Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots

[nkafkafi]

> 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