From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct  1 01:28:00 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:28:00 -0000
Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dhjct2+98qp@...>
Message-ID: <dhkon0+qkna@...>

Pippin wrote:

> If he were possessing Nagini and Nagini were killed, what would
> become of him if his horcruxes had been destroyed?  If Voldemort is 
> possessing Nagini when he dies, that will spare Harry having to kill
> a human being.

Oh, please.  I do hope the spirit of Salazar Slytherin reminds him of 
Rule of Evil Overlord Etiquette no. 34:

"I will not turn into a snake. It never helps."

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

David






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct  1 13:55:56 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:55:56 -0000
Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dhkon0+qkna@...>
Message-ID: <dhm4hc+cknd@...>

David:
> Oh, please.  I do hope the spirit of Salazar Slytherin reminds him
of  Rule of Evil Overlord Etiquette no. 34:
> 
> "I will not turn into a snake. It never helps."
> 
> http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
> 

Pippin:
I know. I know. But to give him his due, Voldemort was a teenager
during the golden age of pulp fiction when skull-faced villains who 
could turn into snakes were all the rage. 

Besides which, insane dysfunctional people are by definition
incapable of self-improvement, so lists of that sort are of little 
use to them.

Turning into a snake is the pulp fiction equivalent of chasing all
the really clever scientists out of the country or starting an Asian
land war. The fact that it never works doesn't seem to register.

Pippin





From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct  1 14:46:21 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 14:46:21 -0000
Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dhm4hc+cknd@...>
Message-ID: <dhm7ft+jnfp@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> David:
> > Oh, please.  I do hope the spirit of Salazar Slytherin reminds him
> of  Rule of Evil Overlord Etiquette no. 34:
> > 
> > "I will not turn into a snake. It never helps."
> > 
> > http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> I know. I know. But to give him his due, Voldemort was a teenager
> during the golden age of pulp fiction when skull-faced villains who 
> could turn into snakes were all the rage. 
> 
> Besides which, insane dysfunctional people are by definition
> incapable of self-improvement, so lists of that sort are of little 
> use to them.
> 
> Turning into a snake is the pulp fiction equivalent of chasing all
> the really clever scientists out of the country or starting an Asian
> land war. The fact that it never works doesn't seem to register.
> 
> Pippin

Carolyn:
Well, what's an evil overlord to do? Sometimes you just can't win. 
See rule #47:

'If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, I 
will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting for 
him to mature.'

And then look what happened. No wonder he's not a happy bunny.





From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct  1 17:36:32 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dhm7ft+jnfp@...>
Message-ID: <20051001173632.85546.qmail@...>

And from the Dungeon:

117: No matter how much I want revenge, I will never
order an underling "Leave him. He's mine!"

155: If I know of any heroes in the land, I will not
under any circumstances kill their mentors, teachers,
and/or best friends.

201: All giant serpents acting as gardians in
underground lakes will be fitted with sports goggles
to prevent eye injuries.

Ah well. Live and learn.

CV



> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999"
> <foxmoth at q...> 
> wrote:
> > David:
> > > Oh, please.  I do hope the spirit of Salazar
> Slytherin reminds him
> > of  Rule of Evil Overlord Etiquette no. 34:
> > > 
> > > "I will not turn into a snake. It never helps."
> > > 
> > > http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
> > > 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > I know. I know. But to give him his due, Voldemort
> was a teenager
> > during the golden age of pulp fiction when
> skull-faced villains who 
> > could turn into snakes were all the rage. 
> > 
> > Besides which, insane dysfunctional people are by
> definition
> > incapable of self-improvement, so lists of that
> sort are of little 
> > use to them.
> > 
> > Turning into a snake is the pulp fiction
> equivalent of chasing all
> > the really clever scientists out of the country or
> starting an Asian
> > land war. The fact that it never works doesn't
> seem to register.
> > 
> > Pippin
> 
> Carolyn:
> Well, what's an evil overlord to do? Sometimes you
> just can't win. 
> See rule #47:
> 
> 'If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to
> destroy me, I 
> will slay him while he is still a callow youth
> instead of waiting for 
> him to mature.'
> 
> And then look what happened. No wonder he's not a
> happy bunny.
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct  3 16:21:08 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:21:08 -0000
Subject: The List update
In-Reply-To: <dh6e8f+mjo7@...>
Message-ID: <dhrlpk+1trq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death/scar
> 
> Why did Voldie try to spare Lily?
> 
> Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? . .
...<much snippage>




Oh, gosh, I'm really jumping into this a bit late. I attribute this,
ironically, to the fact that HBP fell a bit flat for me and I have
begun to believe that JKR just may not be going in any particularly
meaningful direction...and so my TOC participation has fallen off
accordingly.  

I won't go into great detail, as I can see this topic has really been
making the rounds, but I will add my thought that, perhaps, we've
gotten a bit carried away with the speculation and analysis and have
forgotten that it may be, after all is said and done, just a
children's story.  Perhaps it's a bit premature, but maybe we need to
take a step back and realize that this story was originally conceived
by a young, first-time writer and the storyline has remained, as JKR
has indicated, largely unchanged.  How can that possibly compete with
the imaginations of millions of readers and thousands of creative
theorists?

That said, I have a few more issues that I would like to see cleared
up by the end of the series, which I haven't seen on "The List" as of yet:

*Who finds magic "late in life"?

*What were the "three times" James and Lily defied V.?

*What of Wormtail's life debt to Harry?

*What is behind the last Dept. of Mysteries door?

*Was Hagrid really buying Flesheating Slug Repellant in Nocturn Alley?

*Importance of Lily's/Harry's eye color.



:: Entropy ::
www.geocities.com/entropymail






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct  7 03:53:31 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:53:31 -0000
Subject: OT: The List Update
Message-ID: <di4rfr+pd6i@...>

With help from Jo Serenadust and Anita, the intro has been written, the List 
has been organized and  submitted to the Lexicon. Anyone who would like 
to be listed as a contributor, please email me off list how you would like 
your name to appear. And Thanks!

Pippin






From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct  7 16:02:33 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:02:33 -0000
Subject: OT: The List Update
In-Reply-To: <di4rfr+pd6i@...>
Message-ID: <di666p+876f@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>
> With help from Jo Serenadust and Anita, the intro has been written,
the List 
> has been organized and  submitted to the Lexicon. Anyone who would like 
> to be listed as a contributor, please email me off list how you
would like 
> your name to appear. And Thanks!
> 
> Pippin


Pippin, can you post the final version of the list here for us to see?
I'd love to take a look! Thanks.

:: Entropy ::







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct  7 21:57:02 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:57:02 -0000
Subject: OT: The List Update
In-Reply-To: <di666p+876f@...>
Message-ID: <di6qve+r866@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" 
<entropymail at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> >
> > With help from Jo Serenadust and Anita, the intro has been 
written,
> the List 
> > has been organized and  submitted to the Lexicon. Anyone who 
would like 
> > to be listed as a contributor, please email me off list how you
> would like 
> > your name to appear. And Thanks!
> > 
> > Pippin
> 
> 
> Pippin, can you post the final version of the list here for us to 
see?
> I'd love to take a look! Thanks.
> 
> :: Entropy ::

I would like to see it as well!
Fran
>







From the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com  Sat Oct  8 23:18:45 2005
From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com (the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 8 Oct 2005 23:18:45 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd 
Message-ID: <1128813525.550.19542.w105@yahoogroups.com>


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the the_old_crowd 
group.

  File        : /THE LIST.doc 
  Uploaded by : pippin_999 <foxmoth at ...> 
  Description : A list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs to be completed in Book Seven 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/files/THE%20LIST.doc 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

pippin_999 <foxmoth at ...>
 








From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 01:01:57 2005
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:01:57 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <1128813525.550.19542.w105@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <di9q65+c2bm@...>

On my way out the door, but a very quick list of some other considerations.

On which side are the Goblins in this new war , and the significance of the Goblin 
Rebellions always discussed in history class.

What became of Bagman and the Goblins who were after him.

Lockhart was showing signs his memory was returning, is he ever cured and does he yet 
have a role in future events.

What other secrets were are in the Chamber of Secrets, what if any significance is attached 
to the blocked passageways.

Will the other peoples, like the Mer people, play a role in the final battle.

Does the Marauder's Map have a continuing role.

What became of the Hogwarts founders after the breakup.

And of course, the significance of Harry's having Lilly's eyes. 







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 10:25:17 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:25:17 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <1128813525.550.19542.w105@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <diar6d+o38k@...>



--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the the_old_crowd 
> group.
> 
> File : /THE LIST.doc 
> Uploaded by : pippin_999 foxmoth at q... 
> Description : A list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs to be completed in Book Seven 


What, are we never to discover what Aberforth was doing with that goat? Our regular contributor from the Welsh Borders tells me these incidents are remembered for generations, some some explanation of how sheep shagging made it into an honest-to-goodness children's morality tale is essential I feel.

Carolyn

Hm, hard to judge how these new font sizes will appear, isn't it -(playing with new beta HTML option)


 



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




From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 13:00:18 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:00:18 -0000
Subject: Dead Dumbledore
Message-ID: <dib492+n0id@...>

Some other groups are discussing whether Dumbledore is really dead 
or not.  So I wrote this as a tribute to their discussions.

Having just finished reading his books to his young
children for the night. Red Eye Randy wanders into the
Hogs Head and orders a brandy.  He then walks up to
the stage and begins reading from Dr. Seuss ( a former
teacher at Hogwarts).  He also orders a plate of Green
Eggs and Ham......


Dead Dumbledore

That JKR, that JKR
I do not trust that JKR.

Do you buy dead Dumbledore ?

I do not buy it, JKR
I do not buy dead Dumbledore!

Would you buy it here or there?

I would not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere.
I do not buy dead Dumbledore
I do not trust you JKR !

Would you buy it at Snape's house?
Where Peter's listening like a mouse?

I do not buy it at Snape's house
I do not like that silly old mouse.
I would not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere.
I do not buy dead Dumbledore
I do not trust you JKR !

The unbreakable vow is like a box !
That Snape's a traitor like a fox !

Not in a box
Snape's not a fox
Not at Snape's house
Not with that mouse.
I would not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere.
I do not buy dead Dumbledore
I do not trust you JKR !

Would you? Could you?
In the bar?
Madame Rosemerta helped from afar!

I would not, could not in a bar!

But Snape was mad at him you see.
Remember that incident with the tree!

I do not think Snape did that deed.
Now JKR,, you let me be.

Keep your horcruxes in that box
I do not think that Snape's a fox.
I do not buy it at Snape's house
I do not like that silly old mouse.
I would not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere.
I do not buy dead Dumbledore
I do not trust you JKR !

AK ! AK ! AK ! AK !
Can't you see it was AK ?

Not really AK! Not Snape's bad deed !
Not in the bar! Joanne, you let me be!

Keep your horcruxes in that box
I do not think that Snape's a fox.
I do not buy it at Snape's house
I do not like that silly old mouse.
I would not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere.
I do not buy dead Dumbledore
I do not trust you JKR !

Say! In the Dark?
In Riddle's Cave!
He drank that potion in the Cave !

I would not, could not in the dark.

He fell off the tower and split his brain ?

I don't believe he split his brain.
Not drunk from Cave! Not really AK !
Not in the bar. Not Snape's bad deed.
I do not trust you, Joanne, you see.
Not at Snape's house. His vow a box.
Not with that mouse. Snape's not a fox.
I will not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere!

You do not buy dead Dumbledore?

I do not trust you JKR !

You think I'd not kill that old goat?
Perhaps a bezoar down his throat?

I don't think you killed that old goat!

Prof Dumbledore did Snape not smote?

I don't believe that Snape did smote.
I don't think he killed that old goat!
I don't believe he split his brain.
Not drunk from Cave! Not really AK !
Not in the bar. Not Snape's bad deed.
I do not trust you, Joanne, you see.
Not at Snape's house. His vow a box.
Not with that mouse. Snape's not a fox.
I will not buy it here or there.
I would not buy it anywhere!

I do not buy dead Dumbledore!
I do not trust you JKR!

You do not trust me.
So you say.
Then book seven you'll read some day!
Perhaps he's not dead, but I can't say!

JKR!
Please write quickly!
We will read it
Then we'll all see!

And closed his book
And finished his brandy
And ordered another
Did Red Eye Randy


Randy still is unsure whether DD is dead but offers
this poem to those who are convinced that he is alive!







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 13:32:51 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:32:51 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <diar6d+o38k@...>
Message-ID: <dib663+826j@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:

> What, are we never to discover what Aberforth was doing with that goat? Our regular 
contributor from the Welsh Borders tells me these incidents are remembered for 
generations, some some explanation of how sheep shagging made it into an honest-to-
goodness children's morality tale is essential I feel.
> 

Pippin:
::grins::
Hmmm....maybe I need another category :

Crumple-horned Snorkacks
(Things I would like to know more about if they are really important but would 
prefer to leave shrouded in mystery if they are not)


The exact relationship between Aberforth and his goats
*Can* Aberforth read
Was Dumbledore an animagus
The wand in Ollivander's window
The other two memories Snape put in the pensieve
Stubby Boardman
The definitions of Dark Magic and Dark Creatures
Will the goblins ever catch Ludo Bagman?
Snape's resemblance to a giant bat
How the Baron got covered in blood
Why Peeves is afraid of the BB
Is there any hope for: Lockhart, the Longbottoms, Winky, Moaning Myrtle, NHN
and other such lost souls
Will Stan Shunpike go free 

'Unexplored vistas' as Tolkien called them are what give fantasy the
texture of reality -- I'd much rather have them remain as food for
speculation than be resolved in a perfunctory sentence or two. 


Pippin






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 15:05:34 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:05:34 -0000
Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dhm4hc+cknd@...>
Message-ID: <dibbju+endn@...>

in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3343
"pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Turning into a snake is the pulp fiction equivalent of chasing all
> the really clever scientists out of the country or starting an Asian
> land war. The fact that it never works doesn't seem to register.

I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that Eisenhower said, in
reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was born), "Never get
involved in a land war on the Asian continent." It was a wonderful
quote when people were discussing the Vietnam War and it was again a
wonderful quote when people discussed the Gulf and Iraq Wars.

But Lee locked herself in a room with Google and emerged after a long
time, saying that Eisenhower had never said any such thing. So who did?






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 16:58:28 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:58:28 -0000
Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected Tasks
Message-ID: <dibi7k+ohrg@...>

We know that Voldemort is the last descendant of Salazar Slytherin's 
line, now fortuitously reconstituted and active in the WW (thanks to 
DD's tireless efforts). 

Rowling has nixed Harry as an heir to Gryffindor, so the money is  
on DD as having been in Godric's family tree, leaving the 
redoubtable Aberforth as an extant member of that blood line 
(assuming DD *is* even dead, which, I agree, is no sure thing.)  
This comports nicely with Rowling's suggestion that DD's family line 
is of future interest.

To this I add Zacharias Smith, a Hufflepuff --who, along with his 
father--displays a certain, shall we say, aristocratic haughtiness.  
I'm betting that he is  related to Hepzibah Smith, and so a blood 
heir to Helga Hufflepuff.

What we have, then, on the eve of Book 7, is a gathering of the 
blood.  A small matter of identifying a Ravenclaw descendant, and we 
are ready for some serious Founders' mojo.

Just what will come of it remains to be seen, but I'm betting that 
the need for Slyth blood is one of the reasons DD has kept LV around 
all these years.

As to the location of Hxes, I don't really expect that to take as 
much time as might otherwise be anticipated.  The bloodline 
contingent  might come in handy here, too, though it's not the only 
reason they are *on stage.*

For one thing, though she's an awful fibber, Rowling moderated the 
Mugglenetters expostulations-- regarding the difference, going into 
Book 7, of our *knowing* what Harry has to do--with the quiet 
suggestion that Harry (and the giddy interviewers) might *think* he 
knows what he has to do, but there will be at least one, hmmmmm, 
shall we say "unexpected task," which I'm betting will throw things 
rather a different way.

For another, we know from Hepzibah Smith that the Founders' relics 
have special powers, all their own.  She only dabbled with the 
powers imbued in the Hufflepuff Cup.  Perhaps simply out of the 
greater interest she had in her ancestor's item, but also possibly 
because a "true heir" would have more success with the powers of a 
given ancestor's relic.  If so, she wouldn't have bothered 
experimenting with the Slyth pendant, not being blood-linked to 
activate it's powers.  

If Rowling has made good her claim of leaving sufficient clues, it 
would seem that additional HX clues are to be found in CoS--again, 
confirming the link between Books 2 and 6--and making good Rowling's 
other claim: that Harry learned something important in Book 2 to 
that relates to Book 6.

Harry *did* use a Founder's object in CoS to defeat a *version* of  
LV, and a troublesome serpent in his employ. (A nice bit of 
foreshadowing/mirror symmetry.)

Fawkes showed up to assist Harry.  I think we have to conclude that 
this was per DD's instructions, not merely due to Harry's *loyalty* 
(which, as I've argued before, was not particularly in play at the 
time, and which would warrant questioning why Fawkes doesn't show up 
in all of Harry's other confrontations, or even on behalf of other 
*loyal* order members, etc.)

Fawkes delivers the Sorting Hat.  I'm guessing this was per DD's 
instructions, as well.

Harry asks for help, and the sword appears.  Later, DD tells him 
that "only a true Gryffindor" could have pulled the sword out of the 
hat.

Well, DD is a bit of a fibber, himself.  Harry isn't literally a 
*true Gryffindor,* certainly not in the way Tom Riddle/LV is a *true 
Slytherin.*  But DD, who *is* a true Gryffindor, had a point to 
make, or maybe two.

Our silver-bearded heir of Gryffindor likely directed the sword to 
respond to Harry. Not only did he want to save Harry's buns and 
secure Harry's identification with/ownership of his place in 
Gryffindor House, but he has given a little lesson in what a *true 
heir* can do vis-a-vis the hat, with it's bits of  Founders' brains, 
and a bona fide Founder's relic.

If the Slyth pendant isn't just waiting for Harry in Kreature's 
nest, available even by the master's command, then perhaps LV put 
enough of himself into Harry to allow the boy to conjure it out of 
the old chapeau.

Zacharias will have to be reasoned with, but after all, he has a 
claim to the cup and might want it back for his Hope chest.

Who will the Ravenclaw assistant be? Luna? That would be dandy.  It 
would teach a thing or two to the Ravenclaws who don't think she 
*belongs in their house.*  She'd certainly be willing enough to help 
Harry defeat the Dark Lord.

As for the non-Founders' item Hxes, LV will be coming after Harry, 
or easy enough to bait if he is being coy, and Nagini is never too 
far from his side. Alternatively, Harry has the touted scar-link and 
can work on homing-in on the Dark Lair, should  Mohammad need to 
come to the Mountain.

Now, why do we need Voldemort and Aberforth?fs blood. Something to 
gnaw on, here.

Talisman, thinking that what with untapped special powers and scraps 
of tainted soul, those relics are fairly exploding with potential.

P.S.
Having found a little HP time, I?fve finally commenced a response to 
Potioncat (and Catlady) regarding the Hawthorne /Northrup Frye 
comments on TOL.  Soon, soon...but you know it is much lighter work 
to ask ?gwhy?h than to explain. 














From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 17:19:43 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:19:43 -0000
Subject: 'Shrouded in mystery...' list (Re: New file uploaded)
In-Reply-To: <dib663+826j@...>
Message-ID: <dibjff+m0kk@...>

> Pippin:
> ::grins::
> Hmmm....maybe I need another category :
> 
> Crumple-horned Snorkacks
> (Things I would like to know more about if they are really 
important but would 
> prefer to leave shrouded in mystery if they are not)
> 
> 
> The exact relationship between Aberforth and his goats
> *Can* Aberforth read
> Was Dumbledore an animagus
> The wand in Ollivander's window
> The other two memories Snape put in the pensieve
> Stubby Boardman
> The definitions of Dark Magic and Dark Creatures
> Will the goblins ever catch Ludo Bagman?
> Snape's resemblance to a giant bat
> How the Baron got covered in blood
> Why Peeves is afraid of the BB
> Is there any hope for: Lockhart, the Longbottoms, Winky, Moaning 
Myrtle, NHN
> and other such lost souls
> Will Stan Shunpike go free 
> 
> 'Unexplored vistas' as Tolkien called them are what give fantasy 
the
> texture of reality -- I'd much rather have them remain as food for
> speculation than be resolved in a perfunctory sentence or two. 


"Oh good, Snape's two memories are certainly important for the story 
so we'll get to hear more about those" Jen said, adjusting her 
slightly smudged rose-colored glasses.

A few more for the 'shrouded in mystery unless important to the 
plot' list: 

Slughorn's two perfect Felix days
What experiment went south on Mrs. Lovegood
Why Petunia is preternaturally clean
Whether Kreacher will make it to the House Elf Wall of Fame
How Dumbledore found the cave


Jen, thinking there are probably many little extras JKR loaded the 
story with purely for humour, a character moment or to explain a 
plotline significant for only one book i.e., Mrs. Lovegood






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 19:22:38 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:22:38 -0000
Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected Tasks
In-Reply-To: <dibi7k+ohrg@...>
Message-ID: <dibqlu+t4ef@...>

Talisman:
> Rowling has nixed Harry as an heir to Gryffindor, so the money is  
> on DD as having been in Godric's family tree, leaving the 
> redoubtable Aberforth as an extant member of that blood line 
> (assuming DD *is* even dead, which, I agree, is no sure thing.)  
> This comports nicely with Rowling's suggestion that DD's family
> line is of future interest.

Jen: Yes! This theory is getting no response on TOL and I'm 
wondering why--what's the downside to this one? We're due an 
explanation of why Lily and James were protected at Godric's Hollow, 
how Dumbledore came to own Fawkes, and like you said, the importance 
of DD's family. All could be nicely answered by this theory. 
Personally I'd like to see Ron's watch come into play as well, that 
it was given to him by the Weasleys via Dumbledore (Catlady's 
theory?)and will help him destroy a Gryff horcrux or provide some 
other useful Gryffindor function.

Another thought, Aberforth will buy the farm in Book 7 so the 
remaining heirs of the two feuding founders will be laid to rest.

As Gryffindor's heir, DD might be uniquely *unqualified* to deal 
with finding and destroying the Horcruxes, especially those objects 
of Slytherin. Both the ring and locket could have protections on 
them from Salazar ensuring no one but a Slytherin heir could wear 
them. Is that why Dumbledore struggled with the ring protections, 
resulting in the literal and symbolic burning of his wand hand? 
Maybe the delay on the ring story was Rowling waiting to unveil the 
Gryffindor backstory. 

Talisman: 
> Just what will come of it remains to be seen, but I'm betting that 
> the need for Slyth blood is one of the reasons DD has kept LV
> around all these years.

Jen: Whatever do you mean by that, Talisman? I'm shocked you would 
even think that.

Heh.

Talisman:
> For another, we know from Hepzibah Smith that the Founders' relics 
> have special powers, all their own.  She only dabbled with the 
> powers imbued in the Hufflepuff Cup.  Perhaps simply out of the 
> greater interest she had in her ancestor's item, but also possibly 
> because a "true heir" would have more success with the powers of a 
> given ancestor's relic.  If so, she wouldn't have bothered 
> experimenting with the Slyth pendant, not being blood-linked to 
> activate it's powers.  

Jen: Or was smart enough not to? I'm not sure I would put a bona-
fide Salazar Slytherin relic around my neck if I had no Slytherin 
blood; safer storing it in the box. Once it became a horcrux it 
would certainly require a Slytherin to deal with it more easily is 
my guess. Which brings us to another thought by Talisman:

> If the Slyth pendant isn't just waiting for Harry in Kreature's 
> nest, available even by the master's command, then perhaps LV put 
> enough of himself into Harry to allow the boy to conjure it out of 
> the old chapeau.

Jen: I'm convinced the reason Harry could easily dispense with the 
diary was because he's attached to the last heir of Slytherin by the 
power transfer. True there aren't any protections on it like the 
other horcruxes since it was meant to be a weapon, but still there's 
some doubt Ginny could have destroyed it even if she tried more than 
flushing.  Since the soul of the Heir of Slytherin is in each 
horcrux, Harry will probably need to be part of each destruction 
along with each object's descendant.

As for summoning horcruxes via the sorting hat, that's an idea I 
haven't read and a good one.

Talisman:
> Harry *did* use a Founder's object in CoS to defeat a *version* of
> LV, and a troublesome serpent in his employ. (A nice bit of 
> foreshadowing/mirror symmetry.)

Jen: Foreshadowing for destruction of the Nagini horcrux, you're 
thinking? Or maybe you're saying everything could happen together 
like it happened in COS, with Harry's Parselmouth coming in handy to 
destroy Nagini prior to destroying Voldemort.

Talisman: 
> Fawkes delivers the Sorting Hat.  I'm guessing this was per DD's 
> instructions, as well. Harry asks for help, and the sword
> appears.  Later, DD tells him that "only a true Gryffindor" could
> have pulled the sword out of the hat.
> Our silver-bearded heir of Gryffindor likely directed the sword to 
> respond to Harry. Not only did he want to save Harry's buns and 
> secure Harry's identification with/ownership of his place in 
> Gryffindor House, but he has given a little lesson in what a *true 
> heir* can do vis-a-vis the hat, with it's bits of  Founders'
> brains, and a bona fide Founder's relic.

Jen: I believe this is actually coming from Godric himself. 
Slytherin was likely not the only founder who left a little magical 
reminder of himself in the castle. If it's true Fawkes was handed 
down by Godric through his family line to Dumbledore, then I think 
the magic in the castle actually brought the sorting hat and sword 
to Harry. Perhaps even *because* he was located in Slytherin's 
chamber at the time, a counter measure left by Gryffindor should the 
chamber open again. Dumbledore said 'help will be given to those who 
ask for it' and could be referring to himself, but more likely the 
magical castle since he won't be headmaster forever.

Talisman:
> Zacharias will have to be reasoned with, but after all, he has a 
> claim to the cup and might want it back for his Hope chest.
> Who will the Ravenclaw assistant be? Luna? That would be dandy.
> It would teach a thing or two to the Ravenclaws who don't think 
> she *belongs in their house.*  She'd certainly be willing enough
> to help Harry defeat the Dark Lord.

Jen: The vision of Zacharias and Luna working together might be 
enough to make me read Book 7, just to see what JKR would do with it 
<g>.







From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 19:53:34 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:53:34 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <1128813525.550.19542.w105@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <dibsfu+edjc@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the the_old_crowd 
> group.
> 
>   File        : /THE LIST.doc 
>   Uploaded by : pippin_999 <foxmoth at q...> 
>   Description : A list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character
arcs to be completed in Book Seven 
> 
> You can access this file at the URL:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/files/THE%20LIST.doc 



While we're at it, please explain why Snape knocked poor old Flitwick
in the head, after he ran all the way down to the dungeons just to
tell Snape what was going on? Just wondering.

:: Entropy ::






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct  9 23:19:34 2005
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <dibsfu+edjc@...>
Message-ID: <20051009231934.28657.qmail@...>

How about:
 
What's with the giants? Will they fight for Voldy?
Is there a cure for having been soul-sucked?
Will the elf-hats ever be used for anything?
 
 
CV

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

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




From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 10 07:49:32 2005
From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:49:32 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <dibbju+endn@...>
Message-ID: <did6ec+ljqa@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:
>
>> I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that Eisenhower said, in
> reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was born), "Never get
> involved in a land war on the Asian continent." It was a wonderful
> quote when people were discussing the Vietnam War and it was again a
> wonderful quote when people discussed the Gulf and Iraq Wars.
> 
> But Lee locked herself in a room with Google and emerged after a 
long
> time, saying that Eisenhower had never said any such thing. So who 
did?


It was MacArthur, and it *did* refer to Vietnam.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=994381


~Eloise







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 10 18:45:25 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:45:25 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <did6ec+ljqa@...>
Message-ID: <diecs5+qshl@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" 
> <catlady at w...> wrote:
> >
> >> I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that Eisenhower said, in
> > reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was born), "Never 
get involved in a land war on the Asian continent." 
> 
Eloise:
> It was MacArthur, and it *did* refer to Vietnam.
> 
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=994381


Carolyn:
Well, talking of serendipitous (sp?) quotes, this evening I learnt 
that Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1933:

'let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is 
fear itself'

Well well well, where have we heard that recently? Or is it biblical 
in origin? I wouldn't know.


http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/








From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 10 19:29:47 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:47 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <diecs5+qshl@...>
Message-ID: <dieffb+tir3@...>


> 
> Carolyn:
> Well, talking of serendipitous (sp?) quotes, this evening I learnt 
> that Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1933:
> 
> 'let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is 
> fear itself'
> 
> Well well well, where have we heard that recently? Or is it biblical 
> in origin? I wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/


Pippin:
It's from Thoreau. "Nothing is so much to be feared as fear." Journal,
Sept 7, 1851.

Pippin
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a 
trout in the milk." -- ibid, November 11, 1854






From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 10 19:45:05 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:45:05 +1000
Subject: OT mysterious quote: Roosevelt
In-Reply-To: <diecs5+qshl@...>
References: <did6ec+ljqa@...> <diecs5+qshl@...>
Message-ID: <20051010194505.GJ12138@...>

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:45:25PM -0000, Carolyn White wrote:

> Well, talking of serendipitous (sp?) quotes, this evening I learnt 
> that Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1933:
> 
> 'let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is 
> fear itself'
> 
> Well well well, where have we heard that recently? Or is it biblical 
> in origin? I wouldn't know.

Sooner or later, all Presidents compare themselves to Roosevelt.

-- 
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage




From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 10 20:20:57 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:20:57 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <dieffb+tir3@...>
Message-ID: <dieif9+iluu@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > Carolyn:
> > Well, talking of serendipitous (sp?) quotes, this evening I 
learnt 
> > that Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1933:
> > 
> > 'let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear 
is 
> > fear itself'
> > 
> > Well well well, where have we heard that recently? Or is it 
biblical 
> > in origin? I wouldn't know.
> > 
> > 
> > http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> It's from Thoreau. "Nothing is so much to be feared as fear." 
Journal,
> Sept 7, 1851.
> 
> Pippin
> "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a 
> trout in the milk." -- ibid, November 11, 1854
>

Carolyn:
Ah, thank you..a fount of wisdom indeed. Back to goats:

'You only need sit still long enough in some attractive spot in the 
woods that all its inhabitants may exhibit themselves to you by 
turns.'

(apparently from the chapter "Brute Neighbors" in Walden)












From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 11 04:39:39 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:39:39 -0000
Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected Tasks
In-Reply-To: <dibqlu+t4ef@...>
Message-ID: <diffmb+7lh2@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
>Jen: Another thought, Aberforth will buy the farm in Book 7 so the
>remaining heirs of the two feuding founders will be laid to rest.

Talisman: Now it's my turn to be shocked.  Really Jen, a nice girl 
like you killing folks off just to tidy things up.  A bit unnerving, 
really. 

Talisman:
> If the Slyth pendant isn't just waiting for Harry in Kreature's
> nest, available even by the master's command, then perhaps LV put
> enough of himself into Harry to allow the boy to conjure it out of
> the old chapeau.

>Jen: I'm convinced the reason Harry could easily dispense with the
>diary was because he's attached to the last heir of Slytherin by the
>power transfer. True there aren't any protections on it like the
>other horcruxes since it was meant to be a weapon, but still there's
>some doubt Ginny could have destroyed it even if she tried more than
>flushing. Since the soul of the Heir of Slytherin is in each
>horcrux, Harry will probably need to be part of each destruction
>along with each object's descendant.

Talisman:
I agree, Harry's definitely going to have to be the key player in 
the Hx abatement program.  Plus, the whole thing is going to be a 
bit tricky if he sticks to his pledge not to tell anyone (save Ron 
and Hermy) about the little buggers. "Never mind *why,* Zacharias, 
just shove your head in and holler."  

There is also the little matter of getting the hat out of 
McGonagal's clutches, especially if Harry's AWOL from school and 
continuing to refuse her any information as to what he's up to. 
Although she'd probably REALLY be obstreperous if he did 
tell. "Perhaps you misunderstood me, Potter. Dropping out of school 
does not qualify one to be an Auror." Nostrils all a-flaring.

Talisman:
> Harry *did* use a Founder's object in CoS to defeat a *version* of
> LV, and a troublesome serpent in his employ. (A nice bit of
> foreshadowing/mirror symmetry.)

>Jen: Foreshadowing for destruction of the Nagini horcrux, you're
>thinking? Or maybe you're saying everything could happen together
>like it happened in COS, with Harry's Parselmouth coming in handy to
>destroy Nagini prior to destroying Voldemort.

Talisman:
The imagery is all there, *writ small* as my pal Anne would say. It 
certainly covers *everything* to do with the known Hx task, which 
will not happen in quite so compressed a form when it is writ large.


Talisman:
> Fawkes delivers the Sorting Hat. I'm guessing this was per DD's
> instructions, as well. Harry asks for help, and the sword
> appears. Later, DD tells him that "only a true Gryffindor" could
> have pulled the sword out of the hat.
> Our silver-bearded heir of Gryffindor likely directed the sword to
> respond to Harry. Not only did he want to save Harry's buns and
> secure Harry's identification with/ownership of his place in
> Gryffindor House, but he has given a little lesson in what a *true
> heir* can do vis-a-vis the hat, with it's bits of Founders'
> brains, and a bona fide Founder's relic.

>Jen: I believe this is actually coming from Godric himself.
>Slytherin was likely not the only founder who left a little magical
>reminder of himself in the castle. If it's true Fawkes was handed
>down by Godric through his family line to Dumbledore, then I think
>the magic in the castle actually brought the sorting hat and sword
>to Harry. Perhaps even *because* he was located in Slytherin's
>chamber at the time, a counter measure left by Gryffindor should the
>chamber open again. 

Talisman:
Well, you know I keep my weather-eye on Dumbledore.  I rather like 
the idea of the castle having it's own magic, indeed I'm sure it 
does, but it would seem to be less personally involved.  Neither the 
castle proper, nor a any defensive measure left by Godric seems to 
have been opposing the Basilisk--either throughout year 2, or when 
Riddle initiated the first round of attacks fifty years before. 

We would also have to conclude that Godric just didn't consider 
Myrtle worth saving, and that doesn't sort well with his image.

More to the point about Fawkes, while I know there is a contingent 
who subscribe to the idea of Fawkes as a phoenix with a long chain 
of ownership (You may recall that this came up in a wand discussion, 
some time ago.) I'm happy to say that Rowling took my part in that 
argument.

>From the Edinburgh *cub reporter* press conference, ITV, July 16, 
2005:

"Q:  Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround:  Who did Fawkes previously 
belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?

A:  JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next 
books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been 
owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes 
back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and -- no, 
I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has 
previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with 
Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's 
possession, not a Hogwarts possession."

So there we have confirmation that Fawkes has never been owned by 
anyone but Dumbledore (Pointing back to DD's involvement when Fawkes 
gave *two and only two* feathers for wands that just happened to end 
up with LV and HP--though Fawkes shed feathers regularly in the 
course of his messenger/alarm duties, if OoP is any example.)
and that Fawkes is not a Hogwarts possession.  This statement also 
precludes the possibility that Fawkes ever belonged to Godric.

Fawkes is DD's bird, through and through.  Rowling has methodically 
tightened the imagery and association between Fawkes and DD, 
throughout the series; I think we do violence to her intent if we 
ignore this.  I'm sticking with the position that DD arranged for 
Fawkes' appearance in the Chamber.

Jen:
>Dumbledore said 'help will be given to those who ask for it' and 
>could be referring to himself, but more likely the magical castle 
>since he won't be headmaster forever.

Talisman:
I still like the idea of * the magic of the castle,* but here again, 
I notice that the instructions in CoS were pointedly and knowingly 
given to Harry by DD, and, when the time came, didn't actually 
include a request for help. 

I'll also note that, though Fawkes brought the hat to the Chamber, 
when Harry asked for help it was the Basilisk who flipped the hat to 
him, with it's tail.  Nice to be a parseltongue. I'm wondering what 
would have happened if he had just said, "Hey, while you're at it, 
bite this Diary."  

Also, asking for help in a tight situation seems to be a good idea, 
as a general matter. A few of the other times it has worked include 
Hermione's request for entrance to the Whomping Willow in Book 3, 
aka "Help, Help," which was technically outside the castle, though 
admittedly still on the grounds, and Harry's request for help in the 
DoM when he couldn't find his way out, which occurred far from the 
castle's powers. All a bit metaphysical, eh?  Doesn't mean DD didn't 
have a point.

Talisman, who keeps getting side-tracked from the posts she is 
supposed to be finishing.










From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 11 17:26:23 2005
From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <did6ec+ljqa@...>
Message-ID: <20051011172624.16179.qmail@...>



--- eloise_herisson <eloiseherisson at ...> wrote:

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita
> Prince Winston)" 
> <catlady at w...> wrote:
> >
> >> I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that
> Eisenhower said, in
> > reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was
> born), "Never get
> > involved in a land war on the Asian continent." It
> was a wonderful
> > quote when people were discussing the Vietnam War
> and it was again a
> > wonderful quote when people discussed the Gulf and
> Iraq Wars.
> > 
> > But Lee locked herself in a room with Google and
> emerged after a 
> long
> > time, saying that Eisenhower had never said any
> such thing. So who 
> did?
> 
> 
> It was MacArthur, and it *did* refer to Vietnam.
> 
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=994381
> 
> 
> ~Eloise
> 

This quote was also repeated to great effect by
Wallace Shawn as "Vizzini" in *The Princess Bride.* 


		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 11 18:42:31 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:42:31 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <did6ec+ljqa@...>
Message-ID: <dih12n+gfpl@...>

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)wrote:

> >> I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that Eisenhower said, in
> > reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was born), "Never get
> > involved in a land war on the Asian continent." It was a wonderful
> > quote when people were discussing the Vietnam War and it was again a
> > wonderful quote when people discussed the Gulf and Iraq Wars.
> > 
> > But Lee locked herself in a room with Google and emerged after a 
> long
> > time, saying that Eisenhower had never said any such thing. So who 
> did?

Then ~Eloise

> It was MacArthur, and it *did* refer to Vietnam.
> 
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=994381
> ~Eloise

Now Eustace_Scrubb:
Being a pedant (and a historian), I tried to find where
Everything2.com was getting the source of the quote...and I can't find
any direct attribution of this to MacArthur--only through the Princess
Bride connection.

However, I do find that another American General, Maxwell Taylor, who
served in the Kennedy White House, said this :  "I have been among the
officers who have said that a large land war in Asia is the last thing
we should undertake."  Then he explains why he felt Vietnam didn't
_really_ violate this advice.

The rest of the quote can be found at 
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1887.html

FWIW, and we now return you to the normal feverish speculation,

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 11 19:38:46 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:38:46 -0000
Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update)
In-Reply-To: <dibbju+endn@...>
Message-ID: <dih4c6+icfp@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:
>
> in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3343
> "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> > Turning into a snake is the pulp fiction equivalent of chasing all
> > the really clever scientists out of the country or starting an 
Asian
> > land war. The fact that it never works doesn't seem to register.
> 
> I somehow long ago imbibed the belief that Eisenhower said, in
> reference to the Suez crisis (1956 - before I was born), "Never get
> involved in a land war on the Asian continent." It was a wonderful
> quote when people were discussing the Vietnam War and it was again a
> wonderful quote when people discussed the Gulf and Iraq Wars.
> 
> But Lee locked herself in a room with Google and emerged after a 
long
> time, saying that Eisenhower had never said any such thing. So who 
did?

Geoff:
I might join Eustace_Scrubb in a little pedantry to while away the 
time and agree that I doubt whether Eisenhower would have made a 
remark like that over Suez (which I, sadly, remember) because Suez 
ain't in Asia, it's in Africa....






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 11 21:45:59 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:59 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <dih12n+gfpl@...>
Message-ID: <dihbqn+mbcd@...>

> Now Eustace_Scrubb:
> Being a pedant (and a historian), I tried to find where
> Everything2.com was getting the source of the quote...and I can't find
> any direct attribution of this to MacArthur--only through the Princess
> Bride connection.

Pippin:
MacArthur met with JFK in April of 1961 and advised that "it would
be a mistake to fight in Laos" and that the line should be held at
Formosa, Japan and the Phillipines. 

ttp://millercenter.virginia.edu/pubs/prp_stories/macarthur_china.pdf

It seems that this became "it would be a mistake to
fight in Southeast Asia" in popular memory.

Noam Chomsky in Rethinking Camelot quotes an article by Raskin 
writing in The American Historical Review that MacArthur's successor Ridgway 
"argued in a continuous barrage of memoranda that the United States
should steer clear of an Asian land war." I haven't been able to trace this
one further though. Does anyone have access to the Raskin article?

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rc/rc-c01-s26.html

Pippin






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 12 12:04:02 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:04:02 -0000
Subject: OT: The List Update
In-Reply-To: <di4rfr+pd6i@...>
Message-ID: <diiu3i+eavj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>
> With help from Jo Serenadust and Anita, the intro has been written, the List 
> has been organized and  submitted to the Lexicon. Anyone who would like 
> to be listed as a contributor, please email me off list how you would like 
> your name to appear. And Thanks!
> 
> Pippin
>

Replying to my own post, oh dear. You folks are far too modest. So far only
one of you has told me how you would like your name to appear. Speak up!

Pippin






From triner918 at triner2001.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 13 01:47:14 2005
From: triner918 at triner2001.yahoo.invalid (triner918 at triner2001.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:47:14 EDT
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The L...
Message-ID: <81.3221000f.307f16a2@...>

And here I thought it was Vizzini in The Princess Bride who warned against  
starting a land war in Asia...
 
Trina, de-lurking for a bit of a one-liner


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




From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 13 19:38:33 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:38:33 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <dihbqn+mbcd@...>
Message-ID: <dimd3p+k81r@...>

Eustace_Scrubb:
> > Being a pedant (and a historian), I tried to find where
> > Everything2.com was getting the source of the quote...and I can't find
> > any direct attribution of this to MacArthur--only through the
Princess Bride connection.
> 

Pippin:
> MacArthur met with JFK in April of 1961 and advised that "it would
> be a mistake to fight in Laos" and that the line should be held at
> Formosa, Japan and the Phillipines. 
> http://millercenter.virginia.edu/pubs/prp_stories/macarthur_china.pdf
> 
> It seems that this became "it would be a mistake to
> fight in Southeast Asia" in popular memory.
> 
> Noam Chomsky in Rethinking Camelot quotes an article by Raskin 
> writing in The American Historical Review that MacArthur's successor  
> Ridgway "argued in a continuous barrage of memoranda that the United 
> should steer clear of an Asian land war." I haven't been able to 
> trace this one further though. Does anyone have access to the Raskin 
> article?
> http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rc/rc-c01-s26.html
> 
> Pippin

Eustace_Scrubb again:  
Haven't found that article, but this excerpt from The Pentagon Papers
quotes President Johnson in a speech on 09-25-1964 as follows:
"There are those that say I ought to go north and drop bombs, to try
to wipe out the supply lines, and they think that would escalate the
war...But we don't want to get involved in a nation with seven hundred
million people and get tied down in a land war in Asia."

(see http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon3/pent6.htm)

I am beginning to think that the phrase "land war in Asia" was simply
in general use by the early-mid 1960s and that it may be difficult to
trace its origin to a specific person.  Maybe it was Scrimgeour?

Cheers, 
Eustace_Scrubb






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 13 19:38:52 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:38:52 -0000
Subject: OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The L...
In-Reply-To: <81.3221000f.307f16a2@...>
Message-ID: <dimd4c+4dhp@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, triner918 at a... wrote:
>
> And here I thought it was Vizzini in The Princess Bride who warned 
>against starting a land war in Asia...

You nailed it Triner.

Talisman







From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 14 02:24:31 2005
From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:24:31 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to the_old_crowd
In-Reply-To: <20051009231934.28657.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <din4sv+mdbl@...>

One more, perhaps to be considered a mantelpiece gun: What about the 
vial of dragon's blood Slughorn salvaged?

hg.






From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 14 02:47:05 2005
From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:47:05 -0000
Subject: Dead Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <dib492+n0id@...>
Message-ID: <din679+rcta@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at y...> wrote:
>
> Some other groups are discussing whether Dumbledore is really dead 
> or not.  So I wrote this as a tribute to their discussions.
> 
> Having just finished reading his books to his young
> children for the night. Red Eye Randy wanders into the
> Hogs Head and orders a brandy.  He then walks up to
> the stage and begins reading from Dr. Seuss ( a former
> teacher at Hogwarts).  He also orders a plate of Green
> Eggs and Ham......
> 
> 
> Randy still is unsure whether DD is dead but offers
> this poem to those who are convinced that he is alive!

Randy, that is hysterical.  That was the best laugh I've had in 
days.  I am in one of the "other groups" discussing this unpopular 
(?) topic -- if only we had a copy of Seuss' text to draw upon, we 
might be able to reach a consensus!  

Mind you, Seuss is on my bedside table among the "Writers I'm 
Currently Reading," so this has added significance for me.  :)

Okay, back to the closet (cupboard?).
hg







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 14 03:15:05 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT mysterious quote (was: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update))
In-Reply-To: <dimd3p+k81r@...>
Message-ID: <20051014031505.13240.qmail@...>

Eustace,

I must say that I like your name...

I just finished reading all 7 books about Narnia for
the first time.  I had read "The Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe" as a boy, but I had never bothered to
read the rest until now.  I saw so many images that
appear in Harry Potter that I was amazed.  

It seems to me that CS Lewis tossed a few acorns into
the fertile minds of young Brits, and JKR sprouted a
forest of oaks in Harry Potter.  I can just see a
young girl ruminating about the stories over the years
and changing them around and around in her
subconscious.  The characters spring to life with
whole new names and personalities and a new set of
stories to tell.  

Now millions of young people are receiving the acorns
from JKR.  Perhaps 40 years from now another brilliant
series will sprout.

Perhaps I should change my name to Ramandu and sing
the early morning song.  I tend to write filks anyway.

By the way, I found some audio book CDs of the Narnia
series at the Library.  The actor who played Professor
Lockhart reads "The Magician's Nephew".

Alas, farewell to you Potterheads and return to the
Dawn Treader to sail on toward Book Seven.....

Ramandu (er Randy)





--- Eustace_Scrubb <dk59us at ...> wrote:

> Eustace_Scrubb:
> > > Being a pedant (and a historian), I tried to
> find where
> > > Everything2.com was getting the source of the
> quote...and I can't find
> > > any direct attribution of this to
> MacArthur--only through the
> Princess Bride connection.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> > MacArthur met with JFK in April of 1961 and
> advised that "it would
> > be a mistake to fight in Laos" and that the line
> should be held at
> > Formosa, Japan and the Phillipines. 
> >
>
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/pubs/prp_stories/macarthur_china.pdf
> > 
> > It seems that this became "it would be a mistake
> to
> > fight in Southeast Asia" in popular memory.
> > 
> > Noam Chomsky in Rethinking Camelot quotes an
> article by Raskin 
> > writing in The American Historical Review that
> MacArthur's successor  
> > Ridgway "argued in a continuous barrage of
> memoranda that the United 
> > should steer clear of an Asian land war." I
> haven't been able to 
> > trace this one further though. Does anyone have
> access to the Raskin 
> > article?
> > http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rc/rc-c01-s26.html
> > 
> > Pippin
> 
> Eustace_Scrubb again:  
> Haven't found that article, but this excerpt from
> The Pentagon Papers
> quotes President Johnson in a speech on 09-25-1964
> as follows:
> "There are those that say I ought to go north and
> drop bombs, to try
> to wipe out the supply lines, and they think that
> would escalate the
> war...But we don't want to get involved in a nation
> with seven hundred
> million people and get tied down in a land war in
> Asia."
> 
> (see
>
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon3/pent6.htm)
> 
> I am beginning to think that the phrase "land war in
> Asia" was simply
> in general use by the early-mid 1960s and that it
> may be difficult to
> trace its origin to a specific person.  Maybe it was
> Scrimgeour?
> 
> Cheers, 
> Eustace_Scrubb
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/



From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 14 14:10:23 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:10:23 -0000
Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected Tasks
In-Reply-To: <diffmb+7lh2@...>
Message-ID: <dioe8f+cp4v@...>

> >Jen: Another thought, Aberforth will buy the farm in Book 7 so the
> >remaining heirs of the two feuding founders will be laid to rest.
 
> Talisman: Now it's my turn to be shocked.  Really Jen, a nice girl 
> like you killing folks off just to tidy things up.  A bit 
> unnerving, really. 

Jen: Tidy things up, yes, exactly! A little fictional death and 
dismemberment never hurt anybody <eg>.

Talisman:
> There is also the little matter of getting the hat out of 
> McGonagal's clutches, especially if Harry's AWOL from school and 
> continuing to refuse her any information as to what he's up to. 
> Although she'd probably REALLY be obstreperous if he did 
> tell. "Perhaps you misunderstood me, Potter. Dropping out of
> school does not qualify one to be an Auror." Nostrils all a-
> flaring.

Jen: Now that Harry is using his Slytherin traits on pretty much a 
daily basis, like plying an old wizard with alcohol and coercing a 
memory from him or pulling a bezoar out of the hat to praise and 
adulation, I'd say he's up for the task here. Probably a sympathy 
tactic, maybe requesting some alone time with Dumbledore's potrait? 
McGonagall will get sniffy and not refuse.

> Talisman:
> Well, you know I keep my weather-eye on Dumbledore.  I rather like 
> the idea of the castle having it's own magic, indeed I'm sure it 
> does, but it would seem to be less personally involved.  Neither
> the castle proper, nor a any defensive measure left by Godric 
> seems to have been opposing the Basilisk--either throughout year 
> 2, or when Riddle initiated the first round of attacks fifty years
> before. 
> 
> We would also have to conclude that Godric just didn't consider 
> Myrtle worth saving, and that doesn't sort well with his image.

Jen: Myrtle *can* be annoying, perhaps that was the problem? 
Seriously though, there was no Gryffindor student trying to save 
poor Myrtle! Hagrid was busy with his spiders and had no clue about 
the chamber and apparently no one else was up for the task. A 
Gryffindor opposing the basilisk and in a desperate situation inside 
the chamber could be what called forth the magic.

Talisman: 
> More to the point about Fawkes, while I know there is a contingent 
> who subscribe to the idea of Fawkes as a phoenix with a long chain 
> of ownership (You may recall that this came up in a wand 
> discussion, some time ago.) I'm happy to say that Rowling took my
> part in that argument.
> 
> From the Edinburgh *cub reporter* press conference, ITV, July 16, 
> 2005: <snipped quote>.

Jen: Damn interviews *grumble, grumble*. Alright, I'll have to 
concede Fawkes and agree he was put on alert by Dumbledore to 
respond to Harry-in-danger. Unless he's more sentient than that and 
did it on his own. 

> Talisman:
> I still like the idea of * the magic of the castle,* but here
> again, I notice that the instructions in CoS were pointedly and
> knowingly given to Harry by DD, and, when the time came, didn't
> actually include a request for help. 
> 
> I'll also note that, though Fawkes brought the hat to the Chamber, 
> when Harry asked for help it was the Basilisk who flipped the hat
> to him, with it's tail.  Nice to be a parseltongue. 

Jen: Hold on, I can't concede everything here! Fawkes may have 
brought the hat, perhaps on Dumbledore's orders or perhaps his own 
accord (and I like the parceltongue coming in here), but either way 
when Harry jams the hat on his head, one of two known Gryffindor 
relics, and says "Help me--help me...Please help me" *that's* when 
the other relic of Gryffindor drops on his head. You say arranged by 
Dumbeldore, I say Godric's magic left in the castle to help a 
Gryffindor student facing the basilisk. 

Talisman: 
> Also, asking for help in a tight situation seems to be a good
> idea, as a general matter. A few of the other times it has worked
> include Hermione's request for entrance to the Whomping Willow in
> Book 3, aka "Help, Help," which was technically outside the
> castle, though admittedly still on the grounds, and Harry's
> request for help in the DoM when he couldn't find his way out,
> which occurred far from the castle's powers. All a bit
> metaphysical, eh?  Doesn't mean DD didn't have a point.

Jen: "Magic at its deepest and most penetrable" she said, wisely, 
with a bit of a wink. 

As for magic in the castle, others have pointed out the Room of 
Requirement as a bit of Ravenclaw magic, and the Hufflepuffs...hmmm, 
haven't heard one about that. Maybe all the magical species of 
plants/herbs? That's a little boring. Oh, maybe the Forbidden 
Forest? That sounds exactly like a Hufflepuff area, a sanctuary for 
mistreated beasts in the WW.  
 
Jen, waiting patiently for all those posts Talisman is creating in 
her hideaway at Malfoy Manor, or perhaps she's changed locales this 
time around, given all the MOM officials tromping through there?






From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 14 19:17:17 2005
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:17:17 +0200
Subject: OT: Looking for Dumbledad
In-Reply-To: <20051011172624.16179.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <001c01c5d0f3$e578d9a0$0200a8c0@hwin>

Say guys -

I've been binging on work for a while now and haven't had time to keep
up with the expansions and contractions of the Potterverse - but it is
rather nice to know that you people are out there being quite as insane
as I wish I could be ...

Anyway - can anybody get ahold of Tim Regan's email address for me? He's
loaned me a book, and I'd like to get back to thank him for it. (And see
if I can figure how to steal it, too, of course.)

Wishing you peace, love and entrancing ink blot patterns,

Mike the Goat




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 16 16:41:11 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:41:11 -0000
Subject: Research, mantelpiece gun, Founders....
Message-ID: <ditvr7+dc8b@...>

Thank you, everyone, I am delighted with all the information about the
'land war in Asia' quote that you researchers have given to me.

hg. wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3375 :

<< One more, perhaps to be considered a mantelpiece gun: What about the
vial of dragon's blood Slughorn salvaged? >>

I think that was character development to foreshadow Slughorn wanting
Aragog's venom because it's worth a pretty penny, I mean a nice Knut...

Jen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3378 :

<< As for magic in the castle, others have pointed out the Room of
Requirement as a bit of Ravenclaw magic, and the Hufflepuffs...hmmm,
haven't heard one about that. >>

The kitchen. We don't know yet about its magic, except the presence of
House Elves (*digression* Helga as a rescuer and shelterer of abused
House Elves...) but we know it is near the Hufflepuff common room
(when Hermione led Harry and Ron to the kitchen in GoF, "She turned
left at the bottom of the staircase, and hurried towards the door
through which Cedric Diggory had gone the night after the Goblet of
Fire had regurgitated his and Harry's names.").






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 17 04:13:00 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:13:00 -0000
Subject: That Wonderful Obsession of Ours!
Message-ID: <div8cc+6vph@...>

Link to the midi for the tune:
http://samanthaslifeandtimes.com/wizardofoz.html

That Wonderful Obsession of Ours!

 Sung to the tune of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"
(words by Randy Estes)

Follow the Hogwarts Express, Follow the Hogwarts Express
Follow, follow, follow, follow
And get to know the obsessed.
We read and write and then we discuss.
She changes the plot, and then we cuss.
And JKR keeps asking us
 "Just what the heck is all the fuss?"


We're off to find the Wizard
The one who killed all of our friends
He killed some folks and made a horcrux
>From lockets and rings and such.
We're not quite sure whether on Snape to depend
Or whether Albus has met his end.
And nobody knows just how Book Seven will end!
We just know there is no Book Eight, my friend.

We're off to cook his gizzard
That Evil Dark Wizard named Tom

music

And Harry's getting' frisky
He kissed Ginny right on the lips.
And he has trouble when looking at her hips, her hips, her hips
You know he has trouble with relationships
Not to mention Jo sunk most of our ships!
(And now we've been meaning to give her a little shitz!)
Please make sure the kids are not reading this!


About Ron and Hermione
Some people are really quite pissed!

music

Follow the truly obsessed, follow the truly obsessed
And then your life can become
 Just one great big magical mess!
We rearrange songs with new lyrics 
And then we make fun of the new Potter flicks
And Internet fans start forming cliques
Like character relationships


About Ron and Hermione
Some people are really pissed off!
Perhaps Hermione's head has just gone a little soft!
Because they believe that he's not good enough
And then the women start getting rough.
But Ron fans say that's just a lot of bullocks!
And then the women start throwing rocks.

We must be off our Rockers!
That Wonderful Obsession of Ours!

music

J. Rowling thinks we're whining
She's written the text that she wants
And now she has cash to buy 
And live in the south of France!
"I've written my books and taken my stance."
"The rest of you can write your own romance!"
And she won't give us even a second glance!
If she'd just give our ideas a second chance!

We'd love to read Book Seven
The one that she still hasn't done.

Music 

Follow the clues that she left, follow the clues that she left
Follow, follow, follow, follow
Follow the clues that she left.
What are the twelve uses for dragon's blood?
Will Snape redeem himself the way that he should?
And will Tom Riddle somehow be turned 
by young Harry's magic to good?

We'd love to read Book Seven
The one that she still hasn't done.
There's so many things that she's just barely begun
We hope she won't skip over one
We can't believe the answers will all be done
The ending can't satisfy everyone.
The fans have been making their own for fun!
And all of our changes would weigh a ton!


We must be quite annoying
That Wonderful Obsession of Ours!

Music

I could go on forever
Just like this darn midi does.
You have to stop the stupid song 
Before you become a lost cause
My wife is asleep and the kids are in bed
And I'm still here typing what comes out of my head.
And tomorrow I have to go to work.
My boss will think I'm a stupid jerk.

I'm turning off the midi
And finally ending this song!


Red Eye Randy








From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 17 13:06:26 2005
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:06:26 -0000
Subject: Harry, Voldemort and Snape
Message-ID: <dj07ki+1e5r@...>

It has been rather quiet here, lately (because of Yahoo!Mort, or is 
their sleepiness in the air?), so I dare to post a small essay 
thingy. If it's old hat (it probably is), then please just ignore it.

Harry, Voldemort and Snape, for your perusal.


In HBP, Snape has been carefully set up as a kind of carbon copy of 
Voldemort. He had a Muggle father and a pure-blood mother, just like 
Tom Riddle. We have been led to assume that Eileen Prince's marriage 
was unhappy, like Merope Gaunt's. Snape grew up in straitened 
circumstances, just like Tom the orphan. From childhood onwards, 
Snape had an inclination towards Dark Arts as is evident from the 
fact that he famously knew a lot of curses when he arrived at 
Hogwarts aged eleven - again a tendency that the future Voldemort 
also possessed. And then there is their shared love of fake noble 
titles: Prince and Lord.

In previous books (most notably Chamber of Secrets), Harry has 
realised how much he has in common with Voldemort. It is not a 
coincidence that the Sorting Hat would have placed him in Slytherin 
if he had not objected against the fact. There is Parseltongue, and 
Harry's inclination to ignore rules and be economical with the truth; 
but there is also the start of both their stories. Harry and Tom both 
had unhappy childhoods, orphaned, unwanted and unloved as they were. 
The revelation that they were wizards came upon them as a surprise, 
and Hogwarts seemed a sort of paradise - both of them are loath to 
leave the school for the holidays and return to a 'home' that does 
not really welcome them. As far as we know, Snape was not an orphan 
when he arrived at Hogwarts; but it is very likely that the school of 
wizardry filled him with the same sense of wonder and excitement as 
it inspired in Harry and Tom. There was certainly very little by way 
of magic in the mill town where he grew up. Now, being suddenly 
exposed to this brave new world can easily lead to a young wizard or 
witch getting a bit carried away, and I daresay that is what happened 
in the case of Voldemort, and arguably also Snape. But what about 
Harry, who had the same set-up?

Snape says in Chapter Two of HBP that many Dark wizards were 
expecting Harry to become the new Dark Lord. Now why didn't he turn 
out to be just that? Dumbledore supplies the answer: Harry will never 
turn towards the Dark because of all he has suffered at a Dark 
wizard's hands. How can he sympathise with a man, a movement, an 
ideology that is responsible for the death of his parents and thus 
the cause of all the misery of his early life? Since he was a baby, 
Harry has lived the harm that Dark magic can do. He is not about to 
embrace it.

In this, Harry may seem very different from Snape, who is truly 
passionate about the Dark Arts. And yet: I wonder if he would have 
felt the same about them if he had been exposed to the kind of things 
Harry experienced. Snape has never, as far as we know, been a victim 
of Dark magic; indeed, it is what has empowered and sustained him. 
And we may very well ask whether Harry would not have enjoyed it just 
the same if Voldemort hadn't killed his parents.

Look at it this way: Snape and Harry hate each other. When Snape 
looks at Harry he sees a smaller version of James Potter and relives 
a schoolboy history of mutual harrassment; as such he never gives 
Harry a chance. Harry, on the other hand, takes up his father's 
legacy and refuses to see in Snape anything else than a nasty 
teacher, a Dark wizard and Death Eater; in his turn, Harry never 
gives Snape any credit. But look what happens when he stumbles upon 
Snape's annotated Potions textbook without knowing who the previous 
owner was: he likes the Half-Blood Prince.

The Half-Blood Prince's book bears all the hallmarks of Snape's 
personality. There are the meticulous annotations in a cramped 
handwriting, the sarcastic comments ("Shove a bezoar down their 
throats"), the cleverness, the ingenuity and usefulness of spells 
like "Muffliato", the nastiness of "Levicorpus" and the darkness 
of "Sectumsempra". Harry is charmed by the boy in the book. He 
recognises mischievousness and a somewhat nasty sense of humour, and 
he likes it. It is Hermione, not he, who gets upset at the less-than-
nice side of the Half-Blood Prince; Harry thinks of him as a trusted 
friend and keeps defending him even after his discovery of what 
Sectumsempra actually does. In fact, the reason why the Prince 
appeals to him is because they share this ambiguity of character. 
Harry isn't always nice. He can be quite brutal to people who he 
feels deserve it, and his own sense of humour contains its fair share 
of sarcasm. And when he is truly angry and hurt, he starts throwing 
things (remember his destruction of Dumbledore's instruments) and 
casting really serious curses (Cruciatus at Bellatrix, Cruciatus and 
Sectumsempra at Snape).

Strangely enough, although Harry did recognise the parallels between 
himself and Voldemort, he has never acknowledged those between 
himself and Snape. Indeed, as soon as he understands that the Half-
Blood Prince is really Snape, he is embarrassed and angry at having 
been charmed by him. And it is doubtful that he would have followed 
the book's instructions, even, if he had known the identity of the 
previous owner. Personally I would be very interested to know what 
Snape would have thought if he knew to what extent Harry cherished 
his book and the boy who wrote it...

To my mind, there is really a greater similarity between Harry and 
Snape than between Harry and Tom Riddle, or even Snape and Voldemort. 
Voldemort is a psychopath; Snape isn't. Voldemort has no sense of 
humour, and he believes his own lies. He has never shown the least 
bit of compassion for anyone or respected anyone except himself. He 
has tried, and pretty much succeeded, to escape his humanity. I 
realise there can be quite a lot of discussion about Snape when it 
comes to compassion and respect, and HBP has certainly caused a lot 
of confusion; but one thing we can say with certainty: Snape has 
never gone as far in the Dark Arts as Voldemort has. He is still 
human and appears to have no desire to dehumanise himself. If you ask 
me, he is very much what Harry would have become had he been sorted 
into Slytherin.


Yours severely, 
Sigune







From sherriola at ...  Mon Oct 17 14:02:23 2005
From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:02:23 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Harry, Voldemort and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dj07ki+1e5r@...>
Message-ID: <003401c5d323$66ba03f0$0400a8c0@pensive>

hi,

i have two comments on your excellent post.  However, I'm not going to
comment on the similarities between Harry and Snape, mostly because I'm on a
no Snape discussion kick right now.

Anyway, you said that:
It is not a 
coincidence that the Sorting Hat would have placed him in Slytherin 
if he had not objected against the fact. 

however, that is not what happened.  i think it's years of fandom
contamination.  The hat did not mention Slytherin, till Harry said, "not
Slytherin".  Then the hat questions him about it.  But never in that scene
does the hat suggest Slytherin first or seem that Gryffindor is a second
choice.  i've always read the scene as the hat testing Harry to see how
determined he was not to go into that house.  The hat seems to me to be
implying that Harry could have done well in all the houses, which I think is
true.

my other comment is about Harry's attachment to the potions book.  When I
first read HBP, and was not trying too hard to speculate about the identity
of the prince, i felt like Harry was obstinately hanging on to it, because
of Hermione's nagging about it, and her jealousy over his success in
potions.  That isn't to say he didn't find an affinity with the prince.  i
suppose I saw one of my less pleasant traits in the way Harry acted.  I'm
the type that will listen to people who have an opposing view, as long as
they don't nag and badger me and push me to think their way or do what they
think I should.  i am very strong willed, though if approached right, I
actually do change my mind.  But my internal reaction to Hermione in HBP was
that I'd want to do anything opposite of whatever she was nagging me to do.
And that's how I initially read Harry's reactions to his potions book.
She's nagging me to get rid of it, and I'll be damned if I will!

Sherry


-----Original Message-----
From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of severelysigune
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:06 AM
To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Harry, Voldemort and Snape


It has been rather quiet here, lately (because of Yahoo!Mort, or is 
their sleepiness in the air?), so I dare to post a small essay 
thingy. If it's old hat (it probably is), then please just ignore it.

Harry, Voldemort and Snape, for your perusal.


In HBP, Snape has been carefully set up as a kind of carbon copy of 
Voldemort. He had a Muggle father and a pure-blood mother, just like 
Tom Riddle. We have been led to assume that Eileen Prince's marriage 
was unhappy, like Merope Gaunt's. Snape grew up in straitened 
circumstances, just like Tom the orphan. From childhood onwards, 
Snape had an inclination towards Dark Arts as is evident from the 
fact that he famously knew a lot of curses when he arrived at 
Hogwarts aged eleven - again a tendency that the future Voldemort 
also possessed. And then there is their shared love of fake noble 
titles: Prince and Lord.

In previous books (most notably Chamber of Secrets), Harry has 
realised how much he has in common with Voldemort. It is not a 
coincidence that the Sorting Hat would have placed him in Slytherin 
if he had not objected against the fact. There is Parseltongue, and 
Harry's inclination to ignore rules and be economical with the truth; 
but there is also the start of both their stories. Harry and Tom both 
had unhappy childhoods, orphaned, unwanted and unloved as they were. 
The revelation that they were wizards came upon them as a surprise, 
and Hogwarts seemed a sort of paradise - both of them are loath to 
leave the school for the holidays and return to a 'home' that does 
not really welcome them. As far as we know, Snape was not an orphan 
when he arrived at Hogwarts; but it is very likely that the school of 
wizardry filled him with the same sense of wonder and excitement as 
it inspired in Harry and Tom. There was certainly very little by way 
of magic in the mill town where he grew up. Now, being suddenly 
exposed to this brave new world can easily lead to a young wizard or 
witch getting a bit carried away, and I daresay that is what happened 
in the case of Voldemort, and arguably also Snape. But what about 
Harry, who had the same set-up?

Snape says in Chapter Two of HBP that many Dark wizards were 
expecting Harry to become the new Dark Lord. Now why didn't he turn 
out to be just that? Dumbledore supplies the answer: Harry will never 
turn towards the Dark because of all he has suffered at a Dark 
wizard's hands. How can he sympathise with a man, a movement, an 
ideology that is responsible for the death of his parents and thus 
the cause of all the misery of his early life? Since he was a baby, 
Harry has lived the harm that Dark magic can do. He is not about to 
embrace it.

In this, Harry may seem very different from Snape, who is truly 
passionate about the Dark Arts. And yet: I wonder if he would have 
felt the same about them if he had been exposed to the kind of things 
Harry experienced. Snape has never, as far as we know, been a victim 
of Dark magic; indeed, it is what has empowered and sustained him. 
And we may very well ask whether Harry would not have enjoyed it just 
the same if Voldemort hadn't killed his parents.

Look at it this way: Snape and Harry hate each other. When Snape 
looks at Harry he sees a smaller version of James Potter and relives 
a schoolboy history of mutual harrassment; as such he never gives 
Harry a chance. Harry, on the other hand, takes up his father's 
legacy and refuses to see in Snape anything else than a nasty 
teacher, a Dark wizard and Death Eater; in his turn, Harry never 
gives Snape any credit. But look what happens when he stumbles upon 
Snape's annotated Potions textbook without knowing who the previous 
owner was: he likes the Half-Blood Prince.

The Half-Blood Prince's book bears all the hallmarks of Snape's 
personality. There are the meticulous annotations in a cramped 
handwriting, the sarcastic comments ("Shove a bezoar down their 
throats"), the cleverness, the ingenuity and usefulness of spells 
like "Muffliato", the nastiness of "Levicorpus" and the darkness 
of "Sectumsempra". Harry is charmed by the boy in the book. He 
recognises mischievousness and a somewhat nasty sense of humour, and 
he likes it. It is Hermione, not he, who gets upset at the less-than-
nice side of the Half-Blood Prince; Harry thinks of him as a trusted 
friend and keeps defending him even after his discovery of what 
Sectumsempra actually does. In fact, the reason why the Prince 
appeals to him is because they share this ambiguity of character. 
Harry isn't always nice. He can be quite brutal to people who he 
feels deserve it, and his own sense of humour contains its fair share 
of sarcasm. And when he is truly angry and hurt, he starts throwing 
things (remember his destruction of Dumbledore's instruments) and 
casting really serious curses (Cruciatus at Bellatrix, Cruciatus and 
Sectumsempra at Snape).

Strangely enough, although Harry did recognise the parallels between 
himself and Voldemort, he has never acknowledged those between 
himself and Snape. Indeed, as soon as he understands that the Half-
Blood Prince is really Snape, he is embarrassed and angry at having 
been charmed by him. And it is doubtful that he would have followed 
the book's instructions, even, if he had known the identity of the 
previous owner. Personally I would be very interested to know what 
Snape would have thought if he knew to what extent Harry cherished 
his book and the boy who wrote it...

To my mind, there is really a greater similarity between Harry and 
Snape than between Harry and Tom Riddle, or even Snape and Voldemort. 
Voldemort is a psychopath; Snape isn't. Voldemort has no sense of 
humour, and he believes his own lies. He has never shown the least 
bit of compassion for anyone or respected anyone except himself. He 
has tried, and pretty much succeeded, to escape his humanity. I 
realise there can be quite a lot of discussion about Snape when it 
comes to compassion and respect, and HBP has certainly caused a lot 
of confusion; but one thing we can say with certainty: Snape has 
never gone as far in the Dark Arts as Voldemort has. He is still 
human and appears to have no desire to dehumanise himself. If you ask 
me, he is very much what Harry would have become had he been sorted 
into Slytherin.


Yours severely, 
Sigune







 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 








From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 18 01:29:38 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:29:38 -0000
Subject: Harry, Voldemort and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dj07ki+1e5r@...>
Message-ID: <dj1j62+jbrl@...>

Sigune:
> In HBP, Snape has been carefully set up as a kind of carbon copy
> of Voldemort. He had a Muggle father and a pure-blood mother, just
> like Tom Riddle. We have been led to assume that Eileen Prince's
> marriage was unhappy, like Merope Gaunt's. Snape grew up in 
> straitened circumstances, just like Tom the orphan. From childhood
> onwards, Snape had an inclination towards Dark Arts as is evident
> from the fact that he famously knew a lot of curses when he
> arrived at Hogwarts aged eleven - again a tendency that the future
> Voldemort also possessed. And then there is their shared love of
> fake noble titles: Prince and Lord.

Jen: Personally, I think of Tom and Snape as canon *opposites*. Tom 
was the charming, handsome young man whom everyone trusted except 
Dumbledore. His interest in dark arts was well-hidden once he 
arrived at Hogwarts, and he operated in secrecy. Snape was a greasy 
git, openly 'up to his eyeballs' in the dark arts and hiding it from 
no one. In later years he was trusted by one person, the only person 
who never trusted Riddle.

I'm not certain we can compare Tom's and Snape's childhoods quite 
yet, either. JKR did directly compare the two and say Snape was 
loved, making him very different from Voldemort. Perhaps he was a 
boy only a mother could love <g>. 

I do think JKR brought up his parentage because Snape's defection to 
Dumbledore involved them. Which bring us to the nobility titles.....
The HBP seemed like a joke-title to me, until the end of the book 
when Snape was so serious, claiming it for himself. I thought he was 
poking fun until that moment. 

So here's the story I put together: Snape learned of Voldemort 
through Eileen, who was a Slytherin around the same time as Tom. 
They probably weren't friends, she didn't share his pure-blood mania 
which quite a few Slytherins likely knew about even if the 
professors did not. But perhaps Snape, interested in the dark arts, 
was intrigued by this man he didn't know and christened himself with 
a nobility title, albeit a slightly sarcastic one to match his dry 
wit. He was still proud of his work in the book, whatever cynicism 
was present in the title.

Much later, when Snape was at Hogwarts and the DE's were likely 
recruiting, Voldemort remembered Eileen Prince and was disgusted to 
find out she married a Muggle and had a half-blood son (his own 
hated parentage coming back to him). Much like Fenrir, who chose his 
victims based on revenge toward a parent, Voldemort or an accomplice 
recruited Snape into the DE's as punishment to Eileen. And perhaps 
Voldemort *did* see a likeness with the half-blood child and his 
interest in dark arts. Once Snape was on-board, Voldemort targeted 
Eileen and Tobias and something did happen to them, or was about to 
happen, when Snape learned of the plan and asked Dumbledore for help.


Sigune: 
> In previous books (most notably Chamber of Secrets), Harry has 
> realised how much he has in common with Voldemort. It is not a 
> coincidence that the Sorting Hat would have placed him in
> Slytherin if he had not objected against the fact. There is 
> Parseltongue, and Harry's inclination to ignore rules and be
> economical with the truth; but there is also the start of both
> their stories. Harry and Tom both had unhappy childhoods,
> orphaned, unwanted and unloved as they were. 

Jen:
I feel the comparison between Riddle and Harry ended after COS. The 
similarities seemed mainly there to foreshadow the connection 
between them from Voldemort 'putting a bit of himself' into Harry. 
After that, as you noted, we start to see more and more comparisons 
between Snape/Harry and also start to see evidence of why the 
Sorting Hat said this to Harry: "..a nice thirst to prove yourself...
(Slytherin trait)...Not Slytherin, eh? Are you sure, you could be 
great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help 
you on the way to greatness.." (chap. 7, p. 121, Scholastic)

Harry *does* have Slytherin traits and HBP proved that to me. 
Whether they are his, Voldemort's transfer or whatever, he was using 
Slytherin cunning, deception and ambition in HBP to get what he 
wanted, i.e. the memory, top grade in potions, Slughorn's praise, 
information on Malfoy, etc.

Sigune:
> In this, Harry may seem very different from Snape, who is truly 
> passionate about the Dark Arts. And yet: I wonder if he would have 
> felt the same about them if he had been exposed to the kind of
> things Harry experienced. Snape has never, as far as we know, been
> a victim of Dark magic; indeed, it is what has empowered and 
> sustained him. And we may very well ask whether Harry would not
> have enjoyed it just the same if Voldemort hadn't killed his
> parents.

Jen: Oh, LOL. I triple-dog dare you to say that on the main list! I 
did wonder if Dumbledore wasn't curious about how Harry would turn 
out, with a life so similar to Riddle's in certain ways as a child? 
Since he didn't try to shape Harry, or turn him into a super wizard 
or raise him himself <g>, he did take the risk of having another 
Riddle on his hands *except* for the forethought of leaving Harry 
with people he suspected would not allow Harry to do unchecked magic 
as Riddle was able to do.

Sigune:
> Harry is charmed by the boy in the book. He recognises 
> mischievousness and a somewhat nasty sense of humour, and he likes
> it. It is Hermione, not he, who gets upset at the less-than-
> nice side of the Half-Blood Prince; Harry thinks of him as a
> trusted friend and keeps defending him even after his discovery of
> what Sectumsempra actually does. In fact, the reason why the
> Prince appeals to him is because they share this ambiguity of
> character. Harry isn't always nice. He can be quite brutal to
> people who he feels deserve it, and his own sense of humour
> contains its fair share of sarcasm. 

Jen: I thought Hermione didn't like the Prince because it was one of 
those things, like Quidditch, she just didn't get. The HBP *was* 
like Ron and Harry, and many of the boys we've met at Hogwarts. If 
we didn't hear Harry's internal dialogue or know the entire history 
he knows of other characters, his actions in HBP wouldn't look much 
better than the Draco of yore--threatening a classmate's mum, 
throwing Mundungus against the wall, eavesdropping on Draco.....

Sigune:
> Personally I would be very interested to know what Snape would
> have thought if he knew to what extent Harry cherished his book
> and the boy who wrote it...

Jen: Wonder if we'll ever find out? I hope that's why the book 
wasn't destroyed. I could even see the *possibility* of a scene 
where Harry hands it back to him one day, or perhaps Eileen or 
someone else close to Snape if he's gone.

Jen, thinking Sigune's posts are always chock-full of interesting 
connections.






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 18 20:48:24 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:48:24 -0000
Subject: Harry, Voldemort and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dj1j62+jbrl@...>
Message-ID: <dj3n2o+8gmq@...>


> Sigune:
> > In this, Harry may seem very different from Snape, who is truly 
> > passionate about the Dark Arts. And yet: I wonder if he would have 
> > felt the same about them if he had been exposed to the kind of
> > things Harry experienced. Snape has never, as far as we know, been
> > a victim of Dark magic; indeed, it is what has empowered and 
> > sustained him. And we may very well ask whether Harry would not
> > have enjoyed it just the same if Voldemort hadn't killed his
> > parents.
> 
> Jen: Oh, LOL. I triple-dog dare you to say that on the main list! I 
> did wonder if Dumbledore wasn't curious about how Harry would turn 
> out, with a life so similar to Riddle's in certain ways as a child? 
> Since he didn't try to shape Harry, or turn him into a super wizard 
> or raise him himself <g>, he did take the risk of having another 
> Riddle on his hands *except* for the forethought of leaving Harry 
> with people he suspected would not allow Harry to do unchecked magic 
> as Riddle was able to do.
> 

Pippin:
Most people with unhappy abusive childhoods don't grow up to be psychopaths, and most 
people who are psychopaths don't become murderers. So I'd say the odds of Harry not 
becoming another Voldemort were pretty good, barring any magical contamination. The 
character who is Voldemort's mental twin is Lockhart, IMO: charming,  ruthless and 
apparently utterly lacking in conscience. Of course Lockhart never did any dark spells at 
all; he couldn't. 

Pippin






From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 18 20:57:14 2005
From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:57:14 -0000
Subject: That Wonderful Obsession of Ours!
In-Reply-To: <div8cc+6vph@...>
Message-ID: <dj3nja+v182@...>

Wow.  I just dropped by for a minute, and saw this.  Randy, you are 
totally out of your mind.  No, you're a genius.  No, you're both.  
(But you knew that.)

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at y...> wrote:

a particularly outstandingly obsessive filk.






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 19 03:00:11 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:00:11 -0000
Subject: Voldemort  Filk
Message-ID: <dj4crr+i5qg@...>

For the midi go to:

http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7840/gaston.htm 

Voldemort
(Words by Randy Estes)

Sung to the tune of "Gaston"   Music: Alan Menken

[Voldemort:]
Who does he think he is? That kid has tangled with the
wrong wizard! No one gets away from Voldemort!
[Wormtail:] 
Heh heh. Darn right, Master.
[Voldemort:] 
Dismissed! Rejected! Publicly Humiliated! Why, it's more than I can 
bear.
[Wormtail:] 
More wine?
[Voldemort:] 
What for? Nothing helps. I'm disgraced.
[Wormtail:] 
Who, you? Never! Sir, you've got to pull yourself together. 

Gosh it disturbs me to see you, Voldemort
Looking like creamed baby lumps     (he thinks of the cauldron in the 
cemetery.)
Every guy here'd love to be you, Voldemort
Even when taking your lumps
There's no wizard in town as feared as you
You're the mudbloods least favorite guy
Ev'ryone's awed and terrified by you
And it's not very hard to see why

No one's slick as Voldemort
No one's sick as Voldemort
No one's wand's as incredibly quick as Voldemort
For there's no wizard in town half as crafty
Perfect, a pure Slytherin.
You can ask any Crabbe, Goyle or Malfoy
And they'll tell you whose team to join in.

[Death Eater Chorus:] 
No one stuns like Voldemort
Makes others run like Voldemort

[Wormtail:] 
No one's got a swell fork in his tongue like Voldemort

[Voldemort:] 
As a specimen, yes, I'm intimidating

[Death Eater Chorus:] 
My what a guy, that Voldemort

Give seven "horcruxes!"
Give twelve "sacrifices!"

[Wormtail:] 
Voldemort is the best
And the rest is all mices.       (Peter does a double take after he 
sings this)

[Death Eater Chorus:] 
No one fights like Voldemort
Douses lights like Voldemort

[Malfoy:] 
In a dueling match nobody bites like Voldemort

[Bellatrix:] 
For there's no one as evil and charming

[Voldemort:] 
As you see I've got people to scare

[Wormtail:] 
Not a bit of him is not disarming!         (he does another double 
take)

[Voldemort] 
(That's right!)
And you know that I'm Slytherin's heir!

[Malfoy:] 
No one kills like Voldemort

[Bellatrix:] 
Matches wills with Voldemort

[Wormtail:] 
Nor does torture give others such a thrill as Voldemort

[Voldemort:] 
I'm especially good at Avada Kedavra! (Zing!)  
                                                        (Everyone 
ducks as sparks shoot out of his wand)

[Death Eater Chorus:]
Ten points for Slytherin!

[Voldemort:] 
When I was a lad I killed four dozen birds
Ev'ry morning to help me feel large
And now that I'm grown I kill five dozen birds
So I feel like I'm really in charge.

[Death Eater Chorus:] 
No one yells like Voldemort
Casts those spells like Voldemort

[Wormtail:] 
Then goes around giving us hell like Voldemort

[Voldemort:] 
I use elf heads in all of my decorating!

[Death Eater Chorus:] 
Say it again
Who's a true Slytherin?
And then say it once more
Who's the Dark Lord next door?
Who's a super success?
Don't you know? Can't you guess?
Ask his fans and his five hangers-on
There's just one guy in town who's got all of it down

[Wormtail:] 
And his name's L-O-R -
D-V-O-L - D -
E-M-O-R-T - oh!







From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 22 15:57:52 2005
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:57:52 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter comes to Porlock!
Message-ID: <djdni0+t60b@...>

Living in a village, folk often circulate information by putting 
their own flyers through the letter box and I was greatly surprised 
when one was was posted in this way yesterday.

This, by the way, is not a wind-up, it is true. The message read:

Missing
Can you help

A white ferret
who is tame

Name of Dudley

If found
please ring

863153
Thank you

Well, aprt from the mixing up who actaually became a ferret, this 
could be a case of the wizarding world invading West Somerset......






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 22 20:46:55 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:46:55 -0000
Subject: Harry, Voldemort and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dj07ki+1e5r@...>
Message-ID: <dje8fv+gcoi@...>

Hey, NPR's 'Day to Day' show did an article on a Filk convention.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4967052 (altho'
Mary Creasy is really prettier than in that photo, and one of the
nicest people I have ever met).

--- In  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3382,
"severelysigune" wrote a beautiful essay on
> 
> Harry, Voldemort and Snape, for your perusal.
> 
(snip) 

I agree with everyone else's comments and have some of my own

<< Snape says in Chapter Two of HBP that many Dark wizards were 
expecting Harry to become the new Dark Lord. Now why didn't he 
turn out to be just that? Dumbledore supplies the answer: Harry 
will never turn towards the Dark because of all he has suffered at 
a Dark wizard's hands. How can he sympathise with a man, a movement,
an ideology that is responsible for the death of his parents and thus
 the cause of all the misery of his early life? Since he was a baby,
Harry has lived the harm that Dark magic can do. He is not about to
embrace it. >>

As you mention, we've seen Harry attempt Crucio twice. He could 
have fallen into Dark magic by doing a few Dark spells and a few 
more without ever sympathizing with Voldemort, Death Eaters, or
purebloodism. I agree that Harry has a good heart and will not become
a Dark Lord, but I consider Dumbledore's explanation of why to be
nonsensical. Plenty of abused people become what the same as what
abused them -- e.g. revolutionaries who become dictators.

<< [Snape] is still human and appears to have no desire to dehumanise
himself. If you ask me, he is very much what Harry would have become
had he been sorted into Slytherin. >>

I still think of Snape's MAIN characteristic, even more than love of
Dark Arts or high intelligence, as having a world of hurt inside him.
 There's no particular evidence that Snape's pre-Hogwarts life was
worse than Harry's; Harry's life with the Dursleys was enough to
supply a person with a lifetime of hurt; why (besides being born with
a different personality, the 'resilient' type) doesn't Harry have a
world of hurt inside him? 

I say, because Hogwarts started treating him nice from its first
contact with him -- contrast Hagrid coming to give Harry his letter
and punish Harry's tormentors to Dumbledore coming to give Tom his
letter and threaten Tom with punishment. I'm supposed to be comparing
Harry to Snape, not Tom; Snape probably just got his letter the normal
way and bought his school supplies the normal way. The important part
is that Harry found a life-long friend on his Hogwarts Express, found
more friends in Gryffindor House, experienced success at Hogwarts and
eventually became popular at Hogwarts.

So I think the biggest difference between Harry and Snape is far more
that Harry was a 'natural' at Quidditch than that he was not Sorted
into Slytherin. 






From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 23 02:05:52 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:05:52 -0000
Subject: Harry, Voldemort and Snape
In-Reply-To: <dj3n2o+8gmq@...>
Message-ID: <djer60+ia8h@...>

> Jen: I did wonder if Dumbledore wasn't curious about how Harry
> would turn out, with a life so similar to Riddle's in certain ways
> as a child? Since he didn't try to shape Harry, or turn him into a
> super wizard or raise him himself <g>, he did take the risk of
> having another Riddle on his hands *except* for the forethought of
> leaving Harry with people he suspected would not allow Harry to do
> unchecked magic as Riddle was able to do.

> Pippin:
> Most people with unhappy abusive childhoods don't grow up to be
> psychopaths, and most people who are psychopaths don't become
> murderers. So I'd say the odds of Harry not becoming another 
> Voldemort were pretty good, barring any magical contamination. 

Jen: I wasn't implying abuse can turn someone into a psychopath! For 
one thing that term has no meaning in the WW, and maladies are 
understood in terms of magical injury or the influence of dark 
magic. JKR may have referred to Voldemort as a psychopath on a chat, 
but within the story we're led to believe that young Riddle's 
downfall was the development of controlled magic which he used to 
hurt people as a young boy, his own tendency toward secrecy and 
domination, and later his rejection of love magic in favor of its 
alternative. Dumbledore certainly believed Tom had a chance to 
change at Hogwarts and was not on an irreversible path to 
destruction by age 11. Only later in life does Dumbledore add the 
significance of Riddle's genetic line as a factor in transforming 
into Voldemort, and even then he speaks toward genetic tendencies. 

Regarding the boys similarities, Harry *was* 'magically 
contaminated' by the curse-that-failed and Dumbledore had no way of 
knowing the long-term effects. Both boys were raised in environments 
where they were left to themselves quite a bit, without much 
guidance or supervision. Dumbledore suspected the Dursleys had not 
given Harry any information about his parent's death or the magical 
world by the time he sent Hagrid to collect him. We don't know how 
long DD suspected that, but it was another similarity between the 
two boys to have grown up in a vacuum.

What I was wondering upthread was if Dumbledore considered the 
Dursleys opposition to magic a good thing (if he knew that from 
Lily) so Harry would not be allowed to explore his magical abilities 
unchecked like Riddle was.

Catlady:
> As you mention, we've seen Harry attempt Crucio twice. He could
> have fallen into Dark magic by doing a few Dark spells and a few
> more without ever sympathizing with Voldemort, Death Eaters, or
> purebloodism. I agree that Harry has a good heart and will not
> become a Dark Lord, but I consider Dumbledore's explanation of why
> to be nonsensical. Plenty of abused people become what the same as
> what abused them -- e.g. revolutionaries who become dictators.

Jen: I interpeted Dumbledore's comments to refer more to Voldemort's 
influence on Harry's life than the Dursleys. Besides Voldemort 
killing his parents, Harry was touched by dark magic as an infant, 
and received a bit of Voldemort. He was given the ability to speak 
Riddle's *genetic* language( and more we haven't seen?), to share 
thoughts and feelings with him when Voldemort regained a body and 
then was possessed by LV and lived to tell about it. Voldemort is at 
the root of all the turmoil and suffering Harry has endured, not the 
Durlseys. All of these things are much more important to Dumbledore, 
I believe, and are what amazed him about Harry never being tempted.

Jen






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 25 13:52:51 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:52:51 +0100
Subject: Subverting the genre?
Message-ID: <73AF5C79-D55B-413D-809D-DF4F37995381@...>

We all say things that in retrospect may have been better left  
unsaid, or perhaps stated differently. Jo's "I never realised that  
Harry Potter was fantasy" reported a couple of months back probably  
rates somewhere in her list labelled "That's not what I meant!".  To  
be fair it refers to the time when PS/SS had just been published -  
though that isn't always obvious when the remark is quoted. Add on  
"I'm not a huge fan of the genre"  and that she was anyway trying to  
"subvert" it and it's little wonder that the sainted Pratchett got a  
little testy. He's been doing it for years.

I'd have thought that setting out to deliberately subvert a genre  
requires a fair appreciation of the norms and stereotypes that infest  
too many of the bog-standard multi-volume let's-save-the-world-from- 
the-forces-of-evil door-stopper. As most readers are aware, the bog- 
standard etc. invariably relies on magic and wizardry to keep the  
plot limping along, HP differing somewhat in that just about all the  
protagonists have magical powers rather than the infrequent mage or  
witch that are obligatory cast members in other epics - a  
quantitative rather than qualitative difference. But note that the  
Chief Baddy invariably has magical powers, no matter who's penning  
the damn thing.

So how is subversion accomplished, what needs to be changed?
Well, before JKR there was DWJ -  Diana Wynne Jones. I say 'was' in a  
comparative sense, she's still alive and kicking and doing very well,  
thank you, particularly now that 'Howl's Moving Castle' has hit the  
big screen. Author of getting on for 30 fantasies aimed at the  
younger set, she was (and I understand still is for many) the doyen  
of Brit fantasists. What she doesn't know about fantasy probably  
ain't worth knowing. (I speak as an observer reporting common wisdom,  
I've read none of her tales - hardly surprising since I've never been  
addicted to the fantasy opiate.)

However, one small volume of hers has fallen into my hands, and it  
could be very useful: "The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" provides the  
low-down on navigating yourself through the thickets and pitfalls of  
a fantasy 'Tour' i.e. any volume of fantasy. Refreshingly cynical,  
it's an alphabetical guide that tells you what to expect in the way  
of the fictional conventions, any hardware cluttering up the place,  
stereotypes posing in fore- or background - and how the plot (if any)  
is liable to progress. Not all the elements listed are found in every  
story of course - there's usually some pick 'n mix involved, but it  
is interesting to consult entries applicable to HP. You never know,  
we might find some subversion going on. Or there again.....

"Colour Coding is very important in Fantasyland. Always pay close  
attention to the colour of clothing, hair and eyes. [...] 2. Hair.  
Black hair is Evil, particularly if combined with a corpse-white  
complexion. Red hair always entails magical powers, even if these are  
only latent. [...] Fair hair, specially if it is silvery blonde  
always means goodness. (Whoops!) 3. Eyes. Black eyes are invariably  
Evil [...] green eyes always entail talent, usually for magic [...]  
Red eyes ... are Evil and surprisingly common.

"Enchantment. This is the Management's term for manipulative magic.  
Under its influence you  will feel nice, become dreamy and find  
yourself doing something you would not otherwise do.

"Gestures are the invariable accompaniment to the performing of  
magic. The Management here takes the reasonable line that, without  
Gestures, most people would not know that magic was being done. So  
all wizards wave their arms about a lot.

"Legends are an important source of true information. They always  
turn out to be far more accurate than history.

"Magic has slightly different Rules for every Tour. Tourists had  
better find out swiftly which Rules apply or here could be problems.  
Luckily the Management seldom or never changes the Rules in mid-Tour,  
but it has been known to reserve one or two extra secrets for a nasty  
surprise later on. [...] demons, dragons, elves etc all have magic  
that works in quite a different way.... The Rules (of which) are not  
known.

"Mentor. A Tour official who will be at your service until halfway  
through the Tour, when you will unaccountably lose him [...] He will  
be several hundred years old and will probably have a long white  
beard; this will give him the right to be bossy, smug, tiresomely  
philosophical and infuriatingly secretive about all-important facts.  
You will be glad to see the back of the old idiot. Unfortunately you  
won't have.

"Prophecy is used by the Management to make sure that no Tourist is  
unduly surprised by events [...] All Prophecies come true.

"Spiders are rare. This is fortunate because they are always of  
enormous size and venom."

And so on. Worth dipping into if only to garner snippets of fantasy  
lore. But apart from the number of magical folk all in a modern day   
setting, here's little indication of where the promised subversion is  
lurking in HP. Mind you, Jo isn't the only one to promise it:-

Director Mike Newell is using his forthcoming movie (HP & tGoF) to  
vent his seething mistrust of children. The 63 year-old film maker is  
determined to obliterate any sense of false innocence in the magical  
tale, as he insists kids should be depicted in a more truthful light  
-  as bloodthirsty maniacs.

He  says, "I was very anxious to break the franchise(!) out of this  
goody-two-shoes feel. It's my view that children are violent, dirty,  
corrupt anarchists. Just adults-in-waiting basically."

Lord of the Flies meets Lord Voldemort.
Hm. Do you think Warner Bros know about this?

Kneasy



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 25 14:23:30 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <73AF5C79-D55B-413D-809D-DF4F37995381@...>
Message-ID: <20051025142330.60354.qmail@...>

Kneasy reported, from "The Tough Guide to Fantasy
Land:"

"Colour Coding is very important in Fantasyland.  2.
Hair.  Black hair is Evil, particularly if combined
with a corpse-white complexion. ...3. Eyes. Black eyes
are invariably Evil.


SSSusan:
Well.  It's certainly looking bad, then, for my
DDM!Snape, isn't it?  Someone from the Pip! Squad of
Snape supporters want to help rebut this? :-)


Seriously, this sounds like a delightful book, with
gems like this --

"The Management here takes the reasonable line that,
without Gestures, most people would not know that
magic was being done. So all wizards wave their arms
about a lot."

-- and like this:

"[...] demons, dragons, elves etc all have magic  
that works in quite a different way.... The Rules (of
which) are not known."

SSSusan: Interesting, isn't it?  We do still wonder in
what ways house elves' magic is different from the
rules which apply to standard wizards & witches.  We
know they can somehow apparate within Hogwarts, but
what else can they do?


Kneasy quoteth further:
"Mentor. A Tour official who will be at your service
until halfway through the Tour, when you will
unaccountably lose him [...] He will be several
hundred years old and will probably have a long white 

beard; this will give him the right to be bossy, smug,
tiresomely philosophical and infuriatingly secretive
about all-important facts."

SSSusan: LOL. It does seem reasonable to ask, "In what
way *is* JKR subverting this genre, with this kind of
dead-on match to the standard?

  
Siriusly Snapey Susan, clearly with nothing to add,
but posting anyhow.




From Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 25 14:43:03 2005
From: Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid (S A H Culfeather)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:43:03 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <20051025142330.60354.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20051025144304.28608.qmail@...>


SSSUSan this was far too tempting to ignore!!

<Kneasy reported, from "The Tough Guide to Fantasy
Land:"

"Colour Coding is very important in Fantasyland.  2.
Hair.  Black hair is Evil, particularly if combined
with a corpse-white complexion. ...3. Eyes. Black eyes
are invariably Evil.
SSSusan:
Well.  It's certainly looking bad, then, for my
DDM!Snape, isn't it?  Someone from the Pip! Squad of
Snape supporters want to help rebut this? :-)>



BUT you ignore this little gem:

<Fair hair, specially if it is silvery blonde  
always means goodness. (Whoops!)>

So, is nice Mr. Malfoy not a natural blonde????
Draco??

OR maybe Snape deliberately dyes his hair dark to look
evil. Yes, that has to be it. He's naturally
nouse-brown and wanted to look more death-eatery!!!!



Serena








From sherriola at ...  Tue Oct 25 14:49:18 2005
From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:49:18 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <20051025144304.28608.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <001b01c5d973$4818abd0$0400a8c0@pensive>

Are we forgetting, James, Harry and Sirius?  All with black hair and all
good guys!  And in LOTR, the ultimate fantasy I suppose, Aragorn, most
definitely a good guy, also has black hair.  I thought the red hair meaning
very magical was much more interesting than the black hair versus blond
hair.  After all, lily, Dumbledore and the Weasleys all have red hair.

sherry


-----Original Message-----
From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of S A H Culfeather
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:43 AM
To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [the_old_crowd] Subverting the genre?



SSSUSan this was far too tempting to ignore!!

<Kneasy reported, from "The Tough Guide to Fantasy
Land:"

"Colour Coding is very important in Fantasyland.  2.
Hair.  Black hair is Evil, particularly if combined
with a corpse-white complexion. ...3. Eyes. Black eyes
are invariably Evil.
SSSusan:
Well.  It's certainly looking bad, then, for my
DDM!Snape, isn't it?  Someone from the Pip! Squad of
Snape supporters want to help rebut this? :-)>



BUT you ignore this little gem:

<Fair hair, specially if it is silvery blonde  
always means goodness. (Whoops!)>

So, is nice Mr. Malfoy not a natural blonde????
Draco??

OR maybe Snape deliberately dyes his hair dark to look
evil. Yes, that has to be it. He's naturally
nouse-brown and wanted to look more death-eatery!!!!



Serena








 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 25 19:12:47 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:12:47 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <73AF5C79-D55B-413D-809D-DF4F37995381@...>
Message-ID: <djm03f+9812@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>
Well, before JKR there was DWJ - Diana Wynne Jones. I say 'was' in a 
comparative sense, she's still alive and kicking and doing very well, 
thank you, particularly now that 'Howl's Moving Castle' has hit the 
big screen. Author of getting on for 30 fantasies aimed at the 
younger set, she was (and I understand still is for many) the doyen 
of Brit fantasists.

Carolyn:
The movie version sounds quite amusing judging by the reviews. Cross 
between Shrek and manga by all accounts; I might take advantage of 
living in the great metrop and make an effort to see it. However, I 
can assure you old bean that the book is beyond dire, as are her 
other epics. I was tempted to try them by some benighted 
recommendations on these boards. Should have known better. Slung into 
a skip without a second's hesitation. 

Kneasy:
"The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" provides the low-down on navigating 
yourself through the thickets and pitfalls of a fantasy 'Tour' i.e. 
any volume of fantasy. Refreshingly cynical, it's an alphabetical 
guide that tells you what to expect in the way of the fictional 
conventions, any hardware cluttering up the place,stereotypes posing 
in fore- or background - and how the plot (if any) is liable to 
progress.

Carolyn:
Enlightening. This in fact, may be the reason her books don't work. 
Like the most diligent of Mills & Boon authors, she has reduced her 
output to a formula, with all the dullness that entails. As I recall, 
DWJ has been rather munificent about JKR, saying something along the 
lines of 'I don't mind a bit she's got a similar story to mine, good 
luck.' Which is the right reaction, as JKR has indeed done something 
very different and original with the ingredients. Not to be compared 
for a minute.

Kneasy:
But apart from the number of magical folk all in a modern day
setting, here's little indication of where the promised subversion is 
lurking in HP.

Carolyn:
The subversion in JKR's mind (I think) is that she doesn't give a fig 
for what she's supposed to do with these ingredients; she's bored 
even with pretending to make the magic believable. She doesn't 
believe in it, and really (as she has said in the interviews), it 
doesn't particularly make things much better for Harry. The WW in 
many ways is even more awful than Muggleland.

The truly alarming thought is that what she is really attempting is a 
cross between Jane Austen, Shakespeare and Agatha Christie. Hm.

Kneasy:
He says, "I was very anxious to break the franchise(!) out of this
goody-two-shoes feel. It's my view that children are violent, dirty, 
corrupt anarchists. Just adults-in-waiting basically."

Lord of the Flies meets Lord Voldemort.
Hm. Do you think Warner Bros know about this?

Carolyn:
Now, surely you are tempted to watch this one.. really sounds quite 
promising! I share his view of children entirely, I mean, I was one. 
Why parents think they are desirable is entirely beyond me. It's war, 
from about age 6 months.


Serena:
So, is nice Mr. Malfoy not a natural blonde????
Draco??

OR maybe Snape deliberately dyes his hair dark to look
evil. Yes, that has to be it. He's naturally
nouse-brown and wanted to look more death-eatery!!!!

Carolyn:
Finally, we discover the reason that Lockhart wanted to market his 
own range of hair care products!









From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 25 20:20:02 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:20:02 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <djm03f+9812@...>
Message-ID: <djm41i+3ih3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carolyn:
> Enlightening. This in fact, may be the reason her books don't work. 
> Like the most diligent of Mills & Boon authors, she has reduced her 
> output to a formula, with all the dullness that entails. As I recall, 
> DWJ has been rather munificent about JKR, saying something along the 
> lines of 'I don't mind a bit she's got a similar story to mine, good 
> luck.' Which is the right reaction, as JKR has indeed done something 
> very different and original with the ingredients. Not to be compared 
> for a minute.
> 

Formulaic? Isn't that the way fantasy is supposed to be? Heroes and
Dark Lords, Quests and Betrayals, Hardships and Spunky Females
Who Are The Voice Of Conscience?
Maybe I've got wrong all these years. 

DWJ and others (perhaps including JKR- we'll see) understand one
thing very well - their readership, or the major part of it anyway.
Unlike Mills and Boon (which is aimed at putatively adult females), most
fantasy fans are of the age group that worries about spots. And they
just love formula writing, it gives them a feeling of security. The only
variant is which particular formula the various sub-groups favour. 

In TTGTFL DWJ has a gentle dig at these formulae (notably there are
references to the works of the afore-mentioned Pratchett, who I
understand is a drinking buddy of hers at conventions). But you
can't help appreciating some of the more obscure entries. For
example, Ecology stars off with "The Ecology of Fantasyland is in a 
bad way," provides examples for the next page and a half and ends
heartily approving of the fact that given enough  time humans will
find themselves at the bottom of every food chain. There's a similar
treatise on Economy. Werewolves (and Vampires) get short entries,
mostly because these days they've gone over to the Horror Tour where
there are better working conditions and more prey.

Never having read her other stuff I can't comment on it's merits or lack
thereof. All I can say is that IMO TTGTFL is more entertaining than 
most of the fantasies it derives its raw material from. 

> 
> Kneasy:
> He says, "I was very anxious to break the franchise(!) out of this
> goody-two-shoes feel. It's my view that children are violent, dirty, 
> corrupt anarchists. Just adults-in-waiting basically."
> 
> Lord of the Flies meets Lord Voldemort.
> Hm. Do you think Warner Bros know about this?
> 
> Carolyn:
> Now, surely you are tempted to watch this one.. really sounds quite 
> promising! I share his view of children entirely, I mean, I was one. 
> Why parents think they are desirable is entirely beyond me. It's war, 
> from about age 6 months.
> 

Nope. No chance. Mostly because there's no chance that any of 'em will
get a damned good thrashing. It's not allowed anymore. Sad that.
You've missed the point of the (!) too. It's official, HP is now a franchise.
Warner Bros owns all the trademarks and even if Jo stops churning
out the books the HP industry will continue to develop ad nauseam.








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 26 00:41:23 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <20051025144304.28608.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20051026004123.86944.qmail@...>

Brilliant!

I now have proof after all these years!  I knew that
my children and their mother were evil with their dark
eye color and dark hair! <:0 

On the other hand, my red beard proves that I have
special magical powers.  Since it will soon turn
white, I will mysteriously disappear and appear out of
nowhere later (probably at the Betty Ford Clinic or
somewhere like it). My kids will probably verify that
I become more bossy, smug, and tiresomely
philosophical as time goes by!  It makes one ponder
the deeper meaning behind late homework assignments
and oversleeping on the weekends......blah, blah,
blah......;0)  

My kids started out with my eye color (greenish-light
brown), but my wife's evil eye color took over after
only a few weeks.  I equate it to the transformation
of the eye color of the people in "The X files"!  "I'm
not implying anything; I'm just letting the facts
speak for themselves!" ;0) 

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Red Eye Randy

who's eyes are actually green, but he took the name
from staying up late trying to read all of these yahoo
posts and constantly saw bloodshot eyes staring at him
in the mirror.


--- S A H Culfeather <Pookie1_uk at ...> wrote:

> 
> SSSUSan this was far too tempting to ignore!!
> 
> <Kneasy reported, from "The Tough Guide to Fantasy
> Land:"
> 
> "Colour Coding is very important in Fantasyland.  2.
> Hair.  Black hair is Evil, particularly if combined
> with a corpse-white complexion. ...3. Eyes. Black
> eyes
> are invariably Evil.
> SSSusan:
> Well.  It's certainly looking bad, then, for my
> DDM!Snape, isn't it?  Someone from the Pip! Squad of
> Snape supporters want to help rebut this? :-)>
> 
> 
> 
> BUT you ignore this little gem:
> 
> <Fair hair, specially if it is silvery blonde  
> always means goodness. (Whoops!)>
> 
> So, is nice Mr. Malfoy not a natural blonde????
> Draco??
> 
> OR maybe Snape deliberately dyes his hair dark to
> look
> evil. Yes, that has to be it. He's naturally
> nouse-brown and wanted to look more death-eatery!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Serena
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 26 02:01:33 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:01:33 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <djm03f+9812@...>
Message-ID: <djmo1t+2r8c@...>


> > Kneasy:
> Well, before JKR there was DWJ - Diana Wynne Jones. I say 'was' in a 
> comparative sense, she's still alive and kicking and doing very well, 
> thank you, particularly now that 'Howl's Moving Castle' has hit the 
> big screen. Author of getting on for 30 fantasies aimed at the 
> younger set, she was (and I understand still is for many) the doyen 
> of Brit fantasists.
> 
> Carolyn:
> The movie version sounds quite amusing judging by the reviews. Cross 
> between Shrek and manga by all accounts; I might take advantage of 
> living in the great metrop and make an effort to see it. However, I 
> can assure you old bean that the book is beyond dire, as are her 
> other epics. I was tempted to try them by some benighted 
> recommendations on these boards. Should have known better. Slung into 
> a skip without a second's hesitation. 
> 
> Kneasy:
> "The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" provides the low-down on navigating 
> yourself through the thickets and pitfalls of a fantasy 'Tour' i.e. 
> any volume of fantasy. Refreshingly cynical, it's an alphabetical 
> guide that tells you what to expect in the way of the fictional 
> conventions, any hardware cluttering up the place,stereotypes posing 
> in fore- or background - and how the plot (if any) is liable to 
> progress.
> 
> Carolyn:
> Enlightening. This in fact, may be the reason her books don't work. 
> Like the most diligent of Mills & Boon authors, she has reduced her 
> output to a formula, with all the dullness that entails. As I recall, 
> DWJ has been rather munificent about JKR, saying something along the 
> lines of 'I don't mind a bit she's got a similar story to mine, good 
> luck.' Which is the right reaction, as JKR has indeed done something 
> very different and original with the ingredients. Not to be compared 
> for a minute.
> 

Neri:
Fantasy is formulaic, but not more so than most genres, such as
romance, mystery, fairytales, even Shakespearean comedies. Sci-Fi is
also very formulaic, but is partly saved because it has a considerably
larger number of formulas than fantasy. In any case, the question is
what the author does with the formula.

I've read two books by DWJ (Howl's Moving Castle and another one I
can't even remember) that I didn't have to pay for. I don't
particularly recommend them, even for fantasy fans, and I didn't rush
to buy other books by her. HMC is indeed not formulaic and pretty
imaginative, but IMO much too complicated: I wasn't able to follow all
the plot details, I didn't much care how they turned out in the end,
and I wouldn't remember them today to save my life. The movie is
actually better, merely because of the beautiful imagery of Hayao
Miyazaki, a great Japanese animator. However, if you want to see the
best of Miyazaki you must see Spirited Away
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245429/
It is simply amazing, perhaps the best animation film I've ever seen,
despite the mediocre western dubbing. One word of warning: although
it's usually classified as a children movie, I wouldn't recommend
watching it with kids younger than 9. They might have nightmares for
weeks later.

Neri







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 26 13:06:53 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:06:53 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <73AF5C79-D55B-413D-809D-DF4F37995381@...>
Message-ID: <djnv1d+29ij@...>

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

> 
> So how is subversion accomplished, what needs to be changed?
> Well, before JKR there was DWJ -  Diana Wynne Jones. I say 'was' in a  
> comparative sense, she's still alive and kicking and doing very well,  
> thank you, particularly now that 'Howl's Moving Castle' has hit the  
> big screen. Author of getting on for 30 fantasies aimed at the  
> younger set, she was (and I understand still is for many) the doyen  
> of Brit fantasists. What she doesn't know about fantasy probably  
> ain't worth knowing. (I speak as an observer reporting common wisdom,  
> I've read none of her tales - hardly surprising since I've never been  
> addicted to the fantasy opiate.)

Pippin:
Before DWJ there was Barbara Ninde Byfield, who wrote The Book of Weird (also known as 
The Glass Harmonica) thirty years ago. 

If Lupin turns out to be ESE! no one will need to ask why JKR thinks her books subvert the 
genre. 

Pippin
inspired to visit Amazon and replace her copy, long since moldered into dust






From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 29 12:01:18 2005
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:01:18 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <djm41i+3ih3@...>
Message-ID: <djvoae+vdjn@...>

Bit late, sorry...

Kneasy:
<snip>
I'd have thought that setting out to deliberately subvert a genre
requires a fair appreciation of the norms and stereotypes that infest
too many of the bog-standard multi-volume let's-save-the-world-from-
the-forces-of-evil door-stopper. As most readers are aware, the bog-
standard etc. invariably relies on magic and wizardry to keep the
plot limping along, HP differing somewhat in that just about all the
protagonists have magical powers rather than the infrequent mage or
witch that are obligatory cast members in other epics - a
quantitative rather than qualitative difference. But note that the
Chief Baddy invariably has magical powers, no matter who's penning
the damn thing.

Dungrollin:
A sudden attack of paranoia made me look up a definition 
of 'subvert'. Unfortunately I'm away from all my lovely reference 
books (despite my carefully chosen 40kg baggage allowance flight 
with free 20-hour holiday in Casablanca on the way, they were too 
heavy to bring to Africa). So I had to resort to an online 
dictionary (UK English).

"To try to destroy or weaken something, especially an established 
political system."

I suppose I should come clean and say that my understanding of the 
word was somewhat different, more like manipulating a system from 
within for one's own ends. Apparently I was wrong. Was I bamboozled 
by all those lengthy arguments about subversive readings of HP? Or 
did I just hybridise subterfuge and pervert?

Could someone with an old-fashioned paper and ink version tell me 
whether I'm completely round the twist (only on this subject please, 
general insinuations about my sanity or lack thereof off-list).

Anyhow, this threw me a bit. Did JKR really mean that she wanted to 
*subvert* fantasy? To try to destroy or weaken it? If she didn't 
even know that she was writing fantasy to start with, it seems 
unlikely that HP was a premeditated attack on the genre. I think she 
used the word in the way that I understood it, which makes me think 
that I'm *not* round the twist. 

Which brings me to a question/answer on Philip Pullman's website:

You once said that His Dark Materials is not a fantasy, but stark 
realism. What did you mean by that?

"That comment got me into trouble with the fantasy people. What I 
mean by it was roughly this: that the story I was trying to write 
was about real people, not beings that don't exist like elves or 
hobbits. Lyra and Will and the other characters are meant to be 
human beings like us, and the story is about a universal human 
experience, namely growing up. The 'fantasy' parts of the story were 
there as a picture of aspects of human nature, not as something 
alien and strange [...] I was using the fantastical elements to say 
something that I thought was true about us and about our lives."

Which, to my mind is as good a way of distinguishing literature from 
non-literature as any. So that's good, isn't it? JKR claiming to be 
using the genre for her own ends without giving a fig about the 
traditional swords and sorcerers rules. Makes it sound like she's 
got A Point to make, though that rather goes against the HP is not a 
morality tale, but a tale from which morals can be drawn quote. 
(What's the difference, again?)

Kneasy again:
<snip>
"The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" provides the
low-down on navigating yourself through the thickets and pitfalls of
a fantasy 'Tour' i.e. any volume of fantasy. Refreshingly cynical,
it's an alphabetical guide that tells you what to expect in the way
of the fictional conventions, any hardware cluttering up the place,
stereotypes posing in fore- or background - and how the plot (if any)
is liable to progress. Not all the elements listed are found in every
story of course - there's usually some pick 'n mix involved, but it
is interesting to consult entries applicable to HP. You never know,
we might find some subversion going on. Or there again.....
<snipping much hilarity>

Dungrollin:
Indeed. So either JKR was out and out lying in the subverting the 
genre quote, or we are waiting for book 7 to shatter one or more of 
your carefully catalogued stereotypes. Is the prophecy is a load of 
nonsense? Are the Weasleys magically mediocre? Or is it simply that 
(*licks lips in anticipation*) she's going to kill off the hero?

I met up with a friend recently who's only just read HBP, so he's 
not a loony like we are, but he's convinced that Harry's going to 
snuff it at the end. I tend to change my mind about whether Harry's 
toast on a regular basis, but suddenly I remembered some words of 
wisdom that I could have sworn came from Arthur, so imagine my 
surprise when it turned out to come from Sirius of all people in 
OotP:

"...this is why you're not in the Order - you don't understand - 
there are things worth dying for!"

Obviously, being DELUSIONAL, I hope that this is something Harry 
will end up understanding with respect to DD's death, but it would 
also be fun if it's a more important Lesson He Must Learn And Put 
Into Practice Before He Can Succeed. Unfortunately it wouldn't mean 
that he has to die, only be prepared to do so. Though that wouldn't 
be at all subversive, would it?

Fingers crossed, eh?


Kneasy also wrote, somewhere else:
It's official, HP is now a franchise. Warner Bros owns all the 
trademarks and even if Jo stops churning out the books the HP 
industry will continue to develop ad nauseam.

Dungrollin:
So you're looking forward to film #8 then? <shudders> And who else 
thinks that if JKR did kill Harry off, WB would change the ending? 


> Carolyn wrote:
> Now, surely you are tempted to watch this one.. really sounds quite
> promising! I share his view of children entirely, I mean, I was 
one. Why parents think they are desirable is entirely beyond me. 
It's war, from about age 6 months.

Dungrollin:
Oh Carolyn, I never expected to hear you sound so sentimental on the 
subject!! The war starts well before birth m'dear, diabetes in 
pregnancy is the little parasite readjusting a woman's (already 
heartily abused) hormones to pinch more of her blood sugar. There's 
a wonderful paragraph in The Extended Phenotype about the 
evolutionary war between mothers and foetuses which I've underlined 
several times and stuck post-it notes around and folded the corner 
of the page down. But it's in England so I can't quote it for you.

Dungrollin
Ramble quibble ramble gibber collapse in a corner muttering.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 29 14:33:17 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:33:17 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <djvoae+vdjn@...>
Message-ID: <dk017d+lf69@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> A sudden attack of paranoia made me look up a definition 
> of 'subvert'. 
> 
> "To try to destroy or weaken something, especially an established 
> political system."
> 
> I suppose I should come clean and say that my understanding of the 
> word was somewhat different, more like manipulating a system from 
> within for one's own ends. Apparently I was wrong. Was I bamboozled 
> by all those lengthy arguments about subversive readings of HP? Or 
> did I just hybridise subterfuge and pervert?
> 
> Could someone with an old-fashioned paper and ink version tell me 
> whether I'm completely round the twist (only on this subject please, 
> general insinuations about my sanity or lack thereof off-list).
> 

Kneasy:
Yep; best one word definition of 'subvert' that springs to mind is
'undermine' i.e. to destroy someone's faith in whatever it is. It does
not carry the implication of replacing with something else, though
that may be the ultimate objective of the subverter once the ground
has been cleared, but subversion per se is purely a destructive action.

> Anyhow, this threw me a bit. Did JKR really mean that she wanted to 
> *subvert* fantasy? To try to destroy or weaken it? If she didn't 
> even know that she was writing fantasy to start with, it seems 
> unlikely that HP was a premeditated attack on the genre. I think she 
> used the word in the way that I understood it, which makes me think 
> that I'm *not* round the twist. 
> 
> Which brings me to a question/answer on Philip Pullman's website:
> 
> You once said that His Dark Materials is not a fantasy, but stark 
> realism. What did you mean by that?
> 
> "That comment got me into trouble with the fantasy people. What I 
> mean by it was roughly this: that the story I was trying to write 
> was about real people, not beings that don't exist like elves or 
> hobbits. Lyra and Will and the other characters are meant to be 
> human beings like us, and the story is about a universal human 
> experience, namely growing up. The 'fantasy' parts of the story were 
> there as a picture of aspects of human nature, not as something 
> alien and strange [...] I was using the fantastical elements to say 
> something that I thought was true about us and about our lives."
> 
> Which, to my mind is as good a way of distinguishing literature from 
> non-literature as any. So that's good, isn't it? JKR claiming to be 
> using the genre for her own ends without giving a fig about the 
> traditional swords and sorcerers rules. Makes it sound like she's 
> got A Point to make, though that rather goes against the HP is not a 
> morality tale, but a tale from which morals can be drawn quote. 
> (What's the difference, again?)
>

Kneasy:
I get a touch cynical when authors feel the need to tell readers how
their books should be viewed or interpreted - makes me think that
they've maybe failed at what they tried to do as writers. Also it's not
unknown for a story to take on a life of its own and defy authorial
attempts of control - in which  case the author either tries to make
some sort of rationalisation or resigns himself to bemused puzzlement
when the interviews start. IMO it's better that someone other than the
author slaps on the genre labels; not only will they be a bit more 
objective but it could be useful feedback to the author.

So what is traditional fantasy? Aesop's Fables? The Brothers Grimm?
Burnt Njal? Gilgamesh? Or upstarts like LoTR? Well, it all depends...
Fantasy can be a lot more than swords n'sorcery.
Being an opinionated sort of swine, one of the main reasons for my
dismissal of nearly all the stuff labelled 'fantasy' that gets thumped
onto bookshop shelves is that it all owes too much to LoTR; it's
clonic ( or perhaps 'colonic' is a more apposite term), formula
stuff. Occasionally there's something different, but it's rare - parody
seems to be the best way of slipping a new slant under the razorwire.
Stuff like Mary Gentle's 'Grunts', written from the point of view of the
Orcs who *know* that they're destined to get the shit kicked out of 
them by some shining hero - or indeed by anyone considered 'good'. 
Existential despair hits Fairyland. 
Even so, it sticks to what are the accepted premises.
   
> 
> Dungrollin:
> Indeed. So either JKR was out and out lying in the subverting the 
> genre quote, or we are waiting for book 7 to shatter one or more of 
> your carefully catalogued stereotypes. Is the prophecy is a load of 
> nonsense? Are the Weasleys magically mediocre? Or is it simply that 
> (*licks lips in anticipation*) she's going to kill off the hero?
> 

Only two ways to subvert the fantasy genre that I can see. Either:
a) prove it's all fact
or
b) show that it causes mental illness.

Killing off the hero isn't anything new, Arthur and practically all the
Round Table Knights copped it in the neck (or other squidgy spots)
and Lancelot (true blue hero) had been playing 'hide the sausage'
with the saintly Guinevere anyway. In fact it's quite common for
a fallibility or two to mar the otherwise spotless perfection of the
righteous, death then equals atonement. Very moral.

Personally I can't see how Harry can survive, it'd need some nifty
writing to make it seem credible. Frankly, I don't think Jo is that good.
 
> 
> Kneasy also wrote, somewhere else:
> It's official, HP is now a franchise. Warner Bros owns all the 
> trademarks and even if Jo stops churning out the books the HP 
> industry will continue to develop ad nauseam.
> 
> Dungrollin:
> So you're looking forward to film #8 then? <shudders> And who else 
> thinks that if JKR did kill Harry off, WB would change the ending? 
> 

Hardly.
I don't intend seeing any more after the rubbish that was No.3 - and 
certainly not after WB resurrect his 'spirit' from the ruins of where-ever 
he bit the dust and reincorporate it into an all-American boy. 
Wow! We have the (magical) technology!
Yuk.








From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 29 20:13:25 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:13:25 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <djvoae+vdjn@...>
Message-ID: <dk0l55+nmva@...>

"dungrollin" <spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3400 :

> So I had to resort to an online dictionary (UK English).

www.onelook.com is One-Look Dictionary, which looks the word up in
MANY dictionaries for you. It gave me 20 links for 'subvert'. It
always pleases me when 1828 Webster is one of the hits:
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=subvert
<< SUBVERT', v.t. [L. subverto; sub and verto, to turn.]
    1. To overthrow from the foundation; to overturn; to ruin utterly.
The northern nations of Europe subverted the Roman empire. He is the
worst enemy of man, who endeavors to subvert the christian religion.
The elevation of corrupt men to office will slowly, but surely,
subvert a republican government.
    This would subvert the principles of all knowledge.
    2. To corrupt; to confound; to pervert the mind, and turn it from
the truth. 2 Tim.2. >>

> "To try to destroy or weaken something, especially an established 
> political system."
> 
> I suppose I should come clean and say that my understanding of the 
> word was somewhat different, more like manipulating a system from 
> within for one's own ends. 

Their Definition 1 is like your on-line dictionary and their
Definition 2 is like your definition and my definition. I really think
there SHOULD be a difference between 'overthrow' and 'underturn' (with
'overturn' in the middle? 'underthrow'?).

By the way, there are a TON of reference books on-line at
http://www.bartleby.com/

> Oh Carolyn, I never expected to hear you sound so sentimental on the 
> subject!! The war starts well before birth m'dear, diabetes in 
> pregnancy is the little parasite readjusting a woman's (already 
> heartily abused) hormones to pinch more of her blood sugar.

The latest I read somewhere claims pregnancy diabetes is Bad for the
foetus's future, causing it to be born larger and therefore more
suspectible to diabetes and obesity during its life. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
obesity wasn't available back when humans were evolving and famine was
the real danger. 






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 05:46:38 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:46:38 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk017d+lf69@...>
Message-ID: <dk1mnu+ijb9@...>

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

Kneasy:
>Yep; best one word definition of 'subvert' that springs to mind is
>`undermine' i.e. to destroy someone's faith in whatever it is. It 
>does
>not carry the implication of replacing with something else, though
>that may be the ultimate objective of the subverter once the ground
>has been cleared, but subversion per se is purely a destructive 
action.


Talisman, who really does understand Kneasy?fs optimistic outlook, 
but nevertheless demurs.

I know I should be using this time to finish up several other posts 
I owe several other people--and I should adopt my usual attitude of 
cheerful contentment when I see folks going off in what I consider 
the wrong direction (this means there's less pressure to get my own 
ideas typed up)--but for some reason I'm tempted to set things on--
what I consider to be--the better path.

There are other definitions of "subvert" which do not entail utter 
destruction, and which, in the literary context, make far more 
sense. "Pervert, misdirect, and "undermine the allegiance of," to 
name a few.

When we say that someone is offering a "subversive reading" of a 
text, we do not mean so much that they have destroyed the text, but 
that they have offered a reading that interprets the elements of the 
narrative so that those elements have "changed in allegiance," i.e. 
where the author may have been trying to make one point, the reader 
asserts that the text makes quite a different point--in whole or in 
part. 

In like fashion, I interpret Rowling's statement as meaning that she 
has taken the perceived trappings of fantasy fiction and caused them 
to serve her own purposes, rather than whatever purposes she 
understands them to serve in a traditional work of the so-called 
fantasy genre.

This comports closely with her statements in the interview (_Time 
Magazine_, 17 July, 2005) from which the "I was trying to subvert 
the genre," blurb has been taken.  In fine, she refers to the fact 
that--unlike whatever it is that she considers to be traditional 
fantasy-- in the HP series, magic does not solve all of Harry's 
problems.  To the contrary, because Harry learns most of his life 
lessons in the WW, there are necessarily ongoing problems in the 
magical realm, problems that correspond to the reader?fs RW 
experiences.  

It?fs just about as boring as that.  But not quite.

The HP series is a fantasy about reality--as any good fiction, 
fantasy or not--must be. Indeed that is a seminal difference between 
Literature and tripe: worthwhile fiction cuts closer to the bone of 
human reality than anything in the nonfiction section ever will.

 In that sense, Rowling is hardly unique.  But, she is subversive. 
Readers who constantly bark about conventional morality and ascribe 
subversive readings to others are the ones who have missed the 
point.  She is writing a socially subversive text, and if it goes 
down like childish pabulum for a lot of conventionally-minded 
people, so much the better. That's as good as a Disillusionment 
Charm, any day.

 Rowling?fs ideal reader is the person--probably young, but not 
necessarily so-- who is ?gmagic?h i.e. creative, nonconformist, open 
to possibilities, but who is immersed in the conventional ?gMuggle?h 
society and who doesn?et quite know how to possess their own power.  
For this reader, the series is very much like Hagrid: an over-sized 
keeper-of-the-keys to another--validating--world, that?fs been right 
under their nose the whole time.

Talisman
P.S.  It pays to remember that, within the series, Rowling uses 
magic as a metaphor for her own creative talents, and witches and 
wizards as a metaphor for people who are just like her.








From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 08:01:12 2005
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:01:12 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <73AF5C79-D55B-413D-809D-DF4F37995381@...>
Message-ID: <dk1uk8+8b1k@...>

Kneasy wrote:

> 
> However, one small volume of hers has fallen into my hands, and  
> it could be very useful: "The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" <snip> 
> it  is interesting to consult entries applicable to HP. You never 
> know, we might find some subversion going on. Or there again.....

Pip!Squeak writes:
You missed out the entry for 'Socks', Kneasy.

"Socks: are never worn in Fantasyland. People thrust their feet, 
usually unwashed, straight into boots."

and

"Knitting: It is possible that knitting has not yet been invented in 
Fantasyland - at least so far as mortals are concerned (see Crone). 
The complete absence of socks and sweaters suggest that the 
inhabitants have concentrated instead on Embroidery and weaving."

Given the significance of socks, sweaters AND knitting in HP, I 
think that's proof positive that JKR is indeed subverting the 
fantasy genre.

Just not in the places people generally look ...

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 11:54:53 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:54:53 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk1uk8+8b1k@...>
Message-ID: <dk2cad+59nb@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
>
> 
> Pip!Squeak writes:
> You missed out the entry for 'Socks', Kneasy.
> 
> "Socks: are never worn in Fantasyland. People thrust their feet, 
> usually unwashed, straight into boots."
> 
> and
> 
> "Knitting: It is possible that knitting has not yet been invented in 
> Fantasyland - at least so far as mortals are concerned (see Crone). 
> The complete absence of socks and sweaters suggest that the 
> inhabitants have concentrated instead on Embroidery and weaving."
> 
> Given the significance of socks, sweaters AND knitting in HP, I 
> think that's proof positive that JKR is indeed subverting the 
> fantasy genre.
> 
> Just not in the places people generally look ...
> 

I'm suspicious.
I offer an alternative genesis to explain the presence of wool-related
articles in HP.

Jo is esconced in her favourite greasy spoon scribbling ideas for her
epic. Difficulties regarding plot and character arise and are overcome
except for one - how to subvert the fantasy genre. This raises immense
problems and day after day  she sits there muttering distractedly to
herself "How can I do it? What  twists does it need? How about this ... 
or that ... or maybe if..."

Eventually another regular customer has had enough of this irritating
background of constant chuntering. "For Heaven's sake, put a sock in it!"
The rest is history, but is it subversion?

Kneasy






From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 13:00:21 2005
From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:00:21 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk2cad+59nb@...>
Message-ID: <dk2g55+algc@...>

> > Pip!Squeak writes:
> > You missed out the entry for 'Socks', Kneasy.
> > 
> > "Socks: are never worn in Fantasyland. People thrust their feet, 
> > usually unwashed, straight into boots."
> > 
> > Given the significance of socks, sweaters AND knitting in HP, I 
> > think that's proof positive that JKR is indeed subverting the 
> > fantasy genre.

Kneasy:
> I'm suspicious.
> I offer an alternative genesis to explain the presence of wool-
related articles in HP.
> 
> Jo is esconced in her favourite greasy spoon scribbling ideas for 
her epic. Difficulties regarding plot and character arise and are 
overcome except for one - how to subvert the fantasy genre. This 
raises immense problems and day after day  she sits there muttering 
distractedly to herself "How can I do it? What  twists does it need? 
How about this ... or that ... or maybe if..."
> 
> Eventually another regular customer has had enough of this 
irritating background of constant chuntering. "For Heaven's sake, put 
a sock in it!" The rest is history, but is it subversion?


hg:
Oh, heck, is that all?!  I just read a good one that Dumbledore is 
the Head House-elf at Hogwarts.  All he'd need is that Christmas gift 
and he'd be free.  Wouldn't it subvert the genre if the wise old 
annoyingly philosophical white-bearded wizard was actually a slave?  
I was ready to break out the books and make a case for it.  ;)






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 13:41:27 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:41:27 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk017d+lf69@...>
Message-ID: <dk2ii7+mblc@...>

  
> > 
> > Dungrollin:
> > Indeed. So either JKR was out and out lying in the subverting the 
> > genre quote, or we are waiting for book 7 to shatter one or more of 
> > your carefully catalogued stereotypes. Is the prophecy is a load of 
> > nonsense? Are the Weasleys magically mediocre? Or is it simply that 
> > (*licks lips in anticipation*) she's going to kill off the hero?
> > 
Kneasy:
> Only two ways to subvert the fantasy genre that I can see. Either:
> a) prove it's all fact
> or
> b) show that it causes mental illness.
> 
> Killing off the hero isn't anything new, Arthur and practically all the
> Round Table Knights copped it in the neck (or other squidgy spots)
> and Lancelot (true blue hero) had been playing 'hide the sausage'
> with the saintly Guinevere anyway. In fact it's quite common for
> a fallibility or two to mar the otherwise spotless perfection of the
> righteous, death then equals atonement. Very moral.
> 

Pippin:
Ee-yes, but generally the author telegraphs the fatal (or redeemable) flaw
from a mile off. Maybe two miles. Did anyone think Boromir wasn't going to 
pull something? Lando? Edmund? Ganelon? Mordred? Not to mention
Anakin, Doomed with a capital Darth, I mean D. Lance/Gwen is no
secret to the reader, or even to Arthur, really. Whereas try to convince the
average HP reader that Lupin might be a traitor and you'll generally get
a spluttering "But he's a good guy!" in response. Along with a politely 
tolerant look that suggests the speaker thinks you  have a screw loose
but is too fond of you to say so.

Rowling's  earlier comment from 2000:
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-newsweek-jones.html
It didn't occur to me for quite a while that I was writing fantasy when
 I'd started "Harry Potter," because I'm a bit slow on the uptake 
about those things. I was so caught up in it. And I was about two thirds
 of the way through, and I suddenly thought, This has got unicorns in it. 
I'm writing fantasy!
--

I think what she meant was that the story was meant to be set in the
real world, not long ago and far, far away, and she didn't realize that it
wasn't, exactly,  until the unicorns entered stage right.

I think there's a difference between subverting a genre and sending it up,
which is what Pratchett does so well. Pratchett is mostly a matter of 
humorous juxtaposition -- what if Tolkien's serious minded dwarves 
were named like Disney's silly ones to give a minor example. It makes
fun of the cliches.  It's an inside joke and you need to have some knowledge
to invent it, although actually you don't need to have any deep familiarity 
with a genre to know what the cliches are. People who've never been to 
an opera in their lives know about fat ladies with horns on, and people 
who never read fantasy know about unicorns

Send ups make fun of the genre. IMO, subversion makes fun of the reader--
it's a different kettle of newts. Subversion is Shylock's speech, it's
Shakespeare making you like the old Kate better, it's Cervantes
driving his lance so firmly into the fantasy reader's posterior that 
no one dared to take the genre seriously again for hundreds of years.

Pippin
hoping this formats correctly. Yahoo is not Safari-friendly.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 19:11:28 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:11:28 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk2g55+algc@...>
Message-ID: <dk35t0+u4m0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "hg_skmg" <hg_skmg at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> hg:
> Oh, heck, is that all?!  I just read a good one that Dumbledore is 
> the Head House-elf at Hogwarts.  All he'd need is that Christmas gift 
> and he'd be free.  Wouldn't it subvert the genre if the wise old 
> annoyingly philosophical white-bearded wizard was actually a slave?  
> I was ready to break out the books and make a case for it.  ;)
>

No problem.
The inclusion of natty gents hosiery in the tale is one thing, how Jo
weaves it into the plot and what its significance is is something else
again. So please follow your instincts and dig the books out and 
scour the text for clues.

DD as slave is new, I think, though having a battered old mentor
'tasked' to expunge the evil that threatens all that is good and
wholesome, hoping eventually to lay down his burden of care and
struggle is very much a traditional plotline. 

Now if you can dig up some evidence that DD was once play-thing
of Morgan-Le-Fay, or that his honed and slightly-oiled torso was at
one time chained, prostrate and helpless at the feet of old Mrs Black,
subject to her slightest whim or vilest desire, then you'll get a round
of deserved applause from the membership.

Kneasy








From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 21:39:40 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:39:40 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk2ii7+mblc@...>
Message-ID: <dk3eis+rfuv@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
>
>   
>>Send ups make fun of the genre. IMO, subversion makes fun of the 
>reader--it's a different kettle of newts. Subversion is Shylock's 
>speech, it's Shakespeare making you like the old Kate better, it's 
>Cervantes driving his lance so firmly into the fantasy reader's 
>posterior that no one dared to take the genre seriously again for 
>hundreds of years.

Talisman:
I'll agree with you, to a point. Subversive texts run counter to the 
prevailing ethos, and necessarily on the sly, so that some readers 
will undoubtedly feel the slow burn.  However, there are always 
enlightened readers who welcome the revolutionary ideas of 
subversive texts, such as Shakespeare's feminism, moderation, and 
tolerance.   By the same turn, there are those readers who will 
never "get it" at all.  

I'm quite sure there were/are anti-Semites who enjoyed The Merchant 
of Venice for all of the wrong reasons.  Likewise I've discussed the 
play with some Jewish folks who despise Shakespeare because of 
Shylock's sufferings.  If either of these groups come to understand 
Shakespeare's point, they may well feel that they have been mocked; 
but, really, the playwright is aiming his arrows at benighted 
attitudes. Folks whose heads are in the right place have nothing to 
fear, and everything to enjoy.

It?fs true that in a ?gsend up?h the author counts on sharing the 
laugh with his reader--that?fs the mark of his success.  Because 
subversive literature is trying to slide by the gate-keeper, the 
question of whether the reader is a dupe or a compatriot is 
determined by the perceptiveness and mentality of the individual 
reader.  Surely every author hopes their text will find the safe 
haven of a like mind, no matter how many barbs they?fve set for the 
adversary.

In all such considerations, I agree that Rowling is a subversive 
author.

Kneasy  wrote:
>Now if you can dig up some evidence that DD was once play-thing
>of Morgan-Le-Fay, or that his honed and slightly-oiled torso was at
>one time chained, prostrate and helpless at the feet of old Mrs 
>Black, subject to her slightest whim or vilest desire, then you'll 
>get a round of deserved applause from the membership.


Talisman:
Ah K, up to your usual naughty tricks?  Once again you?fve caused me 
to stop caring about what Rowling is up to, at all.   I?fd much 
rather follow the antics of your slightly soiled imagination.  Now 
that's true subversion. 







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Oct 30 22:33:28 2005
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk2cad+59nb@...>
Message-ID: <20051030223329.68677.qmail@...>

Socks, Socks, Socks !!

Is that all you girls ever think about?


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

> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak"
> <pip at e...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Pip!Squeak writes:
> > You missed out the entry for 'Socks', Kneasy.
> > 
> > "Socks: are never worn in Fantasyland. People
> thrust their feet, 
> > usually unwashed, straight into boots."
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > "Knitting: It is possible that knitting has not
> yet been invented in 
> > Fantasyland - at least so far as mortals are
> concerned (see Crone). 
> > The complete absence of socks and sweaters suggest
> that the 
> > inhabitants have concentrated instead on
> Embroidery and weaving."
> > 
> > Given the significance of socks, sweaters AND
> knitting in HP, I 
> > think that's proof positive that JKR is indeed
> subverting the 
> > fantasy genre.
> > 
> > Just not in the places people generally look ...
> > 
> 
> I'm suspicious.
> I offer an alternative genesis to explain the
> presence of wool-related
> articles in HP.
> 
> Jo is esconced in her favourite greasy spoon
> scribbling ideas for her
> epic. Difficulties regarding plot and character
> arise and are overcome
> except for one - how to subvert the fantasy genre.
> This raises immense
> problems and day after day  she sits there muttering
> distractedly to
> herself "How can I do it? What  twists does it need?
> How about this ... 
> or that ... or maybe if..."
> 
> Eventually another regular customer has had enough
> of this irritating
> background of constant chuntering. "For Heaven's
> sake, put a sock in it!"
> The rest is history, but is it subversion?
> 
> Kneasy
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 31 09:57:51 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:57:51 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk3eis+rfuv@...>
Message-ID: <dk4pqv+h2ob@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> wrote:
> Ah K, up to your usual naughty tricks?  Once again you?fve caused me 
> to stop caring about what Rowling is up to, at all.   I?fd much 
> rather follow the antics of your slightly soiled imagination.  Now 
> that's true subversion.
>

Slightly soiled?
You underestimate me, madam!
I'm at one with good ole Tom Lehrer:-

"Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)"

And if in my humble way I can persuade the reader to consider a, let us
say, slightly more adventurous interpretation of certain aspects of HP,
then I will not have pounded the keyboard in vain. Some may see this as
subversive, others as merely a filling in of a few intriguing background 
blanks that Jo has inexplicably neglected.

Whatever; subverting the text is one thing, and an everyday event at that;
subverting an entire genre is more difficult by a couple of orders of 
magnitude and it's doubtful that Jo has hit that particular target.

Kneasy







From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 31 17:11:21 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:11:21 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk4pqv+h2ob@...>
Message-ID: <dk5j7p+kkdm@...>

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

Kneasy ,
 <Snip of K boldly singing the Manifesto of SMUT! and offering 
inspiration to us all.> 
>And if in my humble way I can persuade the reader to consider a, 
>let us say, slightly more adventurous interpretation of certain 
>aspects of HP,then I will not have pounded the keyboard in vain.

Talisman, 
Pound on, thou fuzzy and befouled, champion of the adventurous slut 
and the aging Marquis of excessive appetites.

I have studied your lesson, and trust that my estimation of your 
soiled nature is properly elevated.   

Indeed, I propose a lovely coat of arms for the Kneasy line:
Leering ginger cat, rampant, and the motto: *Everything is lewd.*

Perhaps Igor can bang one out in time for Christmas.

On other topics, it would seem that echoes of all your bellowing 
about the degenerative effects of the official website have reached 
Edinburgh.  Not so much as a pumpkin or a Happy Halloween.  The idle 
wench.  If she thinks yesterday's scrap about Molly Weasley's 
birthday is going to cover the nut, she's sadly mistaken--again.

As to the subverting of genres.  Well, fantasy is a genre with a 
small "g," and the only thing it's got to distinguish itself (if at 
all) from other types of speculative fiction, is the use of magic 
combined with the tendency to point to the past.

I have no doubt that Rowling will make some tiresome point by 
invoking reader-attainable non-magic power to save the day in a 
final battle: e.g., Lurve, Forgiveness, or one of Authur Weasley's 
batteries. And there's no doubt that she means for the "point" of 
the series to be relevant today, albeit enfolded in nostalgic 
settings and ancient mysteries.  Is that subversion? Naw.  That's 
business as usual.

Talisman









From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 31 20:56:02 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:56:02 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk5j7p+kkdm@...>
Message-ID: <dk60d2+38gq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Indeed, I propose a lovely coat of arms for the Kneasy line:
> Leering ginger cat, rampant, and the motto: *Everything is lewd.*
> 

Already got one, thanks - a Bibulous Degenerate Couchant above
the motto "Otia Dant Vitia".

> 
> I have no doubt that Rowling will make some tiresome point by 
> invoking reader-attainable non-magic power to save the day in a 
> final battle: e.g., Lurve, Forgiveness, or one of Authur Weasley's 
> batteries. And there's no doubt that she means for the "point" of 
> the series to be relevant today, albeit enfolded in nostalgic 
> settings and ancient mysteries.  Is that subversion? Naw.  That's 
> business as usual.
> 

If she really intends to subvert the fantasy genre she'll do the exact
opposite.
Harry loses, Voldemort wins, evil triumphs. 
A bit like the end of '1984'.
That really would break the mould of the fantasy ethic.

Kneasy







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 31 23:23:37 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:23:37 -0000
Subject: Subverting the genre?
In-Reply-To: <dk60d2+38gq@...>
Message-ID: <dk691p+ob6p@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" 
<talisman22457 at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > Indeed, I propose a lovely coat of arms for the Kneasy line:
> > Leering ginger cat, rampant, and the motto: *Everything is lewd.*
> > 
> 
> Already got one, thanks - a Bibulous Degenerate Couchant above
> the motto "Otia Dant Vitia".


Jane, as always, knew all about your sort:

'I am afraid that the pleasantness of an employment does not always 
evince its propriety.' 


> 
> If she really intends to subvert the fantasy genre she'll do the 
exact opposite.
> Harry loses, Voldemort wins, evil triumphs. 
> A bit like the end of '1984'.
> That really would break the mould of the fantasy ethic.
> 

I wonder what ending would suit the mood of the first decade of the 
21st century? Orwell wrote 1984 in fear of totalitarianism and in the 
aftermath of two World wars.  Sixty years on, what makes sense, what 
was DD afraid might happen?

- destruction of planet: definitely - we saw a bit of that with the 
giants getting going in HBP; expect more and worse
- loss of individual freedoms because of the threat of terrorism: 
definitely - everyone is very fearful; can't travel freely; passwords 
needed all the time
- demonisation of certain cultures: definitely - giants, werewolves 
and such like
- bogus bogeymen: definitely - you mean, they really couldn't have 
taken out Voldie if they wanted to given his Evil Overlord record?
- lying politicians trying to cover their butts: definitely - 
Scrimgeour, Fudge, even dear Dolly are still around
- arms/military proliferation: definitely - see Gred & Forge's 
activities; V's use of mercenaries (eg Fenrir)
- powerful intelligence agencies: definitely - do you trust the 
auror's further than you can throw them?
- final nuclear deterrents: definitely - see horcrumblebombs
- lack of democratic processes: definitely - no one's been given the 
chance to vote for anything useful yet in the WW
- amateur protest groups: definitely - what else do you call a bunch 
of kids, their teachers, their pets and a half man, half horse?
- powerful commercial interests: definitely - step forward Lucius and 
your cronies, and all the denizens of Knockturn Alley.
- an international media easily bought off or distracted by 
titillation: definitely, see The Daily Prophet
- a corrupt sporting culture: definitely - just replay the QWC in 
your mind, or re-read QTTA

So the ingredients are all there. Now, she says she isn't writing in 
the fantasy genre, just for herself. She's a realist and formerly 
worked for Amnesty; she knows what human beings can do to each other. 
And she values courage above anything. Is it credible that we get a 
heart-warming ending that puts everything right, and gives us 
buttered scones for tea?

Definitely hope not. Heroic ending, the kid goes down proving some 
kind of point, but to no great purpose in the great scheme of things. 

Carolyn
..always cheered up by a Kneasy post