to come, but I'm betting DD is behind 
> whatever happened to blast LV out of his skin on that fateful 
> Halloween night at Godric's Hollow.   

Kneasy:
Oh yes, something I've long contended and his exposition at the end of
OoP seems to confirm it, too.  Not only is he Puppetmaster!DD he's also
Seeallhearallandkeepyourmouthshut!DD as well.

> T:
> What is it with his "we may 
> never know" business to McGonagall?  (PS/SS 12 )  Yeah, "WE" may 
> never know, but HE sure does.  Moreover, unless he is "much 
> mistaken" DD knows LV transferred some of his own powers to [Harry] 
> the night he gave [him] that scar." ( CoS 333)  Why? Okay 
> Parseltongues are rare, notwithstanding Herpo the Foul, and others, 
> implied by reference in FBWTFT, at p3.  But, why is it *powers* 
> plural?  What other power is Harry evincing by the end of Book 2? 
> Sort of a strange thing for DD to be so sure about.  

Kneasy:
"A certain disregard for the rules...'
In other words he's a disobedient little Slytherin scrote who won't do 
as he's told and it's going to land him in deep do-do. Either that or he'll 
be the Overlord of the Universe - the evil bit being optional.

  
> T:
> Finally Harry: Sort of a half blood like Hagrid and Riddle. Mom was 
> actually a witch, though.   Had both parents for one year, then both 
> dead. Not sent to an orphanage, but not taken to Hogwarts, either.  
> Left with nasty blood relatives who are expected to abuse him, with 
> no intervention to discourage abuse from years 1-16.  (If you tell 
> me about blood protection, I'm going to suggest you haven't been 
> paying attention. It really doesn`t add up.) And, to date,  no one 
> has downloaded the Potter family history.  I'm mean, if Harry wants 
> to get all sulky about deprivation of his entitlements, he'll have 
> to get a move on.     
>

Kneasy:
This 'abuse' stuff seems overdone to me; sure, it was no bed of roses
and the Dursleys did him no favours, but there's a big gap between
an unpleasant situation and what can reasonably be construed as abuse.
Anything the Dursleys did pales in comparison to what's happened to him
in the WW - orphaned at GH, attacked by Quirrell!Mort, broken arm, Snape,
Dementors, the list goes on. I'd think Privet Drive a haven of peace myself.
("You think you had it hard - you were lucky. There was twelve of us...in 
a cardboard box...at the bottom of a lake... and every morning after a 
breakfast of cold gravel we scrubbed the fish and walked 27 miles t'pit...") 
I know others think differently and I refuse point blank to get involved
in the sort of emotive excesses that have characterised discussions elsewhere.
Personally, I think DD did nothing because it made it more likely that Harry'd
jump at the chance of joining the WW. A happy, contented Harry might not
be so eager. Out of the frying pan....


> T:
> Inasmuch as only the heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber, and 
> Slytherin's only heir is Tom, DD has a thunderous bit of evidence to 
> point at Riddle.  But, he apparently doesn't even try.  I would be 
> very surprised if a little tactful questioning wouldn't have 
> elicited this voluntarily from the boastful Riddle, let alone a well-
> placed drop of veritaserum, or even a cleverly staged snake attack 
> inviting Riddle to hiss a few lines.  It's been done, you know.  
> 

Kneasy:
'Heir' need not mean descendant.
OK, assume that Tom is the last descendant of ole Sally, that need not
mean there are no more heirs, as I've pointed out before. An heir is
anyone who receives a bequest. The bequest is whatever is/was in
the Chamber -  and it passes to whoever can get to it. And many
seem to forget that Harry opened the Chamber with no help from
anyone, once the location of the entrance was hinted at.
He too is an heir of sorts. 







From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 18:55:49 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:55:49 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d21h6r+tm82@...>
Message-ID: <d21mrl+2mk8@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Kneasy:
> 'Heir' need not mean descendant.
> OK, assume that Tom is the last descendant of ole Sally, that need not
> mean there are no more heirs, as I've pointed out before. An heir is
> anyone who receives a bequest. The bequest is whatever is/was in
> the Chamber -  and it passes to whoever can get to it. And many
> seem to forget that Harry opened the Chamber with no help from
> anyone, once the location of the entrance was hinted at.
> He too is an heir of sorts.

Yes, but Salazar was very interested in bloodlines.  I think he
envisioned the "Heir of Slytherin" to be of his loins, along the
generations.

On the other hand, he's not likely to have envisioned his heir to be
the son of a Muggle who won't even be married to a witch.  He's sure
to be rolling in his grave at the thought of *another* heir who is the
protege to that lover of mudbloods and muggles and at least spiritual
heir to Gryffindor, Albus Dumbledore.

So, I'd see it not so much as a bequest, as a sneaky win in probate.

Anne







From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 25 21:42:17 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:42:17 -0000
Subject: Soul-less Existence
In-Reply-To: <d1sm9n+cm22@...>
Message-ID: <d220jp+doq0@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" <dk59us at y...> 
wrote: 
> But there's so much we don't know about Dementors, the Kiss and its
> victims.  How often do the Dementors get to enjoy this treat?  Do
> they really differentiate between victims?  What deal did the 
> Ministry do with them to arrange their gig guarding Azkaban (and 
> did this involve all_ Dementors?)  And how long ago?  One guesses 
> that the Ministry must have some assurances that the guards won't 
> Kiss prisoners indiscriminately, but who knows?  

Jen: This must be what DD is referring to in GOF about "more scope 
for their powers and pleasures"; that LV will actually allow them to 
administer the Kiss, unlike the current powers-that-be. And 
presumably the victims of choice last war were muggles. Strange 
disappearances and all.

As to *how* to keep a Dementor from kissing....They aren't exactly 
the most compliant things, are they? Wandering into the Quidditch 
field, attempting to kiss Harry in POA; "oops, they slipped up 
*again*--what story do we tell the family this time?" Guards for the 
guards anyone? The problem is no one would want that gig or be tough 
enough to last very long on Dementor Island.

Eustace_Scrubb:
> And what exactly did happen to Barty Jr. after the Kiss?  If we can
> believe Lupin, the victim, although worse than dead, isn't in fact,
> clinically dead.  Without the soul, the victim has "no sense of 
> self anymore, no memory," but the brain and heart may still be 
> working.  So is Barty in a special ward of St. Mungo's with other
> Kiss victims, just existing, being fed via tubes?  To what extent
> are their brains still working?  

Jen: That would be a considerable justice system problem after 
awhile, as the bodies pile up. Ethical dilemma. This strikes me as 
one of those questions you could ask JKR and she'd say, "oh, he's 
living with his grandparetns and they care for him." Either that or 
she has a plan to reveal more about some sinister MOM plot and we'll 
get to see that ward at St. Mungos or somesuch place.

E_S:
> And about those memories...  Are they really gone or does their 
> owner simply no longer have the means to access them?  Could a 
> legilimens or someone with a pensieve still extract them from the
>  victims' (still working) brains and examine them?

Jen: I imagine they are consumed with the Kiss, never to be 
retrieved. Lupin makes it sound like an irreversible process, and 
then we have all the imagery of them 'sucking' which makes me think 
eating or consuming.

We can talk about the movie here, no? That scene of Sirius' soul 
being sucked out was pretty graphic and I've wondered whether that 
scene doesn't tell us something about the end of the series. Then 
JKR said that bit about wondering why LV didn't die at Godric's 
Hollow; well it's not much of a stretch to say 'because he was 
already dead' or perhaps already souless at that point. The Deal 
with the Dementor where they suck his soul in exchange for bodily 
immortality perhaps? Don't know, haven't thought that one through. 

Jen






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 01:46:01 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:46:01 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d1vdsp+1cgn@...>
Message-ID: <d22esp+b1qd@...>


> Talisman wrote <snipped>:
> Here is the important implication: the DD we see in CoS is a  bmf 
> wizard, in full stride, who 1) has just kicked, 2) is kicking, or, 
> 3) is about to kick,  serious evil-wizard hiney.  Not someone to be 
> flummoxed by a snotty 16- year-old wannabe.
> 

Neri:
It's a snotty 16- year-old who, by that age, had already located the
chamber that learned wizards failed to find in thousand years. It's
the snotty 16- year-old who recorded his memories in a magic diary
that can take over people and resurrect the original. Terrible, but
great. 

The Grindelwald factor could be equally argued the other way: maybe DD
was too busy defeating the big evil wizard, and thus failed to give
enough attention to the younger but more dangerous evil wizard.

> 
> Neri responded to Kneasy:
> >However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
> >difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the first
> >place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate (or,
> >in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.
> 
> Talisman: 
> Egads, Neri. Let's see if I can follow this argument.  The wand 
> exercises free will according to the wizard's fate, proving that DD 
> is not in the mix?  If FAITH whispered any of that to you, it's time 
> to trot her over to a rehab program. 
> 

Neri:
You may have noticed that I wrote "free will" in quotes, referring to
Ollivander's words that "the wand chooses the wizard". I don't think I
need to explain further, since your next paragraph shows you got my
meaning.

> Talisman:
> You're right about the truism: everything in HPverse happens at 
> JKR's pleasure.  However, this is a stronger argument for DD's 
> involvement, than not.  The fact that JKR decided that DD's phoenix 
> would provide two, and only two, wand cores, and that these wands 
> would go to two little "orphan" boys whose futures DD has so 
> obviously engineered, is a powerful nexus. The logic points to JKR 
> involving DD, uh--sorry--right to the core of the matter.
> 

Neri:
There is indeed *one* detail here that suggests an involvement of DD:
the fact that the feathers came from *his* phoenix. But generally,
shouting "this can't be a coincidence! Things have obviously been
arranged!" is not a strong argument for DD's involvement. We know that
Herself arranges everything, and she's writing a story in which
prophecies play a crucial role. And even worse than the prophecies are
the themes. I'm sure you've noticed that JKR has a theme about Tom and
Harry being very similar in their abilities, with only their choices
differentiating them. The Sorting Hat is one autonomous magical device
that noticed this similarity. The brother wands seem to be another. DD
engineering the wands would undermine this theme. 

BTW, the Sorting Hat is even better connected with DD than the wands
are - it practically lives in his office. So maybe Dumbledore also
arranged for the Sorting Hat to tell Harry he would do well in
Slytherin? Hmm. With a bit more subversive reading like this we might
be able to dispense with that wretched theme completely. Except that
Faith doesn't recommend betting against big themes when you theorize
about future books. She says that when a main theme and a theory
collide head on, it's usually the theory that goes under.

> Talisman:
> The entirety of your "canon" contra is Olivander's statement about 
> the wand choosing the wizard.  There is zero information regarding 
> the criteria wands use to make this choice.  

Neri:
Exactly. We know next to nothing about how wands work (except for
irrelevant details such as what wood they are made of). How *should*
muggles like us know anything about Potterverse wands? So maybe this
is why JKR arranged for The Expert to debrief us early on regarding
the pertinent facts. It's a thing that authors do, especially in
fantasy books.

Ollivander's words sound to me like Important Information Supplied By
The Author. He first tells us that "it's the wand that chooses the
wizard" *before* Harry starts to try the wands, during his
introductory lecture about general properties of wands, and
immediately adds the easy "of course" of a knowledgeable expert. Then
he repeats the same statement *after* the brother wand chooses Harry,
and adds "remember" to make sure the significance is not lost on us.
As a clue for a conspiracy this seems a bit overdone and pretty dumb
of Ollivander as a fellow conspirator. But as Introduction To Key
Properties Of Potterverse Wands it's exactly right.     

> Talisman: 
>  If you can see where the wands "keep their brains," Neri, let me 
> know. I can't.  

Neri:
Egads, Talisman. The Potterverse is practically crawling with magical
devices that have some limited AI capabilities pertaining to their
function. Some of them can respond to the thoughts of the user, and
many have a tendency to develop some mind of their own. Brooms jump
when you say "up", but apparently not when they feel you are afraid of
them. Rita Skeeter's Quoting Quill embellishes boring details.
Portraits argue with you and insult you. Mirrors tell you to "tuck
your shirt, scruffy!" At least one mirror can show you your heart
desire. Even Ollivander's tape measure shows an interest in Harry's
nostrils, and it doesn't have much room for a brain either. I really
don't expect wands to be different.

> Talisman:
> Let's not quibble.  The relevant point is that DD knew and did 
> nothing about it.

Neri:
Did DD know about Tom opening the chamber? I'd like some canon for
that other than a penetrating stare. Tom was good enough at 16 to
create the diary, which strikes me as very advanced magic. He may also
have been good enough to teach himself Occlumency. Maybe DD was
suspicious because he could not peek into Tom's mind, but he couldn't
prove anything, and apparently there's no law against a bright student
guarding the privacy of his mind from a nosy teacher. Also, IMO the
plot would be rather boring if Gary Stu Dumbledore could always read
the mind of the evil wizard.

BTW, do you suppose that Dumbledore just failed to give James and the
rest of the marauders some penetrating stares? Even after the prank?
Is that why they had managed to keep the animagi thing secret from
him, as he readily admitted? But you'll probably say that Dumbledore
just lied about that too.
 
You know, the thing I have about those Puppetmaster/guilty!DD theories
is that they remind me of an annoying riddle I heard in kindergarten.
I'm sure this riddle has equally annoying parallels in the USA,
Britain and each of the 3000 different cultures of New Guinea, but the
Israeli version goes like this: What's green, hanged and squeaking?
The answer is (don't hold your breath): it's a smoked kipper. It's
green because I painted it and it's hanged because I hanged it. What?
Oh, the squeaking? I just lied about the squeaking part.
 
I surely hope JKR is writing a better mystery than that. Ollivander is
our main authority on Potterverse wands. If he just lies to us, then
JKR can get away with anything. Similarly, DD is our main source of
information regarding the heart-of-it-all mystery. If he just lies to
us, then the solution to the heart-of-it-all mystery can be a smoked
kipper, or anything as arbitrary and annoying. It would be far too
easy for JKR to bring off such a thing, and it's far too easy for the
theorist to weave any story he/she likes.

> Talisman:
> When Dumbledore asks Harry whether he would like to tell DD anything 
> relevant to the attacks, Harry lies (CoS 209)  but we already 
> suspect that DD's "light, bright, sparkling" blue eyes are more than 
> charming facial features. (PS/SS 8)  The way Harry's mind then 
> begins to flit from one relevant thing to another has suggested to 
> many people, way before Book 5,  that DD was going through Harry's 
> mind like filing cabinet.  
> 

Neri:
Snape would have probably sneered and told you that you have no
subtlety. "The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined
at leisure". I suspect it's not a filing cabinet either.

> Talisman:
> Inasmuch as only the heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber, and 
> Slytherin's only heir is Tom, DD has a thunderous bit of evidence to 
> point at Riddle.  

Neri:
Unless he discovered about Tom's heritage only years later.

> Talisman: 
> Yet what does DD convince Dippet, to do?
>  1) Keep Hagrid on the school grounds;
>  2) Let him have/keep the freaking keys to the castle; ( PS/SS 49 )
>  3) Insure his access to the Forbidden Forest, with all it's lethal 
> creatures, including the precious Aragog; and, 
> 4) while your at it, pay him to fool around with whatever magical 
> beasts might be at hand.
> 
> I'd love to hear how DD put this over.  `Course, Dippet was a dip.

Neri:
When Hagrid says: "I ? er ? got expelled
 but Dumbledore let me stay
on as gamekeeper" this is apparently the shortened version of things.
Actually, Molly remembers Ogg, who was "the gamekeeper before Hagrid"
(GoF, Ch. 31, p. 617 US) although she was at Hogwarts 10 ? 20 years
after Hagrid was expelled. It thus seems that Dippet only appointed
Hagrid to be Ogg's apprentice for many years. Quite logical, as Hagrid
was only 13 or 14 years old when he was expelled. It seems Hagrid was
promoted to gamekeeper only after Molly left Hogwarts. My guess would
be that it happened in the beginning of the 70's when DD became
headmaster.

Neri







From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 02:33:01 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d22esp+b1qd@...>
Message-ID: <20050326023301.37968.qmail@...>

> Neri:
> There is indeed *one* detail here that suggests an involvement of
> DD:
> the fact that the feathers came from *his* phoenix. But generally,
> shouting "this can't be a coincidence! Things have obviously been
> arranged!" is not a strong argument for DD's involvement. 

I'm not sure that's true, though.  Fawkes is probably about 400 years
old (if he was only named for someone who lived in the early 17th
century) and might have given up those two feathers anytime over the
centuries.  And the wands themselves might be a couple hundred years
old too, just sitting on the shelves collecting dust before their
destined owners show up and claim them.

So DD might not have been involved at all, except for the rather
passive involvement of being Fawkes' most recent owner.

Magda

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



From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 07:04:03 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:04:03 +1100
Subject: Waiting for the dinner bell to do the bell thing
Message-ID: <91d14f32050325230432f56e54@...>

Talisman and Kneasy rescue us again! The trouble is, in the process, their
encyclopaedic roaming of canon so addle a poor simple penguin's brain there's
little left I can make sense of, let alone contribute to. But I do have
thoughts to wit:

A good read of the List turns up some fascinating flotsam among the seaweed.
Talisman has made a massive structure based on the idea that it is DD who has
manipulated Riddle, as a way of explaining the gaping hole of canon where
Riddle's backstory is supposed to be, and it's not the first explanation of
how Riddle got to be Heir of Slytherin. It is in fact, one of the most vexed
questions in HP fandom judging by the sheer output of questions about what
constitutes an Heir, is that literal as in bloodlines, how does one become one
if that isn't the case, and so on. Note the lack of interest in Ravenclaw and
Hufflepuff. It's all Gryffindor and Slytherin, the "active" or "yang" houses
as some have seen it. It seems odd that in a story exhorting all wizards to
pull together despite their perceived differences, some appear more equal than
others in this noble quest. That POV is pretty handy sometimes. Surely the
other two Founders had a voice in this ancient Argument? Does relative
passivity doom half the Hogwarts population (perhaps half the WW?) to mere
onlooker status? Where are their Heirs and why are they sleeping on the job?

Other questions are raised by the Talisman/Kneasy thesis, which are a little
more abstract. For instance, canon makes no explanation or excuse how the
entrance to an ancient Chamber happened to exist anachronistically in an
upper-floor girls bathroom. There is no canon for this question. You will go
insane trying to keep up with the bizarre explanations on the List, all
attempting to make this detail "fit" into Potterverse Reality. Of course
there's no such thing, and it's pointless to try. Much of CoS smacks of
metaphor anyway, so why not a fairytale-like conjunction of concrete reality
and the Big Scary Hole. I like to think of it as an example of how the scary
seemingly-random universe to a child's POV settles down into something more
and less to an adult. And the Chamber of Secrets has always jarred; surely an
ironic a title as any.

It's certainly fun to spin theories; as much fun to watch too. But I'm
beginning to doubt that we can realistically expect all canon to fit. I think
this is because it's the kind of trap readers have always attempted to set for
authors. What do readers expect to gain by bailing authors up against the wall
crying WHY? other than an embarrassed excuse and a quick getaway? And I think
that if JKR hasn't by now realised what this means in her case then she's
considerably less clever than she appears. The example I gave of the CoS
entrance is a classic trap of this kind; what explanation would suffice? I'm
sure you can all think of several better ones that you'd like to spring after
book 7. Just be wary about slapping your money down; I suspect there won't be
a lot of change out of your theory fiver. Then there's the Star Trek
explanation: how Spock comes back from the dead is much more improbable than
the improbable situation leading up to his death in the first place.

Implicit in Kneasy's remarks about the games fandom plays, is a kind of
Pavlovian response. That is, our obsession is redirected from the object
(canon) to the representation (what canon implies). I know that's stating the
bleeding obvious to some, but I get bombarded with this truism literally every
day, and the reaction to the Lupinlore Manifesto has been most instructive in
this regard. The devil is indeed in the details. Perhaps an illustration from
that other over-the-top fandom, the Tolkienistas, is helpful. Because once
Tolkien had finished LotR, he never got anything properly finished. He was too
busy trying to tie up the loose ends introduced by the LotR additions to
Middle-Earth and answering questions that it raised. The fans are not
completely to blame for this; he admitted he found this game 'only too fatally
addictive' as well. But it is putting the story aside for the world the story
inhabits, and trying to make _that_ world fit _this_ one in its fundamental
assumptions. Kneasy makes a good point; this theorising is only proper during
the life of the series, not beyond. I'm as prone to metathinking as anyone
here, but I draw the line at specific orders to the author, which to me is one
of the prime logical results of "extending" canon to fit the shape one sees
in it. What would be the result if the HP movies were made _after_ the series
with no authorial input rather than the current arrangement, to make another
parallel with Tolkienism?

Time to make some dins, and if my brain isn't completely scrambled I'll
continue in like vein anon.

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



From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 11:43:58 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:43:58 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d22esp+b1qd@...>
Message-ID: <d23htu+57o5@...>



Talisman, apologizing in advance as this post is doomed to be 
remedial in nature:

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

Talisman wrote <snipped>:
> Here is the important implication: the DD we see in CoS is a bmf
> wizard, <snip> Not someone to be flummoxed by a snotty 16- year-
old wannabe.

Neri:
>It's a snotty 16- year-old who, by that age, had already located the
>chamber that learned wizards failed to find in thousand years. It's
>the snotty 16- year-old who recorded his memories in a magic diary
>that can take over people and resurrect the original. Terrible, but
>great.

Talisman:
You may choose to believe Binn's version: i.e. that no "learned 
witches and wizards" ever found the chamber. (CoS 151) Of course, we 
see that he is totally wrong about the existence of the chamber, and 
the monster within.  Not only that, but he is denying the Chamber's 
existence even though it was actually opened 50 years earlier.  He 
apparently bought Riddle's old story about Hagrid and Aragog, hook, 
line, and sinker. But, you and FAITH go ahead and buy Binn's second 
hand misinformation, that's your, erm
choice. 

I'll choose to notice that Binns is obviously ignorant.  Moreover, 
I'll notice that 1) DD knew that the Chamber truly did exist; 2) 
knew that it had been opened fifty years ago; and 3) knew who was 
responsible for reopening it. (CoS 181)

I'm sure that this has nothing to do with the penetrating stare on 
the stairs fifty years ago; DD probably just read it in the Quibbler 
earlier in the week.

I'll notice, too that Fawkes was able to find the Chamber with no 
problem.  Moreover, he didn't need to use Myrtle's bathroom entrance 
to get there.  Rowling does a nice job of blocking off the tunnel 
with that cave-in, and then she sets Ron right there shifting debris 
in an effort to make a hole.  By the time we leave the scene, he`s 
only managed a gap the kids have to squeeze through, yet he hasn't 
seen any large scarlet bird come budging through on its way down.

So when Fawkes accompanies Harry and Ginny out of the Chamber, and 
through the gap Ron has cleared, and Rowling has Ron gasp: "...where 
did that bird come from?" she is obviously suggesting that we make 
the same inquiry. (CoS 324)

We know that Fawkes has special traveling powers.  I won't call it 
apparation because I know how important it is to you that we dither 
about things like the differences between Legilimens and mind-
reading, but it would seem that Fawkes arrived his own special way.

If Fawkes can pop in with the Sorting Hat in tow, what stopped him 
from dropping off a few roosters a couple decades ago?  

Nope, the fact that DD knew about it all, but neither testified 
about it in Hagrid's defense nor informed the WW at any time 
thereafter--until he began dropping little hints to the confused 
McGonagall and Madame Pomfrey (conveniently in front of the Potter 
boy)--might make some people worry about just how long he has been 
sitting on this information. 

Then too, he has rather a habit of helping new students get 
everything they need to succeed in castle treasure hunts. I think 
it's a bit hasty to give Riddle all the credit. 

Moreover, even at the height of his powers, Voldemort always feared 
DD; clever or not, the fifth-year Riddle was not Voldemort at the 
height of his powers.

Of course that was the point of my "wannabe" comment, in case you 
missed it.

Neri:
>The Grindelwald factor could be equally argued the other way: maybe 
DD
>was too busy defeating the big evil wizard, and thus failed to give
>enough attention to the younger but more dangerous evil wizard.

Talisman:
Oh, I don't know.  He wasn't too busy to get involved with Hagrid, 
and Hagrid wasn`t even killing people.
  
>
> Neri responded to Kneasy:
> >However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
> >difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the 
first
> >place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate 
(or,
> >in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.
>
> Talisman:
> Egads, Neri. Let's see if I can follow this argument. The wand
> exercises free will according to the wizard's fate, proving that DD
> is not in the mix? If FAITH whispered any of that to you, it's time
> to trot her over to a rehab program.
>

Neri:
>You may have noticed that I wrote "free will" in quotes, referring 
>to Ollivander's words that "the wand chooses the wizard". I don't 
>think I need to explain further, since your next paragraph shows 
>you got my meaning.

Talisman:
Actually, Neri, if you didn't mean free will, you should have 
avoided the term of art,  especially since free will is so 
frequently invoked (in lieu of canon)  by the "it's all about 
choices"  camp to which you obviously belong.  

What you meant was that the wand gets to decide, as if that excludes 
wizard tampering.  What all my subsequent paragraphs on the topic 
reveal is that Rowling has gone to the bother of showing us how 
wands may be designed for specific wizards.  The entire weighing of 
the wands scene is sort of a waste, except as an exposition of 
different wand models, including the apparently custom-made veela 
number.

But I guess you and FAITH have determined that Rowling just needed 
to fill a few more pages with text that wasn't leading anywhere.    

> Talisman:
> You're right about the truism: everything in HPverse happens at
> JKR's pleasure. However, this is a stronger argument for DD's
> involvement, than not. The fact that JKR decided that DD's phoenix
> would provide two, and only two, wand cores, and that these wands
> would go to two little "orphan" boys whose futures DD has so
> obviously engineered, is a powerful nexus. The logic points to JKR
> involving DD, uh--sorry--right to the core of the matter.
>

Neri:
>There is indeed *one* detail here that suggests an involvement of 
>DD:the fact that the feathers came from *his* phoenix. But 
>generally,shouting "this can't be a coincidence! Things have 
>obviously been arranged!" is not a strong argument for DD's 
>involvement.

Talisman: Laying out consistent canon evidence is rather a different 
thing than shouting this can't be a coincidence.  If you cannot see 
this, I can not help you.


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

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

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

I'll tell you how: it lubed Harry up to take the first prophecy 
(which he hears second) seriously.  The only other way the second 
prophecy can matter to the story--now that Voldemort is back--is by 
revealing someone unsuspected as the Most Faithful servant.  The 
only reason to keep this dangling would be shock value.  Therefore: 
if the second prophecy is not totally meaningless to the story it is 
in just these two ways.  1) as a mind game for Harry who still 
thinks it's about Wormtail; 2) so a surprise DE can be revealed.

The first prophecy is going down the same way.  All we know about it 
is that we do not know what it means at all. Harry thinks he knows 
what it means, but we know he doesn't.  Voldemort thinks it will 
tell him how to defeat Harry.  But we know it doesn't.  The 
prophesies are manipulative tools, with some possible future 
(collateral) shock value regarding persons indicated. (If they are 
true, at all.)

Neri:
>And even worse than the prophecies are
>the themes. I'm sure you've noticed that JKR has a theme about Tom 
and
>Harry being very similar in their abilities, with only their choices
>differentiating them.

Talisman:
I'm sure you won't be surprised when I tell you that I think 
the "choices" nonsense is constantly undermined by the text, and to 
the extent that it is in the mix at all, it is far, far over used 
and over merited.  Especially when it's all you have to sweep away 
heaps of canon. This topic deserves a longer post, but will have to 
wait  for the nonce, as I should be in bed right now, and am going 
away for the rest of the weekend. 
 
Still. Choices and Prophesies. Your fate is ordained, but your 
choices are what matter, so DD can`t be involved.  Where have I 
heard this before?  Tut, tut. I think you are going to have to pick 
a side.  

Neri:
 >The Sorting Hat is one autonomous magical device
>that noticed this similarity. The brother wands seem to be another. 
DD
>engineering the wands would undermine this theme.

1) When asked if the Sorting Hat tells the truth, Rowling only 
responded that it is "sincere."  2) To the extent that the Sorting 
Hat was on to something, DD indicates it was because LV put some of 
himself in Harry at Godric's Hollow. ( CoS 333 )   See my initiating 
post regarding DD's involvment in Godric's Hollow.  Where DD 
engineered the cross-pollination, DD engineering the wands is wholly 
consistent.

Neri:
>BTW, the Sorting Hat is even better connected with DD than the wands
>are - it practically lives in his office. So maybe Dumbledore also
>arranged for the Sorting Hat to tell Harry he would do well in
>Slytherin? Hmm. 

Talisman:
Hardly something I would argue, but apparently you can't distinguish.

Neri:
With a bit more subversive reading like this we might
>be able to dispense with that wretched theme completely. Except that
>Faith doesn't recommend betting against big themes when you theorize
>about future books. She says that when a main theme and a theory
>collide head on, it's usually the theory that goes under.

Talisman:
It is rather a wretched "theme."  
Moreover, to call a reading subversive, especially one that ties 
itself closely to the text, is a bit rich.  You may flatter yourself 
that you know what Rowling is saying, and therefore you may feel 
entitled to represent her intentions as you label readings 
subversive or not, but you have yet to demonstrate a superior 
command of the canon. 

A good psychotropic might get that "FAITH" voice out of your ear. 


> Talisman:
> The entirety of your "canon" contra is Olivander's statement about
> the wand choosing the wizard. There is zero information regarding
> the criteria wands use to make this choice.

Neri:
>Exactly. We know next to nothing about how wands work (except for
>irrelevant details such as what wood they are made of). How *should*
>muggles like us know anything about Potterverse wands

Talisman:
Criteria for choosing is different than information about how wands 
are made.  I notice you just won't deal with the additional canon I 
offered.  As I'm not in the mood to keep repeating, you'll just have 
to reread.

Also, I do not consider myself a Muggle. Rowling has explicitly 
explained that Muggles are metaphors for conventionality.  Muggles 
have no magic, and magic is Rowling's metaphor for imagination, etc. 
She does not consider herself a Muggle, and she indicates that some 
readers are not Muggles, either ("Don`t let the Muggles get you 
down!"). You may consider yourself a Muggle, if you like, and get no 
argument from me.

Neri:
> So maybe this
>is why JKR arranged for The Expert to debrief us early on regarding
>the pertinent facts. It's a thing that authors do, especially in
>fantasy books.

Talisman:
I have an aced-out degree in English Literature, thanks,  and do not 
require advice on reading from a mouse poop expert.  You might read 
up on the linguistic philosophy of Pragmatics (Paul Grice's term) 
which will explain to you how fiction writers violate the Maxim of 
Quantity, especially mystery writers.  You may find that you have to 
keep reading past the first pages.


> Talisman:
> If you can see where the wands "keep their brains," Neri, let me
> know. I can't.

Neri:
>Egads, Talisman. The Potterverse is practically crawling with 
magical
>devices that have some limited AI capabilities pertaining to their
>function. <snip> I really don't expect wands to be different.

Talisman:
Oh, you sure do expect them to be different, Neri. You expect wands 
to be un-tamperable agents of fate. 

My point, which you seem set on missing, is that all of these 
magical items were "programmed."  For instance, the mirrors you 
referenced are bewitched to achieve the ends of the bewitcher.  The 
Mirror of Erised doesn't say "tuck in your shirt scruffy" and the 
mirror at the Leaky Cauldron doesn't show you your heart's desire.  
These mirrors didn't decided for themselves what functions they 
would have.  

Once you acknowledge that a wizard decides how magical objects will 
function, you have to stop precluding DD's involvement with the 
wands.  When you see, via Fleur, that wands can be custom-made, and 
you look at DD's connection to certain wand cores and their 
recipients, you have to agree that he could be tampering. 
 
> Talisman:
> Let's not quibble. The relevant point is that DD knew and did
> nothing about it.

Neri:
>Did DD know about Tom opening the chamber? I'd like some canon for
>that other than a penetrating stare. 

That's too bad, really.  Someone so snug with FAITH might find the 
fact that Rowling wrote in such a meaningless little scene rather 
odd.  Let's just put DD on the stair with Riddle, and have him give 
a penetrating stare that Harry recognizes as being like the X-ray 
jobs done on him--but have it mean nothing.  Then let's show that 
though the History Proff., Madame Pomfrey, and MacGonagall have no 
clue, and the rest of the WW still blames Hagrid, DD alone knows 
that Riddle opened the Chamber fifty years ago and reopened it in 
CoS.  But, since that stare meant nothing, there just won't be any 
information in the book about HOW DD might know all this.  Who 
cares, writing is fun, wheeeee!

Neri:. 
>Also, IMO the
>plot would be rather boring if Gary Stu Dumbledore could always read
>the mind of the evil wizard.

Talisman:
That's because you think defeating evil wizards is what it's all 
about.  The fact that DD doesn't go after evil wizards, but in fact 
enables a fair amount of their plans, is very interesting, indeed.  
N.B. Boredom often comes from within.


Neri:
>I surely hope JKR is writing a better mystery than that. Ollivander 
is
>our main authority on Potterverse wands. If he just lies to us, then
>JKR can get away with anything. 

Talisman: 
Ollivander didn't lie, but you jumped to a very limiting presumption 
and never moved, even when given additional evidence, by Ollivander 
no less.  See original post.

Neri:
>Similarly, DD is our main source of
>information regarding the heart-of-it-all mystery. If he just lies 
to
>us, then the solution to the heart-of-it-all mystery can be a smoked
>kipper, or anything as arbitrary and annoying. It would be far too
>easy for JKR to bring off such a thing, and it's far too easy for 
the
>theorist to weave any story he/she likes.

Talisman:
Wrong again.
1) If you can't see what a liar DD is by now, there is no hope.
2) What you can rely on in the books is the same thing you can rely 
on in life--which can be rather a joke--but is not a smoked kipper.  
You can listen for inconsistencies in what people say.  You can 
evaluate what people say based on what actually happens.  You can 
decide they are lying when things don't match up.  You can rely on 
your own faculties of observation and judgment, instead of expecting 
someone else to lead you by the hand.  This is an important lesson 
in anyone's maturation process.  They say it's never too late. 

> Talisman:
>Snip<
The way Harry's mind then
> begins to flit from one relevant thing to another has suggested to
> many people, way before Book 5, that DD was going through Harry's
> mind like filing cabinet.
>

Neri:
>Snape would have probably sneered and told you that you have no
>subtlety. "The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined
>at leisure". I suspect it's not a filing cabinet either.

Talisman:
I suspect you are unable to draw a correlation between the 
demonstrations of Legilimency --with the flashing scenes running 
through Harry's mind--in OoP, and this montage of thoughts in CoS.  
And, again, you assiduously hop over the canon-based point.

(Trust me, Snape would never say such things to Talisman, whom he 
does not confuse for Harry Potter. <g>  Though, I suspect the Dark 
Master has no time for idle quibblers.


> Talisman:
> Inasmuch as only the heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber, and
> Slytherin's only heir is Tom, DD has a thunderous bit of evidence 
to
> point at Riddle.

Neri:
>Unless he discovered about Tom's heritage only years later.

Talisman: 
Inventing text and ignoring canon is always helpful if you don't 
like where the story is going.  

> Talisman:
> Yet what does DD convince Dippet, to do?
> 1) Keep Hagrid on the school grounds;
> 2) Let him have/keep the freaking keys to the castle; ( PS/SS 49 )
> 3) Insure his access to the Forbidden Forest, with all it's lethal
> creatures, including the precious Aragog; and,
> 4) while your at it, pay him to fool around with whatever magical
> beasts might be at hand.



Neri:
>When Hagrid says: "I ? er ? got expelled
 but Dumbledore let me stay
>on as gamekeeper" this is apparently the shortened version of 
>things.
>Actually, Molly remembers Ogg, who was "the gamekeeper before 
>Hagrid"
>(GoF, Ch. 31, p. 617 US) although she was at Hogwarts 10 ? 20 years
>after Hagrid was expelled. It thus seems that Dippet only appointed
>Hagrid to be Ogg's apprentice for many years. Quite logical, as 
>Hagrid
>was only 13 or 14 years old when he was expelled. It seems Hagrid 
>was
>promoted to gamekeeper only after Molly left Hogwarts. My guess 
>would
>be that it happened in the beginning of the 70's when DD became
>headmaster.

Talisman:
Where do you get your assertions about Molly's age? Why do you think 
she wasn't the same generation as Hagrid--or older?  At least Hagrid 
has all his hair (sorry Arthur).

Hagrid repeatedly speaks of being made gamekeeper, never of being 
made assistant to.

Let's stick with canon, not invention.


Neri:
> There is indeed *one* detail here that suggests an involvement of
> DD: the fact that the feathers came from *his* phoenix. .

Magda:
I'm not sure that's true, though. Fawkes is probably about 400 years
old (if he was only named for someone who lived in the early 17th
century) and might have given up those two feathers anytime over the
centuries. And the wands themselves might be a couple hundred years
old too, just sitting on the shelves collecting dust before their
destined owners show up and claim them.

So DD might not have been involved at all, except for the rather
passive involvement of being Fawkes' most recent owner.

Talisman:
The problem is, Magda, that while Rowling gave us the information 
that signals a connection, what you suggest is a matter of a-
canonical invention.  Explaining away canon with invention is the 
antithesis of literary analysis.  Why not invent that the phoenix is 
2000 year old and used to be called Nefertiti, but received the name 
Fawkes from his most recent owner?

Talisman, putting it all back in the Pensieve, and heading for the 
Forbidden Forest..

"Allow me to offer my congratulations on the truly admirable skill 
you have shown in keeping clear of the mark. Not to have hit once in 
so many trials, argues the most splendid talents for missing." 
 Thomas De Quincey


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






From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 15:47:55 2005
From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (mgrantwich)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:47:55 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d23htu+57o5@...>
Message-ID: <d2407b+ain1@...>


> Magda:
> I'm not sure that's true, though. Fawkes is probably about 400 
> years old (if he was only named for someone who lived in the early 
> 17th century) and might have given up those two feathers anytime 
> over the centuries. And the wands themselves might be a couple 
> hundred years old too, just sitting on the shelves collecting dust 
> before their destined owners show up and claim them.
> 
> So DD might not have been involved at all, except for the rather
> passive involvement of being Fawkes' most recent owner.
> 
> Talisman:
> The problem is, Magda, that while Rowling gave us the information 
> that signals a connection, what you suggest is a matter of a-
> canonical invention.  Explaining away canon with invention is the 
> antithesis of literary analysis.  Why not invent that the phoenix 
> is 2000 year old and used to be called Nefertiti, but received the 
> name Fawkes from his most recent owner?


Well, for one thing, because Fawkes is a boy-Phoenix and Nefertiti 
is a girl-phoenix name.  (As my neice would say: "DUH!") 

What you call an "a-canonical invention" I call a credible 
supposition based on information given to us in canon.  Phoenixes 
have a continual loop of birth-aging-burning-rebirth (according to 
Dumbledore, COS, Chapter 12).  Therefore it's plausible (and imo 
quite likely) that Fawkes is hundreds of years old and therefore 
could have given up those feathers for the wands at any point during 
that time, rather than giving them up during the relatively short 
period that Dumbledore has owned him.

A complete invention of the kind you're suggesting would be that 
Fawkes was in fact owned by Nicholas Flamel and given to Dumbledore 
just before Harry arrived at Hogwarts.  No, nothing in canon 
contradicts it (Dumbledore never says how long he owned the bird) 
but I think it would raise an important question at the publishing 
house (editor: why bother to make something so complicated?  just 
have Dumbledore own the bird; JKR: okay).

I distrust complicated theories; I prefer the simpler ones.

Magda






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 16:04:36 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:04:36 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d23htu+57o5@...>
Message-ID: <d2416k+5h58@...>


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

<snip>

>> Neri:
>> So maybe this is why JKR arranged for The Expert to debrief us 
>> early on regarding the pertinent facts. It's a thing that authors 
>> do, especially in fantasy books.
> 
> Talisman:
> I have an aced-out degree in English Literature, thanks,  and do 
> not require advice on reading from a mouse poop expert.  You might 
> read up on the linguistic philosophy of Pragmatics (Paul Grice's 
> term) which will explain to you how fiction writers violate the 
> Maxim of Quantity, especially mystery writers.  You may find that 
> you have to keep reading past the first pages.

Ah, academic credentials--ever the arbiter of truth.  Will you show 
me yours if I show you mine?

I suspect that neither Neri or I buy your ideas about the 'cross-
pollination' of Harry and Voldemort picked up on by the Sorting Hat, 
combined with the pairing of the wands being explicitly orchestrated 
by Dumbledore.  Fortunately, this is the sort of thing that is likely 
to, if it is true, be overtly supported.  If not it falls by the 
wayside, and the reader of that idea is left rather with Iser's 
conception of reading as a continual process of negation, where the 
set of potential patterns he had picked up on is not the one that's 
actualized.

Such are the dangers of playing with a work of fiction that is 
positing questions that it already knows the answers to.

> Talisman:
> Oh, you sure do expect them to be different, Neri. You expect wands 
> to be un-tamperable agents of fate. 
> 
> My point, which you seem set on missing, is that all of these 
> magical items were "programmed."  For instance, the mirrors you 
> referenced are bewitched to achieve the ends of the bewitcher.  The 
> Mirror of Erised doesn't say "tuck in your shirt scruffy" and the 
> mirror at the Leaky Cauldron doesn't show you your heart's desire.  
> These mirrors didn't decided for themselves what functions they 
> would have.  
> 
> Once you acknowledge that a wizard decides how magical objects will 
> function, you have to stop precluding DD's involvement with the 
> wands.  When you see, via Fleur, that wands can be custom-made, and 
> you look at DD's connection to certain wand cores and their 
> recipients, you have to agree that he could be tampering. 

There's a slight non sequitur there between "DD is able to determine 
what the core of the wand is" and "the wand chooses the wizard".  
Just because Dumbledore has Fawkes give two feathers (although Fawkes 
is not a mere pet, per FB) does not mean that Dumbledore has the 
power to explicitly determine the recipient of the wand.  It is 
questionable to consider wands in the same category of determination 
as the other magical objects listed above.
  
> Talisman:
> Wrong again.
> 1) If you can't see what a liar DD is by now, there is no hope.

Here's my small problem with this supposition.  Let's assume that 
right now we can argue either that DD is a liar or that he is not, or 
that he is in some cases and isn't in others.  The test of this will 
be what kind of problems and solutions each situation generates, and 
whether this matches up with the further revelation of information 
along the way.

Trying to work out things like "What did DD know and what didn't he" 
according to strict logical principles is an exercise in frustration, 
because all the outcomes become (at present) slightly ridiculous.  
It's enough to at times make one throw up one's hands and realize 
that fiction works upon its own rules.

> 2) What you can rely on in the books is the same thing you can rely 
> on in life--which can be rather a joke--but is not a smoked 
> kipper.  You can listen for inconsistencies in what people say.  
> You can evaluate what people say based on what actually happens.  
> You can decide they are lying when things don't match up.

The problem is that "doesn't match up" is a judgement which very 
strongly depends on the perspective on the text that one is taking, 
and which potential patterns one is choosing to regard as important.  
I get the impression that Rowling has very distinct ideas about what 
is going on and what is actually going to happen, and it's that 
latter factor that is going to retrospectively disqualify a number of 
readings that were valid at the time.

Dumbledore lies from your perspective, but there are potential 
perspectives from which he does not.  I will bet you that those are 
the ones that are going to be given support.

In fact, I'll bet you that most of the conspiracy theories will go 
down, the DISHWASHER for sure.  I'm probably wrong in an infinite 
number of aspects--speculation is not my metier--but we have to have 
something to do while waiting.

Oh, and one more thing.  The snide tone?  I think it would like to be 
funny, but at least from this perspective it comes off as 
patronizing, regarding which the last laugh will rest upon accuracy, 
the one area where none of us have much to stand on at the moment.  
Except for Faith.  She's the real survivor.

-Nora catalogs the saints, fortunately not into Three Acts






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 16:04:55 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:04:55 +0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
Message-ID: <89d653ac62e853758df9b5974f7e1783@...>

 > Snow:
 > For some reason this made me think of JKR's statement on her site
 > that if Ginny would have died that Voldemort would have become
 > something almost unconquerable:
 >
 > Section: F.A.Q.
 > In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died
 > and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
 > "I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it
 > would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably."
 >
 > If Riddle had re-birthed himself using Ginny's soul Tom would have
 > possibly become the pureblood that Salazar needed being as his own
 > last remaining heir was born half pure grain muggle and therefore of
 > little value to the cause. After all Riddle said in the Chamber that
 > his diary self was there to someday lead another, not himself in
 > particular, to continue Slytherin's noble work:
 >
 > "I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old
 > self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to
 > lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble
 > work." COS pg. 312 U.S.
 >

Kneasy:
Neat, very neat.
And if true his use of the phrase 'noble work' is a very nice pun.
Mind  you, he could have started the process earlier - he could have 
slipped the Diary to Draco. Now that would have been fun, he could have 
gone down the DE Glee Club bragging about "my son, the Evil Overlord".

In retrospect there's an awful lot of stuff in CoS, particularly in the 
climactic scene, that could turn out to be well worth teasing apart. 
Yes, we've all offered opinions, but it's one of the books from before 
the time the mass discussions got started. I may be mistaken but my 
impression is that more often than not it's used to mine material that 
can be quoted to support a theory rather than as a starting point in 
it's own right.

An example of what  I mean - Ginny is possessed but states quite 
categorically in OoP that her possessed mind was a blank, she can 
remember nothing of what went on. Harry's possession in the Ministry is 
just the opposite; technicolour, 3-D and with Dolby sen-surround. OK, 
Voldy was in control for a very short time, but that period should be a 
blank, shouldn't it? Why the difference? Are there different types or 
qualities of possession?

Would Voldy have drained the life out of Harry  as Tom was draining it 
out of Ginny? Probably not IMO, or the taunting of DD to zap Harry 
wouldn't have been necessary. Though I've never really understood why 
stabbing the Diary would destroy Construct!Tom yet leave Ginny unharmed 
- they had one life between them, didn't they? So if that life is 
terminated why did Ginny wake up?

And is it significant that Ginny's possession, what with the total 
blankness, seems suspiciously similar to Sybil having one of her funny 
turns? Who is pulling Sybil's strings? Now there's a question! A happy 
hunting ground for  Puppetmaster!DD enthusiasts. A 'seer' known to be 
as much use as a chocolate teapot suddenly starts spouting a 
mind-boggling prophecy at a time and place where DD is the only witness 
to the full business and an 'eavesdropper' just happens to be close 
enough to  hear a part before being 'discovered' and ejected - and the 
part overheard when passed on to Voldy (who at the time is winning 
more-or-less hands down) causes him to do something most unwise and 
come a cropper. Oh yes. What a coincidence. Pull the other one for a 
veritable tintinnabulatory carnival of campanology.

Do you know, I only thought of the above while I was typing the 
previous but one paragraph - but I like it. Nastily devious. And just 
who was  DD warning Harry about when Sybil coughed up the prophecy in 
PoA? Seems such a shame to  jump  all over Sirius again, but I can't 
help it. Couldn't happen to a nicer feller.


 > snow:
 > Did you notice that no one went to school with Tom, other than Hagrid
 > and Myrtle, the majority of the deatheaters being significantly
 > younger than Riddle ....


Kneasy:
There's a strong possibility that McGonagall was at Hogwarts at roughly 
the same time.
She's the right age bracket (thought to have been at Hogwarts from 
about '36 to about '43 which would put her a couple of years ahead of 
Tom) and yet so far she hasn't been used as the source for one single 
piece of info.
Very odd when you consider how natural it would be to use her for 
filling in background.




 > Talisman:
 > > Moreover, unless he is "much
 > > mistaken" DD knows LV transferred some of his own powers to [Harry]
 > > the night he gave [him] that scar." ( CoS 333)  Why? Okay
 > > Parseltongues are rare, notwithstanding Herpo the Foul, and others,
 > > implied by reference in FBWTFT, at p3.  But, why is it *powers*
 > > plural?  What other power is Harry evincing by the end of Book 2?
 > > Sort of a strange thing for DD to be so sure about.
 >
 > Anne:
 > *jumps up and down*
 > My possession theory! Buried somewhere in HPfGU, but can be easily
 > accessed here (public archives, you know):
 >
 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/3231
 >
 > Just in case anyone's interested...
 >
 > That's all I can contribute this morning (such as it is).  Kneasy, can
 > I buy you a pint or two for starting this thread?
 >
 > Anne


Kneasy:
First time I've seen this one, don't remember seeing it on HPfGU and I 
visit Hogs Head maybe every lambing season.

Can't see why it can't happen, if minds can switch back and forth  then 
the potential should be there for Harry to  drop in and take control.

Interesting.
I'll have to give this one some thought, figure out the possibilities - 
if I can. 




From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 26 22:36:01 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:36:01 -0000
Subject: Wands to Order Was:Re: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d2416k+5h58@...>
Message-ID: <d24o4h+bfnr@...>


Argh. Tiny font in reply box! *squints* 

Nora:
> There's a slight non sequitur there between "DD is able to determine 
> what the core of the wand is" and "the wand chooses the wizard".  
> Just because Dumbledore has Fawkes give two feathers (although Fawkes 
> is not a mere pet, per FB) does not mean that Dumbledore has the 
> power to explicitly determine the recipient of the wand.  It is 
> questionable to consider wands in the same category of determination 
> as the other magical objects listed above.

Anne:
If you don't like to allow for Dumbledore to determine a specific
wizard, surely we can go a long way toward the idea just by looking at
the canon.

Ollivander describes Lily's wand: 'Ten and a quarter inches long,
swishy, made of willow. Nice wand for charm work.'  And that's without
even mentioning the core, or that of James.  Does the same for other
wands, including the cores this time - the ones he has Harry try. 

He says, 'No two Ollivander wands are the same, just as no two
unicorns, dragons, or phoenixes are quite the same.'  The variables we
know of are core, wood, length, flexibility; the particular animal
used matters, and it's a safe bet so does the particular tree (and we
know not every tree is a "wand tree").  

Later, in GoF, we find Cedric's core came from a particularly fine
male unicorn (must have been seventeen hands high) that nearly gored
Ollivander when he plucked the tail hair with his own hands.

And besides all this, you could never convince me that old Ollivander
doesn't have plenty more secrets in his wandmaking that he hasn't
told, otherwise anybody could slap a core into a bowtruckle's twig and
call it a wand.

We know Dumbledore and Ollivander consult with each other about
Harry's wand: Mr. O. wrote DD immediately when Harry bought it. So
it's no real stretch to imagine that earlier, Dumbledore told
Ollivander what kind of wands he wanted made: ones for powerful
wizards, ones good for wizards powerful in certain ways.  Both of
them, or just the second; theorise both ways if you want to. James'
wand was good for tranfiguration, Lily's good for charms.  What powers
can phoenix feathers be good for? Fawkes' feathers?  What power might
Dumbledore have asked for in that wand Ollivander made of holly?

There're possibilities here. Let's play.

Nora: 
> Trying to work out things like "What did DD know and what didn't he" 
> according to strict logical principles is an exercise in frustration, 
> because all the outcomes become (at present) slightly ridiculous.  
> It's enough to at times make one throw up one's hands and realize 
> that fiction works upon its own rules.

Anne:
Aw. That's no fun.

Nora:
> the last laugh will rest upon accuracy, 
> the one area where none of us have much to stand on at the moment.  
> Except for Faith.  She's the real survivor.

Anne:
Heh.  I believe the real Faith is tougher and twistier than many
people think.

By the way, "the wand chooses the wizard" need not cause so much
trouble among the readership.  There's no need to anthropomorphise the
products of Ollivander's skill.

Suppose it was up to the wizard to go into Ollivander's shop and
choose a wand for himself -- he'd probably pick a core of his favorite
animal, maybe he likes oak better than ash, and I'm sure all the boys
want the longest ones. :P  But, not being experts on wands, they have
no way of picking the one that suits their particular talents best.

"The wand chooses the wizard" in my opinion, merely means that, when a
wizard finally picks up and waves one right for him, the wand responds
- resonates to him, if you will.  No brain required, yet still driven
by the qualities of the individual wand.  Simple, no?

Anne
being rushed out to dinner by hungry family; will proofread later. ;)







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 05:55:45 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 05:55:45 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <89d653ac62e853758df9b5974f7e1783@...>
Message-ID: <d25ht1+6c87@...>





?	Snow previously:
> For some reason this made me think of JKR's statement on her site
> that if Ginny would have died that Voldemort would have become
> something almost unconquerable:
>
> Section: F.A.Q.
> In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died
> and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
> "I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but 
it
> would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably."
>
> If Riddle had re-birthed himself using Ginny's soul Tom would have
> possibly become the pureblood that Salazar needed being as his own
> last remaining heir was born half pure grain muggle and therefore of
> little value to the cause. After all Riddle said in the Chamber that
> his diary self was there to someday lead another, not himself in
> particular, to continue Slytherin's noble work:
>
> "I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old
> self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to
> lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble
> work." COS pg. 312 U.S.
>

Kneasy:
Neat, very neat.
And if true his use of the phrase 'noble work' is a very nice pun.
Mind you, he could have started the process earlier - he could have
slipped the Diary to Draco. Now that would have been fun, he could 
have
gone down the DE Glee Club bragging about "my son, the Evil Overlord".

Snow:

Not quite because Riddle actually absorbed Ginny's soul little by 
little until he became powerful enough that she had no will of her 
own and directed her to the Chamber with her last bodily function 
where he attempted to suck out what remained of her. Draco would have 
been used in much the same manner, which is why I think Lucius did 
not subject his son to the diary but used his nemesis own child, also 
pureblood, as the tool.

Kneasy:

In retrospect there's an awful lot of stuff in CoS, particularly in 
the
climactic scene, that could turn out to be well worth teasing apart.
Yes, we've all offered opinions, but it's one of the books from before
the time the mass discussions got started. I may be mistaken but my
impression is that more often than not it's used to mine material that
can be quoted to support a theory rather than as a starting point in
it's own right.


Snow:

Absolutely! The first two books have the meat of the story but we 
have all fallen into the trap of taking too much into consideration 
thereafter, which only seems to complicate theorizing. The main list 
has gone over every chapter of the latest book but it appears to be 
of no avail or very little. If you start at the first book and go 
chapter for chapter you have four more books of knowledge to add to 
the chapter that you are examining, much more lucrative.  

Kneasy:

An example of what I mean - Ginny is possessed but states quite
categorically in OoP that her possessed mind was a blank, she can
remember nothing of what went on. Harry's possession in the Ministry 
is
just the opposite; technicolour, 3-D and with Dolby sen-surround. OK,
Voldy was in control for a very short time, but that period should be 
a
blank, shouldn't it? Why the difference? Are there different types or
qualities of possession?

Snow:

Interesting
though Ginny did seem to be aware of what was happening 
to some extent when she attempted to tell Harry of her concerns but 
Percy showed up and she stopped short or when she attempted to rid 
herself of the diary. Possibly the longer that Riddle possessed Ginny 
the less free will she had and remembrance or concerns of the events. 

Harry's possession on the other hand reminds me of the "Never-ending 
Story" when Atrayu (sic) met with himself in the mirror. Only people 
who can see themselves for who they are can look and not be afraid or 
in Harry's case feel pain. Harry had had a similar reaction in GOF 
when he tried to remember what Voldemort looked like when he turned 
his chair and killed Frank Bryce (like looking in a mirror). You made 
me think of this when you paralleled Harry and Tom Riddle to the 
point that they appeared to be one person looking at two sides of the 
same. No one likes to see the bad side of who they are or what they 
may become. Harry may have to face himself or that which he could 
become if he does not acknowledge the difference between the two, 
that is choice.

Kneasy:

Would Voldy have drained the life out of Harry as Tom was draining it
out of Ginny? Probably not IMO, or the taunting of DD to zap Harry
wouldn't have been necessary. Though I've never really understood why
stabbing the Diary would destroy Construct!Tom yet leave Ginny 
unharmed
- they had one life between them, didn't they? So if that life is
terminated why did Ginny wake up?

Snow:

But wasn't Ginny actually being sucked into the Diary via its master 
(Tom Riddle 50 years ago) who was using her to gain his strength? If 
the object that was used to keep them joined was destroyed wouldn't 
it release Ginny? Riddle was still just a memory inside the diary 
until he could be totally released from the diary by using the soul 
that he claims he needed:

"So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be 
exactly what I wanted
I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her 
deepest fears, her darkest secrets." COS PG 310 U. S. 


Kneasy:

And is it significant that Ginny's possession, what with the total
blankness, seems suspiciously similar to Sybil having one of her funny
turns? Who is pulling Sybil's strings? Now there's a question! A 
happy hunting ground for Puppetmaster!DD enthusiasts.

Snow:

Ahhh! Trelawney, one of my very favorites! A very good connection, 
one I've never connected, sounds very similar. Trelawney and Ginny 
don't remember all they've said or done. To what degree may Trelawney 
have been used to benefit the outcome?

Kneasy:

A 'seer' known to be as much use as a chocolate teapot suddenly 
starts spouting a mind-boggling prophecy at a time and place where DD 
is the only witness to the full business and an 'eavesdropper' just 
happens to be close enough to hear a part before being 'discovered' 
and ejected - and the part overheard when passed on to Voldy (who at 
the time is winning
more-or-less hands down) causes him to do something most unwise and
come a cropper. Oh yes. What a coincidence. Pull the other one for a
veritable tintinnabulatory carnival of campanology.

Snow:

So I take it you don't like the lovely Ms. Trelawney much, nor do 
many others. I wont go off on her because it is very unimportant to 
the scheme of things but the eavesdropper business is just too much. 
Dumbledore and/or the barkeep were well aware that this person had 
heard any extent of the prophecy and they allowed him a slap on the 
wrist with a lifetime ban to a low-life pub, doesn't seem to make a 
lick of sense unless they used this person to their benefit. (Dung 
comes to mind) If they couldn't use this person why didn't they just 
use a memory charm on him so that any information he had could not be 
remembered nor repeated? Seems apropos that they use this character 
to their benefit if he could be gently influenced (the Dursley's) to 
do so.

 
Kneasy:

Do you know, I only thought of the above while I was typing the
previous but one paragraph - but I like it. Nastily devious. And just
who was DD warning Harry about when Sybil coughed up the prophecy in
PoA? Seems such a shame to jump all over Sirius again, but I can't
help it. Couldn't happen to a nicer feller.

Snow:

Although Sirius is my favorite, if I had one, I have to concur that 
since the two-way-mirror answer on Rowlings site I have been a bit 
suspicious. Although as I have brought up in the past on the main 
list, the chapter in POA The Servant of Lord Voldemort begins with 
Snape as its main subject, though I must admit where Sirius or Snape 
are concerned I sometimes don't see the forest for the trees. 


> snow previous:
> Did you notice that no one went to school with Tom, other than 
Hagrid
> and Myrtle, the majority of the deatheaters being significantly
> younger than Riddle ....


Kneasy:
There's a strong possibility that McGonagall was at Hogwarts at 
roughly
the same time.
She's the right age bracket (thought to have been at Hogwarts from
about '36 to about '43 which would put her a couple of years ahead of
Tom) and yet so far she hasn't been used as the source for one single
piece of info.
Very odd when you consider how natural it would be to use her for
filling in background.

Snow:

McGonagall is another character with very little real page time who 
will, most likely in the upcoming book, reveal some interesting 
insight. Where else can Rowling go with book six that will use filler 
with no real substance to theorize with? 

Ahhh! Just waiting for more anguish from a book that will ultimately 
give more evasion than answer. Don't you just love Rowling, cough, 
Dumbledore
I mean Rowling. 

Snow







From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 15:43:16 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:43:16 -0000
Subject: Soul-less Existence
In-Reply-To: <d220jp+doq0@...>
Message-ID: <d26kak+vjee@...>


> Eustace_Scrubb:
> > And what exactly did happen to Barty Jr. after the Kiss?  If we 
can
> > believe Lupin, the victim, although worse than dead, isn't in 
fact,
> > clinically dead.  Without the soul, the victim has "no sense of 
> > self anymore, no memory," but the brain and heart may still be 
> > working.  So is Barty in a special ward of St. Mungo's with other
> > Kiss victims, just existing, being fed via tubes?  To what extent
> > are their brains still working?  
> 
> Jen: That would be a considerable justice system problem after 
> awhile, as the bodies pile up. Ethical dilemma. This strikes me as 
> one of those questions you could ask JKR and she'd say, "oh, he's 
> living with his grandparetns and they care for him." Either that 
or 
> she has a plan to reveal more about some sinister MOM plot and 
we'll 
> get to see that ward at St. Mungos or somesuch place.

Sinister MOM plot?  The Wizarding world's executive and legislative 
branches machinating around the fate of a single individual whose 
intelligence has gone?  Oh, please.  It's too far-fetched.  I know 
we are dealing with a fantasy series, but I hope the plot retains 
*some* credibility.

David






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 20:09:32 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:09:32 -0000
Subject: Dementor's Kiss /  Molly's Age
Message-ID: <d273ts+fk80@...>


Catlady is suffering severe mental confusion from what Yahoo!mort has
done to webview of group messages.

Catlady applauds all of Nora's post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1460 but wonders
why Nora is cataloging saints.

Eustace_Scrubb wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1442 :

<< And what exactly did happen to Barty Jr. after the Kiss? If we can
believe Lupin, the victim, although worse than dead, isn't in fact,
clinically dead. Without the soul, the victim has "no sense of self
anymore, no memory," but the brain and heart may still be working. So
is Barty in a special ward of St. Mungo's with other Kiss victims,
just existing, being fed via tubes? To what extent are their brains
still working? >>

IIRC Sirius's reminiscence of Azkaban was that most prisoners 'go mad'
from depression and despair, waste away, and die. (I don't think he
specified 'stop eating' as the reason for wasting away, but it fits.)

Maybe they didn't actually waste away because of going mad, maybe they
wasted away because of having been Kissed but left in their cells with
no feeding tube, etc.

Neri wrote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1455 :

<< Actually, Molly remembers Ogg, who was "the gamekeeper before
Hagrid" (GoF, Ch. 31, p. 617 US) although she was at Hogwarts 10
? 20 years after Hagrid was expelled. >>

Talisman replied in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1458 :

<< Where do you get your assertions about Molly's age? Why do you
think she wasn't the same generation as Hagrid--or older? At least
Hagrid has all his hair (sorry Arthur). >>

I think it's the same chapter in GoF (where families visit the
Champions before the Third Task) in which Molly not only tells stories
about Ogg, the gamekeeper before Hagrid, but also reminisces of Arthur
having been caught by Apollyon Pringle, the custodian before Filch.
>From this, and the geneally middle-aged appearance of the parental
Weasleys, I long assumed that Arthur and Molly were at Hogwarts with
Minerva and Tom (and maybe Hooch, as she is grey-haired). That left
the problem of explaining why they left school in the 1940s and waited
until the 1960s to have two kids, and then waited another
approximately 8 years to have another herd of kids.

But JKR on her website has recently insisted there was no big gap
between Weasley children -- Charlie's last year at Hogwarts was
immediately before Harry's first, and Bill is two years older than
Charlie -- so all those people were right who insisted that Bill's
line in the same GoF chapter ("I haven't seen this place for five
years") referred to when he left school, not to some Old Boy visit,
such as checking some Hogwarts Library books for a curse-breaking
assignment...

So if there is no gap between Weasley children to explain away (and
the stuff about not having won the Quidditch Cup for seven years,
since the legendary Charlie Weasley was Seeker, and winning it in PoA
in Oliver Wood's seventh year was the only time Wood won it, has to be
somehow ignored as Harry misunderstood or JKR can't do Maths), then it
might well be that there is no long wait to start having children,
either. If they had Bill in 1971 instead of 1966, maybe they left
school in 1970.

It's like, early in OoP, Herself informed us that Lucius Malfoy was
41. Making him born in 1954 like my DH (which really irritated me,
because I had him born in 1949) which makes him leave school in 1971
... which makes Arthur and Lucius having been in school together,
where no doubt they were the same incarnation of Gryffindor/Slytherin
rivalry as Harry/Draco and James/Severus ... as many naive readers had
assumed from their silly fight in the bookstore in CoS...

Filch seems pretty old. Even if Squibs age like Muggles AND he doesn't
take care of himself, he must be in his late 50s at least. (Being 47
myself, I yearned to say 'late 60s at least', but I must admit that a
lot can be accomplished by not taking care of oneself.) If he was 50
in PS/SS in 1991-2, then he was 30 in 1971-72, the earliest year he
could have got the job under the current hypothesis of Molly's age. I
suppose it's possible he had been kicking around his parents' house
(or sleeping in an alley eating out of garbage cans) and becoming ever
more bitter until that age...






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 20:22:50 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:22:50 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d25ht1+6c87@...>
Message-ID: <d274mq+kuqh@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at g...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ahhh! Trelawney, one of my very favorites! A very good connection, 
> one I've never connected, sounds very similar. Trelawney and Ginny 
> don't remember all they've said or done. To what degree may Trelawney 
> have been used to benefit the outcome?
> 
> So I take it you don't like the lovely Ms. Trelawney much, nor do 
> many others. I wont go off on her because it is very unimportant to 
> the scheme of things but the eavesdropper business is just too much. 
> Dumbledore and/or the barkeep were well aware that this person had 
> heard any extent of the prophecy and they allowed him a slap on the 
> wrist with a lifetime ban to a low-life pub, doesn't seem to make a 
> lick of sense unless they used this person to their benefit. (Dung 
> comes to mind) If they couldn't use this person why didn't they just 
> use a memory charm on him so that any information he had could not be 
> remembered nor repeated? Seems apropos that they use this character 
> to their benefit if he could be gently influenced (the Dursley's) to 
> do so.
> 
>

Kneasy:
Like?
I think she's vastly entertaining - a daft old bat, totally useless, who manages
to fool no-one but herself. Wonderful character.

And there are other reasons too - we can draw a wonderful parallel. 
(If you're the slightest bit egotistical, don't read this. You might get huffy.)  

The parallel is with us, the fans.

Where Sybil totally fails to get it right using Astrology, Crystallomancy and
Tasseography (tea leaves), we mange to get it wrong using Stichomancy 
(divination of the future by means of passages in books). What a splendid
irony when we castigate her for being a bumbler!

To add to the merriment, there are those who counsel that we should be
sensible and logical in making predictions about a bunch of books that have 
as their basic premise an idea (a magical boy and a magical world) which is 
totally nonsensical, illogical, not to say downright impossible.

Sometimes I sit in front of my computer screen giggling uncontrollably; it's
all just too hilarious and ridiculous for words. Then I start composing my
next post incorporating the next outrageous idea - and I start laughing again.
I have a lot of fun on these boards but I'm pretty sure that most of the fans,
if they stopped and thought about it, would agree that it's all totally barmy.

Mind you, I'm fairly sure I'm not being manipulated by DD, so I'm ahead
of Sybil on points - 'cos the more I think about it, the more attractive the 
idea that she is seems.

Must think about putting together a fairly comprehensive post about
Sybil, raise her profile a bit. Hopefully it might get some member's brain
to come up with a new idea or two that we can have some fun with.






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 22:32:29 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:32:29 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d25ht1+6c87@...>
Message-ID: <d27c9t+h2dd@...>


> Snow previously:
> > Section: F.A.Q.
> > In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died
> > and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?
> > "I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but 
> it
> > would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably."
> >
> > If Riddle had re-birthed himself using Ginny's soul Tom would have
> > possibly become the pureblood that Salazar needed being as his own
> > last remaining heir was born half pure grain muggle and therefore of
> > little value to the cause. 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Neat, very neat.


Neri:
Yes. I wonder if Voldy chose to attack baby Harry because he was
saving pureblood Neville as a possible resource.


> Kneasy:
> 
> In retrospect there's an awful lot of stuff in CoS, particularly in 
> the
> climactic scene, that could turn out to be well worth teasing apart.
> Yes, we've all offered opinions, but it's one of the books from before
> the time the mass discussions got started. I may be mistaken but my
> impression is that more often than not it's used to mine material that
> can be quoted to support a theory rather than as a starting point in
> it's own right.
> 
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Absolutely! The first two books have the meat of the story but we 
> have all fallen into the trap of taking too much into consideration 
> thereafter, which only seems to complicate theorizing. The main list 
> has gone over every chapter of the latest book but it appears to be 
> of no avail or very little. If you start at the first book and go 
> chapter for chapter you have four more books of knowledge to add to 
> the chapter that you are examining, much more lucrative.  
>


Neri:
I couldn't agree more. CoS is usually my favorite book, and I think it
reveals the most about the whole series. JKR said she had nearly let
out everything in CoS. But I suspect there are additional reasons why
it wasn't much theorized about. CoS is perhaps the most corny book of
the series. Nobody we were sure was good in the beginning is found out
to be evil in the end, and no one we thought was evil is found out to
be good (unless you count Dobby, which I don't). CoS is the most
romantic, fairytale style, with the hero with a magic sword going to
save the maiden in distress. But perhaps most of all, CoS is the most
metaphysical. It's the book were Harry finds himself in the climax
against a kid that looks like the mirror image of himself but is truly
evil, rather than against something evil that looks evil (or at least
like a rat). CoS is the book that suggests evil is within us, not
simply in a stereotype bad guy with snake-like nostrils.

Of course, I'm just rambling. The true reason CoS is the least popular
book is much more straightforward ? it's the book in which Snape plays
his smallest role.


> Kneasy:
> 
> An example of what I mean - Ginny is possessed but states quite
> categorically in OoP that her possessed mind was a blank, she can
> remember nothing of what went on. Harry's possession in the Ministry 
> is
> just the opposite; technicolour, 3-D and with Dolby sen-surround. OK,
> Voldy was in control for a very short time, but that period should be 
> a
> blank, shouldn't it? Why the difference? Are there different types or
> qualities of possession?
> 
> Snow:
> <snip>
> 
> Harry's possession on the other hand reminds me of the "Never-ending 
> Story" when Atrayu (sic) met with himself in the mirror. Only people 
> who can see themselves for who they are can look and not be afraid or 
> in Harry's case feel pain. Harry had had a similar reaction in GOF 
> when he tried to remember what Voldemort looked like when he turned 
> his chair and killed Frank Bryce (like looking in a mirror). You made 
> me think of this when you paralleled Harry and Tom Riddle to the 
> point that they appeared to be one person looking at two sides of the 
> same. No one likes to see the bad side of who they are or what they 
> may become. Harry may have to face himself or that which he could 
> become if he does not acknowledge the difference between the two, 
> that is choice.
> 

Neri:
When looking at the less metaphysical level, I think that the
difference between the two possessions is a mere difference in degree.
Harry was never completely possessed. He was still fighting not to
lose himself. It was a hostile takeover attempt and it failed. Ginny
opened her heart willingly, and she was much deeper into it. The
amnesia might simply be the decision of the possessor rather than an
obligatory side effect. Once the possessor takes control, shutting
down the possessed makes sense, especially if it's an annoying kid who
is not likely to cooperate and doesn't have any special magical
abilities that the possessor needs. Also, it was a simple tactical
decision ? as long as you still can't possess someone 24/7, you need
to hide from her the fact that she's possessed.


> Kneasy:
> 
> <snip> Though I've never really understood why
> stabbing the Diary would destroy Construct!Tom yet leave Ginny 
> unharmed
> - they had one life between them, didn't they? So if that life is
> terminated why did Ginny wake up?
> 
> Snow:
> 
> But wasn't Ginny actually being sucked into the Diary via its master 
> (Tom Riddle 50 years ago) who was using her to gain his strength? If 
> the object that was used to keep them joined was destroyed wouldn't 
> it release Ginny? Riddle was still just a memory inside the diary 
> until he could be totally released from the diary by using the soul 
> that he claims he needed:
> 
> "So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be 
> exactly what I wanted
I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her 
> deepest fears, her darkest secrets." COS PG 310 U. S. 
> 

Neri:
Mechanically speaking, JKR's magical constructs almost never make
complete sense, and it's not like I haven't tried. Does anyone here
really understand how Harry looked into the mirror of Erised and just
had the stone in his pocket? If so, PLEASE send me the flow chart. I
can think offhand of only one of her magical constructs that's really
fully consistent - the time-travel in PoA - and this is more standard
Sci-Fi than magic. But even that gets muddy once you add the Marauders
Map and Lupin's transformation. The potions riddle in SS/PS also seems
to work well, although according to the Lexicon there are actually two
possible solutions that I never bothered to work out. But this wasn't
magic at all. I suspect she filched it out of a crosswords journal and
just changed some details in the setting to make it more gothic. 


> 
> Kneasy:
> 
> And is it significant that Ginny's possession, what with the total
> blankness, seems suspiciously similar to Sybil having one of her funny
> turns? Who is pulling Sybil's strings? Now there's a question! A 
> happy hunting ground for Puppetmaster!DD enthusiasts.
> 

Neri:
Well, maybe he mixed Ginny and Trelawney because he was trying to
control so many puppets simultaneously <g>.

> Snow:
> 
> So I take it you don't like the lovely Ms. Trelawney much, nor do 
> many others. I wont go off on her because it is very unimportant to 
> the scheme of things but the eavesdropper business is just too much. 
> Dumbledore and/or the barkeep were well aware that this person had 
> heard any extent of the prophecy and they allowed him a slap on the 
> wrist with a lifetime ban to a low-life pub, doesn't seem to make a 
> lick of sense unless they used this person to their benefit. (Dung 
> comes to mind) If they couldn't use this person why didn't they just 
> use a memory charm on him so that any information he had could not be 
> remembered nor repeated? Seems apropos that they use this character 
> to their benefit if he could be gently influenced (the Dursley's) to 
> do so.

Neri:
Aren't you mixing things? It was Dung who was banned from the HH, but
we don't know that he was the eavesdropper.

DD didn't have any idea that he's going to hear anything important in
the HH, and then he was probably too occupied with Sybil's words to
pay attention to other things. My take is that he found out that there
was an eavesdropper only after the fact. Aberforth caught the
eavesdropper and threw him out, and only later told DD about it, when
the eavesdropper was already long gone. No wonder DD doesn't think
much about his brother's intellect. Alternatively, maybe Aberforth
failed to even tell DD later, and DD only found out that there was an
eavesdropper when Snape supplied him with information about Voldy's
plans. 

Neri







From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 22:53:54 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:53:54 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots - how Quirrell fits in (long - part 1)
In-Reply-To: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>
Message-ID: <d27di2+bsr7@...>


As Kneasy and Snow have pointed out in this thread, we tend to 
forget the early volumes as we pore over the latest books. As many 
on other lists know, I feel strongly that there is much overlooked 
in the first book. Including one character who has been written 
purposefully to be overlooked, and I think, to our peril.

The previous post was concerned with issues of possession and 
mirrors. How can one not speak of possession or mirrors without a 
mention of my favorite character, Quirrell?

Let's take a quick review of the Q-man.

Throughout the whole first book we are given bits of information 
about him, seemingly designed to inspire boredom and misdirection. 
We first meet him in the Leaky Cauldron where he is introduced as 
the stuttering and terrified teacher of Defense Against the Dark 
Arts. But, just as he starts getting interesting (from SS, page 70, 
editing out stuttering): 

"I've got to pick up a new book on vampires myself." 

Vampires? This IS interesting .. but, no. Our attention is 
immediately taken away:

But the others wouldn't let Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took 
almost ten minutes to get away from them all.

But the storyteller immediately refocuses back to Quirrell:

Hagrid grinned at Harry.

"Told yeh, didn't I? Told yeh you was famous. Even Professor 
Quirrell was tremblin' ter meet yeh ..."

Then we learn some backstory about Quirrell. According to Hagrid, he 
has a brilliant mind. He was a fine teacher while he was teaching 
out of books but then went on sabbatical to get more experience. We 
get an impression of a young and idealistic teacher, possibly with 
concerns of inadequecy, who is willing to invest himself in learning 
even more of his subject matter.

Throughout this book, everytime we hear about Quirrell, we are 
immediately pulled away into another area. Troll in the dungeon! No! 
Let's go find Hermione. Harry's broom is misbehaving! Snape is evil.

Of course, now we all know that we were being set up for the 
surprise in the dungeon. But what if we are being set up AGAIN for a 
big surprise in Book 7? Here's why I think that Quirrell is the key 
to everything:

Let's look at events in the dungeon, especially in light of other 
recent posts about Connecting Dots, and about possession, in 
particular.

Here we have Quirrell, fully possessed by Voldemort and revealed as 
having acted badly the whole year. Notice - his evil activities 
happened only while he was possessed. Prior to that, he was 
apparently frightened, but was never suspected of mischievous 
activity at school.

We know of two others who have been briefly possessed by Voldemort, 
Ginny and Harry. Ginny doesn't remember much of what happened while 
she was possessed. I get the impression that she was sort of a 
walking zombie during those times. Riddle says that he grew stronger 
and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears and darkest secrets. I 
can't help but think of a parallel here between a young girl at 
school and an young teacher in the forest. I can see how an 
impressionable Quirrell could have poured out his secrets and fears 
to a vaporous Voldy in an Albanian forest that Voldymist could have 
gained enough strength to travel to Hogwarts in some manner, 
simultaneously drawing enough strength from the young Quirrell to 
leave him fearful and stammering. Most readers think the stammering 
was an act, but are we certain?

In the dungeon, Quirrell is revealed to be literally the image of 
the Roman two-headed god Janus. In Roman mythology, Janus is the god 
of beginnings. Of gateways, change and transformations. Janus looks 
forward and backward, as a door is simultaneously an entrance and an 
exit. It is significant that the Voldy face is the backward-looking 
face of Janus in Quirrellmort. When Voldy advances, Quirrell walks 
backwards. When Quirrell is facing and attacking Harry, he regains 
some of his fearful and almost stuttering personality:

"Master, I cannot hold him - my hands - my hands!."

Personally, I think that Quirrell's true personality is an 
idealistic teacher with a healthy dose of insecurity. The same 
personal weakness that allowed Riddle to consume Ginny allowed 
Voldymist to consume Quirrell. At first, Quirrell acted as an agent, 
and then allowed Voldy full possession of his body.

So, what really happened in the dungeon? Check part 2 of this post-
series.

~ Constance Vigilance






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 22:56:48 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:56:48 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots - how Quirrell fits in (long - part 2)
In-Reply-To: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>
Message-ID: <d27dng+2b80@...>


--- Kneasy wrote:
> Connections.
> I love making connections.
> Joining the dots, seeing the Taj Mahal in a case of chickenpox.
> Tying this to that and that to the other.
> Slotting together bits and pieces like a jig-saw puzzle to make a 
> bigger picture - and besides, it keeps me out of mischief.
> 

Part 2 - what happened in the dungeon?

Let's see what we know:

Quirrell is resisting Voldy because of the physical pain that he is 
in:

"Master, I cannot hold him - my hands - my hands!."

But nonetheless, attempts to kill Harry for the stone.

Harry loses consciousness just as Dumbledore arrives. Voldy leaves.

Then there is missing time and Harry awakens in the hospital to 
learn that the stone has been destroyed.

What happened in the missing time?

Quirrell is near death when Voldy leaves. We are lead to believe he 
died. Voldy tells us in the graveyard a couple of books later that 
Quirrell died. Harry believes Quirrell died. The movie tells us 
Quirrell died. JKR's website even hints that Quirrell died. All 
right already! He's dead. Or is he? Quirrell's story has been 
completely about misdirection up until now. Are we being fooled 
again?

Here is what Dumbledore says about it in the hospital:

(Harry asks if Voldy is gone) "No, Harry, he has not. <snip> He left 
Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as 
his enemies."

Now, what does Voldy say about what happens to his body hosts in the 
graveyard?

"I sometimes inhabited animals - snakes of course being my 
preference - but I was little better off inside them as pure spirit, 
for their bodies were ill adapted to perform magic .. and my 
possession of them shortened their lives; none of them lasted long."

It seems as if the problem with animals was that animals were too 
dissimilar in form to a wizard parasite. During the length of the 
schoolyear when Voldy was possession Quirrell, there is no mention 
of a gradual degradation of his body. You would think that if he 
were in danger of dying from the possession, there would have been 
some talk of it "Gee, Professor Quirrell is looking rather poorly, 
wouldn't you say?" but nothing. In fact, he resists the taking of 
unicorn blood, so it does not seem as though the possession is 
taking a toll on his body. Nonetheless, he does drink the unicorn 
blood, twice! 

According to Firenze, "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, 
even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You 
will have a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood 
touches your lips."

"But who'd be that desperate?" [Harry] wondered aloud. "If you're 
going to be cursed forever, death's better, isn't it?"

"It is," Firenze agreed, "unless all you need is to live long enough 
to drink something else - something that will bring you back to full 
strength and power - something that will mean you can never die. Mr. 
Potter, do you know what is hidden in the school at this very 
moment?"

And not only is the Sorcerer's Stone hidden in the school, IT IS 
RIGHT THERE IN THE ROOM WHEN QUIRRELL NEEDS IT THE MOST! Along with 
a wizard who is uniquely gifted in its use. How convenient.

So, Quirrell is an inch from death, being kept alive by the unicorn 
blood. He is no longer possessed. What is the most likely thing to 
have happened next? Dumbledore either finished him off, or he didn't.

I believe that Dumbledore, who is after all an expert in Stone 
magic, used the stone to bring Quirrell back to full strength. This 
caused the destruction of the stone that he told Harry about in the 
hospital.

There is nothing in the books that definitively proves that Quirrell 
died in the dungeon, and in fact, plenty of arguments to the idea 
that Quirrell is alive. But what about that troublesome movie? 
Didn't JKR have veto power over the movie?

Well, maybe. I'm not sure she has as much power as we give her 
credit for. After all, in an collision between a writer's wishes and 
a cool special effect, which one wins? But nevertheless, this too 
can be addressed. Let's see what Voldy says about the powers of the 
Elixir of Life that comes from the Stone (SS, page 295):

".. once I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body 
of my own ..."

And then in the graveyard (GoF, p 656):

"There was no hope of stealing the Sorcerer's Stone anymore, for 
Dumbledore would have seen to it that it was destroyed. But I was 
willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality, I 
set my sights lower... I would settle for my old body back again, 
and my old strength."

Thus, we know that the power of the Sorcerer's Stone is that it 
allows one to create a NEW body. Steve Kloves, create what havoc as 
ye may, turn his body to dust if ye will, Quirrell can yet rise 
again!

OK. There is but one anti-clue remaining, and that lies at on the 
JKRowling web site. On the FAQ page, there is a question:

"Why could Harry see the Thestrals in "Order of the Phoenix"? 
Shouldn't he have been able to see them much earlier, because he saw 
his parents/Quirrell/Cedric die?"

And the answer (edited):

"He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. Harry had passed out before 
Quirrell died and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last 
chapter."

But, as we know from the Stone, it provides a NEW body! So the old 
Quirrell body could die while Harry was passed out and allow the Q-
man to live on! Dumbledore didn't even say that Quirrell died in the 
dungeon, but JKR made an excuse for him anyway. Misdirect! Misdirect!

I think after Dumbledore brought the dying Quirrell back to health 
using the Stone, they had a talk in the dungeon. Quirrell is now, 
once again, an idealistic young man, brilliant in mind and now 
experienced in Dark Arts practicals. He has the curse of the unicorn 
blood - a cursed eternal life - ahead of him. But can he work off 
some of the bad kharma?

What a great secret weapon is a powerful ally who everone believes 
is dead. What if Quirrell could secret himself out of the castle to 
some place where he could ready an army out of sight? 

Is there a secret way out of the castle? If I were writing a fanfic, 
I would have Quirrell escape from the dungeon through one of 
Myrtle's pipes to the lake, then take a First Year boat through the 
lake to Durmstrang. In fact, I think he has done this before. Which 
brings us to Grindelwald and Part 3.

~ Constance Vigilance






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 22:55:31 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:55:31 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d23htu+57o5@...>
Message-ID: <d27dl3+mch4@...>


> Talisman:
> You may choose to believe Binn's version: i.e. that no "learned 
> witches and wizards" ever found the chamber. (CoS 151) Of course, we 
> see that he is totally wrong about the existence of the chamber, and 
> the monster within.  Not only that, but he is denying the Chamber's 
> existence even though it was actually opened 50 years earlier.  He 
> apparently bought Riddle's old story about Hagrid and Aragog, hook, 
> line, and sinker. But, you and FAITH go ahead and buy Binn's second 
> hand misinformation, that's your, erm
choice. 

Neri:
I do trust Binns to know that many learned witches and wizards
searched many times for the chamber. He thinks it doesn't exist
*because* they could not find it. Of course I don't trust him to know
that no one ever found it. This is a much more specific and
confidential knowledge. My original point was: his information is
enough to suggest that young Tom Riddle had to be pretty bright to
find a chamber that at least some learned witches and wizards failed
to find. But luckily we don't have to count on Binns in this, as
there's enough additional canon to show that Tom was indeed very
bright. DD, when seeing the diary, used the words "probably the most
brilliant student Hogwarts has ever seen" (CoS, Ch. 18, p. 329 US).
But of course, DD's misinformation is even worse than that of Binns <g> .

> Talisman: 
> I'll choose to notice that Binns is obviously ignorant.  Moreover, 
> I'll notice that 1) DD knew that the Chamber truly did exist; 2) 
> knew that it had been opened fifty years ago; and 3) knew who was 
> responsible for reopening it. (CoS 181)
> 

Neri:
He knew all that by the time of *CoS*. But at that time he already
knew that Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort, and he had 50 years and
more than enough reason to investigate and find all kind of
interesting things, such as Voldemort being parselmouth and
Slytherin's last descendant. So concluding in hindsight that the
chamber exists and that it was Tom who opened it back then is easy.
But what did DD know 50 years ago? What could he prove? What did he
only suspect? And what was he not even suspecting? Aren't you
automatically picturing the aburn-hair transfiguration teacher of 50
years ago with all the wisdom, knowledge, authority and pets he has
today? 
  
> Talisman:
> I'll notice, too that Fawkes was able to find the Chamber with no 
> problem. <snip> 
> If Fawkes can pop in with the Sorting Hat in tow, what stopped him 
> from dropping off a few roosters a couple decades ago?  

Neri:
This is something that JKR explains, albeit not in a very obvious way.
You need to put together three separate passages:

CoS, Ch.14 pp. 263-264 US:
Dumbledore had not taken his bright blue eyes off Lucius Malfoy's cold
gray ones.
"However," said Dumbledore, speaking very slowly and clearly so that
none of them could miss a word, "you will find that I will only truly
have left this school when none here are loyal to me
 Help will always
be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."
For a second, Harry was almost sure Dumbledore's eyes flickered toward
the corner where he and Ron were hidden. 

CoS, Ch.17 pp. 214-315 US:
The smile had gone from Riddle's face, to be replaced by a very ugly look.
"Dumbledore's been driven out of this castle by the mere memory of
me!" he hissed.
"He's not as gone as you might think!" Harry retorted. He was speaking
at random, wanting to scare Riddle, wishing rather than believing it
to be true.
Riddle opened his mouth, but froze.
Music was coming from somewhere. Riddle whirled around to stare down
the empty Chamber. The music was growing louder. <snip> flames erupted
at the top of the nearest pillar.
A crimson bird the size of a swan had appeared
 

CoS, Ch. 8 pp. 332 US:
"First of all, Harry, I want to thank you," said Dumbledore, eyes
twinkling again. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the
Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you."


Connect these three pieces of puzzle and get the answer: Fawkes can
appear in any place at Hogwarts where someone who shows real loyalty
to DD needs help. Slightly corny and not very accurately specified,
but there's JKR for you. Note the "nothing but that *could* have
called Fawkes to you". It suggests Fawkes couldn't appear in the
chamber all by himself, not during CoS and not 50 years before. He had
to be "called" there. Powerful magic has its limits, or things would
be very boringly one sided.

> Talisman:
> We know that Fawkes has special traveling powers.  I won't call it 
> apparation because I know how important it is to you that we dither 
> about things like the differences between Legilimens and mind-
> reading, but it would seem that Fawkes arrived his own special way.

Neri:
You mean you actually noted that I'm an obsessive nitpicker? I
wouldn't be here otherwise. At least this time I'm together with Snape
in this. Regarding Fawkes' special way of arrival, I suggest referring
to it as disappearing and appearing ? it's written in FBAWTFT that
this is what phoenixes do. 
 
> Talisman:
> Actually, Neri, if you didn't mean free will, you should have 
> avoided the term of art,  especially since free will is so 
> frequently invoked (in lieu of canon)  by the "it's all about 
> choices"  camp to which you obviously belong.  
> 

Neri:
I wrote "free will" in quotes because canon says (twice) that the wand
"chooses" the wizard (BTW, it also refers to the two wands as
"brothers", another inappropriate anthropomorphism). If JKR didn't
mean it, she should have avoided the term of art, especially since she
invokes it in another context to which you are obviously opposed.
  
> Talisman:
> What you meant was that the wand gets to decide, as if that excludes 
> wizard tampering.  What all my subsequent paragraphs on the topic 
> reveal is that Rowling has gone to the bother of showing us how 
> wands may be designed for specific wizards.  

Neri:
I'll try to spell again what I meant. If the wand was tampered by DD
to "choose" Harry, then Harry and Tom being similar is irrelevant. The
wand would have "chosen" Harry in any case, because this is what it
was programmed to do. If, OTOH, JKR's point was to show that Harry and
Tom are similar (which she has gone to a bother to show) then
programming the wands to choose them anyway would undermine her point.
You can of course disagree that Harry and Tom are similar, but this
was my argument and the fact that wands *can* be designed was
irrelevant to it. 

> Talisman:  
> I do not think the prophecies play a crucial role.  I 
> think the prophecies are fairly meaningless.  Perhaps you would like 
> to tell me who Voldemort's most faithful servant is?
> 
> Not Wormtail, that's certain. Do you vote for Barty Jr.?  Would that 
> mean that he was shrugging off the Imperius for the first time 
> sometime before midnight on that fateful day in PoA?  <snip>

Neri:
I'm not sure what exactly you mean here. In the book I have (PoA,
Scholastic 1999) there is no "faithful servant" mentioned in the
second prophecy. There's only "servant", and yes, I think it means
Wormtail, which would make this prophecy accurate. The words "my
faithful servant" are spoken by Voldy in GoF, both in the first
chapter and in the graveyard, and IMO he means Barty Jr. (but Voldy
does refer to Wormtail as mere "servant"). Maybe I missed a previous
post where you explained it, so I don't understand why you think that
the "servant" in the second prophecy and the "faithful servant"
mentioned by Voldy must be the same person, and thus I can't see the
basis for your theory regarding the prophecies being meaningless.

> Talisman:
> I'm sure you won't be surprised when I tell you that I think 
> the "choices" nonsense is constantly undermined by the text, and to 
> the extent that it is in the mix at all, it is far, far over used 
> and over merited.  Especially when it's all you have to sweep away 
> heaps of canon. This topic deserves a longer post, but will have to 
> wait  for the nonce, as I should be in bed right now, and am going 
> away for the rest of the weekend.

Neri:
I hope you'll not merely trash the Choices nonsense, but also explain
what *is* the main theme of the series, as you see it. Of course, it
would be a bit if a risk with a new book soon to be published.

> Talisman:
> Still. Choices and Prophesies. Your fate is ordained, but your 
> choices are what matter, so DD can`t be involved.  Where have I 
> heard this before?  Tut, tut. I think you are going to have to pick 
> a side.

Neri:
I was always on the side of Choices, as you've noticed yourself. I
think JKR invested considerable effort in order to include several
elements of Choice in an 8-lines prophecy. But as you say, this is a
whole post by itself. 

> Talisman:
> Where do you get your assertions about Molly's age? Why do you think 
> she wasn't the same generation as Hagrid--or older?  At least Hagrid 
> has all his hair (sorry Arthur).

Neri:
Oops. Admittedly Molly and Arthur's age is not specified. We know that
they were already a hot couple at Hogwarts (the "night stroll"
together at 4 am and the subsequent whipping- GoF Ch. 31, p. 616 US ?
this must be the most saucy detail we were allowed until now regarding
Hogwarts love life). If they are the same generation of Hagrid and Tom
(70 or nearly so) it means they waited at least until they were 40
(probably more, depending on your position regarding Bill's age) and
*then* they had seven children. A new fertility potion must have hit
the market. One also wonders why in CoS Ron never even thought to ask
his parents what really happened at Hogwarts 50 years ago despite the
situation being rather desperate, what with Hermione petrified, Hagrid
sent to Azkaban, DD suspended and Harry and Ron touring the Forbidden
Forest. It's also a bit strange that neither Molly nor Arthur responds
when DD tells them that Lord Voldemort is the Head Boy of their school
days. If Arthur and Molly weren't at school with Tom and are even
older, it means they are at least 80. No definitive canon either way,
but all things considered, I think I prefer the other interpretation:
Arthur and Molly are 60 ? 45 years old, and Hagrid simply didn't
bother to elaborate the obvious: that he wasn't directly appointed to
be the head gamekeeper of Hogwarts when he was a 14 yrs old kid.

Neri  







From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 27 22:58:22 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:58:22 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots- how Quirrell fits in (long - part 3 of 3)
In-Reply-To: <41c9b6fcaf68615b9ffe8d50beeba49d@...>
Message-ID: <d27dqe+ou86@...>


--- Kneasy wrote:

> Connections.
> I love making connections.
> 
> Right. Now join 'em up.
> My, oh my. Someone could write a book about this lot.
> Will it be number 6 or number 7?
> 
> Kneasy


Part 3, Quirrell and Grindelwald.

Kneasy asks "Is Grindelwald German?" (post 1440) 

(continuing the post-quote:)

No: what does interest me is that DD defeated Grindy and held down 
his teaching job at the same time. (And it was a real teaching job - 
Transfiguration - not the bum-polishing sinecure of Headmaster that 
he has now. Apart from feasts he hardly shifts out of his office.) 
Anyway, the point is, how likely is it that DD felled this terrible 
wizard on a weekend excursion to Oktoberfest or whatever? 

Kneasy, I think you were on the right track but talked yourself out 
of it. I think Grindelwald was busy as headmaster of his own school, 
specializing in the teaching of the Dark Arts - Durmstrang. I'm 
going to make a leap here, but bear with me for a moment.

1945. A busy year, apparently in both the magical and muggle worlds. 
Let's take a little walk through history. The Nazis were occupying 
Norway and working on some secret projects there, including 
developing "heavy water", an ingredient in the atomic energy program 
the Germans were developing on their way to an atomic bomb. 
Google "Norwegian resistance" for some fascinating reading on this 
stuff.

Again, if I were writing a fan-fic, I might have the Nazis also 
developing a co-operative attack using Dark Magic. I might recruit 
an Evil German wizard, send him to occupied Norway to open a school 
for Dark Wizards. In the interests of time, I would likely just have 
them take over an existing school (which might have had some history 
in Tri-wizard tournaments from the past), rename it with a German 
name and populate it with students from sympathetic or occupied 
countries, such as those from Eastern Europe. In this way, a German-
sounding school with students with Eastern European names might be 
found in a place where they would not be expected, say, a generation 
or two later.

And, an energetic transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts could create a 
magic portal from one school to another and, through sneak attack, 
best a Nazi-sympathizing Dark Wizard.

And by the way, is Grindelwald dead? Let's read the Frog card:

"Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard 
Grindelwald in 1945".

What do you think, Group? Is Grindelwald out of the picture? I have 
no opinion, but I just thought I'd throw that out. Now, back to 
theorizing ....

Could Durmstrang be in Norway? This has been discussed extensively 
on the Big List. Intelligent discussion puts Durmstrang in Russia. 
This is basically because of the names issue. But I think I have 
just explained how the Germans and Eastern Europeans could be 
situated in Norway. Let's see what else we know about Durmstrang.

It's someplace cold, with long winter nights and lots of water for 
ships. It attracts students from other countries who want to study 
the Dark Arts (Draco Malfoy, for example), which means that foreign 
surnames would be expected. Norway? Could be.

There was also a chat, which I can't find, even with diligent 
searching, where someone asked JKR where Durmstrang was. Her answer 
was "It's in Norway or northern Sweden. But, it's magic and I could 
be mistaken about that."

It is my theory that Quirrell is an alumnus of Durmstrang. This 
would explain his expertise in the Dark Arts. Also, "Quirrell" - 
could it be a combination of Quisling and Squirrel? One who brings 
in evil from the outside (Nazis/Voldy) and is nervous like a 
squirrel? Also, since trolls are from Scandinavian folklore, it 
could explain why Quirrell is good with trolls. According to 
Scandinavian folklore, trolls sometimes herd dragons, which is a 
good explanation how Quirrell had access to a rare Norwegian 
Ridgeback dragon egg.

I think that Quirrell made use of the Hogwarts Lake portal during 
his final year at Hogwarts, perhaps to bring back Mountain Trolls 
when he needed, and also to get a Norwegian Dragon egg when he 
needed that as well.

It's my further theory that Quirrell is not dead, thanks to unicorn 
blood, the Stone and Dumbledore, and is currently hiding in the far 
north, training dragons, recruiting trolls and gathering Durmstrang 
students for an 11th hour rescue through the Hogwarts Lake.

Now, I await your flames (because I've posted this theory before and 
everyone wishes I would just shut up), comments, or arguments.

Thank you.

~ Constance Vigilance








From bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 13:25:33 2005
From: bookworm at agassizde.yahoo.invalid (Monika Huebner)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:25:33 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] re: Dementor's Kiss /  Molly's Age
In-Reply-To: <d273ts+fk80@...>
References: <d273ts+fk80@...>
Message-ID: <mv0g411mdqm4oh49djdaeojd73pa8981f3@...>

"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:

>IIRC Sirius's reminiscence of Azkaban was that most prisoners 'go mad'
>from depression and despair, waste away, and die. (I don't think he
>specified 'stop eating' as the reason for wasting away, but it fits.)

In fact, he does: "Most go mad in there, and plenty stop eating in the
end. They lose the will to live. [...]" (p. 459, Bloomsbury edition of
GoF)

>Maybe they didn't actually waste away because of going mad, maybe they
>wasted away because of having been Kissed but left in their cells with
>no feeding tube, etc.

Interesting idea, but I really don't think so. There must be a way to
control the Dementors and keep them from kissing the prisoners. Maybe
if there are enough of them to feed on, they don't feel the urge to
kiss. In the scene near the lake in PoA they were famished. How long
can a Dementor go without feeding? They had been stationed around the
school for almost a year or so.

Monika (just wondering)




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 14:11:10 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:11:10 +1000
Subject: Hagrid Flew
Message-ID: <91d14f32050328061118d601c0@...>

How many, I wonder, asked themselves, "when did Hagrid first see a
thestral?" Was it his father's death? It may be a point of some
importance. In any case, it was with some disbelief that I found that
noone has even looked at Hagrid's connections with thestrals on the
List.

That's odd, because it solves one of the annoying little questions of
canon: how did Hagrid get to the island where the Dursleys took Harry
in PS? Hagrid spoke perfect truth: "I flew", of course Harry saw
nothing and naturally it wasn't the best way back to Diagon Alley for
a half-giant and an ex-Muggle. Thestrals. Handy guys for all your
non-magical travelling needs! Not as fast as Apparating, and the entry
fee is unpleasant, but useful nonetheless. Which leads one to ask
where else in canon have they been useful to someone?

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



From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 14:55:03 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:55:03 -0000
Subject: Hagrid Flew
In-Reply-To: <91d14f32050328061118d601c0@...>
Message-ID: <d295s7+6go2@...>


Sean wrote about thestrals:
 Handy guys for all your
> non-magical travelling needs! Not as fast as Apparating, and the 
entry
> fee is unpleasant, but useful nonetheless. Which leads one to ask
> where else in canon have they been useful to someone?
>
Ginger, canon at the ready.

OoP, US hardcover, ch. 21, p.446.

Hagrid speaking: "'Course this lot don' get a lot o' work, it's mainly 
jus' pullin' the school carriages unless Dumbledore's takin' a long 
journey an' don' want ter Apperate-"

Ginger, canon hound
PS to CV:  You go girl!  That's dedication!






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 14:56:19 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:56:19 -0000
Subject: Hagrid Flew
In-Reply-To: <91d14f32050328061118d601c0@...>
Message-ID: <d295uj+rj67@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewetoo at g...> wrote:
> How many, I wonder, asked themselves, "when did Hagrid first see a
> thestral?" Was it his father's death? It may be a point of some
> importance. In any case, it was with some disbelief that I found that
> noone has even looked at Hagrid's connections with thestrals on the
> List.

They have on The Big Kahuna...not only that Hagrid flew one to the hut
on the rock (though I think the idea he flew Sirius' motorcycle there
is  more popular), but that Dumbledore flew one to the Ministry back
in PS when HRH were about to go after the Stone.

That Dumbldore-flying-to-the-ministry thing is still fishy, even with
thestrals to sweeten the ride.  It still seems so much simpler and
quicker to walk out the gates and apparate.

I wonder if Voldemort is afraid of Thestrals?

Anne







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 14:59:42 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:59:42 -0000
Subject: Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)
In-Reply-To: <d21enn+f07t@...>
Message-ID: <d2964u+hmge@...>


Anne wrote:
> How *does* the heir of Slytherin know of his heritage, though as
> Hermione says, the passage of time makes tracing family trees that
> far difficult?  

SSSusan:
Of all this juicy stuff put forth, I latch onto this tiny rub.  But 
there you have it.  WHY would this comment of Hermione's be true?  If 
the generational span of yer average witchorwizard is 2 to 3 times that 
of a human, wouldn't it be *easier* to trace the family tree?  At least 
easier back to a set point in comparison to muggles?  You know what I 
mean?  Say you want to go back to 1450 or to 1200 -- there'd ostensibly 
be a lot fewer generations to trace for the witch or wizard than for 
the muggle.

Doesn't matter much in the scheme of things, but....

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 15:26:21 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:26:21 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hagrid Flew
In-Reply-To: <d295uj+rj67@...>
References: <91d14f32050328061118d601c0@...>
	 <d295uj+rj67@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f3205032807262bd0098a@...>

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:56:19 -0000, annemehr <annemehr at ...> wrote:

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewetoo at g...> wrote:
> > How many, I wonder, asked themselves, "when did Hagrid first see a
> > thestral?" Was it his father's death? It may be a point of some
> > importance. In any case, it was with some disbelief that I found that
> > noone has even looked at Hagrid's connections with thestrals on the
> > List.
> 
> They have on The Big Kahuna...not only that Hagrid flew one to the hut
> on the rock (though I think the idea he flew Sirius' motorcycle there
> is  more popular), but that Dumbledore flew one to the Ministry back
> in PS when HRH were about to go after the Stone.

The Big Kahuna? Unless it was relatively recent, HPforGrownups came up
blank for me (and I grepped half of the archives for it). There was a
big thread roughly between #43800-43900 and the motorcycle theory was
debunked. Of course they couldn't make the thestral connection back
then.
 
> That Dumbldore-flying-to-the-ministry thing is still fishy, even with
> thestrals to sweeten the ride.  It still seems so much simpler and
> quicker to walk out the gates and apparate.

But as Hagrid says, it's a long way to Apparate...
 
> I wonder if Voldemort is afraid of Thestrals?

He'd have no trouble seeing them, OR WOULD HE?

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



From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 15:42:33 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:42:33 -0000
Subject: Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)
In-Reply-To: <d2964u+hmge@...>
Message-ID: <d298l9+a3rn@...>


 
SSSusan wrote:
  WHY would this comment of Hermione's be true?  If 
> the generational span of yer average witchorwizard is 2 to 3 times 
that  of a human, wouldn't it be *easier* to trace the family tree? 

Potioncat:
But, so far, it looks like Wizarding youth mature and marry at the 
same pace, or even faster, than RL people! So if a new generation 
showed up every 20--25 years, you'd have the same number of 
generations to go back, just you'd have more of those generations 
still alive.

For someone from the Black family, it would be pretty easy...unless a 
direct ancestor had been blasted off the tapestry. But for a family 
that didn't keep records, it would be still be difficult. Wouldn't 
it? And even those who do keep records, many only trace the ancestor 
through the male line.

We have a cousin who is convinced our family is from William the 
Conqueror...Will's son, you know. 

Potioncat

 







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 15:51:42 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050328155142.47558.qmail@...>

SSSusan wrote:
>>> WHY would this comment of Hermione's be true?  If 
the generational span of yer average witchorwizard is
2 to 3 times that of a human, wouldn't it be *easier*
to trace the family tree? <<<

Potioncat:
>>But, so far, it looks like Wizarding youth mature
and marry at the same pace, or even faster, than RL
people! So if a new generation showed up every 20--25
years, you'd have the same number of generations to go
back, just you'd have more of those generations still
alive.<<


SSSusan:
That was rather the point I was trying to make (but
didn't well) -- that one would have more people within
the family still alive to turn to for information. 
Unless, as you say, you're a Black and have had a lot
of "You pissed me off -- you're HISTORY!" scorching
going on.

Anyway, it's not a big issue, but it just didn't seem
sensible to me.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 17:31:22 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:31:22 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Hagrid Flew
In-Reply-To: <91d14f3205032807262bd0098a@...>
References: <91d14f32050328061118d601c0@...>
	 <d295uj+rj67@...> <91d14f3205032807262bd0098a@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f3205032809314b85e359@...>

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:26:21 +1000, ewe2 <ewetoo at ...> wrote:

> > They have on The Big Kahuna...not only that Hagrid flew one to the hut
> > on the rock (though I think the idea he flew Sirius' motorcycle there
> > is  more popular), but that Dumbledore flew one to the Ministry back
> > in PS when HRH were about to go after the Stone.

Ah ha, I stand corrected, #77870, and another Aussie too. I had to
wait 2 hrs before yahoomort would give up the archives. Well,  I
thought I was being original...I should have known better...

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



From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 17:49:14 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:49:14 -0000
Subject: Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)
In-Reply-To: <d2964u+hmge@...>
Message-ID: <d29g2q+gh92@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Anne wrote:
> > How *does* the heir of Slytherin know of his heritage, though as
> > Hermione says, the passage of time makes tracing family trees that
> > far difficult?  
> 
> SSSusan:
> Of all this juicy stuff put forth, I latch onto this tiny rub.  But 
> there you have it.  WHY would this comment of Hermione's be true?  If 
> the generational span of yer average witchorwizard is 2 to 3 times that 
> of a human, wouldn't it be *easier* to trace the family tree?  At least 
> easier back to a set point in comparison to muggles?  You know what I 
> mean?  Say you want to go back to 1450 or to 1200 -- there'd ostensibly 
> be a lot fewer generations to trace for the witch or wizard than for 
> the muggle.
> 
> Doesn't matter much in the scheme of things, but....
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

So you don't like my idea then, that the main Slytherin line passed
something down through the generations that nobody else knows about?

And Hogwarts was founded "a thousand years or more ago."  Except for
the rare family that kept *very* good records continuously, even
families of long-lived wizards would lose track, let alone someone
like Harry finding any sort of lineage in the Hogwarts library (where
else would he even look?).  The Black tapestry might well go back that
far, but I bet the Weasleys have no idea who they're descended from in
the 900s.  Was it Ernie McMillan whose family is known back nine
generations?  Assuming an average 30-year generation, that would only
account for about 270 years - into the 1720s.

Anne

P.S. Sure, the McMillans might only count back nine generations
becasuse in the tenth they hit Muggle, but the principle's still the
same -- the 900s are a *long* way back.






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 28 18:36:49 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:36:49 -0000
Subject: Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)
In-Reply-To: <d29g2q+gh92@...>
Message-ID: <d29is1+2p11@...>


Anne:
> So you don't like my idea then, that the main Slytherin line passed
> something down through the generations that nobody else knows about?

SSSusan:
Oh, no.  I liked that part of your post quite a bit. (Note the 
reference, earlier, to all the "juicy bits" in it. :-))  Still 
thinking about how I feel about the notion that DD is the 
possesser/carrier of it that Slytherin artifact, as you suggest.

 
Anne:
> P.S. Sure, the McMillans might only count back nine generations
> becasuse in the tenth they hit Muggle, but the principle's still the
> same -- the 900s are a *long* way back.

SSSusan:
Yup, you're right.  I just didn't understand Hermione's contention 
(if I understood it correctly) that it's be HARDER for wizarding folk 
to trace their ancestry than for muggles to do so.  That may not have 
been what she meant at all, but if it was, I don't get it.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, also congratulating CV for her perseverence.







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 00:08:47 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:08:47 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots - how Quirrell fits in (long - part 1)
In-Reply-To: <d27di2+bsr7@...>
Message-ID: <d2a6af+pjfr@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "constancevigilance" 
<constancevigilance at y...> wrote:
> 
As Kneasy and Snow have pointed out in this thread, we tend to
forget the early volumes as we pore over the latest books. As many
on other lists know, I feel strongly that there is much overlooked
in the first book. Including one character who has been written
purposefully to be overlooked, and I think, to our peril.
 
The previous post was concerned with issues of possession and
mirrors. How can one not speak of possession or mirrors without a
mention of my favorite character, Quirrell?
 
Let's take a quick review of the Q-man.
 
<snip>

Then we learn some backstory about Quirrell. According to Hagrid, he
has a brilliant mind. He was a fine teacher while he was teaching
out of books but then went on sabbatical to get more experience. We
get an impression of a young and idealistic teacher, possibly with
concerns of inadequecy, who is willing to invest himself in learning
even more of his subject matter.
 
Throughout this book, everytime we hear about Quirrell, we are
immediately pulled away into another area. Troll in the dungeon! No!
Let's go find Hermione. Harry's broom is misbehaving! Snape is evil.
 
Of course, now we all know that we were being set up for the
surprise in the dungeon. But what if we are being set up AGAIN for a
big surprise in Book 7? Here's why I think that Quirrell is the key
to everything:
<snip>

Carolyn:
Nice to see the full current version of this theory, CV! You stick to 
it... 

Now, I don't know whether the Q-Man is dead or not (although, alas, I 
think it probable), but what interests me is how he got into all this 
trouble in the first place. Being a fully paid up conspiracy 
theorist, and hoping to be allowed into D.U.S.T., it will not 
surprise you to learn that I think it was DD wot nobbled him. For the 
greater good, naturally.

As Kneasy pointed out in his Shared Thoughts post (108664), the 
problem we are faced with is that with so much of this story, we are 
coming into a play halfway through the second Act. We don't know 
enough back history to understand what is going on half the time. 
Particularly in PS/SS, which is analysed in its own right even less 
than CoS. These two books tend to be seen rather like the Hobbit in 
relation to LOTR. Fun, but mainly an appetiser for the subsequent 
books.

Whilst we enjoy all the wonderful WW detail, and empathise with 
Harry's escape from the Dursleys, it's easy to forget to ask just why 
Voldemort comes looking for the Philosopher's Stone (and subsequently 
Harry) the first year he starts school. Coincidence it ain't. 

What we are supposed to believe is that nervous, studious Quirrell 
who really preferred reading up on DADA out of books, had suddenly 
decided to take a year off, and then just happened to find Vapour!
Mort..and after his return, just happened to know that the 
Philosopher's Stone was currently being kept in Gringott's Bank at 
the time the story starts. 

It all gets more than a little incredible when you think about it. 
How likely is it that a Hogwart's teacher should encounter Voldemort 
miles from anywhere at this particular point in time? And what 
happened to the rest of the witches and wizards in Albania, or 
wherever he was drifting about? Why couldn't he possess any of them, 
those long years in the wilderness?

There is only one person who could have given permission for 
Quirrell's year off.  And only one person likely to suggest the type 
of first-hand knowledge of Dark Arts that was needed, and the travel 
itinery. And who might decide to `share' his specialised knowledge of 
alchemy and the stone with such a `brilliant mind'?

The plot of PS/SS only starts to make sense if you accept that DD had 
his own reasons for trying to draw Voldemort out of his lair sooner 
rather than later. It is my contention that he played Quirrell in 
this book just as he subsequently played Lockhart in CoS; Peter, 
Sirius and (arguably!) Lupin in POA; Barty Crouch Jr in GOF; and 
finally Harry himself in OOP. 

By `played', I mean understanding people's desires and motivations to 
such an extent that predictable outcomes can be achieved by putting 
them in particular situations. He knew that Quirrell was easily 
seduced by intellectual discussion, and had little common sense or 
courage (`Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good 
and evil, there is only power, and those to weak to seek it'). It was 
something of a foregone conclusion sending him a-wandering around the 
world, looking in dangerous places for Dark creatures.. although, of 
course, let us not forget that Quirrell had a `choice' as to whether 
he succumbed or not. Yeah, `it's our choices'; never forget that 
mantra. Handy DD get out clause, that.

But it is such an extraordinarily high-risk strategy, actually 
letting Quirrel!Mort into Hogwarts that it does confirm that DD 
anticipated a good deal about Voldy's abilities ? or lack of them ? 
in his current non-corporeal state. He knew Harry couldn't be harmed.

We are otherwise asked to believe that DD and Snape, with their 
subsequently revealed Legilimens skills, sat at a staff dinner table 
night after night in PS/SS, with Voldy wrapped up in a turban beside 
them. And especially that moment at the first feast when Harry's scar 
burns. Apart from its use as a narrative device (that we are all 
supposed to be misled into suspecting Snape at this point), are we 
also asked to believe that Snape had no awareness of the experience 
Harry just had? When Snape looked at Harry so directly, and eye 
contact being so important in Legilimency? The same Snape that so 
effortlessly `saw' Aunt Marge's dog, the corridor at the MoM etc etc 
when teaching Harry in OOP? 

And, at the climax of the story, as many posters have pointed out ? 
what is the point of a series of protections for the stone that three 
eleven year old children could break through in approximately half an 
hour? Even Harry twigs that DD `wanted to give me a chance..just 
taught us enough to help.'

So, my contention is that Quirrell is the first collateral in VW2. He 
may indeed still be alive, revived by a swig of Elixir of Life as CV 
suggests, and we will see him yet, comparing notes with Peter 
(another weak, frightened, manipulated individual)...but I somehow 
doubt it.

Carolyn

PS For those enraged with the new Yahoo layout, and who don't read 
OTC these days, you may be interested in the following link I have 
found:

http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/comment.cfm

This is the Yahoo Investor Relations page. There is button 
called 'Contact us', which gives you a form to fill out and send. I 
suggest as many people do this as possible. It's my experience that 
this gets results quicker than going through customer service 
channels, which in any case have already proved useless. (See 
appalling Yah reply email on OTC - or don't if you have regard for 
your blood pressure).







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 01:08:40 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:08:40 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d27c9t+h2dd@...>
Message-ID: <d2a9qo+j9k5@...>





Neri:
Aren't you mixing things? It was Dung who was banned from the HH, but
we don't know that he was the eavesdropper.


Snow:

Not really mixing them up just conjoining them. My assumption is that 
Dung was the eavesdropper and that was why he was banned from the 
pub. 

Neri:

DD didn't have any idea that he's going to hear anything important in
the HH, and then he was probably too occupied with Sybil's words to
pay attention to other things. My take is that he found out that there
was an eavesdropper only after the fact. Aberforth caught the
eavesdropper and threw him out, and only later told DD about it, when
the eavesdropper was already long gone. No wonder DD doesn't think
much about his brother's intellect. Alternatively, maybe Aberforth
failed to even tell DD later, and DD only found out that there was an
eavesdropper when Snape supplied him with information about Voldy's
plans.

Snow:

Could very well be a possibility, however Sirius explanation as to 
why Dung is in the Order fits nicely with him being the eavesdropper: 

"How come he's in the Order?" Harry said very quietly.

"He's useful," Sirius muttered. "Knows all the crooks?well, he would, 
seeing as he's one himself. But he's also very loyal to Dumbledore, 
who helped him out of a tight spot once. It pays to have someone like 
Dung around, he hears things we don't." OOP pg 86 U.S.

Dumbledore is not beneath helping someone out of a tight spot 
especially when there's a return for his trouble. Dumbledore 
persuaded Petunia Dursley, grudgingly and all that, in a little 
different way but I think they both got something out of that deal. 
Of course we are not privy at the moment as to what Dumbledore did 
for Petunia any more than we are to what tight spot Dung was in that 
he was helped out of by Dumbledore. Dumbledore is quite gifted with 
the power of persuasion with many to do his bidding such as; angry 
centaurs who released the toad lady unscathed or a betraying house 
elf who needed a bit of nudging to divulge the information about 
Sirius. We are never informed how these events took place but that 
Dumbledore was involved and the situation defused to the benefit of 
Dumbledore's needs. It seems properly fitting that Dumbledore saved 
Dung's hide and made use of him and his talents in a more beneficial 
way. 
We do know that Dumbledore became aware of how much of the prophecy 
was overheard and that the perpetrator was caught and thrown from the 
building so we may assume that Dumbledore was aware of who the 
eavesdropper was as well. I don't think that Dumbledore was aware of 
the circumstances that night because the eavesdropper did manage to 
get away and inform Voldemort of the small portion of the prophecy 
that was overheard but I do believe Dumbledore became aware of who it 
was and how much they actually heard. It could have been Snape that 
informed Dumbledore as you say or it could have came straight from 
the horse's mouth, which may have something to do with that tight 
spot that Dumbledore helped out with if Dung was in over his head 
with Voldemort. The real key in the quote above is the statement that 
Dung hears things we don't. 


Then there is also the ironic fact that Dung was dressed as a witch 
when he eavesdropped on the first DA meeting in the same 
establishment that Dumbledore came to learn of the prophecy:

"Who overheard us?" Harry demanded.
 
"Mundungus, of course," said Sirius, and when they all looked puzzled 
he laughed. "He was the witch under the veil."

"Why was Dung hiding from us?" asked Ron, sounding 
disappointed. "We'd've liked to've seen him."

"He was banned from the Hog's Head twenty years ago," said 
Sirius, "and that barman's got a long memory." OOP pg. 370 U.S.

Sirius states matter of fact to Harry that it was `Mundungus of 
course' as though it could be no one else. Sirius continues that Dung 
had been using the invisibility cloak for spying up until the point 
that Sturgis was arrested and was now using the witch disguise 
instead. It appears that Dung is used often as a listening device, 
could be his best attribute. 

Just my take on the situation

Snow- a recoving thinker going into relapse all the time 









From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 03:47:32 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:47:32 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots- how Quirrell fits in (long - part 3 of 3)
In-Reply-To: <d27dqe+ou86@...>
Message-ID: <d2aj4k+mdkb@...>


>Constance Vigilance wrote: 
> There was also a chat, which I can't find, even with diligent 
> searching, where someone asked JKR where Durmstrang was. Her answer 
> was "It's in Norway or northern Sweden. But, it's magic and I could 
> be mistaken about that."
> 
> It is my theory that Quirrell is an alumnus of Durmstrang. This 
> would explain his expertise in the Dark Arts. Also, "Quirrell" - 
> could it be a combination of Quisling and Squirrel? One who brings 
> in evil from the outside (Nazis/Voldy) and is nervous like a 
> squirrel? Also, since trolls are from Scandinavian folklore, it 
> could explain why Quirrell is good with trolls. According to 
> Scandinavian folklore, trolls sometimes herd dragons, which is a 
> good explanation how Quirrell had access to a rare Norwegian 
> Ridgeback dragon egg.

Neri:
Now that I think about it, Luna and her father were planning an
expedition to Sweden in the summer. They were going to search for a
Crumple-Horned Snorkak, and you can be sure they won't be looking for
it in the Stockholm zoo. They'll look in the far north, get lost in
the taiga, cross the border to Norway by mistake, and they'll
definitely find *something*. And it won't be a Crumple-Horned Snorkak,
either. You never find the thing you're looking for in these
expeditions. You always find something else. 

Neri, 
whose first post as a newbie in HPfGU was the only reply to Constance
Vigilance's Quirrell Is Alive TBAY.  







From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 04:24:30 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Connecting the dots- how Quirrell fits in (long - part 3 of 3)
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050329042430.30932.qmail@...>

It's so nice of you guys to humor me. :)

I was just reading all these posts about "early books
are important" and "possession is important" and
everything that I just had to post my theory once more
or burst. Which would have been messy.

> 
> Neri:
> Now that I think about it, Luna and her father were
> planning an
> expedition to Sweden in the summer. They were going
> to search for a
> Crumple-Horned Snorkak, and you can be sure they
> won't be looking for
> it in the Stockholm zoo. They'll look in the far
> north, get lost in
> the taiga, cross the border to Norway by mistake,
> and they'll
> definitely find *something*. And it won't be a
> Crumple-Horned Snorkak,
> either. You never find the thing you're looking for
> in these
> expeditions. You always find something else. 
> 

Yes. Isn't it interesting that once again, we are
drawn to Scandinavia. I suspect they will be
successful at finding that Snorkak. Could they also
find Durmstrang? Or Grindelwald? I'm beginning to like
the idea that he is alive as well.

> Neri, 
> whose first post as a newbie in HPfGU was the only
> reply to Constance
> Vigilance's Quirrell Is Alive TBAY.  
> 

Ah, gee. Thanks. Too bad TBAY died. It was especially
great just before Book 5 while we battened down the
hatches for Hurricane Jo.

Carolyn pointed out that the Q-man could have been
DUMBLEDORE's first VWII victim. I hadn't considered
that.

Carolyn:

What we are supposed to believe is that nervous,
studious Quirrell who really preferred reading up on
DADA out of books, had suddenly decided to take a year
off, and then just happened to find Vapour!
Mort..and after his return, just happened to know that
the Philosopher's Stone was currently being kept in
Gringott's Bank at the time the story starts. 

Me:

I'm not surprised that he found Vapor!Mort. He went
out LOOKING for trouble, in a manner of speaking. I
think he could have heard rumors of strange things
happening to animals and followed the trail to the
forests of Albania. As for the stone and Gringott's,
I've said before that I think he had a confederate at
Gringott's. Hagrid says that only a Gringott's goblin
can open a secure vault. I tend to take him at his
word and assume that a goblin was involved. Couldn't
the inside-goblin at the bank pass the word along that
there is an item in a certain vault that might be of
interest to somebody with designs on immortality? The
whole goblin class seems a little dodgy to me.

Carolyn:

There is only one person who could have given
permission for Quirrell's year off.  And only one
person likely to suggest the type of first-hand
knowledge of Dark Arts that was needed, and the travel
itinery. And who might decide to `share' his
specialised knowledge of alchemy and the stone with
such a `brilliant mind'?

Me:

Hmm. Interesting idea. I hadn't thought that my sweet
Q-man might have been "played" by the puppetmaster in
such a way. In that case, wouldn't it be even more
likely that DD would want to save his life? How cruel
would it be to trick him into a situation and then let
him die as a result?

Carolyn:

We are otherwise asked to believe that DD and Snape,
with their subsequently revealed Legilimens skills,
sat at a staff dinner table night after night in
PS/SS, with Voldy wrapped up in a turban beside 
them.

Me:

Actually, like time-turning, I think Legilimensy is a
problematic plot device. If Snape and DD can discerne
one's thoughts, then how did so many things get out of
control in every book? Turban!Voldy? Fake!Moody?
Scabbers? Unless the point is that they DID know those
things and there were all part of the plan? Yuck.







		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 



From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 08:52:48 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:48 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <91d14f32050325230432f56e54@...>
Message-ID: <d2b510+5nlf@...>


Sean wrote:

> the reaction to the Lupinlore Manifesto has been most instructive 

I assume this is something on HPFGU.  Can you provide a link, please, 
Sean?

David






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 11:01:01 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:01:01 -0000
Subject: Connecting the dots- how Quirrell fits in (long - part 3 of 3)
In-Reply-To: <20050329042430.30932.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <d2bchd+phq4@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Constance Vigilance <constancevigilance at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Yes. Isn't it interesting that once again, we are
> drawn to Scandinavia. I suspect they will be
> successful at finding that Snorkak. Could they also
> find Durmstrang? Or Grindelwald? I'm beginning to like
> the idea that he is alive as well.
> 

Kneasy:
Scandinavia....the final battle....Ragnarok!
Oh yes please! Blood and guts in abundance.
For all that JKR peppers her tale with mythological allusions,
those of the Norse/Germanic variety have been a bit thin on
the ground. Now's her chance - and a fair few of the key
players can be shoe-horned in without too much trouble.

There's the Great Worm, Fenrir Wolf (which would make
Lupin ESE - that'll please Pippin) and Voldy as the Loki look-alike. 
Hogwarts bursts into flames, the Whomping Willow splits asunder,
the old order goes down, a new world is born with one innocent
remaining from the previous management. 
So who'll be Balder?

I've always wondered.... correct my maths if I'm wrong,  but by
my calculations the internal time-line of the books may be due for
the conclusion to be at the end of the millennium, approximately.
An allusion to a bright new age - with no magic?

> > Neri, 
> > whose first post as a newbie in HPfGU was the only
> > reply to Constance
> > Vigilance's Quirrell Is Alive TBAY.  
> > 
> CV:
> Ah, gee. Thanks. Too bad TBAY died. It was especially
> great just before Book 5 while we battened down the
> hatches for Hurricane Jo.
> 

Kneasy:
Do not speak too soon, do not tempt  fate. 
It may only be sleeping...

> CV:
> Carolyn pointed out that the Q-man could have been
> DUMBLEDORE's first VWII victim. I hadn't considered
> that.
> 
> I'm not surprised that he found Vapor!Mort. He went
> out LOOKING for trouble, in a manner of speaking. I
> think he could have heard rumors of strange things
> happening to animals and followed the trail to the
> forests of Albania. As for the stone and Gringott's,
> I've said before that I think he had a confederate at
> Gringott's. Hagrid says that only a Gringott's goblin
> can open a secure vault. I tend to take him at his
> word and assume that a goblin was involved. Couldn't
> the inside-goblin at the bank pass the word along that
> there is an item in a certain vault that might be of
> interest to somebody with designs on immortality? The
> whole goblin class seems a little dodgy to me.
>

Kneasy:
There's always been the sound of shuffling feet from the
back of the class whenever the Gringott's episode has been
discussed. Something's not quite right. Unfortunately we don't
know much about Goblin magic, but as the WW treat them with
a measure of caution verging on apprehension, we can assume
that it's not negligible. Somebody swans in - how do they know
since no trace was left? It's not as if anything was there to be 
stolen and reported as missing - from a security vault that they 
normally only bother to check every ten years or so. 

And why do I think it's no coincidence that Sirius's vault (711) is 
so close to DD's (713)? And that Sirius can arrange for money to 
pay for the Firebolt to be removed from his own vault but not use
his own name?

"I used your name but told them to  take the gold from Gringotts
vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own." PoA chap 22.

I'm sure it means something, but I'm stuffed if I can think what.
You'll not be surprised that suspicions of collusion and conspiracy
are well to the fore with DD as a prime mover.

 
> Carolyn:
> 
> There is only one person who could have given
> permission for Quirrell's year off.  And only one
> person likely to suggest the type of first-hand
> knowledge of Dark Arts that was needed, and the travel
> itinery. And who might decide to `share' his
> specialised knowledge of alchemy and the stone with
> such a `brilliant mind'?
> 
> CV:
> 
> Hmm. Interesting idea. I hadn't thought that my sweet
> Q-man might have been "played" by the puppetmaster in
> such a way. In that case, wouldn't it be even more
> likely that DD would want to save his life? How cruel
> would it be to trick him into a situation and then let
> him die as a result?
>

Kneasy:
Why not? He seems to be to blame for everything else that
goes on. Dear, oh dear. Is there no limit to his Machiavellian
machinations? Apparently not. Good oh.

It's true that  there's no absolute evidence in PS/SS that
Quirrell ascended to the choir invisible - an odd omission when
you think of it, and it's probable that we've been contaminated
to a greater or lesser extent by the film images. In the true canon
Quirrell doesn't crumble, he blisters. Survival, with help from a 
previous hearty draught of unicorn blood doesn't seem impossible.
DD's phrasing could be a pointer, too. One would expect him to
say "Quirrell didn't get the Stone." Instead it's "Quirrell doesn't
have the Stone" - present tense, not past. A snippet you'll have 
highlighted in your TBAY for sure.

If it was all a ploy cunningly contrived by DD to bring Voldy  out
into the open then there's a question worth asking - was Quirrell
a patsy or a volunteer? From Quirrell!Mort's whitterings at the
climax he seems to have been a good egg before Voldy did the 
business. And continuing the mythological theme - Janus - the
two-faced god - two-faced as in untrustworthy or two faces each
with different views? Ah, the possibilities! 







From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 12:23:36 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:23:36 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2b510+5nlf@...>
References: <91d14f32050325230432f56e54@...>
	 <d2b510+5nlf@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...>

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:48 -0000, davewitley
<dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> 
> > the reaction to the Lupinlore Manifesto has been most instructive
> 
> I assume this is something on HPFGU.  Can you provide a link, please,
> Sean?

Anything Lupinlore has written in the last two months should be enough
- I'm not sure how it started. It's simple enough to explain here: DD
is ESE! because he deliberately left Harry with the dreaded Dursleys
and *hasn't apologized*. Lupinlore demands a remedy and will destroy
his books otherwise.

To give you the flavour, #126381 (at last we can use msg # again), and
particularly #126391, the classic "books to the dumpster" post.
There's a thread running through all that, which is interesting
reading.

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



From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 13:44:58 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:44:58 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...>
Message-ID: <d2bm4q+qahr@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewetoo at g...> wrote:

> Anything Lupinlore has written in the last two months should be 
> enough - I'm not sure how it started. It's simple enough to explain 
> here: DD is ESE! because he deliberately left Harry with the dreaded 
> Dursleys and *hasn't apologized*. Lupinlore demands a remedy and 
> will destroy his books otherwise.

It's been going for a surprisingly long time, if you can put two and 
two together.

It's frustrating because he does have a point about some hanging 
threads and unresolved issues, but he takes it to the point of 
absurdity and does it over and over again ad nauseam.  It's especially 
frustrating because when he's not harping on that one issue and 
flogging the horse, he's capable of coming up with some insights that 
strike me as rather likely to pan out.

The argument I would actually like to see (just as a spectator, just 
for fun) is between the proponents of the "JKR is writing a world with 
a first-grade morality and is totally black and white and simplistic" 
and the "JKR is writing a world of massive complexity and ambiguity 
and Dumbledore is manipulating everything".  That would be interesting.

-Nora heads off through the rain to keep cataloging saints

(For Catlady: I'm working on a 14th century Italian gradual 
sanctorale, a book of chants for the Mass Proper for the feasts of the 
saints.  We have no idea where in Italy the book comes from, but the 
way you figure out is by going through and cataloging all of the 
rubrics and matching them to their day (saints' feasts are fixed day, 
Christological feasts are mostly movable), and seeing who is locally 
important.  It's slow but interesting, and there's some stunning art 
in the illuminations.  And I actually get to handle the book myself.  
I'm not worthy...)






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 16:27:10 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:27:10 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...>
Message-ID: <d2bvku+qvec@...>


> > Sean wrote:
> > 
> > > the reaction to the Lupinlore Manifesto has been most instructive

David
> > 
> > I assume this is something on HPFGU.  Can you provide a link, 
please,
> > Sean?
> 
> Anything Lupinlore has written in the last two months should be enough
> - I'm not sure how it started. 

Thank you

Presumably the instructiveness of the reaction lies in the way people 
treat a purely imaginative world as if it is real?  Or am I missing 
something?

David






From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 29 16:23:19 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:23:19 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2bvku+qvec@...>
References: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...> <d2bvku+qvec@...>
Message-ID: <20050329162319.GA11702@...>

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:27:10PM -0000, davewitley wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Sean wrote:
> > > > the reaction to the Lupinlore Manifesto has been most instructive
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Presumably the instructiveness of the reaction lies in the way people 
> treat a purely imaginative world as if it is real?  Or am I missing 
> something?

Actually, they're demanding that the author _make_ it real to their
specifications. Lupinlore's problem with DD is that he professes to so care
about Harry, he doesn't tell him for years the true implications of his scar,
yet leaves him for years with the Dursleys. LL can only believe this is a
mistake by JKR, or worse, a deliberate choice. He wants it fixed. He probably
thinks he's being helpful. That's the kind of success as a writer you really
don't want, and you can bet that any number of inconsistencies are going to be
left inconsistent just so JKR has some sanity left. 

Whether you agree with Puppetmaster!DD or not, a fair reading of the situation
would be that DD has made a difficult choice, but the best one in the
circumstances. It's realistic in the sense that like the real world, there
_are_ no perfectly correct choices, but easy ones often disguise complicated
repercussions that have even worse solutions. That's my take on it, and
anyway, wizards don't apologize. But LL is stuck in a characterization logic
loop. It's like complaining that Rick is inconsistent in Casablanca, or that
Gandalf should have helped the Shire against Saruman. It ignores the story.


-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 00:24:06 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:24:06 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
References: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...> <d2bvku+qvec@...> <20050329162319.GA11702@...>
Message-ID: <008c01c534be$c90a1940$6501a8c0@...>

>>Dave said:
>> Presumably the instructiveness of the reaction lies in the way people
>> treat a purely imaginative world as if it is real?  Or am I missing
>> something?

Charme chuckling:

No, you're not missing a thing. :) You couldn't be more right in your 
perception. If you try arguing the idea of an imaginary world against 
reality with the supporters of that manifesto, one gets hit eventually with 
the "so, you support child abuse?!!?"  That's a leap I can't even begin to 
fathom, so I gave up and exercised my right to not read the thread..... :)

>
>Then Ewe2:
> Actually, they're demanding that the author _make_ it real to their
> specifications. Lupinlore's problem with DD is that he professes to so 
> care
> about Harry, he doesn't tell him for years the true implications of his 
> scar,
> yet leaves him for years with the Dursleys. LL can only believe this is a
> mistake by JKR, or worse, a deliberate choice. He wants it fixed. He 
> probably
> thinks he's being helpful. That's the kind of success as a writer you 
> really
> don't want, and you can bet that any number of inconsistencies are going 
> to be
> left inconsistent just so JKR has some sanity left.
>
<snip>

>. But LL is stuck in a characterization logic
> loop. It's like complaining that Rick is inconsistent in Casablanca, or 
> that
> Gandalf should have helped the Shire against Saruman. It ignores the 
> story.
>

Charme again:

Note this quote from one of  his posts on 3/25:

"Which is only to say, in the end, that if you can buy the Dumbledore JKR is 
selling, more power to you!  However, that does not change the fact that I, 
and many others, simply cannot."

Hmmm. So, can I ask a "stoopud" question? Why does he read the books and 
spend so much time debating and posting about the story if he doesn't "buy" 
it and cannot accept it? :)  And in the same post, a whole buncha Bible 
scripture which my pea sized brain just can't seem to wrap around in the 
context of his post.  It seems to me it's more than just the "fix" scenario 
LL has in mind.

Charme












From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 02:19:38 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:19:38 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <008c01c534be$c90a1940$6501a8c0@...>
References: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...> <d2bvku+qvec@...> <20050329162319.GA11702@...> <008c01c534be$c90a1940$6501a8c0@...>
Message-ID: <20050330021938.GF11702@...>

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:24:06PM -0500, Charme wrote:

> Note this quote from one of  his posts on 3/25:
> 
> "Which is only to say, in the end, that if you can buy the Dumbledore JKR is 
> selling, more power to you!  However, that does not change the fact that I, 
> and many others, simply cannot."
> 
> Hmmm. So, can I ask a "stoopud" question? Why does he read the books and 
> spend so much time debating and posting about the story if he doesn't "buy" 
> it and cannot accept it? :)  And in the same post, a whole buncha Bible 
> scripture which my pea sized brain just can't seem to wrap around in the 
> context of his post.  It seems to me it's more than just the "fix" scenario 
> LL has in mind.

If you go back further (I've been using gmail's search feature while the mob
rose up against Yahoomort) to, say Feb 18th, you'll find the bizarre thread
where LL decides that Voldy isn't drawn well enough, too cartoony. "Even
Satan, we are told, once had his good points."

My apologies to non-evolutionists, but this smacks of "intelligent design". Or
an intelligent design with which LL is apparently in agreement with. The
angle, Charme, for LL & Co. is this: they can't ignore it, so instead of
coming straight out with their agenda and looking like the bad guy, they argue
against JKR using what they claim are her views on her books. I've said
earlier that it wasn't a good idea for JKR to invoke Christian myth in
connection with the ultimate themes of the Potterverse, and well, there's your
results. LL would just love to burn the books because of their popularity, but
needs an excuse first, and he hopes JKR will give him one. When the series
finishes I suspect there will be a retrospective damning; they are practically
hovering in readiness out there.

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 02:29:04 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:29:04 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <008c01c534be$c90a1940$6501a8c0@...>
Message-ID: <d2d2tg+d0n7@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" <dontask2much at y...> 
wrote:

> Charme again:

<snip>

> Hmmm. So, can I ask a "stoopud" question? Why does he read the books 
> and spend so much time debating and posting about the story if he 
> doesn't "buy" it and cannot accept it? :) 

In his case, it seems to be that he really likes 1-4, but is 
unconvinced by Rowling's handling of the issues raised through those 
books in OotP.  I think he takes the argument to loony heights and 
lows, but it's a question worth asking (if one feels like doing 
criticism rather than analysis) of "does this work?  is it convincing?"

He's hardly the only person in the wide world of the fandom doing 
this; he's just doing it from a different angle than it usually gets 
done (believe it or not).  I saw a thread over on LiveJournal not too 
long ago on "what do you fear" for next book, and there was a whole 
lot of "If X Y and Z happen, the book will suck and I will be very 
unhappy".  (Most of these complaints involved things such as Draco 
duying or becoming completely evil, and there was much lamenting of 
how black and white and simplistic Rowling's universe was when it 
could have been much deeper.)

I have to say that the statement that one cannot imagine a book being 
interesting or worthwhile without a set course of events occuring 
strikes me as a profoundly boring way to read literature.

-Nora gets back to assembling manifestos of other kinds






From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 03:32:15 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:32:15 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
References: <91d14f320503290423b2b20c@...> <d2bvku+qvec@...> <20050329162319.GA11702@...> <008c01c534be$c90a1940$6501a8c0@...> <20050330021938.GF11702@...>
Message-ID: <018601c534d9$120f0910$6501a8c0@...>

>ewe2 said:

> My apologies to non-evolutionists, but this smacks of "intelligent 
> design". Or
> an intelligent design with which LL is apparently in agreement with. The
> angle, Charme, for LL & Co. is this: they can't ignore it, so instead of
> coming straight out with their agenda and looking like the bad guy, they 
> argue
> against JKR using what they claim are her views on her books. I've said
> earlier that it wasn't a good idea for JKR to invoke Christian myth in
> connection with the ultimate themes of the Potterverse, and well, there's 
> your
> results. LL would just love to burn the books because of their popularity, 
> but
> needs an excuse first, and he hopes JKR will give him one. When the series
> finishes I suspect there will be a retrospective damning; they are 
> practically
> hovering in readiness out there.
>

Charme now:

And here I was <cough> <cough> trying to be politically correct even by 
asking the question. ;) I didn't want to invoke anyone's wrath in this 
group, hence why I asked rather than, shall we say, speculated. I can only 
say I am relieved reading your post.

I think you're right, BTW, WRT to your comments comparing their "attitudes" 
to the intelligent design concept.  I am in a unique, and for me unenviable, 
position of having first hand knowledge of this with my own high school alma 
mater: the school system I graduated from is now, as of January of this 
year, the first public school system (with much input from the avowed 
religious community) in the US to mandate the mention of intelligent design 
in the biology curriculm in conjunction with evolutionary theory - along 
with adding 68 copies of the ID book "Of Pandas and People" to the school 
library. How's this relate to your post?  The same community leaders (and 
board members) make the exact *same* almost smug arguments I see from LL 
about Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter - and it's been an upswell since 
the HPB release date was announced.

I'll make ya bet of firewhiskey the whole fire-and-brimstone condemnation 
begins in earnest on July 16 and  won't delay until the septology is 
complete. Why wait for an excuse - they think they already have one, they're 
just waiting for the best media opportunity to make it a sweeping wave of 
book burnings and morality laced preaching.

Charme, who truly doesn't want to offend those of you who believe in ID, but 
asks that you understand that I disagree and consider it a seperate 
conversation/discussion. 






From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 03:48:32 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:48:32 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
References: <d2d2tg+d0n7@...>
Message-ID: <01b001c534db$5859f5e0$6501a8c0@...>

>nrenka:

> In his case, it seems to be that he really likes 1-4, but is
> unconvinced by Rowling's handling of the issues raised through those
> books in OotP.  I think he takes the argument to loony heights and
> lows, but it's a question worth asking (if one feels like doing
> criticism rather than analysis) of "does this work?  is it convincing?"

Charme,chortling:

But the questions "does this work?" or "is it convincing?" are never asked. 
Least not to what I see and perceive, anyway. Instead, most of the argument 
or presentation of that view is fraught with value and moral judgement, then 
low and behold,  one then needs to add some scripture to the mix to support 
his/her point of view? Naaa, it's better I don't read the tainted thread. I 
might...*snap*...or somethin' :)

> I have to say that the statement that one cannot imagine a book being
> interesting or worthwhile without a set course of events occuring
> strikes me as a profoundly boring way to read literature.
>

Charme:

In the words of the infamous Valley Girls, I so, like, totally agree. 
Choices, choices. Wouldn't it be better for some of them to just not buy and 
read the books if it's so upsetting? ;)







From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 03:54:59 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:54:59 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <20050330021938.GF11702@...>
Message-ID: <d2d7uj+l8f5@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewetoo at g...> wrote:
LL would just love to burn the books because of their popularity, but
> needs an excuse first, and he hopes JKR will give him one.

*snort*

As long as they're properly bought and paid for...






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 10:06:40 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:06:40 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <018601c534d9$120f0910$6501a8c0@...>
Message-ID: <d2dtng+g2mi@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" <dontask2much at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> I think you're right, BTW, WRT to your comments comparing 
their "attitudes" 
> to the intelligent design concept.  I am in a unique, and for me 
unenviable, 
> position of having first hand knowledge of this with my own high 
school alma 
> mater: the school system I graduated from is now, as of January of 
this 
> year, the first public school system (with much input from the 
avowed 
> religious community) in the US to mandate the mention of 
intelligent design 
> in the biology curriculm in conjunction with evolutionary theory - 
along 
> with adding 68 copies of the ID book "Of Pandas and People" to the 
school 
> library. 
> <snip>
> 
> Charme, who truly doesn't want to offend those of you who believe 
in ID, but 
> asks that you understand that I disagree and consider it a seperate 
> conversation/discussion.

Carolyn (with similar caveats):
The ID concepts have been introduced in a couple of private schools 
in the UK, amid considerable controversy. A millionaire businessman 
with strong Christian beliefs is funding their development. The 
difficulty for parents is that the schools otherwise offer first-
class education in areas where there is not much choice of schools. 
Our government is apparently unable to prevent ID being made part of 
the curriculum.

I was similarly amazed to hear from a (British) Professor of Geology 
that I met on a Christmas break, that he was about to fly out to the 
US to give his annual New Year lecture at a university on the theme 
that the geological record proved that the world was not made in 
seven days. He was very gloomy about it, because it was the fifth 
year running he'd done it, to quite critical audiences.

To vaguely drag this back to Harry Potter, I do think this is a major 
area where different cultural sensitivities can trip people up in 
their interpretation of the books. We get much exercised about what 
Faith really thinks (I mean Faith as a metaphor for authorial intent 
here, of course), but people like LL forget that she's British, and 
this stuff is just not such a hot issue in our cultural environment 
as it is in the US (though it exists, of course). I suppose he'd just 
say she needs converting...

Carolyn






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 11:02:00 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:02:00 +0100
Subject: Manifesto
Message-ID: <7aa59e400b72f20ec98f04d7e9ba2add@...>

Members of The Legion of the Not-Too-Tightly-Wrapped can be found 
everywhere. IMO there's not much point in arguing that their view of HP 
is skewed, partial or partisan, because their view of HP is a 
reflection of their world-view. Commenting on HP is just another way of 
expressing it.

And if others dissent, by some weird logic it's seen as some sort of 
validation of the idea that the misguided or ignorant are there to be 
persuaded and opposers to an obvious truth are to be shouted down. 
Fiction is real life with the names changed to protect the guilty. From 
what I've seen it's not quite at that stage yet on the other site, 
though there have been times in the past when it teetered on the edge.

Certainly from personal experience I can confirm that while frank 
insults and denigration may not appear on the other board they weren't 
uncommon in emails from persons who considered my attitudes and 
opinions (deduced from posts) reprehensible to say the least. Not being 
a shy, sensitive type, it didn't bother me in the slightest.  Probably 
coincidence, but after a couple of these exchanges, for the next few 
days there was a barrage of mail viruses addressed to me - that's not a 
problem either, my provider automatically checks all mail and strips 
them out. It's probably also coincidental that I haven't had *any* in 
my mail since I've been posting exclusively on toc.
Paranoid? Who, me?

Of course, this is a result of accepting that any opinion is equally 
valid to any other -  and in a large discussion group dissecting a work 
of fiction this is the raison d'etre of the whole enterprise. The 
problems surface when for some the books cease to be entertainment and 
become seen as a vehicle for an agenda not their own.

Niven's Law - "No cause is so noble that it doesn't attract some 
dickheads."

Kneasy




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 11:17:36 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:17:36 +1000
Subject: Intelligent Manifestos
Message-ID: <20050330111736.GG11702@...>

Carolyn (with similar caveats):

> To vaguely drag this back to Harry Potter, I do think this is a major area
> where different cultural sensitivities can trip people up in their
> interpretation of the books. We get much exercised about what Faith really
> thinks (I mean Faith as a metaphor for authorial intent here, of course),
> but people like LL forget that she's British, and this stuff is just not
> such a hot issue in our cultural environment as it is in the US (though it
> exists, of course). I suppose he'd just say she needs converting...

Sean, wildy throwing caveats like roses into the air:

I didn't mean to start a thread on ID, although the revelations it produced
profoundly disturb me. My aim was to illustrate how a person/group with a
specific agenda can attempt to change the dialogue on a subject to conform to
parameters they prefer, and ID seemed to me an apt analogy. I'm sure everyone
can think of others along such lines. My use of the word manifesto is
deliberate: these days, such documents are shielded from public view, much
like Amway manuals because manifestos = agendas, and are thus exposed to
attack. (No really, I've seen Amway manuals, they're the scariest
MarketSpeak you'll come across).

The idea of a culture war has implications for this; like it or not, there are
people who regard anything as fair game for their arguments, it doesn't
require cultural sensitivity (but makes a fine shield) and normally I would
simply ignore them, but in this case I think they need serious laughing at.
They should not be allowed to attempt to impose their idea of a moral agenda
(by constant repetition until they get the desired results), and there are
healthy signs that this won't happen.

Halfway through this rant^H^Hepistle and I see that Kneasy has already
anticipated me on several points :) So I will be more productive and less
controversial.

It's beginning to sound like rival gangs though :)

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 11:39:18 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:39:18 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Intelligent Manifestos
References: <20050330111736.GG11702@...>
Message-ID: <004b01c5351d$1c0dfe50$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

> Sean, wildy throwing caveats like roses into the air:

> I didn't mean to start a thread on ID, although the revelations it produced
> profoundly disturb me. My aim was to illustrate how a person/group with a
> specific agenda can attempt to change the dialogue on a subject to conform to
> parameters they prefer, and ID seemed to me an apt analogy. 

SSSusan:
I'm kinda glad to see Sean post this, because I was getting a bit puzzled. There is definitely a (small, I believe) camp at HPfGU which believes JKR should/outta/MUST correct, fix or explain away certain things in the books in order to make them "acceptable" or "valid," and the camp leader has certainly been correctly identified.  And  words like "reprehensible", "irresponsible" and "stupid" sometimes have been known to accompany a response to posters with an alternative view.  

 

There are also a couple of people who lately have been a bit frighteningly adamant that they KNOW how JKR thinks and what she's doing so intimately that they KNOW character X represents Christian character Y or Christian theme Z.  LL, though, to the best of my recollection, has never joined in this activity, nor have I ever seen anything of ID as a part of his particular requirements for the "correct" worldview.

 

But it may be that what's being said here in this thread is that, rather than the actual *content* of ID, it's the method of going back to "fix" things by finding "evidence" and making it "fit" the "proper" worldview that was being referred to.

 

Siriusly Snapey Susan, school board member who's quite pleased that we haven't had to face the ID issue.  Humongous tax assessment errors and sexual predator band directors have been quite enough to be getting on with, thankyouverymuch.



 


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




From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 11:53:47 2005
From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:53:47 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <20050330021938.GF11702@...>
Message-ID: <d2e40b+k5pa@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewetoo at g...> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:24:06PM -0500, Charme wrote:
> 
> 
> If you go back further (I've been using gmail's search feature 
while the mob rose up against Yahoomort) to, say Feb 18th, you'll 
find the bizarre thread where LL decides that Voldy isn't drawn well 
enough, too cartoony. "Even Satan, we are told, once had his good 
points."
> 
> My apologies to non-evolutionists, but this smacks of "intelligent 
design". Or an intelligent design with which LL is apparently in 
agreement with. The angle, Charme, for LL & Co. is this: they can't 
ignore it, so instead of coming straight out with their agenda and 
looking like the bad guy, they argue against JKR using what they 
claim are her views on her books. I've said earlier that it wasn't a 
good idea for JKR to invoke Christian myth in connection with the 
>ultimate themes of the Potterverse, and well, there's your results. 


Naama:

I'm not getting the connection here - what does that LL quote have to 
do with ID, exactly? I'm feeling particularly thick here, as others 
seem to have gotten it, but could you please explain?

Naama










From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 11:58:09 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:58:09 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Intelligent Manifestos
In-Reply-To: <004b01c5351d$1c0dfe50$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
References: <20050330111736.GG11702@...> <004b01c5351d$1c0dfe50$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <20050330115809.GH11702@...>

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:39:18AM -0500, susiequsie23 wrote:

> There are also a couple of people who lately have been a bit frighteningly
> adamant that they KNOW how JKR thinks and what she's doing so intimately
> that they KNOW character X represents Christian character Y or Christian
> theme Z.  LL, though, to the best of my recollection, has never joined in
> this activity, nor have I ever seen anything of ID as a part of his
> particular requirements for the "correct" worldview.

No, LL is just a very good stirrer who enjoys being on both sides of the fence
and pretending to be just an onlooker. Probably a tabloid journalist in RL.
His scary fans (and you're right about that, Susan) however are eager to press
on...

> But it may be that what's being said here in this thread is that, rather
> than the actual *content* of ID, it's the method of going back to "fix"
> things by finding "evidence" and making it "fit" the "proper" worldview that
> was being referred to.

Precisely. With the same agenda to make that worldview indistinguishable to
common culture.


-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 12:18:09 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:18:09 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2e40b+k5pa@...>
References: <20050330021938.GF11702@...> <d2e40b+k5pa@...>
Message-ID: <20050330121809.GI11702@...>

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:53:47AM -0000, naamagatus wrote:

> Naama:
> 
> I'm not getting the connection here - what does that LL quote have to 
> do with ID, exactly? I'm feeling particularly thick here, as others 
> seem to have gotten it, but could you please explain?

LL's approach to Harry-DD relations reminded me of recent news about the ID
approach to evolution - I've been looking for the specific logical fallacy it
relates to (there's a few it could) and I think questionable cause fits the
bill nicely - rewrite the story to fit your prejudices/beliefs despite the
evidence and then demand that others accept it.

-- 
When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.



From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 12:35:07 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:35:07 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <01b001c534db$5859f5e0$6501a8c0@...>
Message-ID: <d2e6dr+uf25@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" <dontask2much at y...> 
wrote:

> Charme, chortling:
> 
> But the questions "does this work?" or "is it convincing?" are 
> never asked. Least not to what I see and perceive, anyway. Instead, 
> most of the argument or presentation of that view is fraught with 
> value and moral judgement, then low and behold,  one then needs to 
> add some scripture to the mix to support his/her point of view? 
> Naaa, it's better I don't read the tainted thread. I 
> might...*snap*...or somethin' :)

There's an undue amount of moral indignation, true.  But at least I 
(having sadly read all of the posts at one time or another) do hear 
the "This doesn't make SENSE!" cry coming through, in the "If DD is 
X, then how can he do Y and Z?".  Of course, what makes sense depends 
in part upon what frame of reference you bring to reading...that 
applies to all the Puppetmaster!DD theories floating around here, too.
 
Reading without value judgements--I don't think that's completely 
possible, nor, to be moderately more controversial, is it a form of 
reading that the text would encourage.  While it's not a lecture, 
Harry Potter has some strong moralizing elements that function as a 
real turn-off to some people.  I see a few sources of disgruntlement:

1.  Disquiet with JKR's moral universe.  Frequently coupled with 
laments about Slytherin House.  A result of wildly disjunct horizons 
and a disinclination to want to get in and understand what the text 
is doing, even if it's not something you like.

2.  Complaints about continuity and "this doesn't make sense", raised 
on all sides.  Not a complaint to just toss aside unless you think 
absolutely everything in the book will prove out as meaningful.  That 
theory doesn't have a good track record...

3.  Disillusionment caused by 'rejection' by the author.  We read and 
we project...and it can be awfully hard to toss one's cherished ideas 
out the window after 2-3 years feeding them and calling them George.  
See the proliferation of 'fanon' out in the wide world as the most 
common response to when things don't go the way a fan wants them to.

> Charme:
> 
> In the words of the infamous Valley Girls, I so, like, totally 
> agree. Choices, choices. Wouldn't it be better for some of them to 
> just not buy and read the books if it's so upsetting? ;)

Never underestimate the human capacity for masochism. :)

-Nora wakes up with the sun






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 14:26:40 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:26:40 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2e6dr+uf25@...>
Message-ID: <d2ecv0+f4h2@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> 1.  Disquiet with JKR's moral universe.  Frequently coupled with 
> laments about Slytherin House.  A result of wildly disjunct horizons 
> and a disinclination to want to get in and understand what the text 
> is doing, even if it's not something you like.
>

Kneasy:
Who gets to decide what is or isn't moral?
Who is the arbiter? You, me or a site pseudomyn from wherever?
Is the 'internal morality' relevant or integral to the story?
And what happens when others disagree?
Would you allow others to dictate what you must think?
I sure as hell won't.
Impasse.
But not a real problem unless someone decides to force the issue.
Good manners and a sense of proportion should prevent it all
getting too fraught, though there might be a few not willing to let
things lie.

HP is "not a morality tale, but hopefully morals can be drawn from it"
thus spake the author and no doubt some will be outraged by such
a cavalier attitude. A fair warning that it's not a 'message' book.
Some may wish that it were, others accept that when they enter an
author's construct, if they can't tolerate the designated structures then
it's better to leave - otherwise it'd be a case of crying for the moon. 
We're 'table d'hote' with HP, not 'a la carte'. Not a problem for most
book lovers, it's the differing views, treatments and presentations that
are the main attractions of books anyway. 

 
> 2.  Complaints about continuity and "this doesn't make sense", raised 
> on all sides.  Not a complaint to just toss aside unless you think 
> absolutely everything in the book will prove out as meaningful.  That 
> theory doesn't have a good track record...

Kneasy:
A bit premature there, I'd have thought; the series is but 70% complete,
with most of the action and explication to come.
Or perhaps you have information that we're not privy to...

> 
> 3.  Disillusionment caused by 'rejection' by the author.  We read and 
> we project...and it can be awfully hard to toss one's cherished ideas 
> out the window after 2-3 years feeding them and calling them George.  
> See the proliferation of 'fanon' out in the wide world as the most 
> common response to when things don't go the way a fan wants them to.
> 

Kneasy:
I don't see this myself. Will you feel 'rejected' if some of the proposed 
theories are validated? I doubt it. A touch disappointed perhaps,
and of the opinion that maybe Jo could have done better, but you can't
be 'rejected' when your opinion isn't canvassed in the first place. And
herself has stated quite plainly that she's writing this for herself and
doesn't give a damn what anybody else wants. Some will find this
particularly upsetting; no only doesn't she need advice, she's not 
bothered about criticism either. Something that's close to unforgivable
for those that believe they have a 'right' to be heard -  and if necessary
mollified.

I see fanon as a healthy response and in no way an indictment of the
developing story-arc. It demonstrates that fans have imagination too.
Just because one can think of an alternative universe that does not 
constitute a rejection of the one you're in.









From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 30 19:47:13 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050330194713.78155.qmail@...>

ewe2 <ewetoo at ...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:53:47AM -0000, naamagatus wrote:

> Naama:
> 
> I'm not getting the connection here - what does that LL quote have to 
> do with ID, exactly? I'm feeling particularly thick here, as others 
> seem to have gotten it, but could you please explain?

LL's approach to Harry-DD relations reminded me of recent news about the ID
approach to evolution - I've been looking for the specific logical fallacy it
relates to (there's a few it could) and I think questionable cause fits the
bill nicely - rewrite the story to fit your prejudices/beliefs despite the
evidence and then demand that others accept it.

I don't know, but it seems rather elitist to be discussing someone on this list who is not here to defend themselves. Why not issue an invitation to LupinLore to come join us and defend his own statements?
 
CV



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 

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




From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 31 00:45:38 2005
From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Charme)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:45:38 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Intelligent Manifestos
References: <20050330111736.GG11702@...> <004b01c5351d$1c0dfe50$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> <20050330115809.GH11702@...>
Message-ID: <006c01c5358a$f6083860$6501a8c0@...>

>ewe2 said:

> No, LL is just a very good stirrer who enjoys being on both sides of the 
> fence
> and pretending to be just an onlooker. Probably a tabloid journalist in 
> RL.
> His scary fans (and you're right about that, Susan) however are eager to 
> press
> on...

Charme:

Unless he's a tabloid undercover journalist while working on a US military 
facility (that's where he's posting from), then naaa, I don't think so :)

Charme 






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 31 12:43:05 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:43:05 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2ecv0+f4h2@...>
Message-ID: <d2gr8p+dfd9@...>


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

> Kneasy:
> Who gets to decide what is or isn't moral?
> Who is the arbiter? You, me or a site pseudomyn from wherever?
> Is the 'internal morality' relevant or integral to the story?
> And what happens when others disagree?
> Would you allow others to dictate what you must think?
> I sure as hell won't.

Let me clarify, although this isn't my position.  This school of 
disgruntlement believes that JKR *is* sending out moral messages from 
a very strong authorial voice, and they do not like them.  
Specifically, it is considered to be a message that Gryffindor House 
is Good and Slytherin House is Entirely Bad, reinforced by her 
interviews where she's like "Draco is nasty, the Slytherin kids are 
unpleasant, who could possibly really like Snape, etc."  People who 
JKR likes, such as Hagrid, have flaws that are readily obvious to any 
reader, but she likes them and so we are supposed to regard them as 
good.  The Twins do morally heinous things, but for some reason she 
likes the little shits, so we get their excellence shoved down our 
throats.

Again, it ain't my position.  But you can see where from it comes, no?

>> 2.  Complaints about continuity and "this doesn't make sense", 
>> raised on all sides.  Not a complaint to just toss aside unless 
>> you think absolutely everything in the book will prove out as 
>> meaningful.  That theory doesn't have a good track record...
> 
> Kneasy:
> A bit premature there, I'd have thought; the series is but 70% 
> complete, with most of the action and explication to come.
> Or perhaps you have information that we're not privy to...

Two words: Mark Evans. :)

I'm also thinking of some plot situations which can be picked apart 
at present as a little flimsy, but you are indeed-y correct that 
future information could modify things drastically.  Here's another 
example which floats around but **is not my own thinking**: the DEs 
have all sorts of various skills that we're told about, like unto 
specialties.  Why weren't any of them using them in the DoM battle?  
These guys are hardened black hats and they're just holding back on 
the kids so as not to break the shiny?  Doesn't make sense.  (Of 
course, you can reason it out so as to make sense--but the critic 
rejects the validity and/or quality of what you have to do to make it 
make sense.)
 
>> 3.  Disillusionment caused by 'rejection' by the author.  We read 
>> and we project...and it can be awfully hard to toss one's 
>> cherished ideas out the window after 2-3 years feeding them and 
>> calling them George. See the proliferation of 'fanon' out in the 
>> wide world as the most common response to when things don't go the 
>> way a fan wants them to.
> 
> Kneasy:
> I don't see this myself. Will you feel 'rejected' if some of the 
> proposed theories are validated? I doubt it. A touch disappointed 
> perhaps, and of the opinion that maybe Jo could have done better, 
> but you can't be 'rejected' when your opinion isn't canvassed in 
> the first place.

No, you can't actually be rejected, but you certainly can feel as if 
you are rejected.  The strength of reaction in the fandom has, at 
times, certainly gone past 'disappointment', particularly in the 
expression of intense personal feeling about said events.  If a fan 
has a very heavy emotional investment in a particular set of ideas 
and projections about a character (and many do), it's not easy to 
have things go the other way.

<snip>

> I see fanon as a healthy response and in no way an indictment of the
> developing story-arc. It demonstrates that fans have imagination 
> too. Just because one can think of an alternative universe that 
> does not constitute a rejection of the one you're in.

IMHO, some fanon arises because of a desire for things to go 
differently, and because of disgruntlement with the present story 
arc.  This is pretty clearly observable in the type of AU scenarios 
which have flourished post-OotP.  Otherwise we wouldn't have suave, 
sexy, enlightened Draco who wants Harry so badly, or a zillion 
stories where Sirius gets resurrected, or the continued writing of 
Snape as an aristocratic figure of wealth and supreme erudition.  In 
the discussion threads of what might happen next to a beloved 
character (especially Draco and/or Snape), a common refrain is "if we 
don't like it and she ruins the character, there's still always 
fanon!".  Fanon can be a great deal of fun and YMMV and go for it and 
all that, but it does frequently arise from fan dislike (and hence 
indictment of) the story arc and presentation of characters, and the 
desire to have more acceptible alternatives.  The newcomer to fanon 
characterizations often ends up looking at them and going "Where the 
hell did this come from?  Reading the same books?"

-Nora rather enjoys the comments from Iser about projection and 
failure to communicate







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 31 17:30:48 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:30:48 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2gr8p+dfd9@...>
Message-ID: <d2hc48+va56@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> Let me clarify, although this isn't my position.  This school of 
> disgruntlement believes that JKR *is* sending out moral messages from 
> a very strong authorial voice, and they do not like them.  
> Specifically, it is considered to be a message that Gryffindor House 
> is Good and Slytherin House is Entirely Bad, reinforced by her 
> interviews where she's like "Draco is nasty, the Slytherin kids are 
> unpleasant, who could possibly really like Snape, etc."  People who 
> JKR likes, such as Hagrid, have flaws that are readily obvious to any 
> reader, but she likes them and so we are supposed to regard them as 
> good.  The Twins do morally heinous things, but for some reason she 
> likes the little shits, so we get their excellence shoved down our 
> throats.
> 
> Again, it ain't my position.  But you can see where from it comes, no?
>

Kneasy:
Maybe the moral is "Make hypocrisy work for you."
Mostly the anguish of those that complain is a result of taking it all
too seriously and without the necessary pinch of salt, IMO. Sadly,
it's almost impossible to get them to take the step back that might
put it into some sort of perspective. What does get irritating is the
assumption that others do or should take it as seriously and as 
literally as they do. 

It's all down to reader perceptions, each is different to a greater
or lesser extent - and they mean bugger all without a confirmatory
nod from the author. 

A lot of those that have romped around Jo's playground for a while
are aware that some of the comments she's made could well have
been preparation for unexpected and unwelcome plot developments,
at least where some fans are concerned. The statement that she 
"doesn't care if only six books are bought" she still won't change
the story, for example. Sounds good to me. Something to look
forward to. Hope it's nothing trivial. There's a fair chance that
others will be horrified - assuming she had a reason for making
the statement in the first place.

It's worth remembering that the main story was complete before
the furore of world fame. She expected (if she was lucky) to sell
a few thousand copies and supplement a teacher's salary. With
all the millions of fans she's not going to please them all. She's
probably wise to expect complaints, some vociferous. She'd
be even wiser to brush 'em off - here it is, take it or leave it.
Can you see any other realistic alternative?

 
> > 
> > Kneasy:
> > A bit premature there, I'd have thought; the series is but 70% 
> > complete, with most of the action and explication to come.
> > Or perhaps you have information that we're not privy to...
> 
> Two words: Mark Evans. :)
> 

Kneasy:
OK - though I never bought that one anyway.
I'll respond with one word - Scabbers.
What would FAITH's response have been if after book 2 it had
been suggested that a dozy pet rat would be an apparently major 
villain?
In retrospect much acquires an aura of inevitability that before
the event would have been thought fanciful, yet if you browse through
the archives there's very little that wasn't suggested by someone. The
trick is picking the winners. Most of the major theories are still up
for grabs - mostly because they aren't expected to be tested until
the final volume, or perhaps by something really BANGy in book 6.
Then we'll get the slaughter of the not-so-innocent.
Should be fun. And I do mean fun. I doubt that *any* of the theorisers
are as intensely involved with HP as the moralists are. Most are doomed
to seeing theories rubbished; so what? It's not important. But it seems
to be for the moralists.

> I'm also thinking of some plot situations which can be picked apart 
> at present as a little flimsy, but you are indeed-y correct that 
> future information could modify things drastically.  Here's another 
> example which floats around but **is not my own thinking**: the DEs 
> have all sorts of various skills that we're told about, like unto 
> specialties.  Why weren't any of them using them in the DoM battle?  
> These guys are hardened black hats and they're just holding back on 
> the kids so as not to break the shiny?  Doesn't make sense.  (Of 
> course, you can reason it out so as to make sense--but the critic 
> rejects the validity and/or quality of what you have to do to make it 
> make sense.)
> 

Kneasy:
Yes.  The Dark Magic question. Or perhaps DM is not so much a matter
of defined spells as an intention to do harm with a spell. Who knows?
The exchange between DD and MM chap.1, PS/SS is probably a pointer 
of some kind.

> 
> No, you can't actually be rejected, but you certainly can feel as if 
> you are rejected.  The strength of reaction in the fandom has, at 
> times, certainly gone past 'disappointment', particularly in the 
> expression of intense personal feeling about said events.  If a fan 
> has a very heavy emotional investment in a particular set of ideas 
> and projections about a character (and many do), it's not easy to 
> have things go the other way.
> 

Kneasy:
It's probably because I'm an unfeeling brute, but I've never had any
intense reaction to anything in HP. Doubt I ever will, apart from
"Hey! That's a good plot twist!" if there's an unexpected turn of events.
Some fiction and poetry can get to me, but not Jo. It's solely light
entertainment from this viewpoint; no emotional investment at all.
Sure, I appreciate that there are those that are heavily committed.
I appreciate that it happens, but I don't pretend to understand it.
"Hello? It's not real! It's not even realistic!" is my attitude.
And never the twain shall meet.

> 
> IMHO, some fanon arises because of a desire for things to go 
> differently, and because of disgruntlement with the present story 
> arc.  This is pretty clearly observable in the type of AU scenarios 
> which have flourished post-OotP.  Otherwise we wouldn't have suave, 
> sexy, enlightened Draco who wants Harry so badly, or a zillion 
> stories where Sirius gets resurrected, or the continued writing of 
> Snape as an aristocratic figure of wealth and supreme erudition.  In 
> the discussion threads of what might happen next to a beloved 
> character (especially Draco and/or Snape), a common refrain is "if we 
> don't like it and she ruins the character, there's still always 
> fanon!".  Fanon can be a great deal of fun and YMMV and go for it and 
> all that, but it does frequently arise from fan dislike (and hence 
> indictment of) the story arc and presentation of characters, and the 
> desire to have more acceptible alternatives.  The newcomer to fanon 
> characterizations often ends up looking at them and going "Where the 
> hell did this come from?  Reading the same books?"
>

Kneasy:
We'll continue to disagree, I think.
Nobody in their right mind could ever conceive of JKR (or any mainstream
author, come to that) developing HP along some of the fanon lines.
But looking at the more, let's say, conventional outpourings - I don't
believe it means as much as you think. You may recall that there are
three(?) TBAYS from yours truly - the MADAM WHIPLASH series. Does
that signify an indictment of JKR for not making Hermione a sex-pot
dominatice? Nope. It's a humorous counterpoint to the Hermy of the
books and means nothing. But stuff like that is fun to write and I'd
guess most would regard the more readable fanon as an adjunct to
HP rather than as an attempt at a replacement. 
  








From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 31 21:56:23 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:56:23 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2hc48+va56@...>
Message-ID: <d2hrm7+11ae4@...>


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

> Kneasy:

<snip>

> It's all down to reader perceptions, each is different to a greater
> or lesser extent - and they mean bugger all without a confirmatory
> nod from the author. 

I take it you're not of the "text takes on a life of its own 
completely independent of what the author may have intended it to 
mean" group of interpretation, then?  I'm not either.  Lots of people 
out there are.  Deconstruction isn't totally dead, although Derrida 
is.

A subquestion: what about things where we are not likely to get 
confirmatory nods from the author in an explicit sense?  It'd be 
awfully dull literature if she set things up and then resolved every 
little point in a completely explicit way; so if you want to you can 
still argue that Snape didn't *actually* drop Harry's vial off the 
desk in OotP, but it's only Harry's flawed perception of events that 
leads him to unfairly blame Snape.  A trivial example, true, but 
perhaps an illustrative one.
 
> A lot of those that have romped around Jo's playground for a while
> are aware that some of the comments she's made could well have
> been preparation for unexpected and unwelcome plot developments,
> at least where some fans are concerned. The statement that she 
> "doesn't care if only six books are bought" she still won't change
> the story, for example. Sounds good to me. Something to look
> forward to. Hope it's nothing trivial. There's a fair chance that
> others will be horrified - assuming she had a reason for making
> the statement in the first place.

I hope she surprises me.  I like being surprised.  My main interest 
in the series is seeing how she sets up things to play out, after all.

> Kneasy:
>
> I doubt that *any* of the theorisers are as intensely involved with 
> HP as the moralists are. Most are doomed to seeing theories 
> rubbished; so what? It's not important. But it seems to be for the 
> moralists.

And the ficcers, at least some of them.  I'm not sure that you have 
to fall explicitly into the 'moralist' category to have a profound 
level of investment in your own ideas about plot/characters/whatever.

> Kneasy:
> We'll continue to disagree, I think.
> Nobody in their right mind could ever conceive of JKR (or any 
> mainstream author, come to that) developing HP along some of the 
> fanon lines. But looking at the more, let's say, conventional 
> outpourings - I don't
> believe it means as much as you think. You may recall that there are
> three(?) TBAYS from yours truly - the MADAM WHIPLASH series. Does
> that signify an indictment of JKR for not making Hermione a sex-pot
> dominatice? Nope. It's a humorous counterpoint to the Hermy of the
> books and means nothing. But stuff like that is fun to write and I'd
> guess most would regard the more readable fanon as an adjunct to
> HP rather than as an attempt at a replacement.

That's a more conventional, perhaps, way to approach it--although 
what is conventional depends on what community you are in.  There 
are, my dear Kneasy, people out there who are here for the fic and 
greatly prefer it to the source material, or those who consider the 
source material by itself, without the fic, to be boring and dull and 
not worth one's while.  Fanon in some cases has taken on such a life 
of its own that it does function as a replacement for canon, a 
simulacra if one wishes.  What one likes, or where we were at when 
the universe of a fic or such was spawned is retained--what comes in 
and is disliked is replaced, and people merrily argue over the merits 
and qualities of fanon portrayals and elevate them above 
what 'merely' goes on in canon.  At times such fanon fic becomes a 
platform for polemic and 'fixing' everything that Jo screwed up.  I 
suspect it's rather not your part of the fandom.

-Nora notes that it isn't hers either, but it's fascinating to observe