Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- 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 I've got the nubbins of an old unpublished draft, last modified 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.