Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots

[Talisman]

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: