From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 01:06:46 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:06:46 -0000 Subject: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > I think this theory suffers from many of the original objections to > RAB being Regulus. > > - Even though a junior DE and brought up in a household obsessed with > the Dark Arts, it stills seems unlikely that he would have acquired > enough of a thorough-going knowledge of hxs to understand what the > locket was. Even 16 year old Tom had to ask Sluggy about the theory, > and he was deeply immersed in evil by that stage. > > - Further, we know that Tom trusts no one. Would he really have been > stupid enough to give Bella enough hints as to what she was holding > in her hands? We have been told he has never loved, so he can't even > have been blinded by her rabid charms. > > - And how could Regulus create a fake item that would fool Voldie? > This would take very advanced magic, surely? > > - And why was Voldie hiding the locket in the lake this late in the > day (1980s)? As far as we can work out, he'd got hold of the trinket > a year or so after leaving school. Why put it in the birdbath of doom > some thirty-odd years later? > > - Finally, surely the hxed locket would be alarmed in some way, and > efforts to destroy it would not only damage Regulus in the same way > that DD got his hand blasted, but would alert Voldie to the theft? Pippin: Information about horcruxes is banned at Hogwarts, therefore it exists elsewhere. Otherwise no ban is needed. Where better to look than in the private library of an old Dark Arts family, which both Regulus and Bella had access to? Voldemort would know nothing of it...the Blacks Sr. weren't DE's or they would have been killed when they turned against Voldie. As Hermione says, there's nothing like banning a topic to make sure it will be researched and discussed. Why wouldn't Bella and Reggie have discovered the same volume as teenagers, long before they joined the Dark Lord, and shuddered appreciatively over the contents? Tom is most likely more than immune to Bella's charms, but the reverse is not true. He knows he needs to make Bella feel special to keep her in his power, just the way he did with Ginny. He entrusts her with the locket, tells her it's precious, a token of his esteem. Well, it's no secret that he's interested in immortality. AFAWK, aside from the Stone, there's no *other* way to live forever. Why *shouldn't* she have guessed what it was? I'm sure she did. That's why she knew he had to be alive! But Regulus guessed what it was as well, and stole it from her. The swapped locket didn't have to be good enough to fool Voldemort, only Bella. And why shouldn't Reggie be uncommonly good at transfiguration? His brother was. Grinding the emblem off would do no harm to the horcrux, I suppose, and I suspect Voldemort didn't really imagine that any wizard would dare deface an emblem of the great Slytherin himself. Voldemort doesn't seem to have discovered the fate of the diary until after the fiasco at the Ministry, so the same might be true of the swapped horcrux. At that point, GP was protected by Secret Keeper, as LV well knows, and Kreacher was apparently being held by Dumbledore. Voldemort, who knew that Dumbledore was keeping an annoying close eye on him, used the fake locket to set a trap. He didn't tell Bella that the horcrux she returned to him was phony, but she did notice she's out of favor and blamed it on her failure to seize the prophecy and the Dark Lord's wrath at Lucius. The cave setup was then either constructed quite recently, stocked with corpses from the graveyard, or perhaps there was a real horcrux there once, which Voldemort removed and took elsewhere. I take Dumbledore's statement that the protections around the horcrux weren't crude after all as his ironic acknowledgement that he'd been had. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 11:50:24 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:50:24 +0100 Subject: Notions of potions Message-ID: "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." True. Looks more like cookery to me. A pound of this, a spoonful of that, a pinch of the other, stir well, and regulo 5 for 30 minutes. Voila! Transform your best friend into a gibbering idiot. And just like cookery, one might try various combinations of ingredients and techniques before deciding which is best. Which creates a bit of a problem for those enamoured of Lily being the or co-author of the super-duper recipes in the HBP Potions book. Throughout the series the students get to make each potion once and once only - or at least there's no indication that lessons/practicals are repeated. And like good little scholars they attempt to reproduce whatever instructions are scrawled on the blackboard. Naturally enough, they want decent marks, and there is at least the assurance that what they are presented with actually works if they follow the directions to the letter. Who is going to have the time or opportunity to fiddle around in an attempt to improve on the standard recipe? Or the inclination, come to that. Unless you see your career path as potions, potions, all the way, why bother? Now it's possible (the serendipitous version of Sod's Law) for someone to make a glorious mistake, to accidentally improve on Potions formulations by sheer chance. Bound to happen sooner or later - an infinite number of students stirring an infinite number of cauldrons - yep; I can see that. Except that the improver couldn't be certain that the 'mistakes' they'd made were the reason for the superior product. Wouldn't they assume that the result was achieved despite their unorthodoxy, not because of it? Probably yes - unless they repeated their actions a few times and kept getting the same superior results. How much more unlikely is a string of such improvements? In a school Potions class? Um. You think so? Excuse me while I admire the porcine aviators looping loops above my keyboard. No. I don't think so. Those recipes were the result of many and varied attempts, someone ringing the changes, altering this, trying that, before finally succeeding. A potions wonk, a cauldron nerd, an unguent anorak. Or just possibly someone who was checking things out, searching for something very different and these enhancements were unintended by- products, but useful nonetheless. Logically it's very unlikely that the 'all new improved' recipes were arrived at by messing around in a Potions class. Same goes for the spells. How does one invent a new spell anyway? Is there a standard protocol - think up a bit of cod latin, wave a stick and hope like hell that whatever happens it can be reversed? Mm. Worth thinking about. I know what happens in RW research and those not involved in science would be surprised at how boring it can get - the same procedure is repeated time and again, the results checked and then do it again with just one factor or step altered, and so on ad infinitum, or so it can seem. Then publish so that everybody else gets to have a go - and if they can't get it to work you've got some explaining to do. It's doubtful that Jo has bothered over-much about such mundane details, though Gilbert Wimple works in Experimental Charms, so maybe she has. One can imagine a bunch of spell-checkers beavering away somewhere deep in the Ministry, encased in protective dragon-hide, nervously taking turns at being on the receiving end of the latest break- through in transfiguration technology. Brings a whole new dimension to the phrase 'being a guinea pig'. Same goes for potions - who do they try them on? Could end up with Giblets of Fire if they're not careful. Hmm. Could be a ficcy-type post or two in spilling the beans on what the back-room boys are up to. Radio TBAY, perhaps? Yes... one or two horrible puns have formed already. Back to my druthers, the potions book. It was published 'about fifty years' ago. Not a chance observation IMO, though that may just be my paranoia - Grindelwald, Tom, the Diary, and now a potions book; can you blame me for being suspicious? Though as others have pointed out just because the book is 50 years old it doesn't mean the hand-written entries are. True. Equally, it doesn't prove they aren't. Tom was an orphan - so who paid for his robes, his cauldron, his wand - and his textbooks? A bursary? Charity? Or were his books loaned to him by the school and handed back when he finished his courses - complete with marginal notes? Perhaps Sevvy also qualified for a helping hand from Hogwarts and had the use of the same book? Pure speculation, but who would be more likely to experiment - a brilliant student like Tom or a grinder like Snape? Alternatively the notes could be the result of a Potions Master researching his subject - and here there are two possibilities - Snape or Slughorn. One stumbling block is if a teacher improved on potions recipes you'd expect him to demonstrate the improvements in his classes, and that applies even if Student!Snape was the one with the remarkable insights, he'd incorporate them into his classes when he became Potions Prof. Could even publish them - become the new standard text - if Lockhart can do it, why not Sevvy? Only one reason I can think of - they weren't his spells, and claiming them as his own might cause their true begetter to get a little annoyed with him. Yes, he did tell Harry it was his book and his spells, but IMO it's not advisable to regard everything that Harry is told as gospel. And there's someone else around who for some reason or another has been largely ignored in the discussion of the potions book - Slughorn. He was teaching potions fifty years ago, taught Tom and later Snapey and Lily - and he's the one that gives the book to Harry. A collector of celebrities, a flatterer who'd like to incorporate young Potter into his little club. Would turning Harry into a potions superstar also turn his head and help Sluggy in his aim of luring Harry into his circle? Depends how much you trust Horace. Not very far, would be my response. It'd be nice to be sure, wouldn't it? Kneasy From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 16:29:25 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:29:25 -0000 Subject: Possible flint from OotP? (and HBP, too) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > There is another tidbit in the DD comments that Waldo references. DD says the neither > Harry's or Neville's parents "ever achieved" an escape from LV. This seems to make clear > that whatever the two couples seperate three acts of defiance were, they never involved a > direct confrontation of any magnitude with LV. Kind of puts a limit on just how strong a > defiance was involved, IMO. Anne: I read that part to mean Harry's and Neville's parents had never achieved *four* escapes from LV (merely three each). My idea of the escape JKR doesn't mean to count is the one at Godric's Hollow, becaue it is the only time in which Harry himself did absolutely nothing on his own account and so it cannot be counted as one of his acts of defiance against LV. Another possible FLINT - have you discussed this? - is Harry's being able to call Kreacher to 4 Privet Drive as proof of ownership. If that's how house elves respond, then in OoP, when Kreacher was missing, and Sirius called him, why didn't Kreacher warp back from Malfoy Manor? ~Anne In case anyone's wondering, I believe: -Snape Hates Everybody, including LV (which is why he'll still be useful to Harry) *sports a badge with S.H.E. in vivid green* -Regulus makes a wonderful RAB; anyway, his note said "_discovered_ your secret" which makes it 80% pure dumb luck -If Harry('s scar) is a Hx, I'll be extremely peeved that DD either never though of that (considering how well he seemed to understand that scar), or didn't mention it during his big These Are The Hxs You Must Look For speech -I'll never properly catch up on this list, let alone any of the others... From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 16:38:41 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:38:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > > > This has the desirable side effect, from my point of view, of > > exonerating Severus. If there's no antidote to the green goo, then > > his action on the Tower, whatever it was, is pardonable. Eloise: > Sorry. I still really don't get this. > > What Snape did may well be pardonable, because we don't fully understand the circumstances or motivation behind it yet, but I don't see that the green goo having no antidote *on its own* makes it so. Pippin: If the green goo is fatal, it takes the UV out of the equation. Then whatever Snape did doesn't *have* to have killed Dumbledore, because the vow says, "Should it prove necessary." There's no necessity to kill somebody who's dying already and can't be saved. And if we know that Snape didn't *have* to kill Dumbledore, then we have no reason to suppose the AK was effective when it acted like no AK we've ever seen. I will invoke one of Lexicon Steve's Laws here, and say that the only events that occur in the Potterverse are the ones that Jo has written about. We cannot extrapolate that there are lots of times when an AK behaves like the one that apparently killed Dumbledore, because Jo has never written about them. Ergo, Dumbledore was killed by falling off the tower, or by the poison. Now, no doubt whatever Snape did caused him to fall from the tower. But should he have believed that would prove fatal? This is no Muggle we're talking about, this is Albus Dumbledore, greatest wizard who ever lived. Under ordinary circumstances, even without a wand there are ways he could have saved himself. Even a non-animagus can transfigure into a bat (see FBAWTFT), he could have called Fawkes, he might have enough inborn magic to bounce the way Neville did. So for it to be murder, Snape would have to have believed that Dumbledore was so injured that he couldn't have saved himself, but not so injured that he was going to die anyway, because then it would be pardonable as a ruse de guerre. We know that Snape can do wandless, non-verbal legilimency, (that's how he saw the image of the potion book in Harry's mind) so Dumbledore could have conveyed to him a clear image of the green goo and its effects. We know that finding the antidote for an unknown combination of poisons is a timeconsuming process that even Hermione found difficult. It is at least logical that Snape could have realized that Dumbledore was doomed. The ruse de guerre is not a technicality or a legal nicety from Harry's point of view. We want Harry to prove himself as a hero by doing something really difficult, right? Well, which do you think would be harder for him? Forgiving Snape for murder because Snape did some dazzlingly repentant act? Or realizing that there was no murder, that his quarrel with Snape has always been purely personal, and that Snape has been, since his return to the good side, no more a Death Eater than Harry? Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 17:31:31 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:31:31 -0000 Subject: Possible flint from OotP? (and HBP, too) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > Another possible FLINT - have you discussed this? - is Harry's being > able to call Kreacher to 4 Privet Drive as proof of ownership. If > that's how house elves respond, then in OoP, when Kreacher was > missing, and Sirius called him, why didn't Kreacher warp back from > Malfoy Manor? Pippin: Dumbledore summoned Kreacher to Privet Drive, presumably from wherever he was holding him. Harry gave Kreacher an order, and Kreacher's reluctant obedience showed that Kreacher was now Harry's House Elf. Kreacher could, presumably, have disobeyed and been compelled to punish himself, which would have had the same effect, ie, showing that Harry was his owner. IIRC, when Kreacher returned from Malfoy Manor, his fingers were bandaged. He'd had to punish himself for lying about where he'd been but since he took "Out!" as a lawful order, not for leaving. I suppose Sirius thought he'd punished himself for not coming when called and didn't look deeper. IIRC, the text says Harry was not satisfied with Kreacher's explanations, but Sirius seemed to be. Pippin From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 1 19:11:56 2005 From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Possible flint from OotP? (and HBP, too) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901191157.46887.qmail@...> --- annemehr wrote: > Another possible FLINT - have you discussed this? - > is Harry's being > able to call Kreacher to 4 Privet Drive as proof of > ownership. If > that's how house elves respond, then in OoP, when > Kreacher was > missing, and Sirius called him, why didn't Kreacher > warp back from > Malfoy Manor? I didn't think that Harry called Kreacher on that occasion, but DD summoned Kreacher. Harrry did summon Kreacher whilst he was in the infirmary. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 01:13:53 2005 From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Notions of potions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902011353.15006.qmail@...> --- Barry Arrowsmith wrote: ... [regarding potions] > Looks more like cookery to me. ... > And just like cookery, one might try various > combinations of > ingredients and techniques before deciding which is > best. ... > Who is going to have the time or opportunity to > fiddle around in an > attempt to improve on the standard recipe? Or the > inclination, come > to that. Unless you see your career path as potions, > potions, all the > way, why bother? ... [more on the unlikelihood of students experimenting and discovering improvements in the potions]... Points taken, although as someone who likes to cook from time to time and on occasion actually does look at a recipe, the metaphor of cookery might lead one to the opposite conclusion. That is to say, if you are familiar with certain ingredients and how they behave in various amounts, combinations, and for different heats / durations of cooking, you start to have a kind of intuition about how to monkey around with recipes. For example, I know not to take certain recipes for pie crusts seriously when they say certain things. If you follow what they say to the letter you will have nothing resembling a pie crust in the end. I also know that when a recipe calls for a certain amount of garlic, I usually treble it. I can tell by looking at the amount of sauce in a pot and the amount of spice in my hand whether it will be enough (if I am just cooking for 2 or 3 people that is). I know that no matter what the recipe says in terms of rising and kneading times, the bread dough should be a certain consistency before you let it rise or put it in to bake ... and can usually tell by looking that something needs to come off or out of the heat, regardless of what the recipe indicates regarding time and temperature. In short, recipes are mere suggestions and a cook has to have a sense of how the ingredients are supposed to behave at each of the stages of the cooking, and if they don't look / smell / feel right, you best make some changes. So ... if the cooking metaphor is our guide, a potions geek may very well get a sense of how the various ingredients / combinations / methods interact, and may in fact have an "intuition" about how to tweek a recipe. > Depends how much you trust Horace. Not very > far, would be my response. ... > Kneasy As my wife always says, no further than you can comfortably spit a weasel. Yep, I tend to think that the book did not accidentally find its way into Harry's hands. I don't think that such coincidences happen often in this type of fiction. Judging from Snape's reaction when he Occulo-thingies Harry after Harry Sectumsempra-s Draino, I'd say that Snape had no part in Harry getting that book to begin with. So who did? I'd say his Slugginess. -Waldo - __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 08:37:05 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:37:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > > If the green goo is fatal, it takes the UV out of the equation. > Then whatever Snape did doesn't *have* to have killed Dumbledore, > because the vow says, "Should it prove necessary." There's no > necessity to kill somebody who's dying already and can't be saved. Eloise: The UV hadn't even come into my consideration. Actually (this is a different issue, but something that occurred to me yesterday) I don't actually understand why Cissa thought that having Snape *do* the deed if necessary would help Draco. Draco still failed to do the task. I'm sure you'll explain. Anyway.... There's no necessity, etc.. No, there isn't. Assuming the fatality of the green goo, he didn't need to do anything to fulfil the UV. So that wasn't the motivation (assuming again that he *knows* it's fatal). All he needs to do is to point out what he knows. He doesn't need to *do* anything. But he does. Pippin: > And if we know that Snape didn't *have* to kill Dumbledore, then > we have no reason to suppose the AK was effective when it acted like > no AK we've ever seen. Eloise: You accept that it *was* an AK, then? (I'm only asking because I have the impression some people think it wasn't.) Not effective meaning he was play acting, I presume. The green goo is irrelevant if we're talking about it's being not effective because he was incapable of truly wishing Dumbledore dead (which seems to me a better defence in moral, rather than legal terms). Pippin: I will invoke one of Lexicon Steve's Laws here, > and say that the only events that occur in the Potterverse are the > ones that Jo has written about. We cannot extrapolate that there are > lots of times when an AK behaves like the one that apparently killed > Dumbledore, because Jo has never written about them. Eloise: Nor did I. I shall invoke the rule of it being impossible to prove a negative, merely pointing out that there is one time we know about in canon where under unique circumstances an AK had the most unexpected effects. Under another, possibly unique, set of circumstances it is possible that another unexpected outcome may happen. Given the evidence of one exception, we cannot extrapolate the impossibility of others. Pippin: > Ergo, Dumbledore was killed by falling off the tower, or by the > poison. Now, no doubt whatever Snape did caused him to fall > from the tower. But should he have believed that would prove fatal > This is no Muggle we're talking about, this is Albus Dumbledore, > greatest wizard who ever lived. Under ordinary circumstances, > even without a wand there are ways he could have saved himself. > Even a non-animagus can transfigure into a bat (see > FBAWTFT), he could have called Fawkes, he might have enough > inborn magic to bounce the way Neville did. > > > So for it to be murder, Snape would have to have believed that > Dumbledore was so injured that he couldn't have saved himself, > but not so injured that he was going to die anyway, because then > it would be pardonable as a ruse de guerre. Eloise: I'm not sure that we have any evidence that the WW would pardon anyone on a defence of ruse de guerre. You've pointed out what their legal system is like. Nor am I sure that any Muggle understanding of law has any relevance. If Dumbledore was going to die anyway, then no ruse of any kind was needed. Snape's doing nothing to save him (which, of course is also tantamount to killing him if he *were* curable) was enough to ensure he appeared to perform his role as a DE, keeping his inside position with Voldemort which, if loyal, he will need in order to aid Harry. All he needed to say was that Dumbledore was finished anyway, as Amycus surmised. And if he realised the effects of the potion as well as you suggest, then yes, I think it was careless in the extreme for Snape to think that Dumbledore, who had already allowed himself to be disarmed (and Snape didn't know how that happened - yes there's legilimeny, but just how much time was there for that detailed a communication of the situation) was capable of saving himself. Of course, the mercy killing argument may be invoked here, but personally I can't see Dumbledore begging for mercy in that way and I don't think that was what he was asking him to do. (He may have been asking him to kill him, but I don't think he was begging to be put out of his misery). By intervening, Snape not only saved Draco from killing (not that I think he was up to it) but prevented any of the others on the tower from doing the deed. That *does* suggest that there was some reason for *him* to do it. But what the intent was, I don't think we can know. Did he think he could do something in the guise of an AK to help Dumbledore? Was it a case of bowing to the inevitable? Was it a case of Snape Triumphant, getting his revenge at last? Pippin: > We know that Snape can do wandless, non-verbal legilimency, > (that's how he saw the image of the potion book in Harry's mind) > so Dumbledore could have conveyed to him a clear image of the > green goo and its effects. We know that finding the antidote for > an unknown combination of poisons is a timeconsuming process > that even Hermione found difficult. It is at least logical that > Snape could have realized that Dumbledore was doomed. Eloise: Particularly if it were he who concocted the thing in the first place, which is quite possible. Although, of course in this case he might well know the antidote if there were one. It is perfectly logical he knew he was doomed. In which case, as I say there was no need to do anything unless he wanted to end his suffering quickly. And hot shot wizard as he is, he should know that if his intent wasn't up to it, the AK wouldn't work properly. Pippin: > The ruse de guerre is not a technicality or a legal nicety from > Harry's point of view. We want Harry to prove himself as a hero > by doing something really difficult, right? Well, which do you think > would be harder for him? Forgiving Snape for murder > because Snape did some dazzlingly repentant act? Or realizing that > there was no murder, that his quarrel with Snape has always been > purely personal, and that Snape has been, since his return to the > good side, no more a Death Eater than Harry? Eloise: Well, it certainly will be difficult and he'd better do a hell of a lot of growing up over the holidays, because for Harry to realise that there was no murder on Snape's part will mean that he realises that it was *he* who caused Dumbledore's death by force feeding him the fatal potion, or at the very best it was a combined effort by him feeding him the potion and by Snape blasting him off the tower (and personally I don't believe that JKT will make the death as complicated as that). Yes, he was acting under orders, but would that do anything to assuage his feelings of guilt? Would he be in any frame of mind by the end of the next book to forgive Snape? Finally, your argument doesn't take into account the possibility that, dare I say it, Snape may not be loyal. I know we Muggles seem to have this insane law that says you can't be convicted for trying to murder someone who's already fatally injured (though again I'd suggest that's irrelevant in the WW), but I'm talking about moral guilt, not legal guilt and if Snape wasn't loyal and didn't *know* that Dumbledore was already beyond help, or if he did and just wanted the job finished quickly ("It's over, time to go!"), then by my book, he's guilty as sin. For me the greatest grounds for hope in this is that he didn't do what one might expect he would as Draco's teacher and as one with an obligation to his mother, viz. stand next to him and perform the curse *with* him (as Sirius and Remus wanted to with Peter). That, I would have thought, would have sat better with Voldemort and keeping him out of it implies a concern for the state of Draco's soul. ~Eloise From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 09:02:17 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:02:17 -0000 Subject: Notions of potions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: Those recipes were the result of many and varied attempts, someone ringing the changes, altering this, trying that, before finally succeeding. A potions wonk, a cauldron nerd, an unguent anorak. Or just possibly someone who was checking things out, searching for something very different and these enhancements were unintended by- products, but useful nonetheless. Though as others have pointed out just because the book is 50 years old it doesn't mean the hand-written entries are. True. Equally, it doesn't prove they aren't. Tom was an orphan - so who paid for his robes, his cauldron, his wand - and his textbooks? A bursary? Charity? Or were his books loaned to him by the school and handed back when he finished his courses - complete with marginal notes? Carolyn: Footnote on funding and spellbooks from Chap 13 - DD says to Tom 'There is a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes. You might have to buy some of your spellbooks and so on second-hand, but - 'Where do you buy spellbooks?' interrupted Riddle (...) 'In Diagon Alley,' said Dumbledore. So, clear enough where Tom got his schoolbooks and how he paid for them. This is a 6th year textbook, published roughly 50 years previously. Tom could have bought it himself, either splashing out and getting it new, or picking it up when it was only a year or two old (Jo's notoriously poor maths allow for a margin of error here). Also the interesting possibility that if the book was second hand, the annotations could have been by the book's first owner, before Tom even - Grindewald or Sluggy perhaps? Additional evidence that it might have been Tom's book, however, is Harry's curiously possessive attitude towards it. He treats it like the Diary, feels strangely drawn towards it, goes to elaborate protective measures to keep it. Somehow, it's hard to believe he'd react so strongly towards something of Snapes. Kneasy: Perhaps Sevvy also qualified for a helping hand from Hogwarts and had the use of the same book? Pure speculation, but who would be more likely to experiment - a brilliant student like Tom or a grinder like Snape? Carolyn: But as Waldo points out, once you know how to cook, you know how to experiment. Snape knew a great deal even before he got to Hogwarts, and the tone of the annotations is very similar to how he speaks, with the bezoar reference in particular going right back to that very first class of Harry's. It is possible that the reason that Snape has been able to keep close to LV all these years is partly a shared fascination for magical experimentation and research, even if it takes you deep into the Dark Arts. As Ollivander said 'He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great.' Kneasy: Alternatively the notes could be the result of a Potions Master researching his subject - and here there are two possibilities - Snape or Slughorn. One stumbling block is if a teacher improved on potions recipes you'd expect him to demonstrate the improvements in his classes, and that applies even if Student!Snape was the one with the remarkable insights, he'd incorporate them into his classes when he became Potions Prof. Could even publish them - become the new standard text - if Lockhart can do it, why not Sevvy? Only one reason I can think of - they weren't his spells, and claiming them as his own might cause their true begetter to get a little annoyed with him. Carolyn: Would Snape want to draw attention to himself by publishing a textbook? Perhaps - he was ready enough to take a medal from Fudge for capturing Sirius after all. I agree it's in character for him to want the recognition, but if so, the real stumbling block here is that such a precious book was languishing in the bottom of the cupboard in his own potions dungeon. Clearly he's made no effort towards publication if it was his. Although his twisted character would probably take equal delight in watching the students struggle to get the potions right by following the textbook instructions, secure in his own knowledge of the tips and techniques that were really needed. In fact, you could argue that it was only the students who figured out clever solutions on their own who would go on to be truly outstanding in the potions field. It's an effective, if Machiavellian, approach to identifying the star performers. Kneasy: Yes, he did tell Harry it was his book and his spells, but IMO it's not advisable to regard everything that Harry is told as gospel. And there's someone else around who for some reason or another has been largely ignored in the discussion of the potions book - Slughorn. He was teaching potions fifty years ago, taught Tom and later Snapey and Lily - and he's the one that gives the book to Harry. A collector of celebrities, a flatterer who'd like to incorporate young Potter into his little club. Would turning Harry into a potions superstar also turn his head and help Sluggy in his aim of luring Harry into his circle? Depends how much you trust Horace. Not very far, would be my response. Carolyn: Yes. Sluggy's the prime culprit - although the book could still be Snape's (or Tom's). It is just very unlikely that it should have turned up when it did and that it should have been given to Harry. I think Sluggy has kept it for years as a memento of a star pupil. [Reluctantly I concede that could also include Lily]. But I attribute a more benign motive to him in giving Harry the textbook. I think he hoped it might help Harry protect himself. Maybe he was encouraged to do so by Dumbledore. Which indicates that the pair of them thought there might be potions-type threats in the future. Oh no, back to the poisoned birdbath again. Carolyn From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 17:20:16 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:20:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Eloise: > The UV hadn't even come into my consideration. > > Actually (this is a different issue, but something that occurred to me yesterday) I don't actually understand why Cissa thought that having Snape *do* the deed if necessary would help Draco. Draco still failed to do the task. > > > > I'm sure you'll explain. Pippin: Of course More evidence that the vow was a put up job. Promising to do the deed in Draco's stead was not necessary to save Draco. As Dumbledore said, the only way to save Draco, in the event that he failed, would be to fake Draco's death. It was, however, necessary to convince Voldemort that Snape would either kill DD or die. Snape knows the prophecy, and therefore he has what Voldemort would consider an excellent reason for shifting his allegiance to the good side. They can offer him what Snape has always wanted far more than the opportunity to sate his cruelty or his desire for revenge -- glory. Order of Merlin, First Class. Draco, as Jo said in an interview somewhere, reads people very well, and he has Snape pegged. As does Lupin. And Snape's Dark Arts skills are far more valuable to the good side, after all, than they are to Voldemort, who has plenty of dark arts experts available. Voldemort was bound to require some test. If Snape appeared to slither out of it, say, by pointing out that Dumbledore was going to be dead shortly anyway, then another test would be devised, and another and another. > Pippin: And if we know that Snape didn't *have* to kill Dumbledore, then we have no reason to suppose the AK was effective when it acted like no AK we've ever seen. > > Eloise: You accept that it *was* an AK, then? (I'm only asking because I have the impression some people think it wasn't.) > Not effective meaning he was play acting, I presume. The green goo is irrelevant if we're talking about it's being not effective because he was incapable of truly wishing Dumbledore dead (which seems to me a better defence in moral, rather than legal terms). Pippin; Whether he knew it would fail or not, it did, IMO. I'm coming to the opinion that what we saw on the Tower *was* Snape's big redemptive scene, believe it or not. I'll explain below. > > Eloise: > I'm not sure that we have any evidence that the WW would pardon anyone on a defence of ruse de guerre. You've pointed out what their legal system is like. Nor am I sure that any Muggle understanding of law has any relevance. Pippin: There's one Muggle whose opinion matters in the Potterverse, and her name is Jo Rowling. What matters is what Jo thinks is moral, which probably means what Harry has concluded is moral by the end of Book Seven. Whether the WW or anyone else, including, dare I say, the reader, ever buys into it is irrelevant. > > Eloise: > Well, it certainly will be difficult and he'd better do a hell of a lot of growing up over the holidays, because for Harry to realise that there was no murder on Snape's part will mean that he realises that it was *he* who caused Dumbledore's death by force feeding him the fatal potion, or at the very best it was a combined effort by him feeding him the potion and by Snape blasting him off the tower (and personally I don't believe that JKT will make the death as complicated as that). Yes, he was acting under orders, but would that do anything to assuage his feelings of guilt? Would he be in any frame of mind by the end of the next book to forgive Snape? > > Finally, your argument doesn't take into account the possibility > that, dare I say it, Snape may not be loyal. Pippin: You're right. It's not that I can't accept evil!Snape per se, you understand. He'd be interesting, I think. But in the context that Jo has established, he'd be an idiot. He could fool Dumbledore for sixteen years running, but he couldn't fool Harry for five minutes? Well, it's acceptable for the bad guy to be an idiot, I suppose, but then Harry's an idiot too. Because, despite possessing the amazing perspicacity to see through this master deceiver the very moment he laid eyes on him, Harry's failed time and again to instantly see through far less capable actors, including those Oscar non-starters, Crabbe and Goyle. And people think the portkey switch is contrived? Spare me! Knowing that he himself had been caught in the web of Dumbledore's death would make it easier for Harry to understand that Snape couldn't escape it, and easier for the reader to understand too. I think when all is said and done, Harry will realize that Dumbledore went in pursuit of that flighty temptress adventure, and it was by her hand that he died. Now, as to why I think we just saw Snape's redemptive scene. What is redemption? What is the proof that you've truly repented of your sin? Well, one definition is, when you face the same temptation and resist it. Let's take Dumbledore at his word, since we're discussing loyal Snape, and say that the great regret of Snape's life is that he took the prophecy to Voldemort. Why did he do it? Not for revenge on the people it referred to -- he had no idea who they were. No, it was, it must have been, for the glory of delivering this information to Voldemort, who would surely honor him for this precious knowledge. Likely Snape never even thought about how it would be used, so blinded was he by the thought of being lifted above all other DE's, even the purebloods he envied so. We do more harm by indifference... So, Snape had a choice on the tower. He could have attacked the Death Eaters, one against four, saved Draco (and Harry), taken down the notorious Fenrir Greyback, who's probably worth an OM all by himself, made a last ditch effort to save Dumbledore, risked everything on the chance that he could cure him and that Dumbledore knew some way of defeating the vow. (No magic is foolproof, right?) Glorious. The whole WW would get down on their knees and thank him. But Dumbledore begged him not to, IMO. Dumbledore begged him to go on with his role, though Snape will never now receive Dumbledore's recognition, though it may be neither Harry nor the wizarding world will ever know what Snape did for them. Because only by Voldemort's side will Snape be in a position to weaken him so that when Harry finally faces him, he'll have a chance. They're a jigsaw puzzle, Harry and Snape, each with a power the other will never have, and only with backup will Harry be strong enough to take Voldie down. Yeah, I think Harry can figure all this out. It won't be easy, but that's what the seven hundred pages are for. Pippin From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 19:19:24 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:19:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again: Should now be Snape's redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Now, as to why I think we just saw Snape's redemptive scene. > What is redemption? What is the proof that you've truly repented > of your sin? Well, one definition is, when you face the same > temptation and resist it. > > Let's take Dumbledore at his word, since we're discussing loyal > Snape, and say that the great regret of Snape's life is that he took > the prophecy to Voldemort. Why did he do it? Not for revenge > on the people it referred to -- he had no idea who they were. > No, it was, it must have been, for the glory of delivering this > information to Voldemort, who would surely honor him for > this precious knowledge. > > Likely Snape never even thought about how it would be used, so > blinded was he by the thought of being lifted above all other > DE's, even the purebloods he envied so. We do more harm by > indifference... > > So, Snape had a choice on the tower. He could have attacked > the Death Eaters, one against four, saved Draco (and Harry), > taken down the notorious Fenrir Greyback, who's probably > worth an OM all by himself, made a last ditch effort to save > Dumbledore, risked everything on the chance that he could > cure him and that Dumbledore knew some way of > defeating the vow. (No magic is foolproof, right?) Glorious. > The whole WW would get down on their knees and thank him. > > But Dumbledore begged him not to, IMO. Dumbledore begged > him to go on with his role, though Snape will never now receive > Dumbledore's recognition, though it may be neither Harry nor > the wizarding world will ever know what Snape did for them. > > Because only by Voldemort's side will Snape be in a position > to weaken him so that when Harry finally faces him, he'll > have a chance. They're a jigsaw puzzle, Harry and Snape, > each with a power the other will never have, and only with > backup will Harry be strong enough to take Voldie > down. > > Yeah, I think Harry can figure all this out. It won't > be easy, but that's what the seven hundred pages are for. > Lyn now, but superflously, Wonderfully reasoned and IMO, spot on. And I agree, Harry will eventually figure this out, though I'm not sure it will be before Snape's death, so Snape may well be cheated of that recognition as well. As I proffered some time ago about the possibility of Harry being branded a coward for not taking on LV before the HXs are all destroyed, I think JKR is preparing Harry to come to the point of emphathizing, and partially understanding Snape. She has been leading us in this direction at least since the Occulemency lessons, and I suspect we will see more events of this sort early in the next book. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 22:52:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:52:50 -0500 Subject: Snape's culpability again References: Message-ID: <006c01c5b011$0bd77790$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Eloise wrote: >>>Of course, the mercy killing argument may be invoked here, but personally I can't see Dumbledore begging for mercy in that way and I don't think that was what he was asking him to do. (He may have been asking him to kill him, but I don't think he was begging to be put out of his misery). By intervening, Snape not only saved Draco from killing (not that I think he was up to it) but prevented any of the others on the tower from doing the deed. That *does* suggest that there was some reason for *him* to do it. But what the intent was, I don't think we can know. Did he think he could do something in the guise of an AK to help Dumbledore? Was it a case of bowing to the inevitable? Was it a case of Snape Triumphant, getting his revenge at last?<<< SSSusan: I think you're correct that it was not DD begging Snape to put him out of his misery but a matter of bowing to the inevitable. I believe DD was dying, and by having Snape AK him, he: 1) made certain Draino wouldn't have the chance to rise to the murder challenge in the (unlikely) event that he was hit with a sudden fit of resolve; and 2) made certain Voldy would discover that Snape was NOT loyal to DD. (Pippin's stated this nicely before: Voldy might still not fully trust Snape is loyal to him, but he'd likely now at least trust that Snape wasn't loyal to DD.) This helps in the overall cause by getting Snape closer to Voldy, in a position where he might eventually be able to do some major damage or help Harry. Eloise: >>>It is perfectly logical he knew he was doomed. In which case, as I say there was no need to do anything unless he wanted to end his suffering quickly. And hot shot wizard as he is, he should know that if his intent wasn't up to it, the AK wouldn't work properly.<<< SSSusan: Actually, as I've just said above, in having Snape DO something -- AK'ing (real or fake) DD -- there *is* the advantage of what this says to Voldy. If Snape just stood there and watched DD die, the DEs could report that Snape had not *helped* DD, but they couldn't report that he'd *killed* DD. I think Voldy would be much more impressed with the latter. One thing I'd like to add that I've not seen others mention. If I'm right that DD asked Snape to kill him -- and I don't care if it was pre-planned in detail, pre-planned in "someday this might present itself and you're going to have to do it," or spur of the moment -- I know some people have a problem with the notion of DD asking someone to commit murder, of asking a person to do something which rips his soul. Now, *I* happen to think (no canon support, I know!) that a "mercy killing" or perhaps better stated a "killing commanded by a superior officer in time of war" just might not cause the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But even if it does... might it not be that this horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? Snape was a DE. Likely he participated in some pretty nasty actions as a DE. He also is responsible for providing Voldy with the partial prophecy info which eventually led to the attack at GH. Many people would like to see Snape suffer, to be punished for past sins/crimes. Being asked to do something like this -- to kill the man he, imo, cared most about in his life -- and to rip his own soul in the process... wouldn't that be the kind of suffering some people are asking for? Wouldn't it be Snape's penance?? Eloise: >>>Well, it certainly will be difficult and he'd better do a hell of a lot of growing up over the holidays, because for Harry to realise that there was no murder on Snape's part will mean that he realises that it was *he* who caused Dumbledore's death by force feeding him the fatal potion, or at the very best it was a combined effort by him feeding him the potion and by Snape blasting him off the tower (and personally I don't believe that JKR will make the death as complicated as that). Yes, he was acting under orders, but would that do anything to assuage his feelings of guilt? Would he be in any frame of mind by the end of the next book to forgive Snape?<<< SSSusan: Well, if Snape *also* was following orders in casting the AK (or if Pippin's right, in at least in sending DD over the top of the astronomy tower), Harry might just realize that he & Snape have something in common. THAT could be an important realization. Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 00:58:19 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:58:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again In-Reply-To: <006c01c5b011$0bd77790$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: > Eloise: > >>>It is perfectly logical he knew he was doomed. In which case, as I > say there was no need to do anything unless he wanted to end his > suffering quickly. And hot shot wizard as he is, he should know that > if his intent wasn't up to it, the AK wouldn't work properly.<<< > > SSSusan: > Actually, as I've just said above, in having Snape DO something -- AK'ing (real or fake) DD -- there *is* the advantage of what this says to Voldy. If Snape just stood there and watched DD die, the DEs could report that Snape had not *helped* DD, but they couldn't report that he'd *killed* DD. I think Voldy would be much more impressed with the latter. Ginger, who has snipped a lot: This may have been said somewhere by someone, but at this point, I've lost track and the thought did strike me.... If SSSusan is right, (and I think she is) then if Snape had done nothing, knowing that DD would have died anyway, there would have been an inquiry by LV into the matter of how Snape *knew* that DD would have died anyway. Imagine: The Tower DEs grovelling before their master, giving a report: LV: So you say Dumbledore is dead? DEs: Yes, your Snakyness. Draco had his wand pointed, but he chickened out. Snape came in and told us to leave because the old man was going to die anyway, so we all just left. LV: Snape! How did you know the old man was going to die? Of what was he going to die? SNAPE: A potion, my lord, from your cave. I was supposed to give him the antidote, but the others invaded the castle and I didn't have the chance. But I'm on your side, I assure you. LV: If the old man was going to die, why didn't you all ravage the castle? If he was in the cave, then he knows about ...my secret. Snape-what do you know? Who else knows? This would have opened a really big can of worms. I figure that not only did killing DD, who was about to bite it anyway, secure Snape's position as Toady Supremo, but also gave Snape a reason to order the retreat of the DEs. Somehow "Run, you lot, I've just murdered Dumbledore and the staff will be after my blood" has a better ring to it that "Run, you lot, if we wait long enough, Dumbledore will be dead, and the staff will be sad." So killing in DD, Snape covers his knowledge of DD's potion consumption, (which covers his knowledge of the cave excursion) cements his place with LV, and gives credence to his order to the DEs to retreat. Ginger, who is sure that at this point, none of this is original, but feels like typing From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 03:57:00 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:57:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin: > Now, as to why I think we just saw Snape's redemptive scene. > What is redemption? What is the proof that you've truly repented > of your sin? Well, one definition is, when you face the same > temptation and resist it. > > Let's take Dumbledore at his word, since we're discussing loyal > Snape, and say that the great regret of Snape's life is that he took > the prophecy to Voldemort. Why did he do it? Not for revenge > on the people it referred to -- he had no idea who they were. > No, it was, it must have been, for the glory of delivering this > information to Voldemort, who would surely honor him for > this precious knowledge. > Likely Snape never even thought about how it would be used, so > blinded was he by the thought of being lifted above all other > DE's, even the purebloods he envied so. We do more harm by > indifference... Jen: Aha! I've been trying to fathom what possibly could have motivated Snape to seal his doom with the Unbreakable, and Pippin's explanation tipped the scale for me in the direction of perceived honor and glory. Snape was swayed by Narcissa's words because they were what he wanted to hear: He was the *only* one who could help Draco, he alone had Voldemort's trust, he alone was Voldemort's closest advisor....He lapped it up and believed in the possibility even though he *knew*, as Dumbledore told Harry later, Voldemort doesn't have confidantes, or trusted advisors, or even irreplacable servants. Those words trapped him like a moth to a flame. So he started down the same worn path as he did when he heard the prophecy..... Pippin: > > So, Snape had a choice on the tower. He could have attacked > the Death Eaters, one against four, saved Draco (and Harry), > taken down the notorious Fenrir Greyback, who's probably > worth an OM all by himself, made a last ditch effort to save > Dumbledore, risked everything on the chance that he could > cure him and that Dumbledore knew some way of > defeating the vow. (No magic is foolproof, right?) Glorious. > The whole WW would get down on their knees and thank him. > > But Dumbledore begged him not to, IMO. Dumbledore begged > him to go on with his role, though Snape will never now receive > Dumbledore's recognition, though it may be neither Harry nor > the wizarding world will ever know what Snape did for them. Jen: Which did he choose here, glory or ignominy? The first might be what he sees in the Mirror of Erised and the second quite possibly his greatest fear. The glory would be at Voldemort's side instead of Dumbledore's, the ignominy to stand by while Potter defeats the Dark Lord and Snape himself is accused of Dumbledore's murder. Did he rise above his weakness, or get trapped by the image in the Mirror? Pippin: > Because only by Voldemort's side will Snape be in a position > to weaken him so that when Harry finally faces him, he'll > have a chance. They're a jigsaw puzzle, Harry and Snape, > each with a power the other will never have, and only with > backup will Harry be strong enough to take Voldie > down. > > Yeah, I think Harry can figure all this out. It won't > be easy, but that's what the seven hundred pages are for. Jen: I think he made the right choice, too :). Otherwise we don't have the nice parallel you've drawn here of each needing the other to truly defeat the Dark Lord. Oh, that's a cunning plot! And maybe Harry won't figure it out until Snape is dead, because that would be the bitter irony for Snape, to sacrifice everything for Harry and never get his due. What's important to the hero's story is for Harry to know and understand what Snape was willing to do in the end, and it's only fitting Snape's glory, if any, will come long after he's gone. Jen From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 11:09:17 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:09:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's culpability again (was Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm replying to this just briefly as I'm going away, but I don't want it to apear that i'm ignoring Pippin's response. > Jen: Aha! I've been trying to fathom what possibly could have > motivated Snape to seal his doom with the Unbreakable, and Pippin's > explanation tipped the scale for me in the direction of perceived > honor and glory. > So he started down the same worn path as he did when he heard the > prophecy..... > > Pippin: > > > > So, Snape had a choice on the tower. He could have attacked > > the Death Eaters, one against four, saved Draco (and Harry), > > taken down the notorious Fenrir Greyback, who's probably > > worth an OM all by himself, made a last ditch effort to save > > Dumbledore, risked everything on the chance that he could > > cure him and that Dumbledore knew some way of > > defeating the vow. (No magic is foolproof, right?) Glorious. > > The whole WW would get down on their knees and thank him. Eloise: I'd like to believe that, but I do have difficulty believing that even *Snape* could have taken on four DEs (though they're perhaps not the best of the bunch) *and* Greyback simultaneously and survived. What he may have been resisting was the temptation to... well, to *redeem* himself by being heroic, by demonstrating his loyalty to Dumbledore even if it cost him his life. If redemption is of concern to him at all. I have my doubts about that, though *if* Dumbledore was correct in his remorse over Lily and James, then I guess that deep down somewhere in that heart of his he must feel the need at some level to atone for what he did. I actually suspect he wouldn't mind *that* much being a dead hero (he's lived with the danger of death for too long). To be a live hero would be better, but it would be something. Pippin: > > But Dumbledore begged him not to, IMO. Dumbledore begged > > him to go on with his role, though Snape will never now receive > > Dumbledore's recognition, though it may be neither Harry nor > > the wizarding world will ever know what Snape did for them. Eloise: Which is of course the conclusion of all of us who have argued that the death was in some way arranged, whether by a pre-existing plan, as an emergency contingency only or at the last minute, there on the tower. But - and this is the only thing over which I was really arguing with Pippin - if this is the case, then *this*, the fact that he was carrying out Dummbledore's will, the fact, if true, that this indeed was his redemptive act is the thing that exonerates him. The green goo is neither here nor there. Even his belief or knowledge that its effects could or couldn't be reversed is IMO irrelevant. In fact, if he could have helped him, it just makes the whole situation more - well, actually it gives it more Bang! It's much more dramatic if poor Severus actually did deliberately kill Dumbledore by request whilst knowing that he could have saved him. To go back a sec... > Pippin: > > > > So, Snape had a choice on the tower. Eloise: Yes. He had a choice. And I think that's crucial. The decision was made *then* - hence the Hanged Man imagery. I suggested before that I thought the implication of this was that Snape might have been dangling from that cord, twisting, unsure of where his loyalty lay right up until that minute. > Jen: Which did he choose here, glory or ignominy? The first might be > what he sees in the Mirror of Erised and the second quite possibly > his greatest fear. The glory would be at Voldemort's side instead of > Dumbledore's, the ignominy to stand by while Potter defeats the Dark > Lord and Snape himself is accused of Dumbledore's murder. Did he > rise above his weakness, or get trapped by the image in the Mirror? Eloise: Good question, Jen. And another point which arises from his decision to stay overtly close to Voldemort is the increased difficulty that Snape will now have, if loyal, in helping Harry, not just in the sense that Harry now hates him at least as much as Voldemort, but in purely practical terms, now that he has apparently come out as an active DE and will have to go into hiding. Perhaps *that's* why we're not allowed to know his patronus. > > Pippin: > > Because only by Voldemort's side will Snape be in a position > > to weaken him so that when Harry finally faces him, he'll > > have a chance. They're a jigsaw puzzle, Harry and Snape, > > each with a power the other will never have, and only with > > backup will Harry be strong enough to take Voldie > > down. > > > > Yeah, I think Harry can figure all this out. It won't > > be easy, but that's what the seven hundred pages are for. > > Jen: I think he made the right choice, too :). Otherwise we don't > have the nice parallel you've drawn here of each needing the other > to truly defeat the Dark Lord. Oh, that's a cunning plot! And maybe > Harry won't figure it out until Snape is dead, because that would be > the bitter irony for Snape, to sacrifice everything for Harry and > never get his due. Eloise: I think it's rather likely. JKR has openly said that Harry needs to carry on his journey alone, because that's what happens in this kind of story, alhtough I guess that if it were only late in the narrative that he realised he needed Snape (and I can't see for the reasons already stated that it could be earlier) then maybe it would count. Jen: What's important to the hero's story is for Harry > to know and understand what Snape was willing to do in the end, and > it's only fitting Snape's glory, if any, will come long after he's > gone. Eloise: Yes. ~Eloise From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 11:44:45 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:44:45 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Notions of potions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200509031344.45383.silmariel@...> Carolyn: > So, clear enough where Tom got his schoolbooks and how he paid for > them. This is a 6th year textbook, published roughly 50 years > previously. Tom could have bought it himself, either splashing out > and getting it new, or picking it up when it was only a year or two > old (Jo's notoriously poor maths allow for a margin of error here). > Also the interesting possibility that if the book was second hand, > the annotations could have been by the book's first owner, before Tom > even - Grindewald or Sluggy perhaps? Silmariel: Also, TR's Diary wrote back, shouldn't Harry see the handwritings as from the same person? I can see a motive for Tom to invest time in potions (even stopper death, it's clear) but I should expect his margin notes to be more encripted, he was brilliant enough to mark concepts and instructions with only half words, anagrams and the like, the HBP potions books is too easy to use (if Harry doesn't need to beg Hermione's help, it's easy), and that's anti-Voldie the paranoid imo. Carolyn: > Additional evidence that it might have been Tom's book, however, is > Harry's curiously possessive attitude towards it. He treats it like > the Diary, feels strangely drawn towards it, goes to elaborate > protective measures to keep it. Somehow, it's hard to believe he'd > react so strongly towards something of Snapes. Silmariel: Sure he is possessive, I don't agree with Harry's self excuses for cheating but it's true that I didn't expect him to cheat, in the first place. It's fine for me that he wants medals of all sorts (even academic, in this case), but not unfair medals at the expense of real work of others, this is not what my usual pure of heart hero does, it's way past the line. If he only had self excused with the motive he needs everything that can be an advange in his saving thing (and sharing with the class equals sharing with Draco, so no thanks), it would be fine, but he really acts... weird. > Carolyn: > Would Snape want to draw attention to himself by publishing a > textbook? Perhaps - he was ready enough to take a medal from Fudge > for capturing Sirius after all. I agree it's in character for him to > want the recognition, but if so, the real stumbling block here is > that such a precious book was languishing in the bottom of the > cupboard in his own potions dungeon. Clearly he's made no effort > towards publication if it was his. Silmariel: I think the Order of Merlin is desirable because it gives you some status as a 'cleared' or VIP member of the society and publishing a school potions book won't give you more than academic reward in most cases. > Kneasy: > Yes, he did tell Harry it was his book and his spells, but IMO it's > not advisable to regard everything that Harry is told as gospel. And > there's someone else around who for some reason or another has been > largely ignored in the discussion of the potions book - Slughorn. He > was teaching potions fifty years ago, taught Tom and later Snapey and > Lily - and he's the one that gives the book to Harry. A collector of > celebrities, a flatterer who'd like to incorporate young Potter into > his little club. Would turning Harry into a potions superstar also > turn his head and help Sluggy in his aim of luring Harry into his > circle? Depends how much you trust Horace. Not very far, would be my > response. > Carolyn: > Yes. Sluggy's the prime culprit - although the book could still be > Snape's (or Tom's). It is just very unlikely that it should have > turned up when it did and that it should have been given to Harry. I > think Sluggy has kept it for years as a memento of a star pupil. > [Reluctantly I concede that could also include Lily]. > > But I attribute a more benign motive to him in giving Harry the > textbook. I think he hoped it might help Harry protect himself. Maybe > he was encouraged to do so by Dumbledore. Which indicates that the > pair of them thought there might be potions-type threats in the > future. Oh no, back to the poisoned birdbath again. Silmariel: I fail to see how Lily could have been the author. We have in an interview Jo saying, iirc, that Petunia was exagerating a little when she talked about Lily doing magic at home. Being muggleborn I don't know when she could have time to develop that intuition in potions, and I should ask why Hermione (whose education is important enough to have access to a time turner) has been deprived of that posibility. Let's suposse for a moment that Slughorn gave him the book with all the intention. Then he knew Harry had 'borrowed' the real useful book. Should Horace try to cover even a little his grey moral, then? Why? He knows what Harry also crosses certain lines. Back to the poisoned birdbath, the veritaserum, the love potions, and all the lot - potions rulez - as we were warned by Snape from the start. Silmariel From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 22:12:49 2005 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:12:49 -0000 Subject: OT - Y'all Look Vaguely Familiar - Intro. Message-ID: Hello! I'm Eileen, your latest new member. A couple of years ago, I was rather active on HPFGU, and boy a lot of you look familiar. :-) I'm 22, Canadian, currently working as a drafting office administrator for a steel fabrication company, a job that is not so very interesting but does pay the bills. I was on sick-leave from university for a while, as well, which is one of the reasons why I stopped posting at HPFGU. Now that I'm better, I can't wait to go back to school in January and finish my BA in English. As for my fandom history, my first encounters with Harry Potter was hearing the books were evil and occult. This I was prepared to be skeptical about, but when GoF came out, a kid was interviewed on the radio talking about how the Hogwarts students had a Dark Arts class. Which enraged my moral sense, since while magic is ok, doesn't dark mean "evil?" So I decided not to read the books, being seventeen and very opinionated. My mother fortunately was not so silly, and when an acquaintance she was shopping with pointed to a stack of HP, and said "My husband says these are evil," she bought them to read them herself. Once they got into the house, we were all pretty much hooked. I got onto HPFGU in late fall of winter 2001, I think, and my second post was a rather naive statement that Rowling had settle who Hermione was going to end up with, quoting the "typical boy" interview. Well, at least I didn't ask about the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes. Was on HPFGU for a large portion of my life for almost two years after that. In spring 2002, I started writing HP fanfiction under a very secret alter ego, mostly so HPFGU friends wouldn't read my stuff and see how awful it was - I was very self-conscious - but over the years, the alter ego has become more of an open secret. My lj is www.livejournal.com/users/narcissam I don't write too much fic now, though. I'm busy working on an original fantasy novel about a Magical America, whose beginnings were in HP fic, but is miles away from those now. I must confess that I've read OotP only once, never feeling any inclination to revisit it, and that indifference played out in a lack of HP discussion on my part over the last two years. HBP, on the other hand, I adored, and immediately felt compelled to talk about it. I bumped into Eloise on YM, and she said there was good discussion on TOC, and she'd ask if I could get an invite. So here I am. And very happy to be here. I'll be reading the backposts before posting *my* take on Snape, I promise. Eileen From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 4 00:13:25 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:25 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT - Y'all Look Vaguely Familiar - Intro. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Hello! > >I'm Eileen, your latest new member. A couple of years ago, I was >rather active on HPFGU, and boy a lot of you look familiar. :-) Welcome Eileen (and yes, you look kinda familiar too :-) ) (Snippage) >I don't write too much fic now, though. I'm busy working on an >original fantasy novel about a Magical America, whose beginnings >were in HP fic, but is miles away from those now. Ooh--would love to read this when you're published ;) I have--or had (I don't know if they took iit down) an unfinished fic about Snape's early years at Hogwarts up at Fiction Alley. Somehow Real Life (tm) got in the way of my finishing it--that & nautical fiction. > >I must confess that I've read OotP only once, never feeling any >inclination to revisit it, and that indifference played out in a >lack of HP discussion on my part over the last two years. HBP, on >the other hand, I adored, and immediately felt compelled to talk >about it. I bumped into Eloise on YM, and she said there was good >discussion on TOC, and she'd ask if I could get an invite. I've read OotP twice (and the others --barring HBP--51 times), so I know what you mean. It's replaced CoS as my least favourite book. I read HBP in three days, on the edge of my seat the whole time. Haven't talked much, but the discussion is very good -- enlightening as well. > >So here I am. And very happy to be here. I'll be reading the >backposts before posting *my* take on Snape, I promise. Looking forward to reading your take on him. > >Eileen Parker From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 4 02:34:10 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 02:34:10 -0000 Subject: OT - Y'all Look Vaguely Familiar - Intro. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eileen wrote: > Hello! > > I'm Eileen, your latest new member. A couple of years ago, I was > rather active on HPFGU, and boy a lot of you look familiar. :-) (snip)> So here I am. And very happy to be here. Ginger squeals with delight: Hail fellow fourth man theorist and Veggietales filker! It's good to see you. I was wondering where you went. Come on in, make yourself at home, and post away. Ginger, with no nifty sign-off tonight. From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 4 13:23:22 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Get Fuzzy comic & RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904132322.47788.qmail@...> --- pippin_999 wrote: > I don't think Dumbledore planned to die. But he might well have > planned to fake his death. He would know that eventually Voldemort > would demand that Snape *who knows the prophecy*, do > *something* to prove he did not see Team Dumbledore as stronger. > Merely sniping away at Harry in classes would not be enough. > > The plan was not to prove Snape's loyalty to LV -- as Dumbledore > says, nothing could do that. The plan was to demonstrate thoroughly > and unconditionally that Snape was *not* loyal to Dumbledore or > Harry. IMO, Dumbledore didn't die the way he did to secure Snape's > position as a spy. He did it to secure Snape's position as Harry's > backup in the final showdown. One of the things that annoys me about TOL is the silly rule against "I agree" posts - when mindless, repetitive "I disagree" posts flourish like weeds. But this is a different list so I'm proud to announce: I AGREE!!!!!! And I'm starting to come around to the idea of ESE!Lupin because it would definitely be really cool and a major plot upheaval to boot. But I don't think he was a traitor in the first go-round; it's a post-VWI thing. Magda (exhausted from agreeing so loudly) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 4 21:49:27 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:49:27 -0000 Subject: secrets/servers/using the Stone/foolishconsistencyHobgoblin/LiveLV/ WelcomeQ Message-ID: Lyn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3088 : << as the entire series is basically put into play by one breaking a secret, I can't help but wonder if the series will end with the maintaining of a secret. >> Or that, as it began by one breaking a secret for a bad reason, it will end with one breaking a secret for a good reason. Ginger wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3091 : << amazed at what enters the mind of one who has a nearly completed project and can't access the website needed to finish it, but has been checking every few hours in the hopes that it is up again as She Who Must Not Be Made Cranky is certainly getting there. >> I hope that website's servers weren't in New Orleans. Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3092 : << PS/SS - that damn Mirror. According to DD only someone who wanted to find the Stone but not use it could see it in the Mirror. Yet Quirrell!Mort states "I see myself handing it to my Master." Not use - give it away, presumably exactly what Harry was intending to do in giving it to DD. Yet Harry can see it and Quirrell can't. Bollocks. >> To me, Quirrel wanted to use the Stone, saw himself using the Stone, to please his Master. To me, that is a Use in a way that 'preventing the bad guy from getting it' is not. Dave Frankis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3097 : << I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has yet been able to write a consistent description of our *own* world, >> Isn't that Godel's Theorem or something? Pippin wrote http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3110 : << That's why she knew he had to be alive! >> I still like (for literary reasons, not because I think it's what Jo wrote) the idea that the Death Eaters are bound to LV's death in such a way that they die if he does (hence the name Death Eaters) and that is how they all knew he hadn't died at GH. So if Snape is really trying to kill LV (for revenge or for goodness or to please Dumbledore), he knows the cost is he will die if he is successful. Eileen lucky_kari wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3126 : << I'm Eileen, your latest new member. >> Welcome back! How nice to see you! Just the other day, I was telling one of my friends that your list of childhood mistaken notions was one of the funniest things I've ever read in my life. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 4 21:52:19 2005 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:52:19 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO?= Message-ID: THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO Thanks for the invite; I'm thrilled to be here. I recognize so many names of my favorite posters from HP for Grown Ups. I feel like I've missed most of the post HBP discussion, although I know it will continue until book 7 comes out. I hope I will be able to catch up soon, and contribute in a productive way. Wow you want to actually know about me? I'm flattered, and a little intimidated. The pressure to be witty and brilliant, you know? I find I have a wonderful, if false, since of security in being completely anonymous on the Internet, but then again, I've started blogging recently, so now I'm regularly pouring out my soul to anyone who cares to take the time to read my scribblings. Cheers, Mandy ***Name: Amanda ***Nicknames/IDs: Mandy, ExSlytherin, Red (Not to be used by anyone but my spouse.) ***Age: Sorry. Thirty something is all you get. ***Family: Husband, two cats, mum, dad, brother, sister in laws etc. ***Home: New York, NY. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: 23 December. Southampton, England ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Blimey the short of it is; I'm an actor/writer. (Read: woefully under-educated.) Wife, lover and very happy. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Hummm I'm a history buff. Love history! Also have a fascination with combat, warfare and weapons. Unusual for a girl, but there it is. ***First contact with Harry Potter: 2000 right after the publication of the Goblet of Fire. I was in an Opera at the Lincoln center. (Before you get too impressed I can't actually sing. I had one of those non-singing roles you get in Opera sometimes.) About 5 members of the cast were planning to line up outside B&N, at midnight, to buy their copies of the new Harry Potter book. Odd, I thought that these educated, literate and intelligent adults were getting so worked up over a children's book. They, in turn, were amazed I hadn't even heard of these British books, as I was a Brit myself. Needless to say they were all avidly devouring their copies of GoF back stage for the next week and, I began to think there had to be something to all this madness. I want out a bought PS/SS the next day and was hooked. The damn books are like crack! Not that I would know what crack is like ***Favorite Potter things: Fav Book: PoA I cry every time I read about Sirius and Remus hugging like brothers. Fav Characters: Severus Snape, Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Black Lestrange. Oh, and since HBP - Tom Riddle. Fav Ships: Realistically: Harry/Luna. My fantasy ship: Sevvy/Cissy. My XXX Fantasy ship: Lucius/Ginny. (And this from a woman who used to hate to ship Heh.) Fav Fics: Yes, I read. Mostly the smutty stuff. If you want recomendations just ask. Fav Objects: My favorite in the books are the Pensive, the Mirror of Erised and the Time Turner. In real live my Hogwart's cap. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Being in B&N in Union Square listening to Jim Dale on July 16th 2005, and screaming when the giant count-down clock hit midnight. Dressing up as Draco's wet dream for Halloween last year. Basically it was a twist on the sexy, Slytherin, schoolgirl costume. Oh, and owning three sets of the canon, US editions and both the UK adult and kids editions. All in hard cover. ***Other interests/activities: Performing, writing, fencing and martial arts, stage and film combat, reading, Shakespeare. Wine, good food and great friends. ***Current/recent reading: The HP canon (again), Eats, Shoots and Leaves, The Story of O. I recommend: His dark Materials, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel and anything by Alexander Dumas. ***Current/recent listening: Hum, mostly talk radio. ***Current/recent viewing: TV - Rome, Deadwood, Battlestar Galatica. Film ? Sin City, The Brothers' Grimm. From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 03:35:19 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 03:35:19 -0000 Subject: OT stuff and welcome In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From Rita's message: > Ginger wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ > old_crowd/message/3091 : > > << amazed at what enters the mind of one who has a nearly completed > project and can't access the website needed to finish it, but has been > checking every few hours in the hopes that it is up again as She Who > Must Not Be Made Cranky is certainly getting there. >> Rita wrote: > I hope that website's servers weren't in New Orleans. Ginger: Nope, Texas, I believe. And it's up and running nicely. Project done and on to the next. Miss will be pleased. I'm such a brown- noser. Anyway, welcome to Mandy. Don't worry about fitting in with the witty conversation here. If nothing else, lurk and learn about stuff. That's what I do. I don't remember Eileen's list of childhood mistakes. Eileen, could I entreat you to repost? Ginger, back to the website From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 14:45:13 2005 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:45:13 -0000 Subject: OT stuff and welcome In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ginger: > Anyway, welcome to Mandy. Don't worry about fitting in with the > witty conversation here. If nothing else, lurk and learn about > stuff. That's what I do. > Ginger, back to the website Mandy: Thanks Ginger. I'm not worried. I just have a huge amount to say about HBP but know that I need to take the time to read back over all the threads so far, so I don't piss you all off repeating stuff. Which is exactly what I hated at HPforGU. Mandy, who will be lurking for a bit, unless I just can't help myself. From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 15:16:26 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:16:26 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5Bthe=5Fold=5Fcrowd=5D_THE_OLD_CROWD_-_INTRO?= References: Message-ID: <002e01c5b22c$c9d03da0$dc58aacf@...> I will try to remember to be Amandageist when I sign, because when I post from webview it only shows "Amanda" as the sender. Not that I post enough for things to get confusing. ~Amandageist ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amanda" To: Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: [the_old_crowd] THE OLD CROWD - INTRO THE OLD CROWD - INTRO Thanks for the invite; I'm thrilled to be here. I recognize so many names of my favorite posters from HP for Grown Ups. I feel like I've missed most of the post HBP discussion, although I know it will continue until book 7 comes out. I hope I will be able to catch up soon, and contribute in a productive way. Wow.you want to actually know about me? I'm flattered, and a little intimidated. The pressure to be witty and brilliant, you know? I find I have a wonderful, if false, since of security in being completely anonymous on the Internet, but then again, I've started blogging recently, so now I'm regularly pouring out my soul to anyone who cares to take the time to read my scribblings. Cheers, Mandy ***Name: Amanda ***Nicknames/IDs: Mandy, ExSlytherin, Red (Not to be used by anyone but my spouse.) ***Age: Sorry. Thirty something is all you get. ***Family: Husband, two cats, mum, dad, brother, sister.in laws etc. ***Home: New York, NY. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: 23 December. Southampton, England ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: Blimey.the short of it is; I'm an actor/writer. (Read: woefully under-educated.) Wife, lover and very happy. ***Other things we might want to know about you: Hummm. I'm a history buff. Love history! Also have a fascination with combat, warfare and weapons. Unusual for a girl, but there it is. ***First contact with Harry Potter: 2000 right after the publication of the Goblet of Fire. I was in an Opera at the Lincoln center. (Before you get too impressed I can't actually sing. I had one of those non-singing roles you get in Opera sometimes.) About 5 members of the cast were planning to line up outside B&N, at midnight, to buy their copies of the new Harry Potter book. Odd, I thought that these educated, literate and intelligent adults were getting so worked up over a children's book. They, in turn, were amazed I hadn't even heard of these British books, as I was a Brit myself. Needless to say they were all avidly devouring their copies of GoF back stage for the next week and, I began to think there had to be something to all this madness. I want out a bought PS/SS the next day and was hooked. The damn books are like crack! Not that I would know what crack is like. ***Favorite Potter things: Fav Book: PoA I cry every time I read about Sirius and Remus hugging like brothers. Fav Characters: Severus Snape, Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Black Lestrange. Oh, and since HBP - Tom Riddle. Fav Ships: Realistically: Harry/Luna. My fantasy ship: Sevvy/Cissy. My XXX Fantasy ship: Lucius/Ginny. (And this from a woman who used to hate to ship. Heh.) Fav Fics: Yes, I read. Mostly the smutty stuff. If you want recomendations just ask. Fav Objects: My favorite in the books are the Pensive, the Mirror of Erised and the Time Turner. In real live my Hogwart's cap. ***Extent of Potter obsession: Being in B&N in Union Square listening to Jim Dale on July 16th 2005, and screaming when the giant count-down clock hit midnight. Dressing up as Draco's wet dream for Halloween last year. Basically it was a twist on the sexy, Slytherin, schoolgirl costume. Oh, and owning three sets of the canon, US editions and both the UK adult and kids editions. All in hard cover. ***Other interests/activities: Performing, writing, fencing and martial arts, stage and film combat, reading, Shakespeare. Wine, good food and great friends. ***Current/recent reading: The HP canon (again), Eats, Shoots and Leaves, The Story of O. I recommend: His dark Materials, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel and anything by Alexander Dumas. ***Current/recent listening: Hum, mostly talk radio. ***Current/recent viewing: TV - Rome, Deadwood, Battlestar Galatica. Film - Sin City, The Brothers' Grimm. SPONSORED LINKS Jk rowling Harry potter and the half blood prince Half blood prince Goblet of fire ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 12:51:15 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:51:15 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario Message-ID: It has dawned on me that if RAB did get into the cave and tamper with the locket, it would be the easiest thing in the world to tamper with the potion too. Just a few drops of something lethal and thanks to Golpalott's Third Law, Voldemort's previously prepared antidote wouldn't do him any good at all. RAB was, of course, wise enough not to brag about this in his little billet doux. Finally, a DE who's read the Evil Overlord's Manual! Pity that he didn't know he was living in a book -- poison never gets the person it was intended for. I think it's already been mentioned that it's odd that a blast in the chest would cause a body leaning against a wall to travel upwards. And then I realized that Dumbledore's fall off the tower reminded me of something else. HBP A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight. PS/SS The club flew suddenly out of the troll's hand, rose high, high up into the air, turned slowly over --and dropped, with a sickening crack, onto its owner's head. --- So here's the *simple* Snape is innocent version: Regulus poisoned the goo. Dumbledore drank it and was dying by the time Snape reached him on top of the tower. Dumbledore pleaded with him not to take any heroic measures to save him. Snape did a fake AK, and immediately afterward a non-verbal wingardium leviosa. Dumbledore gave up the ghost, and Snape let the body fall from the tower so that the DE's, who are familiar with the way someone ought to look when they've been AK'd, would not get a chance to examine it. Pippin From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 16:59:29 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:59:29 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > > So here's the *simple* Snape is innocent version: > Regulus poisoned the goo. Dumbledore drank it > and was dying by the time Snape reached him on > top of the tower. Dumbledore pleaded with him > not to take any heroic measures to save him. > > Snape did a fake AK, and immediately afterward > a non-verbal wingardium leviosa. Dumbledore gave > up the ghost, and Snape let the body fall from the > tower so that the DE's, who are familiar with the way > someone ought to look when they've been AK'd, > would not get a chance to examine it. > Neri: Not bad at all. I especially appreciate this new devotion to simplicity . I still have some questions about this simple scenario, though: 1) Why did Snape make the UV in the first place? 2) Did Dumbledore know about the third part of the UV and if so, how was he planning on handling it? 3) Dumbledore dying of the poison in midair still sounds like a bit too much of a coincidence to me. In addition, accepting for a moment your basic premises for the tower scene, it strikes me that two great minds such as Dumbledore and Snape, legilimening between them as they were, could have worked out a much better solution to the situation. For example: Snape does a fake AK but *without* the levitation spell. Dumbledore plays dead. Snape tells the DEs: "it's over! You go down the tower first, we're coming after you". When the last DE had gone down the stairs Snape tells Draco to take one of the two brooms and fly to the gate, he'll join him there soon. After Draco had left Snape can stun the DEs on the stairs from above (non verbally, so they don't realize who's shooting at them). At the same time Dumbledore can release Harry from his freezing spell and explain to him that he's dying and Snape is on our side. Snape takes the second broom to join Draco and Dumbledore is left to say some memorable last words while dying in Harry's arms. Hey, it even works well in the literary sense. Neri From waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 17:20:49 2005 From: waldoglatisant at waldoglatisant.yahoo.invalid (Waldo Glatisant) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Return the Hx to the fires of Mount Doom Message-ID: <20050906172049.87486.qmail@...> I know that the Tolkein parallels in the HP epic are old news for the Old Crowd, but I just had a forehead-slapping moment when I realized the similarities between "The One Ring" and the Hinkeypunks. It was he "The One Ring" that Isildur failed to destroy in the fires of Mount Doom - containing some part of Sauron / the dark lord / the one who shall not be named - that allowed Sauron to continue to survive as vapor and shadow in the dark forest - biding his time until his return to power. It was therefore Frodo's destiny to destroy the ring (the hockeypux) in order to destroy Sauron. The good news for our hero is that DD already destroyed "The One Ring." The bad news is ... LV liked to accessorize ... and has more Higgley-pigglies out there, and our hero doesn't know into which firey mountains the other Horseradishes need to be shoved. -Waldo __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 19:01:22 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:01:22 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > So here's the *simple* Snape is innocent version: > Regulus poisoned the goo. Dumbledore drank it > and was dying by the time Snape reached him on > top of the tower. Dumbledore pleaded with him > not to take any heroic measures to save him. > > Snape did a fake AK, and immediately afterward > a non-verbal wingardium leviosa. Dumbledore gave > up the ghost, and Snape let the body fall from the > tower so that the DE's, who are familiar with the way > someone ought to look when they've been AK'd, > would not get a chance to examine it. > Can't see how iit simplifies things much - just the opposite. Nor can I understand this reluctance to believe that ole Snapey AK'd DD. It's the simplest solution of all. If Snape is ESE there's no more to be said. If Snape isn't, then it rests on the nature of the Cave potion. The Inferi are undead that serve Voldy. Is it impossible that DD, by drinking the potion, could also be enslaved to Voldy? Or to suffer something equally nasty? Would he then wish to live? I doubt it. Death doesn't seem to be such a big deal in HP. The loss of the Stone means sure and certain death for the Flamels. Does anyone care much? Apparently not. It's treated as no more than an interesting change of circumstance; not an end but a phase boundary. "There are worse things than death, Tom." And glugging down that potion could well have been one of them. In which case death would be an escape, a release. I appreciate that there are fans who don't agree, but death, in some circumstances, is the merciful option. And if a helping hand is needed? Fine. If I can't manage it myself, I hope there's someone around to help me when things get really bad. Kneasy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 20:05:51 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:05:51 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri: > Not bad at all. I especially appreciate this new devotion to > simplicity . I still have some questions about this simple > scenario, though: > > 1) Why did Snape make the UV in the first place? I suppose you want a simple explanation of that, too? There's no pleasing some people ::rereads Spinner's End:: I think the simplest explanation is that Snape was trapped by his claim to know of the Plan. He didn't know what it was, except that it involved Draco and was likely to be dangerous, until he and Narcissa exchanged that long look, after he'd claimed to know of it. Only then does she risk a long look into his eyes. I think she was using occlumency to keep it from him until then. Narcissa was desperate. If Snape refused to take the vow, she might have gone to Voldemort anyway and the Dark Lord would surely have learned of Snape's claim to know the plan. Or she might have taken Draco and made a doomed attempt to flee without the Order's help. Neri: > 2) Did Dumbledore know about the third part of the UV and if so, how was he planning on handling it? Pippin: "He cannot kill you if you are already dead." The third part of the vow only comes into effect "should it prove necessary." Dumbledore would have planned to fake his death at Snape's hands. Neri: > 3) Dumbledore dying of the poison in midair still sounds like a bit > too much of a coincidence to me. Pippin: Actually, he could have died of it anytime after he last spoke. He was slumped against the wall -- he gets weaker and weaker and seems to be in more and more pain all the time. It's perfectly possible Snape's AK hit a dead body and blasted it. It all depends on when Harry ceased to be held by the spell and shock took over. That, we don't know. It's even possible that Snape didn't let Dumbledore fall to the ground until he heard Harry moving and talking and realized, as Harry did, that Dumbledore was gone. He could have used mobilicorpus just after the wingardium. That one doesn't require you to keep a wand trained on the subject, because in PoA, Snape remains hanging unconscious in midair even after Black has transformed and fled. There were no observers on the grounds who would have seen it if Dumbledore hung just out of sight of the tower for a second or two. Neri: > In addition, accepting for a moment your basic premises for the tower scene, it strikes me that two great minds such as Dumbledore and Snape, legilimening between them as they were, could have worked out a much better solution to the situation. For example: Snape does a fake AK but *without* the levitation spell. Dumbledore plays dead. Snape tells the DEs: "it's over! You go down the tower first, we're coming after you". When the last DE had gone down the stairs Snape tells Draco to take one of the two brooms and fly to the gate, he'll join him there soon. After Draco had left Snape can stun the DEs on the stairs from above (non verbally, so they don't realize who's shooting at them). Pippin: Now who's being complicated? The DE's are going to know *someone's* shooting at them. Dead Dumbledore, invisible frozen Harry, wimpy Draco or Snape? No good. Neri: At the same time Dumbledore can release Harry from his freezing spell and explain to him that he's dying and Snape is on our side. Snape takes the second broom to join Draco and Dumbledore is left to say some memorable last words while dying in Harry's arms. Hey, it even works well in the literary sense. > Pippin: Your scenario allows Alecto, Amycus and the dreaded Greyback to come to the aid of the DE's down below, who aren't going to be in any hurry to withdraw if Snape's not there to make them. Dumbledore can't tell Harry anything he doesn't want Voldemort to know. He made an exception in the past, for the prophecy, and he made another in this book for the horcruxes, for the same reason. Because if Harry doesn't know about them, Voldemort might easily lure him into another vain attack. And it doesn't work in the literary sense if we're supposed to be unsure which side Snape is on. And we are -- Jo said she couldn't answer that question. Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 20:38:18 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:38:18 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy:> > Can't see how iit simplifies things much - just the opposite. > Nor can I understand this reluctance to believe that ole Snapey > AK'd DD. It's the simplest solution of all. > > If Snape is ESE there's no more to be said. > If Snape isn't, then it rests on the nature of the Cave potion. > > The Inferi are undead that serve Voldy. Is it impossible that > DD, by drinking the potion, could also be enslaved to Voldy? Or > to suffer something equally nasty? > Would he then wish to live? > I doubt it. Death doesn't seem to be such a big deal in HP. > The loss of the Stone means sure and certain death for the Flamels. > Does anyone care much? Apparently not. It's treated as no more > than an interesting change of circumstance; not an end but a phase > boundary. > > "There are worse things than death, Tom." And glugging down that > potion could well have been one of them. Pippin: Good point. Actually we already know of something you can drink that's worse than dying. Unicorn blood. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some in the basin. Very clever that -- the poison starts killing you immediately, but the unicorn blood keeps you alive for a while so Voldy can interrogate you. That makes sense out of Dumbledore's agonies too, if whoever drinks unicorn blood takes on the guilt of slaying the innocent unicorns who gave it. But I want it to be a fake AK because I don't think you can use one to kill a person without evil intent. After all, the wizards have lots of potentially fatal spells at their disposal. You can wingardium something and drop it on a skull, you can blow a hole in someone's heart with reducto, you could stun them and let them fall off a cliff-- the possibilities are endless. Why then have such a horror of this one particular spell? Pippin From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 20:39:38 2005 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:39:38 -0000 Subject: THE OLD CROWD - INTRO In-Reply-To: <002e01c5b22c$c9d03da0$dc58aacf@...> Message-ID: Amanda Geist wrote: I will try to remember to be Amandageist when I sign, because when I post from webview it only shows "Amanda" as the sender. Not that I post enough for things to get confusing. ~Amandageist Mandy: Don't worry I mostly use Mandy on line. ;-) From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 21:11:56 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:11:56 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Why then have such a horror of this > one particular spell? > > Pippin Because it has only one purpose and it's supposed to be unstoppable. Kneasy From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 6 23:18:01 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:18:01 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> Pippin: >> Why then have such a horror of this one particular spell? > Kneasy: > Because it has only one purpose and it's supposed to be unstoppable. And that fits in with Rowling's metaphysics, too. She says that what makes Voldemort so evil is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead in her world. She's also made comments about how awful it is to take a human life. Given the model we've been shown of intention powering the Unforgivable Curses (Crucio clearly, the others more implies), AK is an evil, evil thing precisely for Kneasy's reasons. It kills people, it can be stopped by inanimate objects (but blasts them apart), but the only person who has ever 'survived' it is Harry, and for specific reasons. IMO, it would also really defang the end of the book to then go "But it was a fake AK, and Snape cast this other spell instead, and..." The interest is in *why* Snape did such a horrific thing. -Nora watches the sun set, entirely too early From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 02:00:07 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:00:07 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Neri: > > 1) Why did Snape make the UV in the first place? > Pippin: > I suppose you want a simple explanation of that, too? There's > no pleasing some people Neri: Actually I already have a simple explanation for that. It can be told in a single sentence: "Snape was in love with Narcissa ever since they were at Hogwarts together." But I wanted to know if you had another simple explanation. > Pippin: I think > the simplest explanation is that Snape was trapped by his > claim to know of the Plan. He didn't know what it was, > except that it involved Draco and was likely to be dangerous, > until he and Narcissa exchanged that long look, after he'd > claimed to know of it. Only then does she risk a long look > into his eyes. I think she was using occlumency to keep it > from him until then. > > Narcissa was desperate. If Snape refused to take the vow, she > might have gone to Voldemort anyway and the Dark Lord would > surely have learned of Snape's claim to know the plan. Or > she might have taken Draco and made a doomed attempt to flee > without the Order's help. > Neri: That's already seven sentences and still doesn't sound very convincing to me. The risks you mention exist, but they still seem better odds than the sure death of either Snape or Dumbledore. Besides, Snape says he knows about the plan in front of *Bella*, who is "enraged" about it and is much more likely than Narcissa to tell Voldemort, whether Snape makes the Vow or not. So he had already taken this specific risk anyway. > Neri: > > 2) Did Dumbledore know about the third part of the UV and > if so, how was he planning on handling it? > > Pippin: > "He cannot kill you if you are already dead." The third part of the > vow only comes into effect "should it prove necessary." > Dumbledore would have planned to fake his death at Snape's hands. > > Neri: > > 3) Dumbledore dying of the poison in midair still sounds like a bit > > too much of a coincidence to me. > > Pippin: > Actually, he could have died of it anytime after he last spoke. He was > slumped against the wall -- he gets weaker and weaker and seems > to be in more and more pain all the time. It's perfectly possible > Snape's AK hit a dead body and blasted it. It all depends on when > Harry ceased to be held by the spell and shock took over. That, we > don't know. > Neri: Now it's not only one coincidence, but you're heaping them one over the other. We have three events on the tower: A) Draco fails in killing Dumbledore. B) Snape shoots what looks like an AK at Dumbledore. C) Dumbledore dies. The canon strongly suggests that A should cause B and B should cause C. You interpret the canon to mean that A didn't actually cause B and B didn't actually cause C, and yet somehow by pure chance events A, B, C happened in quick succession (I'd estimate max 60 seconds all together). I'm not sure about the simplicity in that, but how about plausibility? > Neri: > > In addition, accepting for a moment your basic premises for the > tower scene, it strikes me that two great minds such as Dumbledore > and Snape, legilimening between them as they were, could have worked > out a much better solution to the situation. For example: Snape does > a fake AK but *without* the levitation spell. Dumbledore plays dead. > Snape tells the DEs: "it's over! You go down the tower first, we're > coming after you". When the last DE had gone down the stairs Snape > tells Draco to take one of the two brooms and fly to the gate, > he'll join him there soon. After Draco had left Snape can stun the > DEs on the stairs from above (non verbally, so they don't realize > who's shooting at them). > > Pippin: > Now who's being complicated? Neri: Aw, cmo'n, these were only five sentences . You called your seven sentences explanation above "simple". > Pippin: > The DE's are going to know *someone's* shooting at them. Dead > Dumbledore, invisible frozen Harry, wimpy Draco or Snape? > > No good. > Neri: What do we care what the DEs know if they're in Azkaban? Or obliviated? There are many other reasonable possibilities here if you don't like this one. If you insist on simplicity, then Dumbledore and Snape could have done it the same way you say they did it, except Snape *wouldn't* use levitation. So this would be simpler than what you suggest, and it would give Dumbledore a chance to talk to Harry after the DEs leave. In fact, assuming all your premises I really can't figure out why the heck did Snape toss Dumbledore down the tower at all. Why did he even think about it? If AK victims indeed always drop down dead, who'd know that better than experienced DEs? It would look *suspicious* to them that Dumbledore didn't just drop. Dumbledore playing dead on the tower would be simpler *and* more reasonable solution by far. > Pippin: > And it doesn't work in the literary sense if we're supposed to > be unsure which side Snape is on. And we are -- Jo said she > couldn't answer that question. Neri: IIRC her words (after being heavily pumped about it) were more like "I have to leave some hope". Neri From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 04:39:09 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:39:09 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > >> Pippin: > >> Why then have such a horror of this one particular spell? > > > Kneasy: > > Because it has only one purpose and it's supposed to be unstoppable. > -Nora > > And that fits in with Rowling's metaphysics, too. She says that what > makes Voldemort so evil is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead in > her world. She's also made comments about how awful it is to take a > human life. > > Given the model we've been shown of intention powering the > Unforgivable Curses (Crucio clearly, the others more implies), AK is > an evil, evil thing precisely for Kneasy's reasons. It kills people, > it can be stopped by inanimate objects (but blasts them apart), but > the only person who has ever 'survived' it is Harry, and for specific > reasons. > > IMO, it would also really defang the end of the book to then go "But > it was a fake AK, and Snape cast this other spell instead, and..." > The interest is in *why* Snape did such a horrific thing. > Neri: Yep, and I have to add that personally I don't believe in the existence of "fake AK". We have indeed seen a potential for "fake" Cruciatus, but Cruciatus isn't an all-or-nothing thing, and it doesn't produce any visible ray of light. AK does. That is, I think that if the whole DADA class would point their wands at Crouch!Moody and say the words, then he might just barely get a nosebleed, but there wouldn't be any green ray of light. If there *would* be a green ray it would be because one of the children fully meant it, and then Crouch!Moody would be dead. It's an all-or-nothing thing. You're either dead or you ain't. After all, Crouch!Moody said quite categorically that only Harry ever survived an AK. If there were many cases of "fake" AK in Wizarding history then Crouch!Moody wouldn't be able to make such an assertion. Imagine one Wizard hitting another wizard with a green ray that looks just like an AK and the other wizard staying alive. How would we ever know for sure if it was because the first Wizard didn't mean it, or because it *is* possible to survive an AK? Do we believe the first Wizard about whether he meant it or not? After all, frequently people can't even decide for themselves if they meant it or not. Does righteous anger count? Neri From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 08:49:42 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:49:42 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > >> Pippin: > >> Why then have such a horror of this one particular spell? > > > Kneasy: > > Because it has only one purpose and it's supposed to be unstoppable. > > And that fits in with Rowling's metaphysics, too. She says that what > makes Voldemort so evil is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead in > her world. She's also made comments about how awful it is to take a > human life. > > Given the model we've been shown of intention powering the > Unforgivable Curses (Crucio clearly, the others more implies), AK is > an evil, evil thing precisely for Kneasy's reasons. It kills people, > it can be stopped by inanimate objects (but blasts them apart), but > the only person who has ever 'survived' it is Harry, and for specific > reasons. > > IMO, it would also really defang the end of the book to then go "But > it was a fake AK, and Snape cast this other spell instead, and..." > The interest is in *why* Snape did such a horrific thing. > Interestingly, Jo's metaphysics are somewhat limited, if not tinged with with partiality. GoF chap. 14, The Unforgivable Curses. "The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." Zap Dobby (yes please!), Grawp, Firenze or the manager at Gringotts and you'll probably be all right. Do the world a favour by giving Luna the green light and it's "Go to goal, go directly to goal, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 Galleons. Hardly seems fair, does it? By the same token if DD can be proved not to be human, Snape can be excused his AK not matter what his motives were. Now there's a nice little project for someone. Kneasy From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 12:43:28 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:43:28 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri: > That is, I think that if the whole DADA class would point their wands > at Crouch!Moody and say the words, then he might just barely get a > nosebleed, but there wouldn't be any green ray of light. If there > *would* be a green ray it would be because one of the children fully > meant it, and then Crouch!Moody would be dead. It's an all-or-nothing > thing. You're either dead or you ain't. Ginger: I thought of the Barely-nosebleeding!Crouch!Moody thing too. Do we know there'd be no green light? Maybe more of a sea foam green than emerald? <---kidding DD was bleeding at the mouth when Harry found him at the bottom of the tower. Perhaps Snape hit him with a purposely wimpy AK and just gave him a bloody lip. Just a thought I thought I'd throw in. Ginger, relieved to have heard that fellow filker (and HPFGU member) Jason LeBeouf, who lived in a suburb of New Orleans, is alive and well and staying with relatives. Just thought I'd pass that along. From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 13:51:22 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:51:22 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > Interestingly, Jo's metaphysics are somewhat limited, if not tinged with > with partiality. > > GoF chap. 14, The Unforgivable Curses. > "The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn > a life sentence in Azkaban." Anne: Unless you're Harry, apparently. Or is that just because he can't manage to do one properly? Kneasy: > Zap Dobby (yes please!), Grawp, Firenze or the manager at Gringotts > and you'll probably be all right. Do the world a favour by giving Luna > the green light and it's "Go to goal, go directly to goal, do not pass Go, > do not collect 200 Galleons. > > Hardly seems fair, does it? Anne: {Shakes off image of Luna playing footie on a Monopoly board} If you're going to spell "jail" funny, at least get it right. :P Anyway, I thought that inconsitency wasn't Jo's metaphysics, but meant to be the mean, nasty, wizarding powers-that-be's prejudices? Or did I miss your point? Kneasy: > By the same token if DD can be proved not to be human, Snape can be > excused his AK not matter what his motives were. > > Now there's a nice little project for someone. > > Kneasy Anne: I don't know if I can manage that, but I think you just knocked all the teeth out of the "must Harry murder?" angst (which I admit to having felt) that we had so much of after OoP. If there's not enough human left in LV to die ('cause too much of it is scattered across the country in Riddle's little souvenirs), then there's not enough human left in him to cause a pang over doing an AK, either. But it feels like a cheat. If Harry's going to kill somebody, let him really kill a real somebody, or it won't really mean anything. Now I'm just wondering how Harry got from "[Harry's]life must end in, or include, murder" to "damn straight, I want Voldemort offed, and I want to be the one to do it" (slight paraphrase, there). Anne From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 14:13:45 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:13:45 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > IMO, it would also really defang the end of the book to then go "But it was a fake AK, and Snape cast this other spell instead, and..." The interest is in *why* Snape did such a horrific thing. > Pippin: It's defanged already, in my poor misguided view of things, because even if Snape murdered Dumbledore for the greater glory of Voldemort, without a smidgen of mercy or remorse, or for love of Narcissa, sob, sob, or to make himself the greatest wizard the world has ever seen, mwahahaha, it wouldn't be as horrific or as devastating as Lupin's murder of Sirius, should that be revealed. Jo reluctantly admits to being upset about having to kill Dumbledore, with an air of, well, the old guy with the beard always buys it, what did you expect. But there were buckets of tears shed for Sirius, we are promised we'll understand why it was Sirius who had to go, it's Sirius for whom she has said she feels guilty. Why *Lupin* did such a horrific thing -- ah, there's the question. On TOL the other day someone asked if it wouldn't be sending the wrong message to kids if they were told they could not trust their instincts about an abuser like Snape. There was a reply that no RL child would ever be in danger of having more to do with someone like Snape than they could help. The people who take advantage of children are more like Lupin, the poster continued, kind in manner, but behaving in ways that are not right, and it's this combination that confuses the child about whether to trust his insincts or not. Pippin noting that Lupin's pledge of support at the end of OOP turned out to be hollow, what a surprise From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 14:29:35 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:29:35 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Ginger: > I thought of the Barely-nosebleeding!Crouch!Moody thing too. Do we > know there'd be no green light? Maybe more of a sea foam green than > emerald? <---kidding > > DD was bleeding at the mouth when Harry found him at the bottom of the > tower. Perhaps Snape hit him with a purposely wimpy AK and just gave > him a bloody lip. > Neri: Actually C!M's exact words were "I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed". He didn't think he'd get even *that*. But your joke precisely illustrates what's wrong with the concept of gradual AK. If it existed you could picture the students in Auror Academy training on each other with wimpies. Or "hey guys, we want these suspects alive. Put your AK on Stun!" And "it was an accident, Your Honor! We only meant to use Nosebleed Level, but he provoked us and we kind of lost control on our emotions". It would dilute the thematic power of the whole Killing Curse concept into nothing. And you could count on seasoned DEs to know the difference between a wimpy and the real thing. "Hey, Reg! Let's see if you have what it takes to be a real Death Eater. No wimpies!" > Ginger, relieved to have heard that fellow filker (and HPFGU member) > Jason LeBeouf, who lived in a suburb of New Orleans, is alive and well > and staying with relatives. Just thought I'd pass that along. Neri: I'm glad to hear that. I loved his filks in HH. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 15:04:53 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:04:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Anne: > Now I'm just wondering how Harry got from "[Harry's]life must end in, or include, murder" to "damn straight, I want Voldemort offed, and I\want to be the one to do it" (slight paraphrase, there). > Pippin: For Harry to kill Voldemort because the prophecy said he must, which was the situation as he understood it at the end of OOP, would be murder. "Yeah, your Supreme Mugwumpness, I did it because Trelawney said I had to." "Sure, kid. Here's your order of Merlin, and a writ of committment to St Mungo's." Can't have people running around killing because they heard voices, after all. To challenge Voldemort because Voldemort is trying to kill him, and will kill others as he killed Harry's parents if he isn't stopped, makes it different. He is not dragging Voldemort into the arena. They are both entering it because of the choices they've made. Pippin From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 15:14:29 2005 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:14:29 -0000 Subject: OT - Childhood Mistakes - For Ginger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ginger: > I don't remember Eileen's list of childhood mistakes. >Eileen, could > I entreat you to repost? I thought all dogs were pitbulls. I also thought the U.S.S.R. was a pyramid scheme cult, not a country. I thought "the Government" was the title of Canada's unelected dictator. I thought that the political party my parents belonged to was a military organization that was going to eventually march on Ottawa. I thought my local MP was a murderer. I thought the teenagers at the local playground were terrorists who had blown up a bus in Vancouver. I thought a display protesting the introduction of the General Sales Tax, showing boots sticking out of a toilet (I guess to show that the GST would flush Canada down the train)was some real person who had met an unfortunate end. After that, I was deathly afraid of toilets. I thought our mayor ate babies. I thought that my friend's father worked for Canada's intelligence agency, and that enemy spies were after him. (He worked for a security system company.) etc. etc. etc. etc. My first real memory of the outside world was that failed coup when Yeltsin stood on the tank. I feel robbed of my fall of my Berlin Wall memory, which everyone else my age seems to possess. And then there was the Gulf War, in which I hadn't the slightest idea what really happened, except that I was quite sure Saddam Hussein was going to attack our city soon, and World War III was beginning. Whenever I saw anyone wearing camoflauge on TV, I knew the end was nigh. Oh, I lived in an exciting world. You can tell that my parents talked a lot about current affairs, and I sort of pasted it together. So, while I may be disillusioned, the world has actually improved for me. I gather this is the opposite of most people's experience. *Addendum 2005* Many people have asked me since I posted this what my parents possibly could have said about our MP to make me think he was a murderer. They didn't, actually. They voted for him. But his name was Kilgore. So, there you are. On the other hand, I'm sure they said a lot of awful things about our mayor. Eileen From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 15:22:13 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:22:13 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > it wouldn't be as horrific or as devastating as Lupin's > murder of Sirius, should that be revealed. > > Jo reluctantly admits to being upset about having to kill Dumbledore, > with an air of, well, the old guy with the beard always buys it, what > did you expect. But there were buckets of tears shed for Sirius, we > are promised we'll understand why it was Sirius who had to go, it's > Sirius for whom she has said she feels guilty. > > > Why *Lupin* did such a horrific thing -- ah, there's the question. > > Revenge. Personal and all the sweeter for being so. Sirius patronised Lupin for years and considered that Lupin's sufferings were merely an opportunity to enjoy himself. He thought of nothing and no-one except as to how it would impinge on his own selfish pleasures. Plus - Sirius was making a play for control of Harry. Can you imagine anything more potentially disasterous? So he had to go. Better a dead hero than a live danger. Does everyone a favour, really. > On TOL the other day someone asked if it wouldn't be sending the > wrong message to kids if they were told they could not trust their > instincts about an abuser like Snape. There was a reply that no RL > child would ever be in danger of having more to do with someone > like Snape than they could help. > They're not still banging on about abuse, are they? Glad I never have to read the posts over there. About time they developed a sense of proportion. They'll be demanding a sticker on all book covers soon - "No children were harmed in the writing of this tome and all persons, actions and depictions bear no relationship to real persons, living or dead. And don't worry, we'll make the author apologise - real soon." Kneasy From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 15:38:43 2005 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:43 -0000 Subject: OT - Y'all Look Vaguely Familiar - Intro. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" wrote: >I have--or had (I > don't know if they took iit down) an unfinished fic about Snape's early > years at Hogwarts up at Fiction Alley. Heh. My fic was about Snape's fifth year at Hogwarts. Yours'll still be up, btw, unless you've asked for it to be taken down. That's the FA policy. > I've read OotP twice (and the others --barring HBP--51 times), so I know > what you mean. It's replaced CoS as my least favourite book. I read HBP in > three days, on the edge of my seat the whole time. We had a family get-together in another city that weekend, which meant I had to sneak read, so as not to completely ignore grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. I read some of the most exciting bits in an amusement park, when I volunteered to hold the baby while other people went on rides. However, my brothers and I did insist that we delay leaving town for a few hours to attend the midnight release party at our local bookstore, in costume. I was McGonagall. :-) Ginger squeals with delight: > > Hail fellow fourth man theorist and Veggietales filker! How could I forget? Avery being the fourth man in the Pensieve scene was probably the most delusional theory I've ever subscribed to. I still love it, shot down though it is. Eileen PS - Alec, we know you're lurking in the shadows. Step out and introduce yourself. From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 16:03:05 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:03:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Anne: > > > Now I'm just wondering how Harry got from "[Harry's]life must end > in, or include, murder" to "damn straight, I want Voldemort offed, > and I\want to be the one to do it" (slight paraphrase, there). > > > > Pippin: > For Harry to kill Voldemort because the prophecy said he must, which > was the situation as he understood it at the end of OOP, would be > murder. "Yeah, your Supreme Mugwumpness, I did it because Trelawney > said I had to." "Sure, kid. Here's your order of Merlin, and a writ of > committment to St Mungo's." Can't have people running around killing > because they heard voices, after all. > > To challenge Voldemort because Voldemort is trying to kill him, and > will kill others as he killed Harry's parents if he isn't stopped, > makes it different. He is not dragging Voldemort into the arena. > They are both entering it because of the choices they've made. > > Pippin But... The prophecy didn't say he must, it said he was the one who would be able to. And the conditions in your second paragraph existed, and Harry knew of them, before Harry ever knew the prophecy existed -- whether he thought about their implications or not. He had already realised Voldemort wanted to kill him, even if he didn't know why. I can come up with a reasonable explanation for Harry's feelings and how he got from one to the other, but I had expected that part of Harry's story would be *how* he came to terms with it. Instead, I find his change of heart was a fait accompli that took place outside our view. Anne From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 16:13:05 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:13:05 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > On TOL the other day someone asked if it wouldn't be sending the > > wrong message to kids if they were told they could not trust their > > instincts about an abuser like Snape. There was a reply that no RL > > child would ever be in danger of having more to do with someone > > like Snape than they could help. > > Ah, but on the other hand, I have seen people worry about the message it would send to kids if the message about trust and second chances were undermined if Dumbledore's trust in Snape turned out to be misplaced. Anne From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 17:27:22 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:27:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > But... > > The prophecy didn't say he must, it said he was the one who would be > able to. And the conditions in your second paragraph existed, and > Harry knew of them, before Harry ever knew the prophecy existed -- > whether he thought about their implications or not. He had already > realised Voldemort wanted to kill him, even if he didn't know why. > > I can come up with a reasonable explanation for Harry's feelings and > how he got from one to the other, but I had expected that part of > Harry's story would be *how* he came to terms with it. Instead, I > find his change of heart was a fait accompli that took place outside > our view. > Pippin: But it did take place in our view, in chapter 23, when Dumbledore told Harry he was setting too much store by the prophecy. As you say, the prophecy didn't say he must, but Harry interpreted it that way, "his life must include, or end in, murder..." OOP 38. Harry didn't have to struggle to abandon that view of things, because he'd never been happy with it in the first place, in fact he found it hard to believe, unlike Voldemort. He, unlike Voldemort, is much happier to see his life as a series of choices rather than a 'destiny.' Dumbledore, as usual, gave Harry the opportunity to try and figure it out on his own before setting him straight It's another case of Harry's first intuitive reaction being the wrong one. The solution, I think, is not that he becomes so wise in the future that his first reactions will be right, it's that he will become wise enough in the future not to trust his first reaction. Pippin From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 17:56:18 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:56:18 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > Anne: > > Ah, but on the other hand, I have seen people worry about the message > it would send to kids if the message about trust and second chances > were undermined if Dumbledore's trust in Snape turned out to be > misplaced. Or take out the 'message it would send to kids' and plug in a 'what would it do to the thematic structure of the books', and you get a just- as-common more adult-oriented response. I've seen statements to the effect of "If JKR makes Snape evil then she's completely betraying the logic of her books, and they will suck" more times than I can shake a stick at. Hmm, saw that one with another parameter this time around, too... -Nora thinks evaluations of that sort are much easier to argue for in retrospect From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 20:14:53 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:14:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" > wrote: > > I can come up with a reasonable explanation for Harry's feelings and > > how he got from one to the other, but I had expected that part of > > Harry's story would be *how* he came to terms with it. Instead, I > > find his change of heart was a fait accompli that took place outside > > our view. > > > > Pippin: > But it did take place in our view, in chapter 23, when Dumbledore told > Harry he was setting too much store by the prophecy. As you say, > the prophecy didn't say he must, but Harry interpreted it that way, > "his life must include, or end in, murder..." OOP 38. Harry didn't > have to struggle to abandon that view of things, because he'd > never been happy with it in the first place, in fact he found it hard > to believe, unlike Voldemort. He, unlike Voldemort, is much happier > to see his life as a series of choices rather than a 'destiny.' > > Dumbledore, as usual, gave Harry the opportunity to try and figure > it out on his own before setting him straight > > It's another case of Harry's first intuitive reaction being the wrong > one. The solution, I think, is not that he becomes so wise in the > future that his first reactions will be right, it's that he will > become wise enough in the future not to trust his first reaction. > > > Pippin Yes, what you say is true... Let me try to come at my dissatisfaction another way. Since GoF, Harry knew LV would never stop trying to kill him. But, though we never see him thinking about it, he probably assumed the WW battle would go on until *somebody* killed LV without ever really thinking it was very likely to be he himself. In OoP, Harry heard the prophecy. Not only did he find out why LV wanted to kill him, he also found out that (supposedly) Harry was the *only* one who *could* kill LV. So, things went from "somebody's got to stop him" to "I've got to stop him." So in HBP, DD explains that the prophecy did not have to come true; that the reason it does seem to be coming true is that LV believes it and acts accordingly; that Harry has free choice in the matter. DD asks Harry what his choice is, and Harry replies he'd like to kill LV. My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" that bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill or be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny. But where did the angst about killing go? Was it ever there, or did I read OoP wrong? It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing that we never see. Anne From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 21:40:15 2005 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907214015.98919.qmail@...> nkafkafi asked: 1) Why did Snape make the UV in the first place? CV: It's my opinion that the UV was purely for the benefit of known-to-be-eavesdropping Wormtail. The first rule of being a double agent is to inspire confidence in your target that you are on their side. Wormtail would scurry over to The Boss with news of the UV and there you go. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 22:45:10 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:45:10 -0000 Subject: Return the Hx to the fires of Mount Doom In-Reply-To: <20050906172049.87486.qmail@...> Message-ID: Waldo wrote: > The good news for our hero is that DD already > destroyed "The One Ring." The bad news is ... LV > liked to accessorize ... and has more Higgley-pigglies > out there, and our hero doesn't know into which firey > mountains the other Horseradishes need to be shoved. Although there is no exact parallel to the Horcruxes in LOTR (or JRRT's other works), I am also reminded somewhat of the Palantiri. There were seven of these, if you recall. The one at Orthanc ended up 'summoning' the Dark Lord ('He whom we do not name' is the precise Gondorian apellation) if you looked in it - shades of the diary - while the Anor stone ended up tied to Denethor. David, who can't get his head round all this simplicity From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 23:09:24 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:09:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" > > wrote: > > > > I can come up with a reasonable explanation for Harry's feelings and > > > how he got from one to the other, but I had expected that part of > > > Harry's story would be *how* he came to terms with it. Instead, I > > > find his change of heart was a fait accompli that took place outside > > > our view. > > > > > > > Pippin: > > But it did take place in our view, in chapter 23, when Dumbledore told > > Harry he was setting too much store by the prophecy. As you say, > > the prophecy didn't say he must, but Harry interpreted it that way, > > "his life must include, or end in, murder..." OOP 38. Harry didn't > > have to struggle to abandon that view of things, because he'd > > never been happy with it in the first place, in fact he found it hard > > to believe, unlike Voldemort. He, unlike Voldemort, is much happier > > to see his life as a series of choices rather than a 'destiny.' > > It's another case of Harry's first intuitive reaction being the wrong > > one. The solution, I think, is not that he becomes so wise in the > > future that his first reactions will be right, it's that he will > > become wise enough in the future not to trust his first reaction. > > > > Pippin > > > Since GoF, Harry knew LV would never stop trying to kill him. But, > though we never see him thinking about it, he probably assumed the WW > battle would go on until *somebody* killed LV without ever really > thinking it was very likely to be he himself. > > In OoP, Harry heard the prophecy. Not only did he find out why LV > wanted to kill him, he also found out that (supposedly) Harry was the > *only* one who *could* kill LV. So, things went from "somebody's got > to stop him" to "I've got to stop him." > > So in HBP, DD explains that the prophecy did not have to come true; > that the reason it does seem to be coming true is that LV believes it > and acts accordingly; that Harry has free choice in the matter. DD > asks Harry what his choice is, and Harry replies he'd like to kill LV. > > My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" that > bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill or > be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny. But where > did the angst about killing go? Was it ever there, or did I read OoP > wrong? It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing that > we never see. > > Anne Lyn now: I think Harry began to understand he was going to kill LV from his first night in the Forbidden Forest. It was that night when he first came to directly recognize the impact of evil at a level other then the strictly personal (i.e, the deaths of his parents). Firenze that night served as a model for him, of one having the courage to act independently, without the acceptance of one's group, against the fates, against the odds, to confront and confound evil---because evil unopposed will overwhelm and destroy even the most pure and good. Harry voices that enlarged understanding in his little speech to Ron and Hermione before they set out after the Stone. It is a speech that reveals his understanding that a contest with LV, though a personal one, is by his choice, is for the purpose of saving the WW. Harry may have assummed he might die in any encounter with LV, but, he assumed responsibility to give his all to prevent LV from living. To me, there is no great leap from preventing LV from returning to full life, and killing the life that remains. All the rest has only been for Harry to review the decisions he has already made, and to have to understand their meaning at a larger, though not necessarily deeper level. For myself, Harry's angst at the end of OOTP was out of character. He had already been willing to kill LV, and would have been happy if he had accomplished it. What was different then, was he had just learned that maybe, he was the only one who could do it. As for where the angst went, it dissipated a little with each and every report of a good wizard or witch gone missing or killed. Rowling actually does a realistic job, IMO, of conveying how quickly one can take for granted checking the papers for the latest body count. Harry does have a "saving people, thing" and its damn lucky for the others that he does." People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -George Orwell From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 23:10:40 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:10:40 -0000 Subject: Luna (was Re: A Simpler Scenario) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > Zap Dobby (yes please!), Grawp, Firenze or the manager at Gringotts > and you'll probably be all right. Do the world a favour by giving Luna > the green light and it's "Go to goal, go directly to goal, do not pass Go, > do not collect 200 Galleons. I'm glad to see that the idea of zapping Grawp does not stir you to emotion. However... Luna? No doubt you said it all in post no. 80,000-and-something on HPFGU, but do you feel she does not add positively to the books? David, whose Monopoly spelt it 'jail' From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 23:27:25 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:27:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Annemehr wrote: > Let me try to come at my dissatisfaction another way. > > Since GoF, Harry knew LV would never stop trying to kill him. But, > though we never see him thinking about it, he probably assumed the WW > battle would go on until *somebody* killed LV without ever really > thinking it was very likely to be he himself. > > In OoP, Harry heard the prophecy. Not only did he find out why LV > wanted to kill him, he also found out that (supposedly) Harry was the > *only* one who *could* kill LV. So, things went from "somebody's got > to stop him" to "I've got to stop him." > > So in HBP, DD explains that the prophecy did not have to come true; > that the reason it does seem to be coming true is that LV believes it > and acts accordingly; that Harry has free choice in the matter. DD > asks Harry what his choice is, and Harry replies he'd like to kill LV. > > My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" that > bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill or > be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny. But where > did the angst about killing go? Was it ever there, or did I read OoP > wrong? It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing that > we never see. I feel the same way. I think the angst was there. It's very clear, IMO, in POA when he prevents Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. We have yet to see what JKR really makes of this, but I will feel cheated either if: - Harry kills Voldemort because that's what he has to do - Deus ex machina kills Voldemort, saving Harry the bother The classic way to deal with this is for Voldemort's own plans to somehow recoil upon his own head, triggered in some way be Harry's presence or intervention, hostile to Voldemort, yes, but not directly aimed at his life at that point. Not sure how I feel about that one. I do feel this debate is unexpectedly salient. We have our Home Secretary (and Prime Minister) arguing for various kinds of loss of liberty on the ground that it is necessary to prevent or mitigate the evils of terrorism. For me, that's parallel: just as killing Voldemort implies that killing is sometimes OK, and so how do we decide what killing is or isn't OK, other than 'these killers belong to *our* side so they must be OK' (Crouch's aurors), so we adopt methods that open the door to the very society that the terrorists (allegedly) want in the name of stopping them. The thought that rough men may be doing violence on my behalf does not make *me* sleep more easily at night. David, who thinks these application-to-life questions will be the most fruitful source of debate after Book 7 comes out From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 09:23:25 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:23:25 -0000 Subject: Luna (was Re: A Simpler Scenario) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Kneasy wrote: > > > Zap Dobby (yes please!), Grawp, Firenze or the manager at Gringotts > > and you'll probably be all right. Do the world a favour by giving > Luna > > the green light and it's "Go to goal, go directly to goal, do not > pass Go, > > do not collect 200 Galleons. > > I'm glad to see that the idea of zapping Grawp does not stir you to > emotion. However... Luna? > Just a quick reply before the serious stuff of the day starts at the Oval - Can't stand Luna. Personal prejudice, of course, and quite unfair. Doesn't stop me, though. I'm well aware that how Jo probably intends her character to be viewed is the polar opposite of my reaction. Perhaps 'prejudice' isn't quite the most apposite term - 'allergic reaction' might be better - a continuing response to the (perceived) surfeit of drippy, vague, pseudo-mystic, LoTR Galadrial-wannabes who infested the scene during the late 60s and early 70s. Seemed to be at least one drifting round the fringes of every social group, burbling inanities. That mix of Tolkien and tokes was a deadly combination. > No doubt you said it all in post no. 80,000-and-something on HPFGU, > but do you feel she does not add positively to the books? > That's one of the problems with being a garrulous old fart, you repeat yourself. Yeah, there's a post or two, brimming with vented spleen, somewhere in the back files, but I won't bore you by offering links. As to 'does she add anything' - no, I don't think she does. Maybe she's due for a moment or two of glory in book 7. > David, whose Monopoly spelt it 'jail' So does mine. Perversity rules. The OED: jail also goal. With a footnote: "In Britain goal is the spelling in official use, but both goal and jail are in literary use." Is Monopoly literary? Now there's a question. Kneasy From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 10:40:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:40:42 -0000 Subject: Return the Hx to the fires of Mount Doom In-Reply-To: <20050906172049.87486.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Waldo Glatisant wrote: Waldo: > I know that the Tolkein parallels in the HP epic are > old news for the Old Crowd, but I just had a > forehead-slapping moment when I realized the > similarities between "The One Ring" and the > Hinkeypunks. It was he "The One Ring" that Isildur > failed to destroy in the fires of Mount Doom - > containing some part of Sauron / the dark lord / the > one who shall not be named - that allowed Sauron to > continue to survive as vapor and shadow in the dark > forest - biding his time until his return to power. It > was therefore Frodo's destiny to destroy the ring (the > hockeypux) in order to destroy Sauron. > > The good news for our hero is that DD already > destroyed "The One Ring." The bad news is ... LV > liked to accessorize ... and has more Higgley-pigglies > out there, and our hero doesn't know into which firey > mountains the other Horseradishes need to be shoved. Geoff: I think that there are limitations to the parallels which can be drawn between the destruction of the Hinkeypunks and that of Colonel Tolkien's Middle-earth Fried Onion Ring. First, we need to remember that Sauron was not human ? and never was; some folk do consider that Voldemort is not human after the way he has changed himself, but he was originally. Both Gandalf and Sauron were Maiar, "spirits whose being also began before the World, of the same order as the Valar but of less degree" (Silmarillion, "Valaquenta"). Sauron was originally a servant of Melkor (He who arises in might), one of the two mightiest of the Valar. Melkor is no longer counted among the Valar. "From splendour, he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless" (ibid.) When he fell and became Morgoth (The black enemy), many Maiar joined him. "Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron... ...But in after years, he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into he void." (ibid.) Looking at the Ring, it does not perform the same task as a Horcrux; it is not holding a piece of Sauron's soul. "He only needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, it is his and he let a great part of his former power pass into it so that he could rule the others. If he recovers it, then he will command them (the other rings) all again, wherever they may be " (FOTR "The Shadow of the Past"). In another section, which I trying to locate, we are told (by Gandalf IIRC) that if the Ring is destroyed, Sauron will lose virtually all his power ? reminiscent of Godric's Hollow perhaps ? will fall so low that no one will foresee him ever rising again. So there are similarities and differences between He who must not be named and the One the Gondorians name not. And that is the crux of the matter. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 13:38:01 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:38:01 -0000 Subject: Return the Hx to the fires of Mount Doom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > In another section, which I trying to locate, we are told (by Gandalf IIRC) that if the Ring is destroyed, Sauron will lose virtually all his power ? reminiscent of Godric's Hollow perhaps ? will fall so low that no one will foresee him ever rising again. Pippin: It's in Return of the King, The Last Debate, Gandalf speaking: "If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun by that power will crumble, and hewill be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world will be removed." I thought of that passage too when I read Voldemort's description of his post-Godric's Hollow state, except that Sauron was not expected to retain any power to possess and corrupt others. Pippin From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 13:59:56 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:59:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Annemehr: > My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" > that bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either > kill or be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of > destiny. But where did the angst about killing go? Was it ever > there, or did I read OoP wrong? It's the process of Harry > reconciling himself to killing that we never see. David: > I think the angst was there. It's very clear, IMO, in POA when he > prevents Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. Jen: The moment when Harry understands the prophecy seems more like a theoretical acceptance of facts than a true reconciliation about killing Voldemort. He did feel the flame leap inside his chest, and said he would want to be the one to 'finish' Voldemort, but that moment reminded me of Dumbledore telling Draco: "Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe." I don't think Harry has faced the killing part of his destiny at *all*, yet. He now understands why Voldemort is hunting him, why he hasn't been succesful and the very limited choices Voldemort has forced upon him: run & hide or face him. But Harry doesn't get his own unique role in in the process yet. The bit where he is equal to LV because LV made it so, and has a power to defeat him when the time comes. It won't be found in dark magic like Harry keeps trying to use in HBP, and not through closing his mind. I don't think we have a satisfactory answer yet because similar to casting the Patronus on the lake, Harry will discover this power inside himself when he finally truly believes in it. It's not something Dumbledore can teach Harry or make happen, even though all his efforts mirror Lupin teaching the Patronus and will contribute in the end. David: > We have yet to see what JKR really makes of this, but I will feel > cheated either if: > > - Harry kills Voldemort because that's what he has to do > - Deus ex machina kills Voldemort, saving Harry the bother Jen: We may get more about the nuances of killing in self defense, or mercy killing or killing in a time of war. Some explanation of Snape's AK could help this part of the story along. I think part of Harry's mercy to Wormtail was realizing how Sirius and Lupin would be killing an unarmed man in cold-blood, for revenge, and he won't be facing a similar situation with Voldemort. But in the end I don't think Harry will kill him in a traditional way. David: > The classic way to deal with this is for Voldemort's own plans to > somehow recoil upon his own head, triggered in some way be Harry's > presence or intervention, hostile to Voldemort, yes, but not > directly aimed at his life at that point. Not sure how I feel about > that one. Jen: This one really seems the most likely because of the set-up we have now. Voldemort continues to strengthen Harry every time he fails to defeat him. He also continues to defeat himself by doing stupid things like taking Harry's blood and insisting on killing Harry himself. One of the DE's casting a killing curse during the race across the grounds and Harry would be dead now. But Voldemort obsessively insists on killing Harry, and each failure 'hands Harry weapons'. Now he can't possess Harry, or use the mindlink. And the Parselmouth will come back to haunt him as well, I suspect. Plus that gong spell Dumbeldore cast at Voldemort in OOTP will most likely come into play, from what JKR *didn't* say in the interview :). Jen From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 14:18:08 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:18:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's Angst Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > > My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" > that bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill or be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny. But where did the angst about killing go? Was it ever there, or did I read OoP wrong? It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing that we never see. David: > I feel the same way. > > I think the angst was there. It's very clear, IMO, in POA when he > prevents Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. > Pippin: I guess I came at it another way. I always felt Harry was jumping to conclusions when he decided he would have to murder Voldemort, and I wasn't sure at all that he felt killing of any kind was murder. Now that I think of it, I'd be surprised if it had turned out he felt that way. He wouldn't kill Sirius and he wouldn't let Pettigrew be killed out of hand, but they were both helpless and had given themselves up. He did, however, agree that Sirius and Lupin should kill Peter if he transformed and tried to escape. He doesn't recoil from Moody after he learns that Moody has killed in the line of duty, or from Hagrid, who has been known to think he might need his crossbow to deal with something that knocks on doors. Of course Moody (the real one) is a good friend of Dumbledore, and Sirius respects him for not killing "if he could help it." Then there's Godric Gryffindor's jewel-bedecked sword, on display in Dumbledore's office. I don't think old Gryffy put jewels on his sword to impress any basilisks who came wandering by with the splendor of his weapons. And then there's Fluffy and all the rest of the potentially lethal protections surrounding the Stone. It doesn't look as if Rowling herself has problems with killing bad guys who are resisting arrest or are mortally careless. I think it would be hard for Harry to kill Voldemort if he gave himself up and begged for mercy, spinning a tale of deepest remorse, but at this point I'm finding it difficult to imagine Voldemort doing that, and I suppose Harry doesn't think he'd do it either. Pippin From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 8 21:05:13 2005 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:05:13 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote > Can't see how it simplifies things much - just the opposite. > Nor can I understand this reluctance to believe that ole Snapey > AK'd DD. It's the simplest solution of all. > > Kneasy Yup. Though, y'know, Snapish ambiguity about that AK may turn out to be the reason that unknown DE snuffed it in the Battle of Hogwarts. 'And a Death Eater's dead, he got hit by a Killing Curse the huge blonde one was firing off everywhere ...' [HBP British Hardback, p571 Ch. 29] Presumably the big blonde DE didn't *intend* to kill one of his own side, so I now have a strong suspicion that Bella's famous 'you have to mean it' only applies as far as 'you have to mean to kill'. You don't have to intend to kill the person the AK *hits*. JKR's next project after she finishes Book 7 is to re-start the Scottish Red Herring industry... Pip!Squeak "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act?" - Severus Snape [and waves 'hi' to Amanda, fellow actor] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 9 13:29:34 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:29:34 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pip wrote: > Presumably the big blonde DE didn't *intend* to kill one of his own > side, so I now have a strong suspicion that Bella's famous 'you have > to mean it' only applies as far as 'you have to mean to kill'. You > don't have to intend to kill the person the AK *hits*. Aha! So, as Snape was offing Dumbledore, he could have been getting the necessary magical extermination energy (or whatever it is) by thinking "that's for *you*, Voldemort!" Which leads to the novel defence against a murder charge that the defendant was fantasising about the death of someone else at the time. Hm... > JKR's next project after she finishes Book 7 is to re-start the > Scottish Red Herring industry... and what she's done for garden paths is nobody's business David From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 9 20:46:49 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:46:49 -0000 Subject: OT - Childhood Mistakes & Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, Eileen! Welcome to TOC! I remember you well from HPfGU. Ah, sigh, the days of TBAY and Elkins... (By the way, has *anyone* heard from Elkins in the past six months?) Eileen posted her list of childhood mistakes. ... > I thought "the Government" was the title of Canada's unelected > dictator.... You mean it isn't??? As for childhood mistakes, when I was about 5 years old, I thought our next-door neighbor was the US President because his name was Johnson and he lived in a White House. (Johnson was president from 1963 to 1968, so that gives you an idea of how old I am!) -- Judy, who has been very busy lately, but hopes to eventually catch up here From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 9 21:08:05 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:08:05 -0000 Subject: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pip wrote: > > Presumably the big blonde DE didn't *intend* to kill one of his own > > side, so I now have a strong suspicion that Bella's famous 'you > > have to mean it' only applies as far as 'you have to mean to kill'. Yes -- and when Bella says 'you have to mean it' to Harry, she is referring to the Cruciatus Curse, if I remember correctly. So, for an effective Crucio, one would have to want the victim to *suffer*. In some ways, an AK might require *less* evil intent than the Cruciatus Curse, because one might have a non-evil motive for wanting someone to die (self-defense; mercy killing.) Non-evil motives for wanting someone to suffer are presumably hard to come by. And David said: > Aha! So, as Snape was offing Dumbledore, he could have been > getting the necessary magical extermination energy (or whatever it > is) by thinking "that's for *you*, Voldemort!" Quite possibly, which would explain Snape's look of hatred and revulsion while casting the AK. (Or maybe Snape got the proper motivation by thinking, "Dumbledore, this is for all the times that you refused to punish that wretched James Potter and his brat." Just kidding. I hope.) Siriusly -- er, *seriously*, though, one would expect Snape to have a lot of experience summoning up emotions that he didn't really feel at the time. It would be very convenient -- necessary, really -- for him to call up hatred of Dumbledore and Harry every time he was with Voldemort. So, presumably Snape had lots of practice in forcing himself to feel hatred. (Which is one of the reasons I can't fully blame him for how mean he often is -- his job as double agent requires him to nurse his grudges.) I, of course, am a big supporter of Loyal!Snape. As for the question of whether Dumbledore & Snape planned DD's death in advance, my theory is that Dumbledore told Snape, early on in the events of Book 6, that Snape would have to kill him, but Snape kept refusing, which is why Hagrid heard them argue. At the time of the Tower scene, Snape still hadn't agreed to kill Dumbledore -- which is why Dumbledore was pleading with him. -- Judy From Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 10 17:24:37 2005 From: Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid (S A H Culfeather) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:24:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050910172437.73274.qmail@...> Neri wrote: A week away and so much Old Crowd to read - you've all been busy!! Whatever else you believe about the AK - real or not - I like to think Snape deliberately reomved DD from the tower to protect him in some way. Had he remained on top the other DE's might have been tempted to take the body - presumably to Voldie as evidence of his death - or mutilate it in some way and being a firm believer in Loyal!Snape I can't see him allowing the others to do this. Bad enough he had to despatch DD in this way without seeing worse happen to him Serena delurking briefly From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 10 18:33:50 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:33:50 -0000 Subject: Non Humans: (was: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3146 : << Interestingly, Jo's metaphysics are somewhat limited, if not tinged with with partiality. GoF chap. 14, The Unforgivable Curses. "The use of any one of them on *a fellow human being* is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." >> (Emphasis added, to remind all of Kneasy's point.) Last week I noticed that the hag Malodora Grymm has a Famous Witches and Wizards card. Today I checked The Lexicon for other non-humans with FW cards and found other hags, some goblins, some vampires, some giants. (Vampires crossed my mind during the week, when I heard something on the news about an Italian playing in US Open named Sanguinetti; I wondered if he were a vampire.) In GoF, Percy mentions "the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans ?" in reference to vampires. If they're non-wizards, why put them on Famous Wizards cards? I wonder how the wizard humans distinguish between non-humans and part-humans. I also wonder if hags are the females of a spedies whose males are called another name. Trolls? Ogres? From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 10 19:26:19 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:26:19 -0000 Subject: Non Humans: (was: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ > old_crowd/message/3146 : > > << Interestingly, Jo's metaphysics are somewhat limited, if not tinged > with with partiality. GoF chap. 14, The Unforgivable Curses. "The use > of any one of them on *a fellow human being* is enough to earn a life > sentence in Azkaban." >> (Emphasis added, to remind all of Kneasy's > point.) > > Last week I noticed that the hag Malodora Grymm has a Famous Witches > and Wizards card. Today I checked The Lexicon for other non-humans > with FW cards and found other hags, some goblins, some vampires, some > giants. (Vampires crossed my mind during the week, when I heard > something on the news about an Italian playing in US Open named > Sanguinetti; I wondered if he were a vampire.) > > In GoF, Percy mentions "the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard > Part-Humans ?" in reference to vampires. If they're non-wizards, > why put them on Famous Wizards cards? That's worth following up - for a nit-picker like me. I have to admit that I've never seen the FW cards, except for those repeated on Jo's site - at least I assume that they feature the same characters and haven't been specially composed. No, that isn't the nit-pick, this is- It's canon that non-humans aren't allowed wands. How then can they become witches and wizards? Magical they may be, even Dobby is magical - but is he a wizard? > > I also wonder if hags are the females of a spedies whose males are > called another name. Trolls? Ogres? Could be a case of Jo playing around with mythology to suit her own purposes. Wouldn't be the first time - traditional ghouls don't hang around attics banging on pipes and eating moths, they're found down in the graveyard lunching on the dearly-departed. Trad hags are evil old women, sorceresses thought to be in league with the devil, or alternatively nasty sprites, elves or goblins; depends which mythology you consult. Gliding, always-covered, raw meat eaters with infantiphagic enthusiasms seems to be Jo's twist. The possible goblin connection is intriguing. Have we seen or heard of a female goblin? Extreme sexual dimorphism. Possible, I suppose. I remember a post from way back, can't remember who from, where it was suggested that they shared an evolutionary line with Dementors. Mostly it was based on locomotion and the fact that we've never seen one uncovered. Kneasy From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 10 21:02:11 2005 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:02:11 -0000 Subject: OT - Childhood Mistakes & Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > Hello, Eileen! > > Welcome to TOC! I remember you well from HPfGU. Ah, sigh, the days > of TBAY and Elkins... (By the way, has *anyone* heard from Elkins in > the past six months?) Yes, actually, I've been talking with her every day for about two weeks. She's not around in public, though. Yet, I hope. Eileen From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 02:33:05 2005 From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:33:05 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO?= Message-ID: Hello, folks, and many thanks to you all for allowing me to share board space with such distinguished posters -- particularly, I'm grateful to dear Jen Reese for recommending me for the invitation; I hope I can demonstrate adequately the soundness of her judgment! hg. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Sally Gallo ***Nicknames/IDs: hg; hermionegallo, gumshoe ***Age: 36 ***Family: Married, with 4 children ages 1 1/2 to almost 8. Various pets slimy, scaly, furry, too many in number to list. ***Home Virginia, USA, on a dead end street with a creek. ***Birthday, Place of Birth: March 14, Ohio ***Education/Job/Role in Life etc: I have a Bachelor's in Theatre; later I earned the equivalent of a Bachelor's in English, which qualified me for a masters program in Creative Writing -- my MFA is in playwriting. I am doing nothing notable with these credentials; my job is to raise my children. ***Other things we might want to know about you: I have a limited scope of reference -- I'm probably not as well-read as most of you -- but my imagination and logic very nearly should compensate for that shortcoming. I've been posting for over two years and was trained up on HP4GU. I'm an INFX -- that's equal parts P and J at the end. My oldest child is bipolar, and this doubles the isolation my husband and I already automatically experience as the parents of four small children: we have some limits on what activities we can expect to participate in and must actively manage our children perhaps more than the next parents. (I mostly don't regret it.) ***First contact with Harry Potter: Summer 1999, pregnant with my second child, I was approached by my husband with the first two books, who insisted that I must read them. We've eagerly awaited subsequent releases together, and I know I'm lucky that we both enjoy the series equally, even if our opinions sometimes differ. ***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets d'Art, general enthusing): Order of the Phoenix was my favorite book. I love the old guys, the history; I love the pace of that book, the time taken, the excessive length (yes). HBP was nicely pared down for more rapid pace and for the purpose of getting the information out (and so much of it) -- but it seemed she trimmed too much in some areas. Not a big shipper; it's fun but not the meat of it for me. Moody and Slughorn interest me more, and the Longbottoms, and Lily. ***Extent of Potter obsession: I spent several months post-OoP compiling an obscene number of possible anagrams for "Droobles Best Blowing Gum." ***Other interests/activities: nature walks with our children, photography ***Current/recent reading: Either it's books my children have chosen (these range from board books to field guides of reptiles and amphibians in North America) or reference books I've chosen in an effort to better my children's lives. I've got quite a nice little library of those. "Systemic Parenting" by Mark Gaskill is particularly good; and I enjoyed "Upside-down Brilliance: the Visual-Spatial Learner" (Silverman), although I gained nothing from that to help me help my son. (He's brilliant, and he's often upside-down, but otherwise I saw myself in the book more than him.) ***Current/recent listening: When I have a choice, music or silence, I choose silence. Before my children I was not this way. ***Current/recent viewing: Law & Order: Criminal Intent and Monk, both of which used to be good but have gone downhill. Otherwise, it's 64 Zoo Lane, Thomas the Tank Engine, and Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter). From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 09:20:10 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:20:10 -0000 Subject: OT - Childhood Mistakes & Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > Hello, Eileen! > > > > Welcome to TOC! I remember you well from HPfGU. Ah, sigh, the days > > of TBAY and Elkins... (By the way, has *anyone* heard from Elkins > in > > the past six months?) > > Yes, actually, I've been talking with her every day for about two > weeks. She's not around in public, though. Yet, I hope. > > Eileen Eileen I would like to add my own welcome. Although I wasn't around when you were first posting, since then, for my sins, I've taken on a massive project to catalogue all past HPfGU posts (along with a group of about 20 other people, all of them members here). So far, we've got up to the point of OOP publication, and earlier here I reposted a link to your elegaic farewell to TBAY (61153). Absolutely no doubt that yours (and others) dialogues with Elkins are one of the treasures of the backlist, please tell her that if you are in contact. Carolyn From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 09:24:59 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:24:59 -0000 Subject: More Tarot (from a rank beginner) (Was Luna (was Re: A Simpler Scenario)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy re Luna: > As to 'does she add anything' - no, I don't think she does. Maybe she's due > for a moment or two of glory in book 7. > > > David, whose Monopoly spelt it 'jail' > > So does mine. > Perversity rules. > The OED: jail also goal. With a footnote: "In Britain goal is the spelling in > official use, but both goal and jail are in literary use." > Is Monopoly literary? Now there's a question. I don't know if Monopoly's literary (I highly doubt it), but my OED spells it "gaol". Though I would have said the *usual* British spelling was "jail". Curious. Anyway, that was just an aside. Luna does seem to fit into the Tarot theme that's developed (or that we have noticed) lately in the series. Superficially, she's just "loony", but she actually shares many of the charateristics indicated by the Moon card, particularly the tendency to believe in illusions. I haven't looked closely at her relationship with Harry, but their first meeting is also associated with one of the other actions of the card (being fearful or overcome by anxiety) as Harry falters when he realises that the others can't see the Thestrals and begins to doubt himself. The opposing card is, of course, the Sun and I was also struck by the image of Dumbledore that Harry encounters when he barged into his office on that last fateful night. He is staring out of the window into the sunset (well, he's looking at the grounds and Fawkes'eyes are gleaming gold in reflected light, which suggests the office is suffused with the light of the setting sun), as indeed he is when he sends Harry out to collect his Cloak. The Sun, with its connotations of enlightenment, experiencing greatness, vitality and having confidence seems an appropriate image at this point. Of course the question is, was Dumbledore filled with false confidence, or was he looking beyond the mere retrieval of the locket to a greater plan which he did actually enable that night? ~Eloise From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 15:53:09 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:53:09 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "hg_skmg" wrote: > Hello, folks, and many thanks to you all for allowing me to share > board space with such distinguished posters.... Jen: So glad you made it, hg. I didn't see your name in the membership list for a bit after the invite--figured it was those four kids keeping you busy ;). Btw, I don't think we've had much discussion on Slughorn at TOC yet; hopefully you'll have time to put something together? Reading analysis at hpfgu has me wondering about his role in book 7. > hg:Order of the Phoenix was my favorite book. I love the old guys, > the history; I love the pace of that book, the time taken, the > excessive length (yes). HBP was nicely pared down for more rapid > pace and for the purpose of getting the information out (and so > much of it) -- but it seemed she trimmed too much in some areas. Jen: The feel of OOTP reminded me of the I-ching hexagram, Stagnation: "The forces in nature are in a state of perfect and undiscriminating impasse, there is no responsive action between things, and nothing productive can be accomplished. The lines of communication are down. Because of this there is no understanding of what is needed, and growth cannot continue." (I-Ching, R.L. Wing). I found OOTP difficult to read on an emotional level, even though I could appreciate JKR introducing Harry to the MOM and St. Mungos, and especially liked the opening sequence with the dementors, Mrs. Figg revealing herself and Petunia revealing *herself* to be a little more knowledgeable than previously thought. Since I'm terribly predictable and love treatise on human behavior, HBP was a joy to read. Finally understanding how Riddle evolved into Voldemort, learning where he's strong and where he's weak, opened up the series again for me. Probably why I've been on a posting binge and trying to rein myself in. :) hg: > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > I spent several months post-OoP compiling an obscene number of > possible anagrams for "Droobles Best Blowing Gum." Jen: Did you think when JKR shut off speculation about the sweet wrappers, she was also sending a message that neither of the Longbottoms, specifically Alice, will ever make a partial recovery? I've been holding out hope, but when JKR compared that scene to the story of a woman with Alzheimer's & noted it as a 'character moment', there seemed to be a certain finality to it. Just as magic can't bring someone back from the dead, there are also magical afflictions the WW can't cure. Wah. Jen, wondering where posts go when you hit 'send' and get re- directed to the password page, then sent to the Yahoo homepage? It's a mystery, like losing socks in the dryer. From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 18:44:13 2005 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:44:13 -0400 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a05091111441cc4b3fe@...> Kneasy: Death doesn't seem to be such a big deal in HP. The loss of the Stone means sure and certain death for the Flamels. Does anyone care much? Apparently not. It's treated as no more than an interesting change of circumstance; not an end but a phase boundary. Debbie: That may be what Flamel and DD think, but for many of the WW, death is a *huge* deal. Hogwarts is full of ghosts who could not face death. The MoM fears death sufficiently that it has decreed that AK is so unforgivable that the perpetrator deserves to spend the rest of his life with the Dementors at Azkaban. Kneasy: "There are worse things than death, Tom." Debbie: Indeed there are. Ask Barty Crouch Jr. But many in the WW have yet to learn that lesson, and it is those people who are most vulnerable to Voldemort. Surely that is what Wormtail fears most ("'You don't understand!" whispered Pettigrew. 'He would have killed me, Sirius!"). Willingness to die for what is right, OTOH, marks someone as Good. Harry, for example, marked by Fawkes as "pure in heart." Or Sirius, despite his manifold faults ("Then you should have died . . . rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you.") And, of course, Dumbledore. Kneasy: And glugging down that potion could well have been one of them. Debbie: Yes. See Dementor references above. Kneasy: In which case death would be an escape, a release. I appreciate that there are fans who don't agree, but death, in some circumstances, is the merciful option. And if a helping hand is needed? Fine. If I can't manage it myself, I hope there's someone around to help me when things get really bad. Debbie: So you think DD was begging Snape to put him out of his misery? That doesn't seem very . . . noble. I'm more inclined to the view that it was part of the Grand Plan, in which DD died to save both Snape and Draco. The entire Tower scene was one massive delaying tactic by engaging Draco, and then the DEs, in conversation until Snape arrived to do the deed in accordance with the Plan, allowing Draco to escape with his soul intact. Pippin: But I want it to be a fake AK because I don't think you can use one to kill a person without evil intent. After all, the wizards have lots of potentially fatal spells at their disposal. Debbie: Borrowing from what Bellatrix says about Cruciatus, "you need to mean them . . . you need to really want to cause pain . . . righteous anger won't hurt [me] for long." So for AK to be effective, you need to mean to kill. But Bella acknowledged that she derived *some* hurt from Harry's Crucio. It just didn't last long. So why wouldn't righteous anger ? or any anger ? be enough to fuel an AK? It may not last long, but it would last long enough to do the trick. Surely Snape wasn't lacking in anger that could be channeled into a powerful AK. Anger at Narcissa for getting him into this situation in the first place, for example. But I have another question. Assuming the AK was real, did that action split Snape's soul, if he killed DD to further DD's agenda, and with his full understanding and permission? Slughorn tells us that soul-splitting only occurs in the commission of "the supreme act of evil. By committing murder." Murder. Not killing. Not AK, either. He then states that "[k]illing rips the soul apart," but the statement is made in the context of the previous sentence. Murder, which is what Slughorn says tears the soul, turns on the killer's intent, not on the choice of weapon. A club would be just as effective at tearing the soul as AK. Based on what Slughorn says, . I think a good case can be made that Snape did not further damage his soul by killing DD, depending on his motive. There's an embedded assumption in the WW's labeling of AK as "unforgivable" that killing another human being is inherently evil, but it's not borne out by reality. The label is meaningful in applying the WW legal system, but WW law is not necessarily based on the magical principles underlying the AK spell. Even under WW law, there must be exceptions; otherwise, how could Crouch Sr. Have authorized the use of Unforgivables on suspects? Surely he didn't order the Aurors to split their souls. Jen: We may get more about the nuances of killing in self defense, or mercy killing or killing in a time of war. Some explanation of Snape's AK could help this part of the story along. Debbie: Yes, though Snape's soul is undoubtedly already plenty damaged. Jen: But in the end I don't think Harry will kill him in a traditional way. Debbie: I think the morality of killing Voldemort to save the WW will not be presented in more than a theoretical sense. And this brings me to Anne's dilemma. Anne: In OoP, Harry heard the prophecy. Not only did he find out why LV wanted to kill him, he also found out that (supposedly) Harry was the *only* one who *could* kill LV. So, things went from "somebody's got to stop him" to "I've got to stop him." So in HBP, DD explains that the prophecy did not have to come true; that the reason it does seem to be coming true is that LV believes it and acts accordingly; that Harry has free choice in the matter. DD asks Harry what his choice is, and Harry replies he'd like to kill LV. My problem? I thought that in OoP it wasn't the idea of "destiny" that bothered Harry so much, it was the idea that he would either kill or be killed. Then in HBP, DD takes away the idea of destiny. But where did the angst about killing go? Was it ever there, or did I read OoP wrong? It's the process of Harry reconciling himself to killing that we never see Debbie: It seems that Harry's epiphany occurred right there in ch. 23. "He thought of his mother, his father and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat. 'I'd want him finished,' Harry said quietly. 'And I'd want to do it.'" What I don't understand is how Harry has really upgraded his task from a necessity to a choice. Harry is *not* "free to turn [his] back on the prophecy." He doesn't really have much choice except to decide how he will approach the confrontation that Voldemort is insisting on ("the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high"). In GoF, Harry *was* dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death, but still he held his head high. From ch. 34: "[H]e was going to die, and there was nothing he could do about it . . . but he wasn't going to play along. He wasn't going to obey Voldemort . . . he wasn't going to beg . . . " and "He was not going to die crouching here like a child playing hide-and-seek; he was not going to die kneeling at Voldemort's feet . . . he was going to die upright like his father, and he was going to die trying to defend himself, even if no defense was possible . . . " The only difference is Harry's knowledge of the prophecy. Without knowing the prophecy, he might be satisfied with escaping him again, or he'd want to bring Voldemort in alive and send him to Azkaban. Even so, he doesn't say he would want Voldemort killed, only finished. Pippin: For Harry to kill Voldemort because the prophecy said he must, which was the situation as he understood it at the end of OOP, would be murder. "Yeah, your Supreme Mugwumpness, I did it because Trelawney said I had to." "Sure, kid. Here's your order of Merlin, and a writ of committment to St Mungo's." Can't have people running around killing because they heard voices, after all. To challenge Voldemort because Voldemort is trying to kill him, and will kill others as he killed Harry's parents if he isn't stopped, makes it different. But isn't this what Harry articulated all the way back in PS/SS? Harry wasn't ever going to kill Voldemort because the prophecy said so. He assumed he would have to kill or be killed along with the others who resisted, as well as many that did not. At the end of OOP, Harry felt resigned to his burden because of the Prophecy. But his understanding of what he needs to do and why has not changed. If it's not murder now, it wasn't murder then. David: The classic way to deal with this is for Voldemort's own plans to somehow recoil upon his own head, triggered in some way be Harry's presence or intervention, hostile to Voldemort, yes, but not directly aimed at his life at that point. Not sure how I feel about that one. Debbie: I think I would likely feel cheated by that outcome, too. But even if Harry has reconciled himself to killing, he has not faced down the ethical issue of its appropriateness. In the past, Harry has always responded to each confrontation with Voldemort by using non-lethal weapons. He touched Quirrell, used Expelliarmus in the graveyard, and dove behind a statue in OOP. In CoS, he destroyed a Hoarcrunch, but unknowingly, and because there are more, it was not fatal. As a result, I find it hard to believe that when the time comes, he will simply pull out his wand and yell "Adavra Kedavra!" in righteous anger, even though I accept that it sometimes becomes necessary to kill to protect the greater good. I think Harry would find any use of Voldemort's methods repulsive. Harry might kill him inadvertently, as he destroyed Diary!Tom. Or he could sacrifice himself. This is why I like Hx!Harry theories; it would allow Harry to kill Voldemort by allowing Voldemort to kill him ("either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives"). Debbie who was drafting a further response on Hoarcrunch!Harry but thought too much time had passed to post it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 19:04:43 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:04:43 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Alice_and_Frank_(_wasRe:_THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: Did you think when JKR shut off speculation about the sweet > wrappers, she was also sending a message that neither of the > Longbottoms, specifically Alice, will ever make a partial recovery? > Potioncat: That's what hit me. Up till then, I thought Alice and Frank were still in there somewhere, and they'd find a way out. Only, I hadn't realised that was what I thought. It was a very final moment. All the time Frank and Alice should have been a reminder to us that in war not everyone dies a heroic death, although still heroes, and not everyone comes back whole. Instead, many of us were cheerfully hunting for the hidden code that would make everything OK. Potioncat From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 19:29:15 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:29:15 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05091111441cc4b3fe@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > Kneasy: > Death doesn't seem to be such a big deal in HP. > The loss of the Stone means sure and certain death for the Flamels. > Does anyone care much? Apparently not. It's treated as no more > than an interesting change of circumstance; not an end but a phase > boundary. > > Debbie: > That may be what Flamel and DD think, but for many of the WW, death is a > *huge* deal. Hogwarts is full of ghosts who could not face death. The MoM > fears death sufficiently that it has decreed that AK is so unforgivable that > the perpetrator deserves to spend the rest of his life with the Dementors at > Azkaban. The ghosts - is it death they can't face -or what happens after death? A subtle but significant distinction, I think, but from hints dropped it's the latter. An unwillingness to take the next step. AKs are evil. Except when the Ministry says it's OK. Has Moody's soul split because he killed DEs that who would rather die than surrender? Does Moody beat his breast, crying "Mea culpa!"? Nope. Mostly he acts as if it were a distasteful but necessary part of the job. If it was all cooked up beforehand between DD and Snape, is there any real difference? > So you think DD was begging Snape to put him out of his misery? That doesn't > seem very . . . noble. I'm more inclined to the view that it was part of the > Grand Plan, in which DD died to save both Snape and Draco. The entire Tower > scene was one massive delaying tactic by engaging Draco, and then the DEs, > in conversation until Snape arrived to do the deed in accordance with the > Plan, allowing Draco to escape with his soul intact. Why should it need to be noble? Indeed, if the Puppetmaster!DD theories are accurate DD has done much which is not very noble - but absolutely essential. These are the hard choices that distinguish a realist from a poseur, and the desperate defender of literally thousands of lives from someone who wants to be well thought of. But if you insist on nobility - is it more noble to be zapped by a traitor or to ensure removal of oneself from the game because from now on one might be a danger to one's own side? Cling to some form of existence by one's finger- nails come what may - or accept that it's time to go? Which is more noble? For all that DD irritates me when he slaps the on bullshit two feet thick, I think that this little episode was foreseen as a possibility and that it had been pre-arranged in case DD came up against something ultra-nasty but not immediately terminal while chasing down Hossclicks. The withered hand would have been fair warning - he only survived that because of prompt action by Snapey. He'd have to be pretty dim not to envision a potentially worse encounter with Voldy Dark Magic and take appropriate precautions. So, get back to Hoggers and when someone is about to open the door - freeze Harry. He expected Snape and he expected Snape to do the business, but he had to make sure Harry didn't interfere. But it wasn't Snape. Complications ensue, but the end result was what he wanted. Kneasy From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 19:39:34 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:39:34 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05091111441cc4b3fe@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > Debbie: > That may be what Flamel and DD think, but for many of the WW, death > is a *huge* deal. There's also a distinction to be made between dying and killing. Death may not be something evil to be feared, but neither is it something to be embraced before one's time--and most of all, it is not the place of any human to send another into death. If I were less lazy, I'd dig up the interview quotes wherein JKR discusses how what makes Voldemort evil is how he kills, and how evil it is to take a human life. But having nearly been flooded at 4:30 this morning, I'm not feeling in the research sort of mood. > Debbie: > But I have another question. Assuming the AK was real, did that > action split Snape's soul, if he killed DD to further DD's agenda, > and with his full understanding and permission? Slughorn tells us > that soul-splitting only occurs in the commission of "the supreme > act of evil. By committing murder." Murder. Not killing. Not AK, > either. He then states that "[k]illing rips the soul apart," but > the statement is made in the context of the previous sentence. Heh, I don't read the passage that way--I read it as a return to a categorical statement. Murder is a supreme act of evil, but all killing tears at the soul. I don't think you can use AK without explicit intent to kill, and I think that is an action of categorical evil. However, I think that there are times that evil can be mitigated--but it doesn't negate the horror of the act. Particularly one that is carried out through the perfect transformation of intention into magic. > There's an embedded assumption in the WW's labeling of AK > as "unforgivable" that killing another human being is inherently > evil, but it's not borne out by reality. The label is meaningful in > applying the WW legal system, but WW law is not necessarily based > on the magical principles underlying the AK spell. Even under WW > law, there must be exceptions; otherwise, how could Crouch Sr. Have > authorized the use of Unforgivables on suspects? Surely he didn't > order the Aurors to split their souls. You wouldn't put that past Crouch Sr.? I would. His actions are definitely portrayed as excessive, bringing evil into the ranks of those who are supposed to be fighting it. He stepped across a line that should have been held. I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that killing is categorically wrong. Then the interest comes in dealing with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad necessities, mending torn souls, etc. To take away the essence of AK as willing death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, I don't see it. -Nora could cheerfully be very wrong and admits it freely From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 20:38:32 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:38:32 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: >and most of all, it is not the place of any human to send another into death. Lyn now: Perhaps in your belief system, but I am happy it is not the belief of those soldiers fighting to protect us, or the police sniper that takes out the bad guy about to kill a hostage. "I've been trained to do the latter, and while I'd just as soon the situation never came up, I would very much see it as my place and indeed my obligation "to send another into death" under those circumstances. It is clear, at least to me, that Harry does as well, as evidenced by his actions and reactions in COS among others. > > If I were less lazy, I'd dig up the interview quotes wherein JKR > discusses how what makes Voldemort evil is how he kills, and how evil > it is to take a human life. But having nearly been flooded at 4:30 > this morning, I'm not feeling in the research sort of mood. Lyn again; I would suggest that reading the entire body of JKRs work and statements indicates that she has a more complex view of causing death. One example is her generally sympathetic portayal of Moody and her open discussion that he had killed in the performance of his duties. > > > Debbie: > > But I have another question. Assuming the AK was real, did that > > action split Snape's soul, if he killed DD to further DD's agenda, > > and with his full understanding and permission? Slughorn tells us > > that soul-splitting only occurs in the commission of "the supreme > > act of evil. By committing murder." Murder. Not killing. Not AK, > > either. He then states that "[k]illing rips the soul apart," but > > the statement is made in the context of the previous sentence. > > Heh, I don't read the passage that way--I read it as a return to a > categorical statement. Murder is a supreme act of evil, but all > killing tears at the soul. Lyn again: At this point, Rowling just hasn't developed enough what she means by having one's sole ripped, and the possible ramifications. The only clear consequence of a soul being ripped that she has presented thus far is actually one of utility, the ability to make a Hx. She implies that a ripped soul is bad, but she has yet to demonstrate in what way it is bad for one. She has definitely left open that one can do good whether or not one's soul has been ripped. > > I don't think you can use AK without explicit intent to kill, and I > think that is an action of categorical evil. However, I think that > there are times that evil can be mitigated--but it doesn't negate the > horror of the act. Particularly one that is carried out through the > perfect transformation of intention into magic. Lyn now: This my be your personal horror, and one you share with some others, but it is not a universal horror. I've known lots of folks who have killed while carrying out their responsibilities. A few were troubled by it, but the vast majority were not. Not because they took the act lightly, but because they felt their action resulting in a much greater good, particularly when they spared the life of an innocent or a comrade. With respect to HP, his knowledge of the damage LV has caused others, motivates him to assume the responsibility for putting an end to his harm. As I've said before, Harry has always been willing to do what was necessary to deter TR/LV from harming others, regardless of the cost to himself. What is only slightly new in HBP is how he individually assumes the responsibility for putting an end to LV's ability to harm. > > > > > You wouldn't put that past Crouch Sr.? I would. His actions are > definitely portrayed as excessive, bringing evil into the ranks of > those who are supposed to be fighting it. He stepped across a line > that should have been held. > Lyn now: But the context was not just the methods, but the reasons behind the methods. Crouch was employing and commanding those methods prinicipally for his own present and future political advantage, under the subtrefuge that they were for the benefit of others. In general, JKR tends to portray government officials this way. Harry is usually portrayed quite differently. Harry's actions are displayed as arising from a concern for others, and only rarely is he shown to act from direct self interest (the potions book being perhaps the greatest exception). > I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that > killing is categorically wrong. Then the interest comes in dealing > with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad necessities, > mending torn souls, etc. To take away the essence of AK as willing > death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, I don't see it. Lyn now: Possible, and you demonstrate how it could be handled with some interest, but I will be disappointed if JKR emphasizes such a view. Of course most of us would like to see our personal ethics be confirmed in the series. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 20:48:57 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:48:57 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > Lyn again: > At this point, Rowling just hasn't developed enough what she means > by having one's sole ripped, and the possible ramifications. The > only clear consequence of a soul being ripped that she has > presented thus far is actually one of utility, the ability to make > a Hx. She implies that a ripped soul is bad, but she has yet to > demonstrate in what way it is bad for one. She has definitely left > open that one can do good whether or not one's soul has been > ripped. A ripped sole is generally bad for walking on. :) Not fully developed, no--but it does fit in with her essentialist ideas. I'm thinking of PoA, and the whole thing there with the removal of the soul being a fate worse than death. It's clearly some sort of thing, and to damage/remove it is to do something horrible to a person as a person. >> Nora: >> I can easily envision a grand law of Potterverse ethics being that >> killing is categorically wrong. Then the interest comes in >> dealing with it, the whole issue of lesser of two evils, bad >> necessities, mending torn souls, etc. To take away the essence of >> AK as willing death upon another being as a fundamental act...eh, >> I don't see it. > Lyn now: > Possible, and you demonstrate how it could be handled with some > interest, but I will be disappointed if JKR emphasizes such a view. > Of course most of us would like to see our personal ethics be > confirmed in the series. Well, wouldn't we all. I gave up on that in this series a long time ago, so everything I posted upthread is me calling it how I see it in what Rowling is writing. Doesn't mean that I *like* it. -Nora goes out to enjoy some daylight while it lasts From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 21:01:13 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:01:13 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" > wrote: > > > > > Lyn again: > > At this point, Rowling just hasn't developed enough what she means > > by having one's sole ripped, and the possible ramifications. The > > only clear consequence of a soul being ripped that she has > > presented thus far is actually one of utility, the ability to make > > a Hx. She implies that a ripped soul is bad, but she has yet to > > demonstrate in what way it is bad for one. She has definitely left > > open that one can do good whether or not one's soul has been > > ripped. > > A ripped sole is generally bad for walking on. :) Lyn: How embarassing---and funny! > > Not fully developed, no--but it does fit in with her essentialist > ideas. I'm thinking of PoA, and the whole thing there with the > removal of the soul being a fate worse than death. It's clearly some > sort of thing, and to damage/remove it is to do something horrible to > a person as a person. > Lyn: This is actually a very interesting point for me. As Rowling seems to mix mind and conciousness into her conceptualization of the soul, then it would seem the remaining body would rather be without the ability to appreciate any problem, or loss, or future. If so, in and of itself it doesn't seem that such an existence would be subject to any pain or trouble. So thus, the awfullness of the fate can only be with respect to some lost afterlife, which at least thus far JKR has (mercifully IMO) been rather vague and ambigous about. From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 21:16:27 2005 From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:27 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: So glad you made it, hg...Btw, I don't think we've had much > discussion on Slughorn at TOC yet; hopefully you'll have time to put something together? Reading analysis at hpfgu has me wondering about his role in book 7. hg: Oh, I will, I have plenty of thoughts about Slughorn. I'll read through the list and see how to fit some of my ideas into established discussion. Jen: > Since I'm terribly predictable and love treatise on human behavior, > HBP was a joy to read. Finally understanding how Riddle evolved into Voldemort, learning where he's strong and where he's weak, opened up the series again for me. Probably why I've been on a posting binge and trying to rein myself in. :) hg: That was what I enjoyed best about HBP (and of course Slughorn). Yet I was sad that Voldemort, Snape and Draco becoming well-rounded came at the expense of an almost short-hand expression (IMO) of some of the other characters, notably Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville, even Ginny. But starting the book out directing us to suspect that anyone could be not who they appear to be -- with the Ministry leaflet, the discussion of code-phrases, and Slughorn's chair impersonation -- drew me in entirely and gave me plenty to chew on. > > hg: > > ***Extent of Potter obsession: > > I spent several months post-OoP compiling an obscene number of > > possible anagrams for "Droobles Best Blowing Gum." > > Jen: Did you think when JKR shut off speculation about the sweet > wrappers, she was also sending a message that neither of the > Longbottoms, specifically Alice, will ever make a partial recovery? > I've been holding out hope, but when JKR compared that scene to the > story of a woman with Alzheimer's & noted it as a 'character > moment', there seemed to be a certain finality to it. Just as magic > can't bring someone back from the dead, there are also magical > afflictions the WW can't cure. Wah. hg: Oh, yes, I agree. Reading that in the interview was so discouraging. All that hard work down the drain...and all that hope I invested in poor Alice and Frank. But what I find more disturbing about the Longbottoms now, after HBP, is that it seems Dumbledore never went to see if there were any retrievable memories in their brains, like with Morfin and Hokey. I think that if there were anything useful, it could have been related to knowledge of Horcruxes (the DEs had come to the Longbottoms looking for info about the whereabouts of Voldemort) and then would have been conveyed to Harry in the course of HBP. Regardless of Horcruxes, if Dumbledore didn't ever try to gain any memories from them, why? And why didn't he ever go interview Sirius in Azkaban, as he did with Morfin? It makes me wonder...I'll have to poke around the list and see if anyone has been dishwashing... hg. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 11 21:37:33 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:37:33 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote: > Lyn: > So thus, the awfullness of the fate can only be with respect to some > lost afterlife, which at least thus far JKR has (mercifully IMO) been > rather vague and ambigous about. There may be no pain and suffering per se, but there is the loss of one's personness, which is often considered bad in many value systems. But the afterlife...do you really think *nothing* is coming in that category? Dead never leave us, voices behind the veil, some religious connotations that she won't talk about until after book 7? -Nora puts all that firmly in the category of sees it, if don't like it From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 01:09:54 2005 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:09:54 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sally: Hello, folks, and many thanks to you all for allowing me to share board space with such distinguished posters -- particularly, I'm grateful to dear Jen Reese for recommending me for the invitation; I hope I can demonstrate adequately the soundness of her judgment! hg. THE OLD CROWD ? INTRO ***Name: Sally Gallo Snow: Hello Sally and welcome to, what my daughter refers to as, the popular table. It's a small amount of people who take Potter seriously but not to the extent of excluding enjoyment. Sally: ***Other things we might want to know about you: I have a limited scope of reference -- I'm probably not as well-read as most of you -- but my imagination and logic very nearly should compensate for that shortcoming. Snow: I think I might have you on this one. I don't have time or patience just to read, a writer must be capable of intrigue from the get go but more than that, he/she must have the ability to make me believe that they are conversing with me personally. Drawing me into the story as if I am the only one he/she is speaking to. A place where you forget that you are reading and you have now become part of the story itself. So utterly attached. There aren't many books that can persuade a person to this degree so my library is limited. But as you say imagination and logic can defiantly compensate for the lack Sally: My oldest child is bipolar, and this doubles the isolation my husband and I already automatically experience as the parents of four small children: we have some limits on what activities we can expect to participate in and must actively manage our children perhaps more than the next parents. (I mostly don't regret it.) Snow: I can defiantly sympathize with your restraints. Twenty years ago I became part of the yours mine and ours family with a moderately MR child of mine and a, yet discovered at the time, ADHD child of his plus...and an added blessing a few short years later to make things more pleasurable (and I'm not being sarcastic). No one knows till you lived it how horrific and at the same time genuinely satisfying it can be to deal with a child that has above the average needs. The emotional conflict between the two emotions can however be very trying at times and extremely hard to put into words that others could possibly understand. Sally: Order of the Phoenix was my favorite book. I love the old guys, the history; I love the pace of that book, the time taken, the excessive length (yes). HBP was nicely pared down for more rapid pace and for the purpose of getting the information out (and so much of it) -- but it seemed she trimmed too much in some areas. Not a big shipper; it's fun but not the meat of it for me. Moody and Slughorn interest me more, and the Longbottoms, and Lily. Snow: If there is one old guy I liked from OOP it would have to be dear Archie who needed to air his privates. I never laughed so hard. It was just so real a statement coming from an old man that never had such restraint thrust upon him. I am totally in agreement over the Longbottoms, there has to be more there than 'she' is willing to tell us yet because Neville has been such a big part of the series, it only follows that his parents would have some important role to play. My favorite theory is that Lily worked with Alice in the DOM and that's why the DE's tortured her for information. As for Lily, well she is the innocent looking lady of the night. Everyone has loved Lily, from Voldemort to Peter to Snape (being the most popular) to Lupin (Too Eww to be treww, and responding threads a long time ago, in a catalogue coming soon for your pleasure). Don't you know why Harry has so much money in his vault? Sally: ***Current/recent listening: When I have a choice, music or silence, I choose silence. Before my children I was not this way. Snow: Music has always saved me it IS my silence. Although I like it played more loudly than the kids can say mum. It is one of my escapisms but then again that was true before my kids. Sally: ***Current/recent viewing: Law & Order: Criminal Intent and Monk, both of which used to be good but have gone downhill. Otherwise, it's 64 Zoo Lane, Thomas the Tank Engine, and Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter). Snow: I do recognize the last two but the first one must be something too much like real life. I figure if I have to live it, why on earth should I be entertained to watch it. Just me, entertainment must be of equal gratitude to the expectation I feel I should receive from books, therefore I don't watch much either. Snow From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 02:06:06 2005 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:06:06 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Horcrux? Message-ID: The problem with Horcrux's is that no one seems to know for sure what would happen if you split your soul more than twice or if you used a soul-full container (such as Harry who already has one) as a Horcrux. With such lack of information anything is possible. We have known since COS that Voldy left a bit of himself in Harry. This statement by Dumbledore appears to assure us that Harry could be a possible Horcrux: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." COS pg. 333 U.S. Well there you have it, Voldemort putting a piece of himself in an object equals Horcrux or does it? Did Voldemort intend on supplying infant Harry with a bit of his soul? Intent must be a factor in making a Horcrux; the story thus far has held "intent" in the highest regard. (You must mean what you are saying if you expect results from unforgivable curses. You must say the incantation correctly to produce the effect; Wingardium Leviosa) According to Dumbledore, same page as previous quote, "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure " So without intent could Voldemort have turned Harry into a soul- containing Horcrux? Well maybe unintentionally The dearly beloved prophecy tells us that The Dark Lord will mark "him" as his equal. Did Voldemort intend on marking the baby as his equal? Very doubtful I would think. Now we are back to the fact that Harry 'Does' have a bit of Voldemort, in fact more than a bit at least half would make Harry equal to Voldemort. So how did Harry unintentionally obtain any of Voldemort? I'd like to take you all for a little trip inside my own Pencieve to some of my earlier posts on this very subject. From Sept. of last year on Hpfgu post # 112723 snipped: "Voldemort's plan may have been to go to GH and kill the prophecy child but once Voldemort had destroyed Harry's protectors, James and Lily, he had an opportunity to observe the child before he killed him. It was just Voldemort and baby Harry starring at each other Legilemency. Snape said in the Occlumency chapter "It (Legilemency) is the ability to extract feelings and memories from another person's mind." (Not just looking into someone's mind but to extract from the mind.) When Harry used the `protection' spell, Protego, during Occlumency lessons with Snape, Snape's memories were the ones that were extracted and seen by Harry in Harry's mind. Lily had used a type of protection spell, which could have acted somewhat the same way as Harry's Protego. When Voldemort made the attempt at killing Harry, Voldemort may have been looking into Harry's eyes (Lily's eyes) and instead of Harry receiving Voldemort's memories he received some of Voldemort's powers that could not return to its own body where it belonged because the curse he had used already rebounded at the same time, which meant there was no body to go back to." Next Pencieve post #113490 snipped: "I still think Lily used a shield charm of protection like the protego charm that Harry used against Snape during Occlumency (difference being she used herself as the shield of protection, hence the blood protection). The effect, if Lily had used this same type charm, could have had somewhat the same effect as in the lesson with Snape except that Harry retained the part of Voldemort that rebounded (like Snape's memory). Voldemort clearly did not protect his mortal body with his endeavors to insure immortality. The killing curse ripped Voldemort from his body but his soul, or being, was protected through his attempts at assuring himself immortality. If you look back at the incident in Occlumency with Snape, Snape says `ENOUGH' before his memories, that Harry is viewing, are returned to him which left Snape shaking slightly and white in the face as if it were an effort. Harry also had a staggering effect from this encounter. Voldemort's body would have been separated from Voldemort's being before he could have retaliated against Harry's protection to stop the process. With no body in which to perform the command, Harry retained part of Voldemort. This Protego effect is only seen during the use of Legilemens from Snape on Harry therefore for this to be the effect that took place at GH, Voldemort would have had to be using Legilemens. I think it was...for several reasons: The constant reminder that there is something about Lily's eyes and Harry's (you need eye contact in Legilemency) along with the description of the effect that is produced when both spells are used. I don't see Voldemort intentionally killing Harry, at least not right off. You would think that power hungry Voldemort would have been at least a little curious as to what this `power' was or if this baby indeed had any powers at all before proceeding to kill the child. I'm going to base my suspicions that Voldemort was curious on Diary Tom's curiosity of meeting with Harry for the same reasons; to see if there was anything special about him." The last back post was spawned by the above quoted thoughts which I entitled Satellite!Harry: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121617 And http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123332 These were all thoughts about a year ago that I favor even more since the latest book. Can it be concluded that Harry is indeed a Horcrux because he has some of Voldemort in him? I would have to say no, not intentionally or otherwise because, as I see it, Voldy is only sharing that last piece of soul with Harry. This is something he hadn't planned on or has yet to figure out. Sure, Voldemort has found that Harry has access to his thoughts but he doesn't know why, he doesn't fully understand the connection any more than Harry. (Now Dumbledore is the horse of a different color. Puppetmaster has nothing on this man even to the point of death all for the greater good of course) Book six shows absolutely no access to Voldemort's current thoughts and no searing scar pain to warn Harry. Voldemort knows that Harry has this ability, even if he doesn't know why, and has blocked Harry (probably through Occlumency) from gaining any knowledge of his current agenda. However, the book does carry on with the dark side of Harry's persona, which is the Voldemort connection. The Voldemort dark side that lies within Harry has shown increasingly clearer with each book and more so with the prominent presence of Voldemort. We can first take true notice of this dark side of Harry in Goblet and how it becomes much more noticeable in OOP. This dark side of Harry is still visible in HBP with Harry's attempts at an unforgivable (again) and his curiosity with the Prince and his handbook. This dark side behavior is not the natural Harry-gift that can subdue the Dark Lord for good, but rather an influence from an outward connection to an inward presence. This connection between Voldemort and Harry, although similar to being a Horcrux, is unique because Voldemort is still very much attached to the piece of soul that is shared by the two of them. Although Harry does have a Horcrux-like appearance, I don't believe that he will have to sacrifice himself to rid the final piece of Voldemort soul from his being. I think because it is a shared bit of soul, Harry's fight will really be internal. So much has been made of the importance of Harry learning Occlumency, even up to the end of HBP when Snape warns Harry of its importance yet again, that it will surely play a huge role in the finality. If Voldemort has any greater influence in Harry's thought processes than he had in OOP, via the connection, Harry will certainly need to stop such invasions through the use of the repeatedly important Occlumency. Why should Occlumency be so dire a request by Dumbledore and now Snape in his parting words unless, of course, it is essential to the final confrontation? If it is essential and both Snape and Dumbledore are aware of such, wouldn't it then follow that they have both been aware of the exact connection that Harry has with Voldemort? Why can't they tell Harry of this connection? I would have to say it's for the same obscure reason Dumbledore hesitates to allow Harry too much information on any given subject. "Figure it out for yourself Harry because it's your choice after all... wouldn't want to influence you beyond a few properly chosen hints. Harry pssst Occlumency." Well I think I've rambled on long enough for now. Snow?as always thinking too much From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 02:33:21 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:33:21 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" > wrote: > > > Lyn: > > So thus, the awfullness of the fate can only be with respect to some > > lost afterlife, which at least thus far JKR has (mercifully IMO) been > > rather vague and ambigous about. > > There may be no pain and suffering per se, but there is the loss of > one's personness, which is often considered bad in many value systems. Lyn now: Yes, it does seem to be a loss of sense of self. Indeed, the loss of sense of self is explored by JKR with respect to Gilderoy Lockhart as well, though through a different and slightly less drastic (but thus far no more reversible) means. But, there is no evidence that it is a painful one, quite the contrary, it seems rather like a morphine induced coma. So, the "awful" consequences of having one's soul sucked seem to be primarily two: the premature loss of one's functional life , which is little different than death; the other is the loss of a soul to take forward into an afterlife. Now Rowling teases us that there may be something significant in an afterlife, but she doesn't really offer much to make it compellingly appealing, either. The ghosts weren't so sure it was all that desirable, LV is quite convinced it isn't (and for all his faults, he is well informed and well educated), and it strongly appears that the principals of this series have given up their lives for the benefit of what is happening in this world, rather than because they were looking forward to what an afterlife held for them. So, I don't think JKR has yet made her case about why having one's soul sucked is a fate worse than death. Not that I recommend the practice. > > But the afterlife...do you really think *nothing* is coming in that > category? Dead never leave us, voices behind the veil, some religious > connotations that she won't talk about until after book 7? Lyn now: I'm not sure. I think it is likely, but not essential to a satisfying conclusion to the series. There are many plot components that appear likely to never be fleshed out, and these may not be as well. Frankly, to this point, JKR has shown nothing to make a wizard's afterlife seem appealing. Now just to go off on another tangent. I'm wondering if Draco will be the one to off LV. It would provide such interesting symmetry to the scene of him standing before DD and not being able to raise his wand to kill. I'd find it quite satisfying to see Draco be before a similarly compromised LV, and this time do the deed. After all, "Never tickle a sleeping dragon" and perhaps Draco is going to come to believe LV has "tickled" him way too much. In a way, Draco owes DD a "soul debt" and it should be interesting to see if he ever recognizes this, and pays it back. From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 12:10:57 2005 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:10:57 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a05091111441cc4b3fe@...> Message-ID: <80f25c3a050912051015b70084@...> > > Kneasy: The ghosts - is it death they can't face -or what happens after death? A subtle but significant distinction, I think, but from hints dropped it's the latter. An unwillingness to take the next step. Debbie: I hear what you're saying, but I think it amounts to the same thing: People fear death because they cannot face what happens next. Kneasy: AKs are evil. Except when the Ministry says it's OK. Has Moody's soul split because he killed DEs that who would rather die than surrender? Does Moody beat his breast, crying "Mea culpa!"? Nope. Mostly he acts as if it were a distasteful but necessary part of the job. If it was all cooked up beforehand between DD and Snape, is there any real difference? Debbie: The Ministry doesn't have the power to decide whether AK is evil, only when it will be punished. Could Moody have created a Horcrux after Rosier's death? It was in the line of duty and Moody implies that Rosier tried to take Moody along on the next great adventure. Was that a supreme act of evil? I think not. I wanted to construct another example of a *good* person killing in self-defense, which arguably is not a supreme act of evil, either. But, I seem to recall that no one in the Order casts any lethal spells anywhere in the books. Am I correct in this? Why should it need to be noble? > Indeed, if the Puppetmaster!DD theories are accurate DD has done much > which is not very noble - but absolutely essential. These are the hard > choices that distinguish a realist from a poseur, and the desperate > defender > of literally thousands of lives from someone who wants to be well thought > of. > > But if you insist on nobility - is it more noble to be zapped by a traitor > or to > ensure removal of oneself from the game because from now on one might be > a danger to one's own side? Cling to some form of existence by one's > finger- > nails come what may - or accept that it's time to go? Which is more noble? Debbie: I'm not a fan of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore; I just can't see him as a micromanager. But DD removing himself from the scene because his presence will hinder Harry is neither micromanaging nor puppetmastering. And it is noble in my book. For all that DD irritates me when he slaps the on bullshit two feet thick, I > think > that this little episode was foreseen as a possibility and that it had > been > pre-arranged in case DD came up against something ultra-nasty but not > immediately terminal while chasing down Hossclicks. The withered hand > would have been fair warning - he only survived that because of prompt > action by Snapey. He'd have to be pretty dim not to envision a potentially > worse encounter with Voldy Dark Magic and take appropriate precautions. Debbie: Which little episode? The near-lethal potion in the cave? Or Snape stepping into Chicken!Draco's shoes? I think it was much more convenient that DD was on the edge anyway, but I think DD agreed to this in advance in part for Snape, in part for Draco, and in part to get out of Harry's way because DD felt he'd just about outlived his usefulness. So, get back to Hoggers and when someone is about to open the door - > freeze Harry. He expected Snape and he expected Snape to do the business, > but he had to make sure Harry didn't interfere. But it wasn't Snape. > Complications ensue, but the end result was what he wanted. Debbie: Interesting. So you don't think he expected Draco? I assumed that once he saw the Dark Mark, he knew Draco would be waiting for his return. Well, if we all read the text the same way, there'd be nothing to talk about. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 13:17:56 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:17:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Alice_and_Frank/Legilimens_and_Memories_(_wasRe:_THE_OLD_CROWD_=96_INTRO)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen: > Did you think when JKR shut off speculation about the sweet > wrappers, she was also sending a message that neither of the > Longbottoms, specifically Alice, will ever make a partial > recovery? Potioncat: > That's what hit me. Up till then, I thought Alice and Frank were > still in there somewhere, and they'd find a way out. Only, I hadn't > realised that was what I thought. It was a very final moment. > > All the time Frank and Alice should have been a reminder to us > that in war not everyone dies a heroic death, although still > heroes, and not everyone comes back whole. Instead, many of us > were cheerfully hunting for the hidden code that would make > everything OK. Jen: That's a really sad thought, Potioncat. I *did* want them to be OK, for Neville, but like you said, and Kneasy points out in another thread, "hard choices dinstinguish a realist from a posuer," it's satisfying to know Frank and Alice were the Real Deal. I do wonder if their SK will have a role at all? Maybe not, since they were out of hiding before the torture. hg: > But what I find more disturbing about the Longbottoms now, after > HBP, is that it seems Dumbledore never went to see if there were > any retrievable memories in their brains, like with Morfin and > Hokey. I think that if there were anything useful, it could have > been related to knowledge of Horcruxes (the DEs had come to the > Longbottoms looking for info about the whereabouts of Voldemort) > and then would have been conveyed to Harry in the course of HBP. > Regardless of Horcruxes, if Dumbledore didn't ever try to gain > any memories from them, why? And why didn't he ever go interview > Sirius in Azkaban, as he did with Morfin? It makes me > wonder...I'll have to poke around the list and see if anyone has > been dishwashing... Jen: I have a boring answer, but I'll look to you to come up with an exciting one! DD has been shown to take memories from people willing to give them (Bob Ogden) or when a memory was implanted to clear a person wrongly accused (Morfin and Hokey). If Slughorn had willingly given him the Horcrux memory, it would be similar to Ogden, with the person giving permission. Then we have the Kreacher incident, where he used legilimency without consent. Now Sirius was unique in two ways. Even if extracting memories could possibly save him from Azkaban, he wasn't exactly thinking *rationally*. In his guilt over James and Lily, he didn't seem to want out of his punishment; he apparently could have escaped Azkaban much sooner if he wanted too, but didn't. And unlike Morfin and Hokey, DD had no reason to believe Sirius was innocent. Bottom-line-- DD didn't approach him, and it's doubtful Sirius would give his consent anyway. And as for the Longbottoms, I was left with the idea that they were totured so severely no real memories remained. Now another question: When exactly did Dumbledore begin his search into Voldemort's past? He mentions visiting Morfin in prison in the last weeks of his life, "by which time I was attempting to discover as much as I could about Voldemort's past." (chap. 17). He didn't start thinking about the Horcruxes until Harry brought him the diary in COS--was he putting together Voldemort's life a long time before this? Hokey sounded incredibly old at the time Voldemort murdered Hepzibah- -was it not long after, when Voldemort left B&B, that Dumbeldore started his search? Jen From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 14:40:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:40:42 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: Snow: > We have known since COS that Voldy left a bit of himself in Harry. > This statement by Dumbledore appears to assure us that Harry could be > a possible Horcrux: > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, > thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." COS pg. 333 U.S. > > Well there you have it, Voldemort putting a piece of himself in an > object equals Horcrux or does it? Did Voldemort intend on supplying > infant Harry with a bit of his soul? Geoff: If I may be a bit picky, you didn't give the full quote, which I think gives a slightly different spin on things. '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaning descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of those powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." ' (COS "Dobby's Reward" UK edition p.245) Dumbledore speaks of powers which to me smacks of intellect. It is Harry who uses the word "bit". Although Dumbledore seems to concur with Harry, there is probably no reason for him to play with semantics over Harry's words. We do know that he began to realise that Voldemort had created Horcruxes at about this time. 'Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshalling his thoughts and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered cetain proof that Voldemort had split his soul." "Where?" asked Harry. "How?" "You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddle's diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.467 UK edition) He later says to Harry: "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Hoorcrux with your death." (ibid. p.473) So, does this mean that Voldemort had lost a piece of soul to Harry without realising it? that he was still planning to kill Harry and make a Horcrux and would unknowingly be destroying one anyway? I think we can only speculate on this - as we have been doing for days on how tangible is a soul or a mind - but I am minded to stick with my view that the transfer of powers was of the mind and not of the soul. How many days do we now wait before JKR puts us out of our misery and guides us to the centre of the labyrinth? From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 12 14:41:19 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:41:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen: > Now another question: When exactly did Dumbledore begin his search > into Voldemort's past? He mentions visiting Morfin in prison in the > last weeks of his life, "by which time I was attempting to discover > as much as I could about Voldemort's past." (chap. 17). He didn't > start thinking about the Horcruxes until Harry brought him the diary > in COS--was he putting together Voldemort's life a long time before > this? > > Hokey sounded incredibly old at the time Voldemort murdered Hepzibah- > -was it not long after, when Voldemort left B&B, that Dumbeldore > started his search? Eloise: That's a good question, Jen, and related to something I was thinking about earlier. Dumbledore is very good at putting two and two together and asking the right questions. So what about the following evidence? -He clearly held doubts about young Tom Riddle right from the start, as Diary!Tom himself attests. -The MOM immediately recognised the *Riddle* murders as magical. -Dumbldedore knew Tom's father's name right from the moment he interviewed Mrs Cole. Why did he need to research Voldemort's past at all? Tom was exceptionally able, he was (without wishing to typecast) a Slytherin and Dumbledore, the Legilimens, didn't trust him. His Muggle family were suddenly murdered. Dumbledore is not one to take evidence at face value, so surely he must have doubted Morfin's testimony *at the time*. Maybe he just knew that young Tom would wriggle out of it, that he could not prove his suspicions, or perhaps he felt there was some hope of turning him around but I can't help but feel that there should have been something that Dumbledore could have done at that stage to prevent Tom becoming Voldemort, otherwise at that point Tom was proving himself to be the greater of the two despite being but a fraction of the age of the one destined to become (if not already) the greatest wizard of his age. Of course, it would have mucked up the plot line terribly, but it's one of those nagging frustrations... ~Eloise From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 13 10:51:49 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:51:49 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a050912051015b70084@...> References: <80f25c3a05091111441cc4b3fe@...> <80f25c3a050912051015b70084@...> Message-ID: <200509131251.50042.silmariel@...> Serena: <> Suprise surprise and found the locket with a letter directed to the Dark Lord... Kneasy: > So, get back to Hoggers and when someone is about to open the door - > freeze Harry. He expected Snape and he expected Snape to do the business, > but he had to make sure Harry didn't interfere. But it wasn't Snape. > Complications ensue, but the end result was what he wanted. Debbie: > Interesting. So you don't think he expected Draco? I assumed that once he > saw the Dark Mark, he knew Draco would be waiting for his return. On rereading, I asumed he decided to walk into the trap, they just didn't need to land where the mark was but DD never suggested another destination, only to seek Snape. Him expecting Snape needs a little explanation, imo. Had they agreed previously to join where the Mark was if it ever appeared? A bit risky, isn't it? Had they agreed to meet at the Astronomy Tower? That's a noticeable coincidence, but with Felix Felicis at work isn't past that the best posible result was for DD to die. I think once he saw the mark he knew his chances were narrow, and he had clearly stated that he was disposable. With the vow in mind, and the school at risk (I think it could have easily been a massacre), well, he made the most of his death. Noble, indeed. Silmariel From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 13 13:56:26 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:56:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: > > Hokey sounded incredibly old at the time Voldemort murdered > Hepzibah- -was it not long after, when Voldemort left B&B, that Dumbeldore started his search? > > > Eloise: > That's a good question, Jen, and related to something I was thinking about earlier. > > Dumbledore is very good at putting two and two together and asking > the right questions. So what about the following evidence? > > -He clearly held doubts about young Tom Riddle right from the start, as Diary!Tom himself attests. > > -The MOM immediately recognised the *Riddle* murders as magical. > > -Dumbldedore knew Tom's father's name right from the moment he > interviewed Mrs Cole. > > Why did he need to research Voldemort's past at all? Tom was > exceptionally able, he was (without wishing to typecast) a Slytherin and Dumbledore, the Legilimens, didn't trust him. His Muggle family were suddenly murdered. Dumbledore is not one to take evidence at face value, so surely he must have doubted Morfin's testimony *at the time*. Pippin: What we're told in HPB is the story as Dumbledore pieced it together. But Dumbledore at the time of the Riddle murders would have been preoccupied with World War II and Grindlewald. If he was reading the Muggle papers in those days, it probably wasn't to follow sensational murders. In any case, DD wouldn't know at that time that Little Hangleton was connected with Tom, so he would have no reason to be following the news there. The Prophet may not have even mentioned the names of the Muggles that were killed. I think Dumbledore was watching Tom all along, but he didn't start investigating, trying to get other people to tell him what they knew and putting things together, until after Tom returned as LV. It was only then that it became clear that LV was a danger to the whole wizarding world, not just those who crossed him or had something he wanted. If DD'd been investigating all along, it seems strange that Tom would have been able to disappear so completely. Pippin From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 13 16:41:54 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:41:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > In any case, DD wouldn't know at that time that Little Hangleton > was connected with Tom, so he would have no reason to be following > the news there. The Prophet may not have even mentioned the names > of the Muggles that were killed. > I think Dumbledore was watching Tom all along, but he didn't start > investigating, trying to get other people to tell him what they > knew and putting things together, until after Tom returned as LV. > It was only then that it became clear that LV was a danger to the > whole wizarding world, not just those who crossed him or had > something he wanted. > > If DD'd been investigating all along, it seems strange that Tom > would have been able to disappear so completely. Jen: Thankfully JKR doesn't tell us when Hokey and Morfin died, so we don't have to put together a time-line based on that information. Whew! All we know is Hokey was 'old' and by the time Dumbledore traced her, 'her life was almost over.' Likewise, Morfin was said to have lived out his life at Azkaban, with no mention of the number of years in prison. Now Morfin would have had to live quite a long time in Azkaban, 25+ years, if Dumbledore didn't get to him until Voldemort's first rise to power. He was similar to Sirius though, in two ways. First Morfin was animal-like and may have exhibited 'simpler emotions' much like Sirius did as Padfoot. Also, Morfin had an unhappy obsession to focus on with the loss of Marvolo's ring, so the dementors couldn't suck that thought out of him. Sirius said his unhappy thought about being innocent helped him stay sane. I do think Voldemort's visit requesting the DADA job sparked Dumbledore's detective spree. Dumbledore had watched him closely enough to know Voldemort was Tom Riddle & that he had a group of followers known as DE's; Dumbledore clearly wanted Voldemort to *know* he knew. The whole scene read like a warning to Voldemort-- "I'm watching you closely, Tom. There's someone in the world who still knows your history and at least some of your plans, so don't think you were successful in murdering Tom Riddle." Maybe that's why Voldemort feared Dumbledore, in addition to his magical powers-- Dumbledore had more infomation, *complete* information, than anyone. Not only that, DD let Voldemort know he had enlisted others to track Voldemort and pass new information to him. DD crossed the line from suspicious former professor to formidable enemy during that visit. Basically, all this is to agree with Pippin on the approximate time Dumbledore started his search . Jen From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 13 20:33:52 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:33:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eloise said asked why Dumbledore didn't immediately suspect that the Riddle murders were the work of young Tom Riddle: > > Dumbledore is very good at putting two and two together and > > asking the right questions. So what about the following evidence? > > -He clearly held doubts about young Tom Riddle right from the > > start, as Diary!Tom himself attests. > > -The MOM immediately recognised the *Riddle* murders as magical. > > -Dumbldedore knew Tom's father's name right from the moment he > > interviewed Mrs Cole. Ah, good question, Eloise! Once again, we are in the position of plugging potential plot holes. Pippin came to JKR's rescue, saying: > ...Dumbledore at the time of the Riddle murders would have been > preoccupied with World War II and Grindlewald. If he was reading > the Muggle papers in those days, it probably wasn't to follow > sensational murders. > In any case, DD wouldn't know at that time that Little Hangleton > was connected with Tom, so he would have no reason to be following > the news there. The Prophet may not have even mentioned the names > of the Muggles that were killed.... Good points. Also, I think it took Dumbledore a long time to realize just how evil Tom Riddle truly was. Dumbledore does like to think the best of people, after all. He may have suspected Riddle of unleashing the basilisk, but even then, he may have thought Tom was just curious about the Chamber of Secrets and that Myrtle's death was an accident (which it actually was, although presumably not one that Tom regretted.) Dumbledore also may not have known just how skillful Tom was. The Ministry had said that Morfin, a known Muggle-hater who had attacked one of the murdered Muggles previously, was the murderer. Dumbledore probably didn't suspect that Tom already had the ability to murder three people, frame someone else for the murder, and even make the *framed person* think he had done it. So, even if Dumbledore knew the names of the murdered people, the explanation that Morfin was the murderer seemed far more plausible -- until he found out just what Tom Riddle was. -- Judy From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 14 02:07:32 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:07:32 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: <200509131251.50042.silmariel@...> Message-ID: Silmariel: > On rereading, I asumed he decided to walk into the trap, they just didn't need > to land where the mark was but DD never suggested another destination, only > to seek Snape. Him expecting Snape needs a little explanation, imo. Had they > agreed previously to join where the Mark was if it ever appeared? A bit > risky, isn't it? Had they agreed to meet at the Astronomy Tower? That's a > noticeable coincidence, but with Felix Felicis at work isn't past that the > best posible result was for DD to die. > > I think once he saw the mark he knew his chances were narrow, and he had > clearly stated that he was disposable. With the vow in mind, and the school > at risk (I think it could have easily been a massacre), well, he made the > most of his death. Noble, indeed. Kathy W: But DD didn't expect Snape at the Astronomy Tower. He was asking for Snape at Hogsmeade before he decided to go on to Hogwarts. He seemed to want Snape to treat his injuries. When he found out about the Dark Mark he changed his plans. Why did DD decide to land on the tower in the fray instead of at the main doors? He must have wanted to leave his own mark on the events that were unfolding. He's still asking for Snape though. I'm not sure at what point DD gave up on treatment. While I'm assuming his "Severus, please" was his request for death, I'm open to other views. From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 14 02:39:29 2005 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (Kathy King) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:39:29 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Is Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Snow previously: > We have known since COS that Voldy left a bit of himself in Harry. > This statement by Dumbledore appears to assure us that Harry could be > a possible Horcrux: > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, > thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." COS pg. 333 U.S. > > Well there you have it, Voldemort putting a piece of himself in an > object equals Horcrux?or does it? Did Voldemort intend on supplying > infant Harry with a bit of his soul? Geoff: If I may be a bit picky, you didn't give the full quote, which I think gives a slightly different spin on things. '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaning descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of those powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." ' (COS "Dobby's Reward" UK edition p.245) Dumbledore speaks of powers which to me smacks of intellect. It is Harry who uses the word "bit". Although Dumbledore seems to concur with Harry, there is probably no reason for him to play with semantics over Harry's words. We do know that he began to realise that Voldemort had created Horcruxes at about this time. 'Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshalling his thoughts and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered cetain proof that Voldemort had split his soul." "Where?" asked Harry. "How?" "You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddle's diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.467 UK edition) Snow: You do have the right to be a bit picky, Geoff, but in turn I ask for a counter pickiness option. Do you think that this was the first time Dumbledore considered Voldemort had been making Horcrux's? I read it a little differently. . I saw it as Dumbledore claiming that he considered the diary as "certain proof" that Voldemort had indeed split his soul. To me this was simply confirmation of what Dumbledore had already suspected, possibly as early as the Godric's Hollow incident (or earlier). Dumbledore had had his apprehensions about Tom from the moment he met him; it was all about power with this one. Dumbledore watched him as closely as he watches over Harry. I think Dumbledore had created the Phoenix wand for Tom as a means to keep tabs on him realizing the problem this child might become with such early tendencies towards dark ways. Dumbledore, however, gave Tom the opportunity to turn over a "fresh leaf" but with caution: "Let us say that I did not take it for granted that he was trustworthy" HBP Pg. 361 Dumbledore kept an extremely close watch on Tom after Moaning Myrtle was killed and Hagrid was set up to be the fall guy. As far as Dumbledore's suspicions about Voldemort's Horcrux fixation, I think he had known it was a very good possibility as far back as the Riddle's deaths. "I have been hoping for this piece of evidence for a very long time," said Dumbledore at last. "It confirms the theory on which I have been working, it tells me that I am right?" HBP Pg. 499 Unless four years is a very long time, Dumbledore had had his suspicions long before the confirmation of the diary. Most of the Horcruxes chapter has Dumbledore saying I believe or I don't believe. Dumbledore plainly has had his theories. Dumbledore was one of the only persons who realized that Voldemort would be back after his disappearance at Godric's Hollow. How could he have even suspected that Voldemort wasn't gone for good unless he assumed, way back then, that Voldemort had been attempting ways in which to keep his soul immortal, one of which would have been making a Horcrux? I also tend to believe that Dumbledore had already met a person who had tried this experimental process before, Grindlewald. "As far as I know?as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew?no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two." HBP PG. 500 Dumbledore certainly had his assumptions but what he felt he needed was proof, which of course came in the form of a diary many years after his suspicions. I realize this is all opinion but I think the wording allows for me to be suspicious when Dumbledore says the phrase "certain proof". Dumbledore considered the possibility of more than one Horcrux at the time the diary was discovered because he warned Lucius of giving out anymore of Lord Voldemort's old school things in COS (Dumbledore put two and two together rather quickly to make this statement or he was already aware of the Horcrux possibility). But we are reassured that this was true when Dumbledore states his reasons in HBP: "The careless way in which Voldemort regarded this Horcrux seemed most ominous to me. It suggested that he must have made?or been planning to make?more Horcruxes?" Pg. 501 Of course conformation of exactly how many Horcrux's Voldemort considered making had only been verified for certain when Harry enticed Slughorn for his true memory. Dumbledore was adamant about obtaining that most important memory and what he eventually learned, that was all-important, was how many. Dumbledore had yet to have verification of just how many but he had had his suspicions and proceeded to seek out and attempt to destroy them, which he was already successful at before the start of school term. Dumbledore therefore acted on assumption. Albeit logical assumption but assumption non the less. Geoff: He later says to Harry: "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Hoorcrux with your death." (ibid. p.473) So, does this mean that Voldemort had lost a piece of soul to Harry without realising it? that he was still planning to kill Harry and make a Horcrux and would unknowingly be destroying one anyway? Snow: Oh, I do believe that Voldemort was setting up for his next Horcrux rendezvous (but ran into circumstances beyond his control) except without intent to turn Harry into his final endeavor. "The wizard intent [there's that word again] upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion?" "Encase? But how--?" "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn?" HBP Pg. 498 You must use a spell to create a Horcrux. I think it is doubtful that Voldemort's aim was to make Harry a Horcrux. Everything was ripe to initiate the spell but without the spell could Harry be a Horcrux? Like I had said in my last, I believe, Voldemort was exploring this young baby's said abilities through Legilemency when the shield charm Lily placed took effect and caused a unique connection between the two of them. "The Dark Lord will mark him as his equal" I take as literal. Harry is equal to Voldemort with the exception of the one power that Harry has that the Dark Lord knows not. The only possible way I can see Harry being equal to Voldemort is if they share the same powers. Since they are both able to speak Parceltongue, clearly Voldemort did not simply transfer this power or he would no longer have the ability. Then again I'm viewing the word transfer as a permanent action and not simply a copy-to-disk type of action. Geoff: I think we can only speculate on this - as we have been doing for days on how tangible is a soul or a mind - but I am minded to stick with my view that the transfer of powers was of the mind and not of the soul. Snow: Yes, speculation and nitpicking at canon and the wording there of is quite necessary, I would think, with an author who has phrasing such as the prophecy. It can be that one little word that is or isn't added that makes the whole sentence suspicious. I did find a quote by Dumbledore in the Horcruxes chapter however about this very subject: "Never forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged beyond repair, his brain and his magical powers remain intact." Pg. 509 U.S. I can't help but remember it being said that the eyes are the windows to the soul. The eyes are also a way in which to view the mind in real life and in Potter through legilemency. The very reason Dumbledore could not look into Harry's eyes in OOP was because he could see Voldemort lurking there. Was Dumbledore seeing a bit of Voldemort's soul behind Harry's eyes? (It was said to be a shadow) What part of Harry was the Sorting Hat detecting when it suggested Slytherin House and what part of Harry was Trelawney prophesizing about when she said Harry was born mid-winter (which we now know Voldemort was born in Winter) and what part of Harry did Mad Eye see when he saw something "funny" about him? It all seems to point to Harry having Voldemort soul. I don't question that he does have his soul; I question the extent he has and whether or not Harry's connection to Voldemort is shared or if Harry is an unintentional Horcrux. Dumbledore viewed the entwining serpents in OOP and questioned the instrument with "But in essence divided?" Could that mean that Voldemort and Harry are combined but in essence they, at that point, still divided? The serpent was whole when the instrument first showed it; it wasn't until Dumbledore asked the question that the snake became divided. Geoff: How many days do we now wait before JKR puts us out of our misery and guides us to the centre of the labyrinth? Snow: Could be a while with the amount of details that had not even been touched on in this book: the two-way mirrors, Victor Krum (has been said to be in the last book), the events of Godric's Hollow, Pettigrew's life debt, something very big about Lily, why exactly the Longbottoms had been tortured and so on. The encyclopedia Britannica, otherwise known as book seven, might not be released for quite some time. Poor us! I think I'm more curious about what she left out of book six than the book itself (which kept me anticipating throughout but with no new revelation in the end). She is good! ?Like why the two-way mirrors have yet to come into play and how, according to her statement about them on her site, they will be more useful than we know. I believe she couldn't divulge as much as she would have liked?not to us. Again rambling on too much! Snow with apologies to Geoff for not responding last night?pc problems! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 14 07:27:51 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:27:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Judy: > Dumbledore also may not have known just how skillful Tom was. The > Ministry had said that Morfin, a known Muggle-hater who had attacked > one of the murdered Muggles previously, was the murderer. Dumbledore > probably didn't suspect that Tom already had the ability to murder > three people, frame someone else for the murder, and even make the > *framed person* think he had done it. > > So, even if Dumbledore knew the names of the murdered people, the > explanation that Morfin was the murderer seemed far more plausible -- > until he found out just what Tom Riddle was. Eloise: I think this is the get out on this one. I'd forgotten that Morfin was already known to have attacked one of the victims, which would have been sufficient to put doubt into Dumbledore's mind even if he did suspect Tom. And until Morfin had been at the mercy of the Dementors for some time, I doubt he would have been co-operative in providing a memory. But Dumbledore did know where Tom's predelictions lay right from his first meeting with him: "His powers...were surprisingly well-developed - and....he had already discovered that he had some measure of control over them and begun to use them consciously. And...they were not the random experiments typical of young wizards: he was already using them against other people, to frighten, to punish to control...*I can make them hurt if I want to*." Dumbledore was immediately uneasy about "his obvious instincts for cruelty, secrecy and domination" Is it such a big step from an untrained 11 year old using magic to hurt and control to a trained sixteen year old killing and implanting memories? I don't think it would have surprised him to know that young Tom, whom he also recognised to think himself separate from and superior to the common mass of humanity had committed those murders. I'll let him off in the specific case because of Morfin's history, but it still seems strange to me if he didn't start investigting what really happened until so much later. Yes, he was dealing with Grindelwald, but there was an object lesson. Did he not realise that another Grindelwald was daily sitting beneath his nose in class? ~Eloise From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 14 15:58:12 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:58:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort's past (was: Alice and Frank/Legilimens and Memories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: > it still seems strange to me if he didn't start investigting what really happened until so much later. Yes, he was dealing with Grindelwald, but there was an object lesson. Did he not realise that another Grindelwald was daily sitting beneath his nose in class? Pippin: Since we know nothing at all about Grindelwald apart from the name and when he was defeated, that seems like kind of a leap. Presumably, even in the wizarding world most people, even ones with instincts for cruelty, secrecy and domination, don't become evil overlords. They don't even have to become murderers. Morfin had those instincts too, so on that basis he was just as likely to have killed the Riddles as Tom was. But he never went beyond killing snakes. Pippin From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 15 13:32:39 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050915133240.6373.qmail@...> --- potioncat wrote: > While I'm assuming > his "Severus, please" was his request for death, I'm open to other > views. I tend to believe that it was an all-purpose plea from a man who was dying to a younger man he trusted to clean up the whole mess: get the DE's out of the castle, minimize the danger to the school and the students, rescue Draco from taking the irrevocable step of becoming a murderer, save Dumbledore from a fate worse than death (I think the stuff that Dumbledore drank wasn't just poison but was turning him into an Inferi) and - by no means least - leave the relative safety of Hogwarts to come out in the open as a Voldemort supporter and kick off the endgame that will result in Harry's triumph at the end of Book 7. I don't think it was ultra-fast legilimacy messaging or anything like that; Snape and DUmbledore would have worked out a number of worst-case scenarios and this could have fallen into that category. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 15 14:44:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:44:12 -0000 Subject: Death, Killing and Harry's Angst (WAS: A Simpler Scenario In-Reply-To: <20050915133240.6373.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > --- potioncat wrote: > > > While I'm assuming > > his "Severus, please" was his request for death, I'm open to other > > views. > > > I tend to believe that it was an all-purpose plea from a man who was > dying to a younger man he trusted to clean up the whole mess: get the > DE's out of the castle, minimize the danger to the school and the > students, rescue Draco from taking the irrevocable step of becoming a > murderer, save Dumbledore from a fate worse than death (I think the > stuff that Dumbledore drank wasn't just poison but was turning him > into an Inferi) and - by no means least - leave the relative safety > of Hogwarts to come out in the open as a Voldemort supporter and kick > off the endgame that will result in Harry's triumph at the end of > Book 7. > > I don't think it was ultra-fast legilimacy messaging or anything like > that; Snape and DUmbledore would have worked out a number of > worst-case scenarios and this could have fallen into that category. > > Magda > > Kathy W: Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant to say! One liners, me too's and unsnipped posts are allowed here, right? From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 15 17:39:56 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:39:56 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Rules (was Death, Killing and Harry's Angst) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200509151939.56971.silmariel@...> > Kathy W: > Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant to say! > One liners, me too's and unsnipped posts are allowed here, right? They are, but in the snipping case, I try to be careful and make 'clean' posts, it's something I apreciate when reading old threads. Then, it's my personal preference. The few rules I'm aware of are here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/files/ in the file "Rules of the hut.htm" (I refuse to post the long messed up link pointing to the archive) Silmariel From mecki987 at mecki987.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 15 20:51:43 2005 From: mecki987 at mecki987.yahoo.invalid (Mecki) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:51:43 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? Message-ID: Hi there, Having spent the first 7 weeks post-HBP in a hospital with no computer within reach, I missed the whole "start of discussions". And though I certainly feel better, my husband will surely kill me if I tried to reread about a million threads before posting. so forgive me, if this has already been asked. When Tom murdered his parents, he was supposed to have been 16 years old, right? now, the ministry can detect underage magic, Harry has experienced that numerous times, then why was Morfin accused of the murder? I mean, I realise he confessed as soon as he was asked, but why did they suspect a grown man? Did I miss something? Mecki, with 2 kids and now 2 angels http://www.snugglepie.com/cb/4742.png http://www.snugglepie.com/cb/4749.png From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 16 07:37:05 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:37:05 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mecki: > When Tom murdered his parents, he was supposed to have been 16 years > old, right? > now, the ministry can detect underage magic, Harry has experienced > that numerous times, then why was Morfin accused of the murder? I > mean, I realise he confessed as soon as he was asked, but why did > they suspect a grown man? > > Did I miss something? Ginger: Nope, you didn't miss anything that I know of, at least not anything in canon. It seems that the MoM can detect magic. Not necessarily underage magic. Not even human magic (like Dobby's Pudding), just magic in general. Maybe it's like an energy field or something. They tell the kids that underage magic isn't allowed, but it kind of like telling teens that underage drinking isn't allowed. If they get busted, well, then they're busted. Otherwise they're breaking the law, but getting away with it. In Harry's case, he's been told by Fudge that they moniter Privet Drive more than they normally would moniter somewhere else. Who knows if there was an owl sent after Arthur was there in GoF, or the Order in OoP, or DD in HBP. Maybe the adults made sure that they wouldn't be caught. Arthur could have fixed it up with his friend at the Floo network, and Kingsley or Tonks could have fixed it with some of their order friends, and DD would have merely said, "I'm going to Harry's. Please don't send an owl." On the occasions where there was an owl sent, either Dobby did it, or Harry did without adult consent (the Marge-enlarge and the Patronus). Since they were monitering him, and there is no record of magical folk in the 'hood, they sent owls. Steve (bboy_mn) has had a number of great posts on TOL about this, and what he says makes sense to me. The gist of it is that they can detect magic, but not who does it, so Fred and George can get away with it at the Burrow because the MoM doesn't know if it is they who are doing it or Molly or Arthur. Muggleborns are at a disadvantage on this because they are "on the radar", so to speak, as living in non- magical places. If the MoM senses magic there, they are the ones to blame, as there are no wizards around, but in, say Hogsmead or Diagon Alley, there are so many people doing magic that the Mom can't tell who is whom. Kind of like a radar screen with magical blips. That's Steve's story, and I'll stick with it. Glad you're out of the hospital and feeling better. Ginger, knowing she is making sense as she is not saying anything original. From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 16 09:15:34 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:15:34 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > When Tom murdered his parents, he was supposed to have been 16 years > old, right? > now, the ministry can detect underage magic, Harry has experienced > that numerous times, then why was Morfin accused of the murder? I > mean, I realise he confessed as soon as he was asked, but why did > they suspect a grown man? > > Did I miss something? Well, as was pointed out to me the other day, Morfin had previously attacked one of the victims, but yes, I've had questions about this. In fact Pippin and I went all round the houses on the whole issue of detecting magic a few weeks back, starting with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3048 I'm not sure that we ever came to any kind of agreement. ;-) ~Eloise From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 16 16:20:59 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:20:59 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mecki: > When Tom murdered his parents, he was supposed to have been 16 years > old, right? > now, the ministry can detect underage magic, Harry has experienced > that numerous times, then why was Morfin accused of the murder? I > mean, I realise he confessed as soon as he was asked, but why did > they suspect a grown man? Various explanations have been proposed to try to explain this problem away. I tend to favor the idea that the MoM just does spot- checks for underage magic, with Harry perhaps watched more closely. It seems quite likely that at the begining of OoTP, Umbridge had Harry watched very closely, because she had set him up and wanted to make sure he was caught. On the other hand, this may just be one of those areas where JKR is not very consistent. Welcome back to the list, by the way! I am sorry to hear of your misfortunes and hope the future will be brighter for you. -- Judy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 11:52:17 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:52:17 +0100 Subject: Spoiling the fun Message-ID: When one considers the diversity among those that make up the fans of HP, it's hardly a surprise that the levels of enthusiasm and involvement fluctuate widely - not only between individuals, but over time for any one reader. Sneak a glance at the posting numbers and the identities of those putting up the posts on TOL and compare now with one year ago and with two years ago and you'll see what I mean. It's to be expected; circumstances alter, tastes may change, new enthusiasms develop. There are unflinching stalwarts, of course. Regulars who for years have offered opinions and speculations for the appreciation (or otherwise) of an ever-changing membership base. Mostly though, there's a predictable arc that traces the involvement of the average fan and sooner or later their posts become less frequent as they settle back into near-lurk mode, usually venturing out only when they have something new to contribute, or sometimes to point out to the newbies that that particular wheel was invented, oh, four years ago and why haven't they checked the files? ("These damn whipper- snappers, think they know it all." Grump, grump, grump.) toc is a bit different, with a high proportion of members who over time have earned their battle honours on the boards and can strip their sleeve and show their scars - usually inflicted when favourite theories went belly-up as Jo inexplicably failed to develop the tale of the life and hard times of HP along lines congruent with these gems of ineffable deduction and logic. Still, that's the risk a poster takes and it's all part of the fun. Millions of fans have been entertained and occupied over the years by indulging in speculations that were totally wrong. No problem there, that I can see. Isn't that why so many of us are here, to play 'second-guess the author'? If, using hindsight all the unjustified hypotheses and related discussions were stripped from the boards you'd be left with pretty thin fare, it'd hardly be worth logging on every morning. It's the divergencies of reader imagination that makes it all so compelling. "How on earth did he/she/they come up with that?" you think, as you scan a weird concoction of Aztec mythology, Sufi mysticism and Lamarckism that purports to explain the significance of something or other. You have to admit, the imaginative deductions demonstrated by some fans is pretty impressive. Usually it starts with a musing on a perceived oddity, progresses to a dawning realisation, followed by a text search and results in the cobbling together of a rationale backed by numerous quotes and extracts to show that - Yes, Harry will end book 7 with only one buttock, there's this obvious metaphor running through the books - he's been acting half-assed ever since the start. This epic epiphany is then staunchly defended against all-comers until the moment of truth arrives - in a new volume. This is usually when one's few remaining shreds of credibility become even more threadbare as Nemesis joins hubris to stuff your wonderful idea into the bin marked "Oops!" But never mind, there'll be another theory along in a minute. Recent exchanges about HBP are pretty much standard when compared to those of previous books - for the most part the actions depicted therein are being analysed with a view to predicting or explaining what we don't already know. The majority of those predictions will be wrong - something we suspected before we even started. Except - things have changed over the past year to 18 months. Whereas previously Jo only allowed the vaguest hints to pass her lips, of late she's been much more forthright and open - and that ain't a positive development IMO. Recently Jo has revealed stuff that tends to restrict the fun and games; snippets of information or very broad hints as to what is or isn't a fruitful line of enquiry. At base we don't really need to know just how mistaken our ideas are until the series is completed. The final wash-up would seem to be the most apposite time for comparing notes and totting up one's final score. To have potentially entertaining speculations rip't untimely from the womb for no good or obvious reason is a bit disheartening for an habitual theoriser. SFAIC it started with the web-cast in March '04 when the House affiliations of the Marauders were revealed (all Gryffindor, for God's sake; where's the fun in that? IIRC there've been intriguing character analyses of that bunch tying them to the stereotypes of the Houses and hence predicting all sorts of things. Harmless, but entertaining - and stopped dead in it's tracks thereafter.) And there has been a steady drip, drip, of 'canon' info ever since. The massive interview posted last month increased the drip to - well, not quite flood proportions, but definitely there was a noticeable escalation. Too much for my tastes, it depressed me enormously. At this stage do we really need to know that the Longbottoms are permanently disabled and that Droobles wrappers have no plot significance? Plenty of other stuff in there too that puts the kibosh on some of the ideas that were developed immediately after HBP was published - ideas that could have kept us in a forensic frenzy for weeks. No longer. "But Jo says...." is liable to be a commonplace response to many a speculative post from now on. Ever entered a restaurant, looked over the menu, fancied a few of the items only to be told they're off? That's roughly how I feel. And one can't help wondering how long it will be before the next set of ex cathedra comments knock more items off the menu. A feeling like that is not the best frame of mind to be in to compose speculative posts, just the reverse. It'll be at least a couple of years before the last episode arrives and the greater the list of potential subjects for discussion during that stretch, the less likely it is that fans may get bored with repetitive postings and drift off. It's not just that miserable old git Kneasy that's feeling disgruntled; it's commented on in the majority of the HP-related mails that come my way. Indeed, the word 'cheat' has appeared more than once, usually from those who expect the worst to result from Jo's admiration of A. Christie. It may be something restricted to the low circles I inhabit, but there seems to be a growing apprehension that the plot structure isn't as robust as it might be, that inconvenient inconsistencies are becoming evident and that hurried on- the-hoof canon revisions/explications are the order of the day. One would hope that the books would be able to speak for themselves .... but.... one begins to wonder. So why the verbal codicils and addenda now? Nobody really expected that there wouldn't be slips or errors in a work of this length and complexity, especially since the fans (and the publishers) always wanted to see the books in the shops as soon as is humanly possible. Most of us fully expect a revised edition to appear sooner or later. Might even be helpful if the up-coming final volume had a few pages of appendices explaining/correcting some of the more ambiguous, dubious or contradictory bits of canon. Can't see that any reasonable reader would carp at that, can you? But these amendments by interview or by web-site - no, sorry, they don't impress. There are others who suspect that this increasing interaction may have a different purpose - it's about damping down reader expectations. Depends how one looks at it, I suppose. The fervid and febrile imaginations of posters may indeed have out-run the reality of canon. The resolution may not be as comprehensive or intellectually/emotionally satisfying as many have come to assume. If that's so then it's our fault; we're the ones who've been assigning significance to thoughts, deeds and themes in the books. Jo never has, so far as I know. If this is the case, then her actions are understandable - get their feet back on the ground. But what if we don't want our feet nailed to the ground - or at least not yet? The publication of each new volume has been surrounded by confidentiality agreements, strict secrecy and severe repercussions have been threatened for premature release or leakage. The sites enforce blanket spoiler policies immediately the book is released. Yet it seems to me that in the couple of months since vol. 6 Jo has been getting very close to leaking spoilers for vol. 7. OK, it's her book and she can do as she wishes - and so far the 'revelations' seem to be minor, though they do have a restrictive effect. No more highly detailed hypotheses as to who RAB may be, for example. However, it's my contention that much of the fan output that hits the boards is not about what HP will be as about what might be, what could be. It's an on-going demonstration of fan imaginations, not the author's. As the series has neared its conclusion a narrowing of possibilities was inevitable. Theories have lost supporters as their likelihood diminished, though a remarkable number have never been totally eliminated. There's still a chance for example, that Trevor could have his moment of glory, though it is an increasingly long shot. And may it remain extant for as long as possible, however feebly. Why reject possibilities unless it's unavoidable? The more options there are, the more interesting the board is likely to be IMO. Whatever plans Jo has for Harry and his pals is strictly for the future SFAIC. In the meantime there are a few thoughts and theories I hope to inflict on a long-suffering membership, but that won't be feasible if Jo voluntarily discredits them before they're even written. That's just spoiling the fun. Kneasy From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 13:12:03 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:12:03 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great thoughts, Kneasy. As you can see, I've snipped the whole darn thing, but since I am posting immediately after, I'm sure your thoughts will be fresh in everyone's mind. Now that I've said that, I'm sure someone will beat me to the "send" button. No matter. I just wanted to throw in a few thoughts of my own. I love the interviews when they stick to those odd little factoids that will probably never make it to the books. Middle names, favourite colours, personal history that will have no impact on the events of book 7; mention those, and I salivate. Why? Because it increases the Potterverse without diminishing the fandom aspect of it. Not that I want to know all of it. AniMinnie's love life with the tomcats of Hogsmead can stay her personal business. Same goes for Hagrid's conception. Engorgement charm? Pah! The man would have needed a blood replentishing potion just to get through the foreplay. No, I don't need to know. On the other hand, she can spill the theoretical beans from here to Tuesday, and I'll eat it up. How does animagic transformation work if one is pregnant? If one is a hamster, and gets knocked up in that form, does one as a human give birth to a litter? Of what? And what is the gestational period? How does the transformation effect the baby (babies)? Do your human kids never have to be reminded to eat their veggies? Do they have an affinity for Ferris wheels? Do they have to gnaw on the woodwork in order to avoid dental problems? I want to know! "Yes, teacher, Kevin is lacking ambition, but it's really not his fault. His father was a sloth. Really." Along those lines, does MM understand the cat language as a human? Could Sirius have attacked LV and co. with an army of pit bulls under his command? Tell me the history of House Elves! So long as it's not a major plot point, that is. When it comes to theories, however, I agree with you, Kneasy. Imagine the fun that would have been missed had JKR revealed the identity of the 4th man right after GoF. (Side note to Eileen: Please give Elkins my fondest greetings when next you speak, will you? Thanks.) Conversely, REDHEAD ALWAYS would have gotten quite the boost had we known then that Ron's eyes were Dumbledore blue. Sure, I had RAB figured by the end of the chapter, but Rowena Amy Benson was such a fun mental exercise. I do hate to see her chop the stray tendrils of the mind before they can bud, but there are always other questions. What is the other horcrux? What did Dudders hear when he was demented? Did MM know Tommy when they were at Hogwarts? I, for one, found Tommy's history to be most satisfying in HBP. What about DD's? We can still speculate on those and leave the Dean Thomas histories to the website as interesting filler. Someone on TOL, (Potioncat?) brought up that there are Potter fans who have not read the interviews. Imagine! I have spoken to a few who have never theorized. Why, my own cousin, who got me into the series, didn't notice anything amiss with the original wand order, and I know she can read. I do think JKR is directing her interviews and web comments to our lot. Were she not allergic to cats, I'd wager she would love playing with the ball on a string. The trick is to pull it away as the cat is pouncing, without interrupting the leap; and on occasion, to let the cat grab the ball and run with it just to see what it will do. Such is the trick with spoilers. I love the tidbits, but I'd rather she kept the crucial info for us to find in the finished text. Ginger, in full ramble mode. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 14:30:21 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:30:21 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Spoiling the fun References: Message-ID: <013301c5bb94$5615cb70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Kneasy: Recently Jo has revealed stuff that tends to restrict the fun and games; snippets of information or very broad hints as to what is or isn't a fruitful line of enquiry. At base we don't really need to know just how mistaken our ideas are until the series is completed. The final wash-up would seem to be the most apposite time for comparing notes and totting up one's final score. To have potentially entertaining speculations rip't untimely from the womb for no good or obvious reason is a bit disheartening for an habitual theoriser. SSSusan: I feel your... if not pain, Kneasy, certainly your annoyance or disappointment with JKR. I don't share it as much as I understand it, though. I believe JKR is a different kind of author than most. Hell, this is a different kind of series than most, as well. We are all in what is likely to be a once- or twice-in-a-lifetime kind of situation, in the sense of our being in the MIDST of a long series -- a series which includes mysteries large & small -- *while* it's being revealed, AND with an author who is certainly not detached at all from what's happening "out there" in her fandom. JKR seems to me to be both quite interested in being interactive with her fans and in keeping abreast of what's being said, suggested and reported and hypothesized in her fandom. JKR has stated that she's writing these books for herself and for no one else, and yet she has chosen to be involved and interactive with her fans. IOW, I believe she cares about her fan base and is at least somewhat concerned about how it reacts to her work. I don't mean concerned in the sense that she'd ALTER things because of it but concerned in the sense of caring about the reaction. Of course I don't know JKR -- I could be totally wrong -- but this is the sense I get from her because of her willingness and interest in communicating with her fans (many of whom, yes, are children). Anyhoo... for right or for wrong, I think the BIG revelations she's dropping -- the theory-stopping types -- she's doing because she either wants to help us along or because she wants to avoid huge segments of pissed-off fans at the end. I mean, think about it. EITHER she leaves it all under wraps -- thereby ensuring the Kneasys among us can have loads of fun by virtue of a gazillion open possibilities -- OR she shuts down a few possibilities to help guide us to "more fruitful lines of inquiry" (I put quotes there, but it's a paraphrase). WHY would she do the latter at the risk of pissing off those who really don't want to have their possibilities limited, thankyouverymuch? I think she might because she also knows that to NOT shut down any possibilities might mean big disappointments for that OTHER group of fans which is inclined to be royally pissed that they spent hours & hours & hours of their time developing, crafting, arguing & defending their theories... only to find out not only were they wrong, JKR didn't even *address* their pet topic. Sure, you can blame these folks for not just looking at it all as the fun of the game, for getting "overly invested," but can you not also see their annoyance when perhaps a simple sentence or two dropped by JKR along the way would've let them know that *that* one isn't going to be a big issue in the story? This is how I took her remark about DROOBLES & the Longbottoms. I'm sure JKR knew many fans were really into the possibility that the gum wrappers were a huge secret, a major clue to something that was going to happen. Maybe she felt the time had come to let them down NOW? Maybe it's a disappointment... but wouldn't it be easier to adjust to NOW, rather than waiting 'til the end and THEN going, "WTF?!? She didn't even MENTION the gum wrappers!!" Look at the SHIPpers. ("Gah!" says Kneasy. "I can't bear to!") Some of the H/H SHIPpers were *pissed* after HBP. And JKR felt she'd done a pretty damn good job of dropping hints along the way to prevent people from going the wrong direction with that. Yet, there were people who accused her of all kinds of things, including *deliberately* misleading them, once the truth was revealed in Book 6. Maybe JKR shouldn't care about that kind of response -- and maybe she *doesn't.* But it's possible that she does and that she's trying to avoid TOO much more of that at series' end. Kneasy: Ever entered a restaurant, looked over the menu, fancied a few of the items only to be told they're off? That's roughly how I feel. And one can't help wondering how long it will be before the next set of ex cathedra comments knock more items off the menu. A feeling like that is not the best frame of mind to be in to compose speculative posts, just the reverse. SSSusan: Yes, and I do understand what you're saying. Like Ginger just wrote, I was a little sad to see [assuming Lexicon Steve's source is as reliable as it seems to be] that RAB has been confirmed to be Regulus. Sure, that was nearly everyone's first thought, but dang, it was fun thinking of R___ Amy Benson or a member of the Bones family. So why did she "spoil the fun" [if she did] and tell us about that one? Why NOT let the theories run wild? Well, for right or wrong, fault her or not as you will, perhaps she felt, with only one book to go, she'd direct us a bit more to what's fruitful? Maybe there's some BIG storyline, some major significance to the fact that it's Regulus, and she's steering us towards that. If that's right, I can see it pissing off the people who love to consider it ALL, not have their avenues narrowed. But maybe she's more concerned with getting people honed in to the general area. Of course, I guess that *is* the gist of your complaint, Kneasy -- you just really wish she'd stay out of it and let fan imaginations GO. Kneasy: It'll be at least a couple of years before the last episode arrives and the greater the list of potential subjects for discussion during that stretch, the less likely it is that fans may get bored with repetitive postings and drift off. SSSusan: Oh, I agree with you here. Look at TOL. I still enjoy it, and there *are* some regulars there whose posts I wouldn't miss for the world. But you're right -- the range of topics just now is pretty damn narrow. It's Snape this and Horslut that, Snape this and Draco that, Snape this and Snape that. It's frustrating. Many of us FEEL the lack of new, elaborate, fun (and funny!) theories. It's hard to know how much is JKR's "fault", for the things she's chosen to reveal outside of canon, and how much of it is just from coming down to the end. I mean, there's a LOT I still want to know about that *isn't* just whether Snape is or isn't. It's about GH and just what of Voldy is in Harry and Grindelwald and what Hermione and Ron and Neville are going to do and what the hell Lily & James were like in VWI and all of that. Why does it matter that someone amongst the staff is/was married? There's still meat there. But. Those things are not being talked about much, are they? Kneasy: Most of us fully expect a revised edition to appear sooner or later. Might even be helpful if the up-coming final volume had a few pages of appendices explaining/correcting some of the more ambiguous, dubious or contradictory bits of canon. Can't see that any reasonable reader would carp at that, can you? But these amendments by interview or by web-site - no, sorry, they don't impress. SSSusan: Do you really? I guess I don't expect that, necessarily. Not that I'd be disappointed, but I'm not expecting it. I guess I'd rather she just get it as right as possible on the first go-round. Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 14:39:05 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:39:05 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > OK, it's her book and she can do as she wishes > However, it's my contention that much of the fan output that hits the boards is not about what HP will be as about what might be, what could be. It's an on-going demonstration of fan imaginations, not the author's. > As the series has neared its conclusion a narrowing of possibilities was inevitable. Theories have lost supporters as their likelihood diminished, though a remarkable number have never been totally eliminated. In the meantime there are a few thoughts and theories I hope to inflict on a long-suffering membership, but that won't be feasible if Jo voluntarily discredits them before they're even written. > Carolyn: Well, as I've said offlist, actually my enthusiasm for the old theories has revived the more we limp towards the conclusion. Frankly I don't care if all she's really being trying to do is to write some soppy, quasi-religious kid's morality story with a creaky plot. Why should I be interested in that? Far more fascinating (to me) are the speculations of some very, very clever, dead funny and often twisted minds from all over the world as to what might have been, could have been. It's an exercise in popular literary criticism on an epic scale, never been anything like it. Plus all the attendant huffing and puffing that ensues when people's assumptions and comfort zones thump right into those of others coming from completely the opposite direction. Whatever she attempts to do to finish off her story, I do hope that at some point we can present her with an edited account of just where other people took her plot and characters. Hopefully she'll laugh ruefully. Carolyn An enthusiastic Toadkeeper II, Fourth Man, CRAB CUSTARD, MD and ESE! Lupin supporter, with a side order of Tricked!Wormtail, Snape for President, oh and not forgetting little Miss Whiplash. Kneasy, don't you dare stop posting! The blacker the better at this stage I think. From sherriola at ... Sat Sep 17 14:51:29 2005 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:51:29 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003301c5bb97$4bc90c10$5d3ff204@pensive> Carolyn An enthusiastic Toadkeeper II, Fourth Man, CRAB CUSTARD, MD and ESE! Lupin supporter, with a side order of Tricked!Wormtail, Snape for President, oh and not forgetting little Miss Whiplash. Sherry now: Hey, except for ESE Lupin, which I don't believe, can you explain the others you've listed? Don't think I'm familiar with those theories, old or new or still unresolved. sherry From sherriola at ... Sat Sep 17 14:51:29 2005 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:51:29 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <013301c5bb94$5615cb70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: <003401c5bb97$4d8a4410$5d3ff204@pensive> Too Hard to snip all this great stuff! So, I'd just like to add this. I'm not one for doing a lot of theorizing. In fact, the best i've ever done is to take someone's post about the effect the DADA curse has had on all the teachers into a little different direction. That was on HPFGU. Not a bad theory, if I do say it myself, and not dependent on Snape good or bad to be a theory. But even though I feel completely inadequate to devise theories among such masters of the art as Kneasy and others, i love reading them, responding and pondering them. I'm disappointed in the lack of interesting theories spawned by HBP. But then, maybe I'm just not interested enough in the things that interests many. I'm actually not too inclined to read about horcruxes. I'm getting way burned out on the endless Snape debate. I think we'll be debating that one till the end of time, no matter how JKR takes him in the end. Surely, there's got to be something worth theorizing about out there to pass the time? Great post, Kneasy! Sherry From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 16:30:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:30:54 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <003301c5bb97$4bc90c10$5d3ff204@pensive> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Carolyn > An enthusiastic Toadkeeper II, Fourth Man, CRAB CUSTARD, MD and ESE! > Lupin supporter, with a side order of Tricked!Wormtail, Snape for > President, oh and not forgetting little Miss Whiplash. > > > Sherry now: > > Hey, except for ESE Lupin, which I don't believe, can you explain the others you've listed? Don't think I'm familiar with those theories, old or new or still unresolved. > Carolyn: You don't believe in ESE!Lupin? Shame on you, after all Pippin has said. Character objections or plot objections? I think she's bang to rights on his character.. not quite bought that he's a DE though, not necessary IMO, for him to have dunnit, or dun some thing. Never mind, what delights await you in the backlist. I strongly urge a stroll down HypotheticAlley. However, some pointers: Toadkeeper I (35612) - isn't actually an acronym, but revolves around the idea that Trevor is the keeper of Frank and Alice's souls. There were a few difficulties with it: 'OK, the canon is kind of thin, granted, I'll give you that. I mean, what do you want from me? This is a theory that has three central characters with no lines at all: Frank, his wife, and Trevor.' Nothing daunted, the quick thinkers involved in this debate came up with an alternative view on Trevor's activities: Toadkeeper II (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge). The theory was actually acknowledged/named as such in post #37745. But to make the slightest sense (?) of what Tabouli, Cindy et al are on about, you should read #35709, #35720, #35733, #36793, #36912, #36921. Fourth Man, you ask? Well, bit of an improvement here. A stunning Elkins theory (#35062) based on at least one line of dialogue - Avery's anguished shriek in the graveyard in GOF. She invents an entire, heart-wrenching back story, based on the idea that Avery was the fourth man in one of the trial scenes witnessed by Harry in the pensieve in GOF. Of course later we discovered that they were all the Lestranges, but the theory is not entirely discredited in terms of a possible reading of Avery's character - he just wasn't in the trial, that's all. There are over 50 posts discussing the theory, although you do have to bear in mind that the protagonists were comparing size of ambushes. It's a long story. CRAB CUSTARD (Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold: Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels) is a sympathetic reading of Crouch Sr. The acronym was actually coined in #37498 by the ever-reliable Tabouli (who also added another toad theory: TRASHY SLIMEBALL - Trevor Represents A Sexuality Hidden, Yawning Seductively, Lost In Maternal Empathy But Always Lazily Lingering, in the same post). However, the theory proper is really discussed in posts #37476, #37567, #43326, #45402 ..oh and many, many others. It's all Eileen's fault, in her own words: 'Suffice it to say that I found very good evidence. I became quite enamoured of the tough and steely Head of International Magical Co-operation, to tell the truth.' MD (MAGIC DISHWASHER). Well, probably the most well-known theory on the list - over 300+ posts and we haven't finished cataloguing by a long chalk. The three key posts are #39662, #40044 and #81010. An explanation of the acronym is in #39854. There have been continual doubts about Wormtail. See #115794 for a lengthy review, with further links. Little Miss Whiplash is Kneasy's very own invention. Her last client was Grawp I believe - I'm sure he'll be happy to provide the necessary post reference... Cheers Carolyn From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 19:35:21 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:35:21 -0000 Subject: Intent in magic Message-ID: Snow wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ol d_crowd/message/3192 : << You must say the incantation correctly to produce the effect; Wingardium Leviosa >> Or say it incorrectly to produce the wrong effect: "never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest." From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 17 20:08:18 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:08:18 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > Usually it starts with a musing on a perceived oddity, progresses > to a dawning realisation, followed by a text search and results in > the cobbling together of a rationale backed by numerous quotes > and extracts to show that - Yes, Harry will end book 7 with only > one buttock, there's this obvious metaphor running through the > books - he's been acting half-assed ever since the start. This > epic epiphany is then staunchly defended against all-comers until > the moment of truth arrives - in a new volume. Jen: HAHAHA! I was reading along very seriously and burst out laughing here, Kneasy. There's still a chance we're going to see someone lose a buttock, you know, after Moody's grumble about the good ol' days when elementary wand safety was taught. When have we seen Harry pay attention to this? And Ron, splitting his wand almost in *half* in COS--shouldn't he have thrown his wand to the floorboard of the vehicle when he saw they were headed toward the Whomping Willow? ;) We can still have fun, damn the interviews. I'm bummed about the Longbottoms, RAB. The worst for me came several weeks ago when I happened upon a post saying the mystery of Lily's eyes was already solved when Harry used those eyes to get the memory from Slughorn. Say what?!? Thank god no one asked JKR about the eyes in the TLC/MN interview. I'm still holding out hope for more there. There's still good stuff there to pick over, once Snape gets his fandom due. I read an interesting post on the connection of Snape's family to Hawthorne's characters the other day that got NO response. The sum total of my Hawthorne knowledge is reading Scarlet Letter 20 years ago, so I didn't add anything myself, but I excepted someone would seize on it. Nope. Speculation about DD's family is nil so far, in part because there's not much to go on. The perfect place for fertile imagination to grow, eh Kneasy? Personally I'm torn between loving the interviews and hating the information we get. Sort of a moth to the flame problem there. I desperately want to know where JKR is going and fear it's a place I won't like, all at the same time. (Shouldn't I be exploding about now with all those different feelings at once? ). There's no way around it now, she's steering us to closure whether we like it or not. Personally I'm strapping myself in for the ride, can't give up on it now. Kneasy: > It's not just that miserable old git Kneasy that's feeling > disgruntled; it's commented on in the majority of the HP-related > mails that come my way. Indeed, the word 'cheat' has appeared more than once, usually from those who expect the worst to result from > Jo's admiration of A. Christie. It may be something restricted to > the low circles I inhabit, but there seems to be a growing > apprehension that the plot structure isn't as robust as it might > be, that inconvenient inconsistencies are becoming evident and > that hurried on- the-hoof canon revisions/explications are the > order of the day. One would hope that the books would be able to > speak for themselves .... but.... one begins to wonder. Jen: A little niggle started in my brain pretty soon after that huge interview--is this all there is? Is what you see what you get? My 9 y.o. nephew thinks so. I asked him about Snape at the end of HBP and he told me: "Well, I knew he was a bad guy before, but after he killed Dumbledore, then I knew he was *really* a bad guy." He may well be right, and the twists and turns of my mind are futile speculation, but I can't turn them off. Remember what you used to say Kneasy, about spinning theories and intellectual stimulation? That it's fun and engaging? I never quite got that when I first started on the board, everything was supposed to be *serious* and important in my mind then. But now I get it, after a couple of years of being told my theories have holes, or my speculation is wildly innaccurate, or just being completely ignored. If I can't be right, and won't, at the very least I can still give my mind a whirl and have some fun while doing it. Jen From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 01:40:36 2005 From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:40:36 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kneasy: It may be something restricted to the low circles I inhabit, but there seems to be a growing apprehension that the plot structure isn't as robust as it might be, that inconvenient inconsistencies are becoming evident and that hurried on- the-hoof canon revisions/explications are the order of the day. One would hope that the books would be able to speak for themselves .... but.... one begins to wonder. hg: It seems plenty of us are beginning to wonder the same thing. I don't think it's arising simply from the interviews -- there seem to be "by the ways" cropping up in the texts themselves. Percy being a git and the wrappers being just wrappers were enormous disappointments for me, and thanks to all posters here who point out that there is still hope for those of us who twist and concoct and find deep meaning in the distinction between "his" and "the." Jen: > We can still have fun, damn the interviews. I'm bummed about the > Longbottoms, RAB. The worst for me came several weeks ago when I > happened upon a post saying the mystery of Lily's eyes was already > solved when Harry used those eyes to get the memory from Slughorn. > Say what?!? Thank god no one asked JKR about the eyes in the TLC/MN > interview. I'm still holding out hope for more there. > > There's still good stuff there to pick over, once Snape gets his > fandom due. hg: After the release of HBP and before that stinking interview, I dragged out my anagrams again. I was really onto something, too, with Bobbins' Apothecary. ("Go to Bobbins' Drugs! Well me!") Gosh, that made me mad. The mystery of Lily's eyes was -- what? Hypnotic power? Come now. Slughorn is Harry's great-grandfather, isn't that it? (At least, isn't that more fun?) Jen: > Remember what you used to say Kneasy, about spinning theories and > intellectual stimulation? That it's fun and engaging? I never quite > got that when I first started on the board, everything was supposed > to be *serious* and important in my mind then. But now I get it, > after a couple of years of being told my theories have holes, or my > speculation is wildly innaccurate, or just being completely ignored. > If I can't be right, and won't, at the very least I can still give > my mind a whirl and have some fun while doing it. hg: Jen, this is the reason I was glad for the invite to TOC. Really, ultimately, I'll carry on if it the end isn't as thrilling as we all conceived it could be, because the process of discovering how she's arriving at those conclusions is satisfying, isn't it? And that process is most satisfying when nit-pickers unite rather than one- upping. I'll read and consider any idea, even go back to reread the passages, because HOW a poster arrived at such a conclusion continues to inspire me. So many of the theories may turn out to be wrong, but it's amazing that there's arguable evidence for them -- and it can only enrich our reading of the texts themselves to think about them, in my opinion. hg. From azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 02:52:48 2005 From: azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid (Sharon) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:52:48 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mecki: > When Tom murdered his parents, he was supposed to have been 16 years > old, right? > now, the ministry can detect underage magic, Harry has experienced > that numerous times, then why was Morfin accused of the murder? I > mean, I realise he confessed as soon as he was asked, but why did > they suspect a grown man? > The Ministry cannot detect underage magic. It never could. Dumbledore explains it best: "[The Ministry] can detect magic, but not the perpetrator: you will remember that you were blamed by the Ministry for the Hover Charm that was, in fact, cast by -" "Dobby," growled Harry; this injustice still rankled. "So if you're underage and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard's house, the Ministry won't know?" "They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic," said Dumbledore, smiling slightly at the look of great indignation on Harry's face. "They rely on witch and wizard parents to enforce their offspring's obedience while within their walls." ...HBP, pg 368, American edition (midway through Chp 17) So there you have it. The reason the Ministry whapped Harry in CoS is because they detected magic at Privet Drive; knowing that Harry is the only magical creature in that house, they naturally assumed that he had done it. And when he claimed it was a house elf - well, why should they believe him? A house elf in a Muggle household? Don't be silly. As for Morfin and the Riddles; the Ministry detected the magic done to kill the Riddles. It did not know who had done the act because it can only detect magic, not the person who performs it. --Sharon From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 04:40:47 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:40:47 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sharon said: > As for Morfin and the Riddles; the Ministry detected the magic done > to kill the Riddles. It did not know who had done the act because it > can only detect magic, not the person who performs it. Oh, very good point -- the Riddle murders really aren't related to the problem of magic detection by the MoM. Still, there is a general problem with the MoM and its ability to detect magic being done. Harry was detected casting a Patronus but various members of the Order weren't detected using magic when they went to retrieve him a few weeks later; nor was Dumbledore detected when he did magic at Privet Drive at the beginning of Book 6. Plus, the various magic acts that Tom Riddle did on Morfin (stunning, memory modification) weren't detected, either. It doesn't seem that the MoM detects *all* magic. -- Judy From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 06:30:58 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:30:58 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > Sharon said: > > As for Morfin and the Riddles; the Ministry detected the magic done > > to kill the Riddles. It did not know who had done the act because > it > > can only detect magic, not the person who performs it. > > Oh, very good point -- the Riddle murders really aren't related to > the problem of magic detection by the MoM. Still, there is a general > problem with the MoM and its ability to detect magic being done. > Harry was detected casting a Patronus but various members of the Order > weren't detected using magic when they went to retrieve him a few > weeks later; nor was Dumbledore detected when he did magic at Privet > Drive at the beginning of Book 6. Plus, the various magic acts that Tom > Riddle did on Morfin (stunning, memory modification) weren't detected, > either. It doesn't seem that the MoM detects *all* magic. > > -- Judy Anne: I would think any Order member would know perfectly well that the MoM was carefully watching Privet Drive, so if they were going there to pick up Harry, they'd take care of the Ministry ahead of time -- only, from Harry's point of view we never see that. So, I think the MoM did detect that magic, but knew there were qualified wizards there to do it. Either that, or the Order knew how to pull some strings so that their spells "never happened," if you know what I mean. We've seen Arthur doing and receiving a few favors here and there, after all. Even in CoS, JKR carefully explained that flying the Anglia wasn't doing magic; "It's Dad's, we didn't enchant it," and then Gred and Forge carefully open all the locks with picks instead of using alohomora -- because *they* certainly couldn't have told the Ministry what they were up to. Which leaves for discussion the fact that Mundungus apparated away from Privet Drive in the middle of his shift. My thought is that someone in the Ministry knew about these extra guards on Harry who were friends of Dumbledore's. Then Umbridge probably also found out when Dung deserted his post, which is how she knew when to send the Dementors; otherwise, it's too much of a coincidence that they arrived when Harry was unprotected. As for the magic Riddle did on Morfin, all of that occured within a known magical household. ~Anne From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 10:48:22 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:48:22 +0100 Subject: RADIO T-BAY: Experimental Charms Message-ID: <2F2B2B40-57B7-49B5-93AF-22AC85F70CAB@...> "Good afternoon! "Today we have something different for you - instead of drowsing in the studio, gazing at the scorch marks - a reminder of that memorable evening when the Pyro4 Players re-enacted their experimental mime production of "Knackledirk Agonistes", we're here in the Ministry getting the low-down on what's new in the world of magic. "With me to explain the workings of The Dept. for Experimental Charms is Demeter Rule, who's in charge of Quality Assurance, making sure that what reaches the witch or wizard in the street is safe and effective. So where are we going first?" "The Spell-spielers, I think. Through this door here... high security of course... just have to swipe my wand...OK. This is it - where new spells are produced. "As you can see, we take safety very seriously - lined with Dragon- hide, Charm blankets to hand, an automatic Spell-suppression system that floods the room with Scientific Rationalism if the ambient Magic Index rises above 1.5 MegaMerlins. Nasty stuff, that SR; one drop on exposed skin'll turn you into an Actuary." "That's...inhuman. So, Demmy, what exciting new spells and potions are likely to be Diagonal Alley soon?" "Well, Kaynes, there's a stream of minor but very practical spells - such as "Carpe cerevisi!" - very handy when the pub's crowded, or "Nil bono!" for getting rid of irritating whiners and we're trying to develop a spell that will open windows - but all we get are writs from Seattle for breach of copyright, whatever that means. The Search Spell is causing a few headaches too - it's intended for finding any information currently in written form. The researcher tried "Ex libris!" - took us three days to dig him out from under the contents of the British Library, then he tried "Ex libra!" and got a horoscope and we haven't been able to wake him up after "Ex librium!". But apart from that there're exciting developments in some very important and far-reaching research. Work that will affect all our lives." "Really? Can you give me an example?" "Languages. Imagine not having to learn a language, but being able to absorb one magically." "Wow! That'd be fantastic! Does it work?" "We're experiencing a few hitches with it at the moment, but it's not far off." "Could we try it? Let's see.... I've always wanted to speak Mermish - can you spell me to do that?" "Well.... it's still in meta-testing at the moment.... but.... OK.... "Dic piscium!" "Cod est demonstrandum!" "Eh?" "Carp diem!" "Oh dear." "O tempora! O morays!" "Bugger." "Squid pro quo!" "George, tell the language boys they've cocked it up again, will you?" "Caviar emptor!" "Finito!" Sorry about that. As I said, there's still just a few wrinkles to iron out. Are you feeling OK? Good. Now if you'll come this way.... just a small memory modification and then we'll see what's happening in the Potion Pit." To be continued.... From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 11:34:59 2005 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:34:59 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] RADIO T-BAY: Experimental Charms In-Reply-To: <2F2B2B40-57B7-49B5-93AF-22AC85F70CAB@...> References: <2F2B2B40-57B7-49B5-93AF-22AC85F70CAB@...> Message-ID: <20050918113459.GC32060@...> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:48:22AM +0100, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > "Good afternoon! [snip] > To be continued.... It'd better be! You should write Book 8, or at least get a ghostwriter. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 18 19:16:12 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:16:12 -0000 Subject: Underage magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne said, in regards to the MoM detecting magic: > As for the magic Riddle did on Morfin, all of that occured within a > known magical household. True, but only one person lived in it, so having Stunning or Memory Modification spells going on was odd. For that matter, Stunning and Memory Modification are the sorts of things one would think the MoM would want to keep an eye on in general (along with AK and so forth.) This is one of the reasons why I tend to think the Ministry doesn't have the resources to monitor magic in general, and just spot- checks. > I would think any Order member would know perfectly well > that the MoM was carefully watching Privet Drive, so if > they were going there to > pick up Harry, they'd take care of the Ministry ahead of time Quite possible -- that idea was discussed here before. I agree that there are ways of explaining away the inconsistencies in the Ministry's detection of magic; my point was merely that there is, in fact, inconsistency that needs explaining. > Which leaves for discussion the fact that Mundungus apparated away > from Privet Drive in the middle of his shift. My thought is that > someone in the Ministry knew about these extra guards on Harry who > were friends of Dumbledore's. Then Umbridge probably also found out > when Dung deserted his post, which is how she knew when to send the > Dementors; otherwise, it's too much of a coincidence that they > arrived when Harry was unprotected. Good theory! I like it! -- Judy From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 00:51:34 2005 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:51:34 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a05091817513aa8395a@...> Kneasy, in a particularly thought-provoking post, wrote: Recently Jo has revealed stuff that tends to restrict the fun and games; snippets of information or very broad hints as to what is or isn't a fruitful line of enquiry. At base we don't really need to know just how mistaken our ideas are until the series is completed. The final wash-up would seem to be the most apposite time for comparing notes and totting up one's final score. To have potentially entertaining speculations rip't untimely from the womb for no good or obvious reason is a bit disheartening for an habitual theoriser. Debbie: Very true. But I still hold out hope that there are some profitable avenues of speculation left to explore. "Harry Potter and the Search for the Missing Whoresluts" without more would be a very dull book. Please, let her still have a couple of tricks up her sleeve. Kneasy: As the series has neared its conclusion a narrowing of possibilities was inevitable. Theories have lost supporters as their likelihood diminished, though a remarkable number have never been totally eliminated. There's still a chance for example, that Trevor could have his moment of glory, though it is an increasingly long shot. And may it remain extant for as long as possible, however feebly. Why reject possibilities unless it's unavoidable? The more options there are, the more interesting the board is likely to be IMO. Debbie: Actually, there are many many theories yet to be eliminated. JKR has what I find to be a very irritating penchant for throwing out an issue or theme and taking it nowhere. But if there's very little in the latest canon that develops a particular theme, it will seem a waste of energy and bandwith for old-timers to go back over that ground. I get the sense that some of the revelations are intended to let us know that she doesn't have time to develop a particular theme. All that stuff about the prophecy and Neville, for example. Wouldn't it be better for the readers to parse the text to determine what she meant? Or does she want to control what we *think* about the text? If so, the joke's on her, because the books are in our hands now and we can read them however we please. Ginger: Someone on TOL, (Potioncat?) brought up that there are Potter fans who have not read the interviews. Imagine! Debbie: Interviews? JKR does interviews? Seriously, I've never read an interview just to read it. I have no idea what JKR says unless someone draws my attention to it, and when I do check an interview it's to looks for something particular that I'm interested in. Carolyn: You don't believe in ESE!Lupin? Shame on you, after all Pippin has said. Character objections or plot objections? I think she's bang to rights on his character.. not quite bought that he's a DE though, not necessary IMO, for him to have dunnit, or dun some thing. Debbie: Well, I don't believe ESE!Lupin either, but IMO the brilliance of a theory like ESE!Lupin or MD doesn't lie in its correctness, but rather in the way its plausibility draws upon and illuminates the character of the suspect. Pippin is a masterful prosecutor who uses the suspect's character to develop a few shreds of evidence, themselves inconclusory, into a story a jury might be persuaded to believe. Defense counsel such as myself can mount a good defense on the facts, but cannot erase the impression that the suspect's character could lead him to do what Pippin accuses him of. Carolyn: Toadkeeper I (35612) - isn't actually an acronym, but revolves around the idea that Trevor is the keeper of Frank and Alice's souls. There were a few difficulties with it: Debbie: Yes, the devil messed with the details of this theory, but if you put Toadkeeper I side-by-side with the Horcrunchies you'll find that the idea was astonishingly close to the mark. hg: Percy being a git and the wrappers being just wrappers were enormous disappointments for me, and thanks to all posters here who point out that there is still hope for those of us who twist and concoct and find deep meaning in the distinction between "his" and "the." Debbie: Percy (or rather, the category he represents) is both one of the great disappointments of the series and a stepping-off point for our inspirations. JKR created many more characters than she could reasonably develop, and many of them are much more interesting than Harry, whose development into the One Hero has been utterly predictable. For JKR to quell speculation into Percy's motives (to take an example) with a "Percy is just a git" would be doubly disappointing. Wouldn't it be better to leave that avenue open, and allow the readers to ponder what he represents -- and to speculate about his possible redemption? And the other disappointment is a nagging feeling I've always had that JKR just doesn't "get" characters like Percy, and that lacking appreciation for his inner struggles, assumes that the overly sensitive deserve to be driven away with mean-spirited jokes, and then blamed when they do leave. Jen: > Remember what you used to say Kneasy, about spinning theories and > intellectual stimulation? That it's fun and engaging? I never quite > got that when I first started on the board, everything was supposed > to be *serious* and important in my mind then. But now I get it, > after a couple of years of being told my theories have holes, or my > speculation is wildly innaccurate, or just being completely ignored. > If I can't be right, and won't, at the very least I can still give > my mind a whirl and have some fun while doing it. Heh. I did the same thing when I first joined, but discovered that it was the most outlandish theories that gave me the most pleasure, even when my contribution is simply to debunk them. The Red Queen was right, you know. Debbie whose schizoid approach to over-the-top theorizing is perhaps best represented by Alternative Universe Fourth Man, in which Avery simultaneously was and was not Fourth Man (will happily dig up the post number on request) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 10:40:51 2005 From: azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid (Sharon) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:40:51 -0000 Subject: Detecting Spells (was Re: Underage magic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne said, in regards to the MoM detecting magic: As for the magic Riddle did on Morfin, all of that occured within a known magical household. > Judy said: True, but only one person lived in it, so having Stunning or Memory Modification spells going on was odd. For that matter, Stunning and Memory Modification are the sorts of things one would think the MoM would want to keep an eye on in general (along with AK and so forth.) This is one of the reasons why I tend to think the Ministry doesn't have the resources to monitor magic in general, and just spot- checks. > My turn, again: I sort of wonder that the Ministry doesn't look at the spells themselves - at least, not initially - and only at where magic is being done. It's only when magic is done in an odd location, such as the home of a Muggle, that they look into what spell was actually performed. (Explaining why the Ministry knew it was a Hover Charm performed at Privet Drive.) Thus, the Ministry would have only detected magic at the Gaunt household, and as it was the home of a wizard, there was no need to see what sort of spell he cast. I would also think that detection of a specific type of spell would be a much more difficult system than a general one that simply alerts to magic being performed in certain locations. The Ministry would not want to waste manpower on such an operation which surely would take up a great deal of time and effort to maintain and operate. --sharon, who is aware that the previous paragraph makes no sense, but is too distracted by her pistachios to bother correcting it From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 11:33:59 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:33:59 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05091817513aa8395a@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > Jen: > > Remember what you used to say Kneasy, about spinning theories and > > intellectual stimulation? That it's fun and engaging? I never quite > > got that when I first started on the board, everything was supposed > > to be *serious* and important in my mind then. But now I get it, > > after a couple of years of being told my theories have holes, or my > > speculation is wildly innaccurate, or just being completely > > ignored. > > If I can't be right, and won't, at the very least I can still give > > my mind a whirl and have some fun while doing it. > Heh. I did the same thing when I first joined, but discovered that it was > the most outlandish theories that gave me the most pleasure, even when my > contribution is simply to debunk them. The Red Queen was right, you know. > Debbie > whose schizoid approach to over-the-top theorizing is perhaps best > represented by Alternative Universe Fourth Man, in which Avery > simultaneously was and was not Fourth Man (will happily dig up the post > number on request) > To be honest, I've never really understood why anyone would take a work of fantasy fiction seriously. Hell, I don't even take serious subjects seriously and find it almost impossible not to look for humorous potential in just about anything. It came as quite a surprise when it became obvious that there were posters with a very different approach to the books. Still, that's their problem, and in some ways they can be perversely entertaining - roughly equivalent to listening to a Flat-Earther spouting off. There were times I was severely tempted, I must admit - it was only board rules that held me back from posting irreverent pastiches of certain sub-sets of fandom. "Father, father! How can you be so cruel?" "Practice, m'dear, practice." Fortunately there was plenty of stuff in the books to keep me out of mischief. As Debbie says, the books are in the public domain and we can do with them what we will. Look on it as a glorified game of 'Consequences'. We've been handed a part-script and according to our inclinations can scribble ideas in the blank bits. Doesn't have to be true, likely or even possible, though with that last we're flirting with Fan-Fiction - a whole different other, IMO. Mostly the 'rules' for theorising are unwritten but generally understood. Take some unresolved canon (anywhere from one word upwards) and extrapolate, my boy, extrapolate! - while remaining within the confines of the presumed parameters of the story as they have been developed so far. Jo amending/adding to canon outside the books does not make Kneasy a happy bunny. It added to the fun when her pronouncements were nicely ambiguous, Delphic, even - one could interpret them as one wished, might even spark an idea that had never previously been considered, starting a whole new wild-goose chase perhaps, but more-or-less definitive statements are very close to being spoilers IMO. It's no longer possible (for example) to post an hypothesis about Droobles wrappers, because a theory is a speculative explanation, and there's nothing there to explain, not any more. It's one thing if such information is in the text, but something else again when casually mentioned while being interviewed by a pair of sycophants. Would this snippet have come to light if the interview had never happened? We can only guess, but my bet is yes, probably as a poll option on her website or maybe in the 'Rumours' section. When all is said and done it isn't info that will have a bearing on the future story-arc, for all that it restricts the range of subject matter available for imaginative posters to work their dubious wiles on. It does bother me that Jo is indulging in info by leakage. SSS was suggesting that she doesn't want people to go off on the wrong track IIRC. Erm...no, I don't think so. It's unlikely that an author would deliberately insert red herrings and then worry about readers getting it wrong - just the opposite, previously she seemed to derive a great deal of satisfaction at us barking up a whole succession of wrong trees. Must say, I enjoyed it myself, great fun. So what's changed? Dunno about you, but I'm getting an 'uh-oh' feeling. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 12:40:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:40:31 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Spoiling the fun References: Message-ID: <003c01c5bd17$527899a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Kneasy: Would this snippet [on DROOBLES] have come to light if the interview had never happened? We can only guess, but my bet is yes, probably as a poll option on her website or maybe in the 'Rumours' section. When all is said and done it isn't info that will have a bearing on the future story-arc, for all that it restricts the range of subject matter available for imaginative posters to work their dubious wiles on. It does bother me that Jo is indulging in info by leakage. SSS was suggesting that she doesn't want people to go off on the wrong track IIRC. Erm...no, I don't think so. It's unlikely that an author would deliberately insert red herrings and then worry about readers getting it wrong - just the opposite, previously she seemed to derive a great deal of satisfaction at us barking up a whole succession of wrong trees. Must say, I enjoyed it myself, great fun. So what's changed? Dunno about you, but I'm getting an 'uh-oh' feeling. SSSusan: So then what *is* the reason, do you think, Kneasy? If Jo's not letting info slip in order to direct people away from "unfruitful" pursuits, then why is she leaking info? You didn't buy the "she doesn't want huge segments of pissed-off fans at the end, so she's letting them down on a few issues now" possibility? (Damage control, as it were?) If not that, and if not a concern over not wanting us to not go too far afield, then why *is* she doing it? Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 14:03:56 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:03:56 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <003c01c5bd17$527899a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: > So then what *is* the reason, do you think, Kneasy? If Jo's not letting info slip in order to direct people away from "unfruitful" pursuits, then why is she leaking info? You didn't buy the "she doesn't want huge segments of pissed-off fans at the end, so she's letting them down on a few issues now" possibility? (Damage control, as it were?) If not that, and if not a concern over not wanting us to not go too far afield, then why *is* she doing it? You tell me. But I don't think that the possibility of pissing off a few hundred thousand fans has much to do with it. If half the female fan-base can grit their teeth, dry their eyes and get over Sirius, and 'the nice, gentle people are inviolable' brigade can swallow the arch-Goody getting chopped down, then she'll hardly be in fear and trembling because she's not sorted the Longbottoms out, especially as something nastily permanent could well befall young Potter - which would cause her to be crossed off a lot of Christmas card lists.. Could be a combination of things - clearing the decks and damping down fan expectations. It's a possibility (no more) that although the basic plot thread was right there from the start, minor threads and sub-plots weren't, were added to provide the required complexity/depth - but that what at one time seemed like a nice bit of background/detail/minor action has come back to bite her on the bum, metaphorically speaking. It might be obstructing the resolution of something else that's more important to the books. Rewrites have been done before - whole chapters dumped - holes discovered and fixed. Maybe it's happened again. Perhaps somewhere there's a not-quite satisfactory-enough version of HP where Frank and Alice live happily ever after, but it had to go. Doesn't explain spilling the beans on RAB, though. Nope. Like much else to do with HP we lack sufficient information to be sure. Kneasy From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 15:26:32 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:26:32 -0000 Subject: Toadkeeper In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a05091817513aa8395a@...> Message-ID: Carolyn: > Toadkeeper I (35612) - isn't actually an acronym, but revolves > around the idea that Trevor is the keeper of Frank and Alice's > souls. There were a few difficulties with it: Debbie: > Yes, the devil messed with the details of this theory, but if you > put Toadkeeper I side-by-side with the Horcrunchies you'll find > that the idea was astonishingly close to the mark. I was one of the people attacking Toadkeeper I. (Problem #1: Neville didn't get Trevor until about a decade after his parents were tortured.) But yes, this theory turns out to be really close to the idea of horcruxes, especially with Dumbledore explicitly saying a living creature can be a horcrux. I feel rather bad about attacking the theory now! -- Judy, who wants to respond to other things here, but has to go to work instead, alas From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 16:06:35 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:35 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: > > > So then what *is* the reason, do you think, Kneasy? If Jo's not letting info slip in order > to direct people away from "unfruitful" pursuits, then why is she leaking info? > > > You tell me. > But I don't think that the possibility of pissing off a few hundred thousand > fans has much to do with it. > > Could be a combination of things - clearing the decks and damping down fan > expectations. It's a possibility (no more) that although the basic plot thread > was right there from the start, minor threads and sub-plots weren't, were added > to provide the required complexity/depth - but that what at one time seemed > like a nice bit of background/detail/minor action has come back to bite her on > the bum, metaphorically speaking. It might be obstructing the resolution of > something else that's more important to the books. I wonder if a simple explanation might be a big part of it. She's discovered this whole online community having fun (with her baby, no less), and she'd like to play, too. Only, of course, she can't theorise. So she participates by dropping hints and explanations while still trying to keep enough secrets for the final book. She can even shut of lines of inquiry that bore her. As for being willing to piss off fans, she doesn't mind if it's because the plot doesn't go their way. But I bet she would mind if she left whole groups of readers thinking "Is that it? Is that all there is after all?" -- so, yes, maybe she does want to dampen expectations a bit. Or not. Anne From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 17:24:54 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:24:54 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > It does bother me that Jo is indulging in info by leakage. SSS was suggesting that she doesn't want people to go off on the wrong track IIRC. Erm...no, I don't think so. It's unlikely that an author would deliberately insert red herrings and then worry about readers getting it wrong -just the opposite, previously she seemed to derive a great deal of satisfaction at us barking up a whole succession of wrong trees. Must say, I enjoyed it myself, great fun. So what's changed? Pippin: I think you nailed it with "deliberately insert red herrings." She doesn't mind us sniffing after *deliberately* inserted red herrings. We'll get to do that until the cows come home and the fat lady sings. But I fancy the gum wrappers, vampire!Snape, Mark Evans and other such debunked items weren't intentional red herrings; they were based on clues read as JKR never expected them to be. Therefore they couldn't be debunked in the text without distorting it. She had no plans to revisit the gum wrappers, no exegis of the connection between Snape and bats, and we were never supposed to wonder if there were Lily relatives among the living besides Harry, Dudders and Pet. Rather than leave us bewildered, she gave us extra-textual explanations. It doesn't hurt the story she's telling to let us know that the gum wrappers are just gum wrappers, because we were never supposed to think they were anything else. Of course if our theories are interesting in themselves and not merely outrageous perversions of canon invented in the hopes of a scandalized response, then they might be worth exploring in their own right. There is such a thing as *original* fiction, you know . Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 19:18:36 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:18:36 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Of course if our theories are interesting in themselves > and not merely outrageous perversions of canon invented in the hopes > of a scandalized response, then they might be worth exploring > in their own right. > > There is such a thing as *original* fiction, you know . > No posted theory is comprehensible without the books as background. How such ideas could be worth exploring in their own right defeats me, since they have no independent existence of their own, being parasitic constructs. The theories exist solely through and because of the Harry Potter of J.K.Rowling. Dreaming up a rather neat idea for a potential plot twist hardly qualifies as original fiction IMO, especially when the characters and situations have been nicked from existing books and when the quotes and references used to support each theory is also lifted straight from those books. What you are in effect doing is taking existing pieces of the jig-saw and shuffling them around. Where's the originality? And if you don't believe me, just try getting them published as an original work without the say-so of JKR or Warner Bros and see what happens. Instant penury, that's what. Nope. To be original a writer/author has to work rather harder than that. Kneasy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 19 20:55:21 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:55:21 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > No posted theory is comprehensible without the books as background. > How such ideas could be worth exploring in their own right defeats me, since they have no independent existence of their own, being parasitic constructs. The theories exist solely through and because of the Harry Potter of J.K.Rowling.< Pippin: In the immortal words of Mundungus Fletcher, "that'd come off." Of course there's a lot more to original fiction than a plot twist. But if you are really into the idea that an insane couple has something to communicate, or the problems of a part-vampire attempting to pass as human, or the relationship between one kid who's the neighborhood's favorite punching bag and another kid who's a hero -- well, those could all be short stories or even novels in their own right if you had the patience. Last I looked, all those situations were in the public domain. Pippin From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 02:50:01 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:50:01 -0000 Subject: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > Could be a combination of things - clearing the decks and damping down fan > expectations. It's a possibility (no more) that although the basic plot thread > was right there from the start, minor threads and sub-plots weren't, were added > to provide the required complexity/depth - but that what at one time seemed > like a nice bit of background/detail/minor action has come back to bite her on > the bum, metaphorically speaking. It might be obstructing the resolution of > something else that's more important to the books. > > Rewrites have been done before - whole chapters dumped - holes discovered > and fixed. Maybe it's happened again. Perhaps somewhere there's a not-quite > satisfactory-enough version of HP where Frank and Alice live happily ever after, > but it had to go. Doesn't explain spilling the beans on RAB, though. > > Nope. Like much else to do with HP we lack sufficient information to be sure. > Lyn now: Yes, as always with JKR, we lack sufficient information to be sure...but certainty of a sorts will come with Volume 7, and I think more than just some fans are beginning to dread that moment. Rowling has created a more complex world, and more subplots than she can possibly resolve and illuminate in the final book, even if it is 1200 pages. Frankly, I resent being drawn in to all these subplots to have her abandon them, sometimes with an air that it was foolish for me to have ever taken an interest in them. Afterall, what did she include them if not to have us attend to them with interest. And why oh why did she feel the need to clutter up the series with even more new contrivances in HBP when she already had more than she could handle. Did Inferi really add anything, did the HXs. My initial reaction to the HBP was positive, if for no other reason than I was starved for new HP material and I was able to obtain it without going through the drawn out angst of another Umbridge. My long term reaction to the HBP is increasingly negative. I don't like the fast paced, screen play tempo of this book. I don't think it carries its plot forward with much depth or even consistency. I think it short changed us on some of the most interesting character interactions that were set up over the rest of the series (I specifically point to the almost total lack of DADA classes with Snape, the development or abandonment of SPEW and the elves reaction to it, the evolution of DA as not only a source of student self improvement, but an arena where all houses could come together). We are brought to see Luna and Neville as fuller characters in OOTP, yet they get short shrift in HBP so she can spend time bringing in a couple of relatively meaningless characters. It seems to me that Rowling is all too aware the next book can't deliver when it comes to providing a satisfactory closing on such characters as Luna, Dobby, Neville, Fred and George, Tonks and likely Firenze, Hagrid, Ginny and Lupin. If two of these characters get adequately developed in the final volume, I'll be surprised. No, I think Rowling is growing aware that she has offered far too much in canon thus far, in part because of a lack of discipline in adding characters, than she can possible deal with in one final book. I also think, and don't blame her for this one, that she has seen that the products of 100s of fine minds (I'll try to ignore the lesser drivel) can often offer richer and more compelling tales than what she originally put in print. And as you already know, I was not at all pleased with her giddy performance before the select pair of syncophants. Waaay too much like a clique of pre-pubescent females gigging with each other and feeling superior in their standing to those outside the in- crowd. Regardless of the motives for her "revelations" on this occasion, the process did not garner respect for any of the group. Sadly, I find myself enjoying the works, and liking the principle characters less after reading the last two books. I hope the trend can be reversed, but I'm growing to believe this is less likely with every passing "interview." From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 14:39:58 2005 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:39:58 +1000 Subject: What's in a Patronus? Message-ID: <20050920143957.GB14604@...> What's in a Patronus? What indeed, eh? Silmariel and Ewe2 present the theory of Narcissa!Tonks and daddy dragon Snape. There are three Patronuses. Narcissa!Tonks Patronus, Snape's Patronus, and Patronus the latin for Protector. If this seems a bit overblown, I (ewe2) admit I've been watching too much Spooks lately. Hence technical words like "cover" (false identity) and "legend" (background to provide a believable "personality"). Basic Assumptions: 1. We assume Narcissa!Tonks. 2. We assume either that Molly is (a) inadvertently backing up Narcissa's cover or (b) is actively involved. 3. We assume that DD knows what's going on. 4. We assume Snape knows about Imposter!Tonks as well. Let's take this in turn: 1. There are several good reasons for Narcissa!Tonks: a) Keeping an eye on both Snape and Draco b) The patronus/metamorphagus question c) Tonk's unexpected appearances d) Tonk's ignorance e) The legend doesn't fit. a) We suspect that Snape and Narcissa may be in it together. This better fits 2a. It covers the Vow, Snapes interesting remark about Patronuses, the Polyjuice requirement, and certain Tonks appearances. b) The Patronus excuse is too weak, and in apparent conflict to canon. A metamorphagus unable to metamorph is believeable but not in conjunction with a different Patronus. And where's the clumsiness, eh? c) "Tonks" appears in odd places. She needs an excuse to be close to Snape/Draco and gets guard duty. So why was she elsewhere? Where was she really during the fight at Hogwarts? Is her story credible? But she is always near Draco, and conveniently not too close (3d for why). d) The ignorance of asking about letters between the Order members is so obvious it should even have made Harry notice. But then, a Patronus that doesn't send messages is pretty useless for an Order member isn't it? And why ask Harry, who has never been at the centre of Order communications as frequently shown in OoP? Just because she knows he sees DD? e) The story slips. First she's upset about Sirius then suddenly it's all about unrequited love of Lupin. Why Lupin? Any connection to the fact that Snape HATES Lupin? And if we're to believe the time-scale, either its an amazingly sudden transformation, something major has happened we're not being told about, or porkys are hovering outside the window. 2. Molly's involvement: a) While not ruling out Silmariel's idea below, Molly is ideal protection for Narcissa's cover. She provides Narcissa with the means to track OotP movements whilst also diverting others from close inspection by championing the "unrequited love" legend. Of course, in the end, she has to play the part to the hilt to protect her cover in the hospital wing. Molly shushes Fleur because she won't hear of anyone slighting the poor girl in her desperation. The fact remains that oddly, Fleur is the only evidence for a clumsy Tonks at all, and Fleur is hardly a credible witness. b) Silmariel suggests that Molly may be in with Narcissa on the basis of saving their children, which is a good motive. So Molly makes sure that Fleur doesn't draw too much attention to "Tonks". But in the final scene, Molly would know Narcissa!Tonks is acting, could she really keep quiet about it? What kind of duress could Molly be under to enforce her silence? 3. DD knows what's going on. a) "Tonks" is fearful of spending any time in DD's presence. She was lucky DD wasn't going to stay back with Molly, but then if Molly is 2a, she's in more danger from DD herself than Molly. Of course, if DD already knows because he is protecting her, then he probably wants her off as quickly as possible so as not to tip Harry off. b) Assume Snape told DD about the Vow and Draco. He *may* have told him about Narcissa!Tonks. This bears on a more general question: Has DD successfully Legilimens Snape? It is a vital question in other ways, but in this case at least, if DD suspects that the Vow was a conspiracy, he may have his own ideas about Narcissa's involvement; we do not know if he was around "Tonks" long enough to suspect except at the Weasleys. c) DD refuses to give his motives for many of his actions leading up to his death. If we find it hard to believe he does not know something vital about Snape that redeems his actions, then it is impossible that he heard about "Tonks" also but had nothing to say about it unless she is completely genuine or he knows its an imposter. And if we're right about 4a below, then he certainly knows, but may be keeping this secret from Snape because it was a condition of Narcissa's. It's a fair bet DD is a good Occulumens too. d) What is DD likely to know about Snape that may have a bearing on this? Silmariel thinks two things: Snape Loves Narcissa. Snape's Patronus is a dragon. Yes, we *do* mean Draco. Never awaken a sleeping Dragon, or daddy Snape. It fits the Vow, it fits Narcissa!Tonks, and it fits DD's puzzling silence. DD may also have kept his knowledge secret from Snape. but that's not necessarily the case (4c). e) Assuming DD knows about Narcissa, why? Because Snape may fail to fulfil the Vow in the end. Because he can use her to keep an eye on Snape. Because in any case Harry knows enough now to stop Voldy (only he doesn't quite know that yet). Is DD responsible for the Vow? Look at the resistance Bella puts up to the idea of even dealing with Snape, and the Vow leaves her dumbstruck. This almost certainly means that the real Tonks is dead or out of reach of help. 4. Snape and Narcissa!Tonks a) If 3d isn't enough to satisfy you, Silmariel has the original idea that Snape's remark about a "new Patronus" is exactly that: a new guardian, from Voldy to DD. Narcissa wouldn't be pleased to have that hinted at in front of Harry, but Snape seems arrogantly sure Harry wouldn't pick it up and he's unfortunately right. Of course, he also has to cover for the fact that Narcissa's Patronus wouldn't send messages anyway. Snape is covering for Narcissa's presence at Hogwarts. May she not only be minding Draco but is a go-between for Snape and others? b) One scenario is Snape knows about Narcissa going to DD but thinks DD doesn't know this (3c & d). c) The other option, naturally is that DD has masterminded the Vow for Snape and Narcissa to protect Draco in any case. There are minor questions that arise from the situation not covered above: does Bella have another motive for making Draco Legilimens-proof from Snape apart from several obvious ones? If she knew of Draco's real parentage it would be a powerful motive. Problems with the theory: 1. Where is the real Tonks? a) If DD knows of Narcissa!Tonks, then he presumably knows about what happened to the real Tonks. Is she dead, or merely out of reach? Why would he allow this situation? b) If Molly knows, she would be even less capable of keeping quiet about it. This strongly argues against Molly's knowing involvement. c) Is it possible that Lupin (assuming the lovestory is not mere legend) can be fooled by Narcissa!Tonks? It's all a bit sudden isn't it? Silmariel adds: They don't appear to be together in the whole book, at least not with the Tonks we see. Lupins says in Christmas he hasn't seen her in a long time, and if we are to believe chapter 21 at face value (hinting what the real Tonks is about with Lupin), Tonks is desperate looking for Lupin's news. My reading was they could have seen each other say 2 or 3 times, and that is not out of reach, if the couple doesn't know each other well enough, they might don't know exactly if the other has changed in such a period and with a war at hand, and insecurity can run rampart. d) We are faced with another missing time-period. Something happens between OotP and HBP that we are not privy to. Is this credible? e) It is still possible that the real Tonks is in fact in love with Lupin and Narcissa!Tonks stole the legend to provide cover. So the real Tonks could conceivably appear at the end. But I have two problems with this: surely the real Tonks would be warning the others about a ring-in! How could she be allowed to escape otherwise? How successful a conspirator could Molly be in this case? 2. Snape, Narcissa, Draco. a) Where is the tangible evidence? As a theory to explain current events, it may hold up but where is outside confirmation? Why didn't Harry see something of this in the Pensieve? Silmariel: Draco went to Hogwards because Narcissa didn't want him in Durmstrang. Suspicious minds can tie it to Snape (we knew so little of Narcissa up to OoP but we knew that). b) What was the point of the Vow if it was only to convince Bella and Voldy? 3. Does DD have to know EVERYTHING? a) Well no. But then, we didn't know about silent magic or many other major things before HBP. We don't know what DD knew. We can't rule it out. But its not necessary for him to know it all for the theory to be plausible. Silmariel adds this zinger: "Only taking your life would not satisfy me" - that's throwing a gauntlet, as I see it, he told Voldie he was going to hunt him, he could expect a reaction. A question: if all magic leaves traces, Can Cissy's arm and hand betray her? So there's a possble path to proof and a threat from beyond the grave. Rhetorical or not? 4. Surely Molly isn't that stupid? a) No, but she is a romantic well-meaning mother. I differ from Silmariel in that I don't see a conspiracy as necessary and indeed possibly too dangerous. But then it's possible she is under duress. Silmariel: Don't see it as necessary but I can't disregard conspiracy shadows over Fleur. I still think she has to serve for something other than being perfectly pretty and perfectly in love with Bill because she was one of the champions in GoF, she should be a competent wizard. Oh, at least I hope so. Ok, we're done. Over to you! -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 21:16:19 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:16:19 -0000 Subject: Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Lyn now: > Yes, as always with JKR, we lack sufficient information to be sure...but certainty of a sorts will come with Volume 7, and I think more than just some fans are beginning to dread that moment. Rowling has created a more complex world, and more subplots than she can possibly resolve and illuminate in the final book, even if it is 1200 pages. Pippin: I've heard this complaint before, but never seen a comprehensive list of everything that needs to be resolved for a satisfactory conclusion. Is there one? ::googles, doesn't find much:: Let's start one! I've combined some things that seem to be related. Herewith in no particular order: Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs Fate of Draco Malfoy Fate of Dolores Umbridge Fate of Percy Trio romances Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? Lupin/Tonks Fleur/Bill wedding The prank Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation Grawp does something useful Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles Hagrid/Maxime Fate of the founders/Houses unite What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory Feel free to add, or explain what you would subtract. Pippin From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 21:49:07 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:49:07 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun References: Message-ID: <003501c5be2d$20acd2d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Pippin: I've combined some things that seem to be related. Herewith in no particular order: Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs Fate of Draco Malfoy Fate of Dolores Umbridge Fate of Percy Trio romances Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? Lupin/Tonks Fleur/Bill wedding The prank Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation Grawp does something useful Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles Hagrid/Maxime Fate of the founders/Houses unite What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory Feel free to add, or explain what you would subtract. SSSusan, in a rush, so this is just off the cuff: What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover the attack? What happened during the missing 24 hours? What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander? Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 22:03:03 2005 From: hg_skmg at hg_skmg.yahoo.invalid (hg_skmg) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:03:03 -0000 Subject: Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <003501c5be2d$20acd2d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: > Pippin: > I've combined some things that seem to be related. Herewith in no > particular order: > > Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death > Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? > Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? > Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart > Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs > Fate of Draco Malfoy > Fate of Dolores Umbridge > Fate of Percy > Trio romances > Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? > Lupin/Tonks > Fleur/Bill wedding > The prank > Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation > Grawp does something useful > Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles > Hagrid/Maxime > Fate of the founders/Houses unite > What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory > > Feel free to add, or explain what you would subtract. > > > SSSusan, in a rush, so this is just off the cuff: > > What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover the attack? > What happened during the missing 24 hours? > What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? > Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? > What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander? hg: What did the Longbottoms know/the resolution of their story Why Lily was so extra-special to Slughorn What other ways of being invisible (besides an Invisibility Cloak) does Dumbledore refer to Stubby Boardman From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 22:05:02 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:05:02 -0000 Subject: Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: <003501c5be2d$20acd2d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: Pippin proposed a list of subplots currently left hanging: > Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death > Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? > Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? > Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart > Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs > Fate of Draco Malfoy > Fate of Dolores Umbridge > Fate of Percy > Trio romances > Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? > Lupin/Tonks > Fleur/Bill wedding > The prank > Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation > Grawp does something useful > Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles > Hagrid/Maxime > Fate of the founders/Houses unite > What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory And SSSusan added: > What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover the attack? > What happened during the missing 24 hours? > What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? > Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? > What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander? I'm in a rush, too, but several non-human subplots occurred to me: Will the goblins fight? For which side? (And if not, why the constant goblin references in History of Magic?) What, exactly, have the centaurs predicted regarding Harry? And will they act on it? Will we see Norbert again? And, some on humans/ part-humans Will Lupin somehow get revenge (or something) on Fenrir Greyback? Will Alice & Frank Longbottom ever recover? (I know the Blowing Gum wrappers didn't pan out, but that doesn't mean there's no cure. I've always liked the theory that the Death Eaters are somehow keeping the Longbottoms insane -- Lucius and his large donations to St Mungo's can't be purely altruistic, can they?) There's also a bunch of Death Eaters whose fates are unknown, but I'm not sure they're important enough to worry about. Viktor Krum's story has also been left hanging, but JKR says he'll be back in Book 7, so hopefully she's get that subplot planned out. Ask for "Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability?", Susan, I didn't take JKR's comment on Harry's glasses as meaning that his eyes or glasses have some sort of magical vulnerability. I just thought she liked the glasses because they show he is ultimately a regular boy, not a superhero. -- Judy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 20 22:44:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:44:06 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun References: Message-ID: <005901c5be34$ceebbda0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Judy wrote: > Will Alice & Frank Longbottom ever recover? (I know the Blowing Gum > wrappers didn't pan out, but that doesn't mean there's no cure. I've > always liked the theory that the Death Eaters are somehow keeping the > Longbottoms insane -- Lucius and his large donations to St Mungo's > can't be purely altruistic, can they?) SSSusan: I agree with you here, Judy. Their *story* hopefully won't just fade away simply because the gum wrappers weren't some mysterious form of communication between Alice & Neville. Judy wrote: > As for "Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability?", > Susan, I didn't take JKR's comment on Harry's glasses as meaning that > his eyes or glasses have some sort of magical vulnerability. I just > thought she liked the glasses because they show he is ultimately a > regular boy, not a superhero. SSSusan: I'm thinking back to the Reader's Digest (2000) article in which the following was reported: >>>She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?"<<< That phrase "clue to his vulnerability" feels to me more than just "he's a regular kid who has to wear specs," you know? What it DOESN'T show clearly is whether she was referring to his eyes or to his glasses, but it was a pretty strong statement, I think. That, the uses of dragon's blood, DD's trust of Snape, and the missing 24 hours were what got me interested in DRIBBLE SHADOWS, so I'm banking on it being significant. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at ... Wed Sep 21 01:22:13 2005 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:22:13 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004401c5be4a$e6f04310$ea21f204@pensive> The only thing I'd add to everyone's great list so far is, what is the significance of Sirius' death. Didn't she say, in response to a question about why she killed Sirius, that it would be important, and we'd understand later. well, it didn't come up in HBP, unless Harry inheriting Kreacher and all the rest of Sirius' estate is important. So, that's the one I want to know. Sherry From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 01:48:59 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:48:59 -0000 Subject: What's in a Patronus? In-Reply-To: <20050920143957.GB14604@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > What's in a Patronus? > > What indeed, eh? Silmariel and Ewe2 present the theory of Narcissa!Tonks and > daddy dragon Snape. > INteresting. Just wanted you two to know your theory hasn't got lost on here! I'm working through it, and it feels like the old days. It would go a little easier if you'd cite chapters, though. <_< Why would Narcissa!Tonks rescue Harry from the Hogwarts Express, though? Even if she was anti-Voldemort, she still can't like Harry -- what would it hurt if he stewed in his own juices partway back to London? Was she just keeping her cover? Anne From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 03:22:12 2005 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:22:12 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What's in a Patronus? In-Reply-To: References: <20050920143957.GB14604@...> Message-ID: <20050921032211.GD14604@...> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 01:48:59AM -0000, annemehr wrote: > > > INteresting. Just wanted you two to know your theory hasn't got lost > on here! I'm working through it, and it feels like the old days. Yes, how do you support an improbable theory? With another improbable theory! > It would go a little easier if you'd cite chapters, though. <_< O_o Apologies for that. Silmariel and I have been talking through these issues for some time off-list and she has always been more careful than I to cite canon. The theory as written is largely my rewrite of Silmariel's work so blame me. > Why would Narcissa!Tonks rescue Harry from the Hogwarts Express, > though? Even if she was anti-Voldemort, she still can't like Harry -- > what would it hurt if he stewed in his own juices partway back to > London? Was she just keeping her cover? If we consider Narcissa!Tonks motives for her subterfuge, and the possibility that Snape and/or DD is actively involved, it may well be a matter of ensuring Harry isn't distracted from the essential goal: to be the weapon against Voldemort. I don't think they trust Harry to be quiet if he knew either. On the other hand, she is a mother. It's not a big stretch if you're going that far to protect your son who has no idea what he's involved in, to at least give a hand to another who lost his parents to your previous master. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 05:06:56 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:06:56 -0000 Subject: Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Judy: > Ask for "Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability?", > Susan, I didn't take JKR's comment on Harry's glasses as meaning that > his eyes or glasses have some sort of magical vulnerability. I just > thought she liked the glasses because they show he is ultimately a > regular boy, not a superhero. Jen: Even though interview comments have fallen on hard times, JKR did actually say this, Reader's Digest, 2000: "She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" She never said it that way again. As I've said to Susan off-list, it seems like JKR slipped up saying that b/c in the other interviews she only mentions "they didn't like a hero in glasses" about the Italian dust jacket. So it was either a slip-up, or it was an inaccurate quote. I've yet to hear JKR forcing it to be retracted or a lawsuit, so I'm going with interpretation #1. Jen From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 09:18:40 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:18:40 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What's in a Patronus? In-Reply-To: <20050921032211.GD14604@...> References: <20050920143957.GB14604@...> <20050921032211.GD14604@...> Message-ID: <200509211118.40339.silmariel@...> Anne: > > It would go a little easier if you'd cite chapters, though. <_< > Ewe2: > O_o Silmariel: You know when you've got the feeling you are forgetting something important? *cough* (Bloomsbury) 2) Spinner's End 5) An excess of Phlegm, Tonks appears briefly near the beginning, refuses an invitation to see Remus 7) Slug Club: there is a Fleur commentary on Tonks while they still are in the Burrows - 126 8) Snape Victorious, Tonks&Snape scene 12) Silver and Opals, 232, after Mundungus 16) A very frosty Christmas -313: Lupin tells what he's been doing -318: Fleur says Tonks is clumsy, then Molly asks Lupin if she has seen her lately (answer no), and we learn she is to be alone in Christmas (I've just noticed this one) instead of with her family. 21) The unknowable room - 435 (near end of chapter) 29) The Phoenix lament Anne: > > Why would Narcissa!Tonks rescue Harry from the Hogwarts Express, > > though? Even if she was anti-Voldemort, she still can't like Harry -- > > what would it hurt if he stewed in his own juices partway back to > > London? Was she just keeping her cover? Well, I cheered when Draco broke Harry's nose, it was time, but it would be quite of a giveaway to fail in your Auror's tasks the first day, and Snape marked Harry as to be left alone on Voldie's orders in ch 2. The logic thing is to take at least the minimun care. Ewe2: > If we consider Narcissa!Tonks motives for her subterfuge, and the > possibility that Snape and/or DD is actively involved, it may well be a > matter of ensuring Harry isn't distracted from the essential goal: to be > the weapon against Voldemort. I don't think they trust Harry to be quiet if > he knew either. It's the same motive Lily had, so it is quite strong. If she is go into action, sure having a death threat on her son is a valid trigger, and though she doesn't have to know the real reason Harry is to be let alone, it's also clear Harry gets observed by both sides so better to remain peripherical to him. Erm I agree, I wouldn't trust him with this particular secret. > On the other hand, she is a mother. It's not a big stretch if you're going > that far to protect your son who has no idea what he's involved in, to at > least give a hand to another who lost his parents to your previous master. Yes, you don't have to like the kid to give him kid treatment, and the orphan factor counts, I wouldn't have left him in the train, even I have admitted I cheered. Tonks isn't specially caring or loving with Harry in this book, my impression of the rescue was that it was a bit impersonal, as in the Mundungus incident, she just get sure Harry calms down and leaves asap. She treats him correctly, but not in a particular friendly way. Silmariel From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 11:37:26 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:37:26 -0000 Subject: What's in a Patronus? In-Reply-To: <20050920143957.GB14604@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > What's in a Patronus? > > What indeed, eh? Silmariel and Ewe2 present the theory of Narcissa!Tonks and > daddy dragon Snape. > > Basic Assumptions: > > 1. We assume Narcissa!Tonks. > 2. We assume either that Molly is (a) inadvertently backing up Narcissa's > cover or (b) is actively involved. > 3. We assume that DD knows what's going on. > 4. We assume Snape knows about Imposter!Tonks as well. > Good oh. Comprehensive and nicely detailed - but wait! The half is not yet told! Admittedly Narcissa!Tonks is a tempting construction, all sorts of entertaining repercussions could flow from it - SHIPs (if you're into that sort of thing), BANGs, devious doings among the DEs and DD doing a touch of the Nelson's by turning a blind eye to a dyed-in-the-wool DE supremacist hausfrau clomping round his beloved Hogwarts. See, this is what Jo wants you to think, so one should sniff the breezes for the subtle tang of Clupea harengus radiating light at 650 nm. So, a few questions - How come Cissy is hugger-mugger with the inner-most circle of the Order? She'd have to be if Molly, Snape and DD are aiding and abetting. They'd know that all she cares about is Draino, Harry comes nowhere on her list of priorities. She'd happily wipe out Hoggers and all who sail in her to keep her obnoxious offspring safe. She's shown no indication of repudiating Voldy's masterplan of "Me for King!" Why should they trust her? Snape is already irrevocably bound by the UV. What could Cissy do that Sevvy can't? I agree that Tonks looks dodgy, but IMO it's worth bracketing Cissy with a couple of other suspects. First - Andromeda Tonks; Nympho's mother, married to a Muggle and so anti-Voldy and pro-Harry. There'd probably be a family resemblance too, so Polyjuice, with all its drawbacks (time-limited) may not be required. IIRC Jo said (yet more of those bloody hints) that in book 7 we would meet a member of the Order that we'd 'sort-of' met before. Andromeda would be a logical possibility; Cissy I'd rate as, well, maybe the author had a funny turn. Secondly - just because Tonks is of the lumpy-front persuasion, it does not automatically follow that whoever is impersonating her can't be a bloke. Grabbe and Coyle have used the trick, maybe there's someone else who wants to show their feminine side. Now who do we know who has already trod the transvestite path in OoP, who Apparates out in HBP only for 'Tonks' to appear from round the corner shortly after? Dear old Dung. A replay of his 'watch over Harry' assignment perhaps? "He's probably in London already" says 'Tonks'. Ha! Pull the other one, Harry. He could be standing right in front of you. Kneasy who loves twisty theories From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 13:08:57 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:08:57 -0000 Subject: Coming to a conclusion was Re: Spoiling the fun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: Judy: > Ask for "Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability?", > Susan, I didn't take JKR's comment on Harry's glasses as meaning that > his eyes or glasses have some sort of magical vulnerability. I just > thought she liked the glasses because they show he is ultimately a > regular boy, not a superhero. >Jen: Even though interview comments have fallen on hard times, JKR did >actually say this, Reader's Digest, 2000: >"She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, >outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his >glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his >vulnerability?" >She never said it that way again. As I've said to Susan off-list, it >seems like JKR slipped up saying that b/c in the other interviews she >only mentions "they didn't like a hero in glasses" about the Italian >dust jacket. So it was either a slip-up, or it was an inaccurate >quote. I've yet to hear JKR forcing it to be retracted or a lawsuit, >so I'm going with interpretation #1. Talisman, postponing work on the tome-like post she is supposed to be finishing, to answer an easy one: I would say the answer can be found, in fair measure, in SS at page 213: `"Strange how nearsighted being invisible can make you," said Dumbledore.' Of course evidence indicates that Harry actually *is* nearsighted, but that's not exactly what Dumbles means, is it? The symbolic nearsightedness, to which I believe Harry's glasses are a clue, is an inability to see the big picture. We know Harry's been *invisible* for a about 10 years by the time he turns up at Hogwarts: not a picture on the mantle, people pretending he isn't there, etc. Among other things, this has engendered certain solipsistic modes of looking at the world. Oh, sure, he rocketed to instant celebrity, but it takes a little longer to develop insight into people and situations. Some folks never manage. Our boy still has trouble reading what's going on (Hey, why are these marionette strings tied all over me?), though he is improving. I would link the vision vulnerability concept to a couple of Rowling's other quotes, both of which are applicable to the entire series, and it's final outcome. `"He is vulnerable; he is frequently afraid; he has a very strong conscience, and it is my belief that with the overwhelming majority of human beings--maybe I'm a wild optimist--most people do try to do the right thing, by their own lights."' (International Writers and Readers Festival," Cinescape, 3 November 2000) Sure, everyone does what they think is the *right thing;* it's just that a lot of them are chowder-heads. The trick is to be possessed of adequate *light* to see what exactly the right thing might be. Information /comprehension is critical to those almighty *choices* everyone is so enamored of. Can't make meaningful ones without it. Otherwise you're just left with a lot of pavers for the road to hell. Chin held high, or not. I would suggest that this all fits in with an earlier comment regarding the final outcome: "Also, it will take 7 books to get Harry to the point where he has to face, um I can't say. But in Book 7, you know, there's a big climax coming here and it will take that many books to get him there." ( The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999) Face what? Love? Death? Voldemort? Dementors? Inferi? Hagrid's cooking? All old news. Nah, he's got to face the truth of events-- which is something quite different than he currently perceives. He's got to finally see the big picture. Oh, Guilty!Dumbledore. Oh, lovely Snape. Talisman, for the Fellowship of the D.U.S.T. (Dumbledore Undercover Surveillance Team), Posthumous Studies division, recommending that anyone who shares Harry's understanding of things at the end of HBP should invest in a foam neck brace before Book 7. PS Thanks for the heads-up on that Hawthorne post, Jen. No reference to Hawthorne should go unacknowledged. I actually posted on TOL to give our poster an answer. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 14:31:43 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:31:43 -0000 Subject: The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) Message-ID: Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs Fate of Draco Malfoy Fate of Dolores Umbridge Fate of Percy Fate of Norbert/the boa constrictor from the zoo Fate of Fenrir Fate of Krum Trio romances Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? Lupin/Tonks Fleur/Bill wedding The prank Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation Grawp does something useful Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles Hagrid/Maxime Fate of the founders/Houses unite What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover the attack? What happened during the missing 24 hours? What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander?/which supposed DE victims have been saved by the Order? What did the Longbottoms know/the resolution of their story/fate of Bellatrix/who sent the Lestranges Why Lily was so extra-special to Slughorn What other ways of being invisible (besides an Invisibility Cloak) does Dumbledore refer to (I think we have the answer to this with the disillusionment charm and the invisibility spell on the flying car-Pippin.) Stubby Boardman (Stubby Boardman??? -Pippin) Will the goblins fight? On which side? Centaur predictions about Harry Significance of Sirius's death Are any of the teachers married --- Maybe I'm wildly optimistic, but this doesn't seem unmanageable in one book, especially as a lot of them could be combined. The final battle could dispose of a lot of plot threads at once. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 15:48:44 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:48:44 +0100 Subject: RADIO T-BAY - The Potions Pit Message-ID: "Ah. Kaynes here. Back with you again after that exciting ... er... sorry, I can't quite call it to mind. No matter, I'm here in the Ministry with Demeter Rule and we're off to see.... something else. What, exactly, Demmy?" "This is where I usually work, Kaynes. It's the new Sorcerous Syrups and Magical Medicaments Evaluation Facility, otherwise known as the Potions Pit. Only opened last year, the old building ..er.. melted while one of our researchers was concocting a universal solvent. We'd like to have a word with him, but he seems to have disappeared." "Oh. So what do you do here?" "Quality assurance. In this day and age the witch and wizard in the street is very concerned about what they put into their bodies - is it pure, are the dragons free-range, does it contain nuts, will your ears drop off, all that sort of thing. We protect the consumer." "That's very re-assuring." "Oh, yes. Every ingredient is checked in the Wizard's Thaumacopoeia and the Materia Magica for specificity and efficacy. Ingredients are listed, the best dosage is determined, possible adverse reactions noted and it all has to go on the label before we give it our rune of approval. In the bad old days producers used to get away with all sorts of rubbish. Some still try. Look at this - it's from some rip- off artists called 'Kneasy's Knostrums' - supposedly an aphrodisiac potion. All it says on the bottle is "Directions: Add one drop to partner's pumpkin juice, put the cat out and brace yourself. Wear loose clothing. 5 star rating from Madam Whiplash!" What's the good of that?" "Well.... it does tell you everything you need to know. Any spare bottles around?" "No. There's a note on the evaluation scroll - the others've been taken for field trials - and some joker has added "To the woods! To the woods!" Disgusting. Now compare that to the new Ministry standard; look at this label for Daph Olbatt's Intellect Restorative for Senior Citizens Who've Lost It." "Let's see. It says - "Take 3 drachms before owls hoot. Ingredients. Each half-goblet contains approximately: 2 Moonbeams (organic, homogenised) 3ft Knotweed (unknotted) 2 drops Mysterious Oriental Poison Unknown to Alchemy 1 splash Essence of Quetzalcoatl feathers Prune juice (as stabiliser) Side effects. May cause drowsiness and delusions of omnipotence. Do not fly brooms or operate automatic spells. Do not challenge You-Know-Who. May cause nose to turn upside-down. Should this occur: Do not sneeze. Seek professional help immediately. On no account should sufferers attempt to reverse nose themselves. Any attempt will invariably result in the production of copious bright blue armpit hair - about 5 ft long. Non-fattening - less than 3 inches on waistline per hogshead. Product of more than one wizard." "Um. I'd rather lose my marbles, I think. Tell me, Demmy - does the Ministry itself make any potions?" "Not really, though our Research Kitchen does investigate the properties of possible ingredients. Do you want to see? It's this way. One of our wizards seemed to think there was something interesting about a batch of mushrooms that came in yesterday. Said they were definitely magic. Here we are...... oh. Why is he wearing beads, floating near the ceiling and giggling?" "Ah. This is Kaynes saying bye for now and returning you to the studio for Magical Music from Abba Cadabra. "Now then Demmy, fancy popping out for a gillywater? Back at my place? On the way out, if I can just nip into the other lab, I think I left a bottle of something behind....." From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 16:04:23 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:04:23 -0000 Subject: The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death On this one, can we attatch /scar ? Because I definitely want to know exactly what it is (besides *maybe* being an accidental Hx), and how DD seemed to know so much about it so early on. Nice list, though. I agree, many of these may be dispatched with just a few lines. Remember, we were to see Aragog again, and we did, but he was incidental. Anne From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 18:29:26 2005 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:29:26 -0000 Subject: RADIO T-BAY - The Potions Pit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: >Look at this - it's from some rip-off artists called 'Kneasy's >Knostrums' - supposedly an aphrodisiac potion. All it says on the >bottle is "Directions: Add one drop to partner's pumpkin juice, put >the cat out and brace yourself. Ah, Kneasy darlin, who knew you could be so considerate of the cat? Kaynes' adventures are delightful, and rather a repudiation of Ms. R, who seems to have been left at the curb... Talisman From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 19:12:59 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:12:59 -0000 Subject: RADIO T-BAY - The Potions Pit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith > wrote: > >Look at this - it's from some rip-off artists called 'Kneasy's > >Knostrums' - supposedly an aphrodisiac potion. All it says on the > >bottle is "Directions: Add one drop to partner's pumpkin juice, put > >the cat out and brace yourself. > > Ah, Kneasy darlin, who knew you could be so considerate of the cat? Nah. It's just to prevent the cat sticking his nose into the pumpkin juice... Anne From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 19:27:29 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:27:29 -0000 Subject: The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd add learning more specific to Firenze. He has twice gone against the wishes of his kind (doing what is right, rather than easy), once saving Harry's life, the other "saving" Hogwarts. The latter resulted in his banishment from his own kind, and from the forest home he had known all his life. He also was very significantly interrupted in SS/PS as he was about to tell Harry more. I'd be most disappointed if we didn't learn more about both what Firenze knows, and what becomes of him. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 19:52:23 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:52:23 -0000 Subject: RADIO T-BAY - The Potions Pit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > Ah, Kneasy darlin, who knew you could be so considerate of the cat? > Yep. Who'd have believed it. It's a literary allusion to that old joke about the two old spinsters who kept their cat indoors. One got married and after her wedding night sent a telegram to her friend - "Let kitty out tonight." > Kaynes' adventures are delightful, and rather a repudiation of Ms. R, > who seems to have been left at the curb... > It's probably fortunate that you think so, for Kaynes will ride again - with second thoughts I'd better rephrase that - the adventures of Kaynes are not yet concluded. Brace yourself. It'll get even more corny. Just my irreverent way of filling in those minor background aspects of the WW that Jo will probably never get round to enlightening us about - no doubt with good reason. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 21 19:54:35 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:54:35 -0000 Subject: The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn J. Mangiameli wrote: > I'd add learning more specific to Firenze. SSSusan: And a few more from me -- some big, some decidedly small: *It's been hinted at that we can expect something else on the 2-way mirrors *We surely have to get back to or otherwise learn about the locked room in the DoM *Source of the Potters' wealth *DD's family background -- why is it important?/defeat of Grindelwald *What happened between the Snape's Worst Memory scene and 7th year to account for James' rise to Head Boy material & Lily's change in attitude toward him? *By whom was Snape loved? Siriusly Snapey Susan From jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 01:05:47 2005 From: jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid (serenadust) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:05:47 -0000 Subject: The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death > > Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? > > Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? > > Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart > > Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs > > Fate of Draco Malfoy > > Fate of Dolores Umbridge > > Fate of Percy > > Fate of Norbert/the boa constrictor from the zoo > > Fate of Fenrir > > Fate of Krum > > Trio romances > > Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? > > Lupin/Tonks > > Fleur/Bill wedding > > The prank > > Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation > > Grawp does something useful > > Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles > > Hagrid/Maxime > > Fate of the founders/Houses unite > > What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory > > What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover > the attack? > > What happened during the missing 24 hours? > > What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? > > Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? > > > What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander?/which supposed DE victims > have been saved by the Order? > > What did the Longbottoms know/the resolution of their story/fate of > Bellatrix/who sent the Lestranges > > Why Lily was so extra-special to Slughorn > > What other ways of being invisible (besides an Invisibility Cloak) > does Dumbledore refer to > (I think we have the answer to this with the disillusionment charm > and the invisibility spell on the flying car-Pippin.) > > Stubby Boardman (Stubby Boardman??? -Pippin) > > Will the goblins fight? On which side? > > Centaur predictions about Harry > > Significance of Sirius's death > > Are any of the teachers married Am I really the only one who's DYING to hear the story behind Dumbledore's burnt-up hand? Jo Serenadust From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 03:03:33 2005 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:03:33 +1000 Subject: What's In A Patronus? (updated and revised) Message-ID: <20050922030333.GA31150@...> What's in a Patronus? What indeed, eh? Silmariel and Ewe2 present the theory of Narcissa!Tonks and daddy dragon Snape. There are three Patronuses. Narcissa!Tonks Patronus, Snape's Patronus, and Patronus the latin for Protector. If this seems a bit overblown, I (ewe2) admit I've been watching too much Spooks lately. Hence technical words like "cover" (false identity) and "legend" (background to provide a believable "personality"). This is the new revised version for those who need citations to argue over. Some new cites have been added as they were found. Page and Chapter references Bloomsbury hardback edition. Basic Assumptions: 1. We assume Narcissa!Tonks. 2. We assume either that Molly is (a) inadvertently backing up Narcissa's cover or (b) is actively involved. (Spinner's End) 3. We assume that DD knows what's going on. 4. We assume Snape knows about Imposter!Tonks as well. Let's take this in turn: 1. There are several good reasons for Narcissa!Tonks: a) Keeping an eye on both Snape and Draco b) The patronus/metamorphagus question c) Tonk's unexpected appearances d) Tonk's ignorance e) The legend doesn't fit. a) We suspect that Snape and Narcissa may be in it together. This better fits 2a. It covers the Vow (Spinner's End), Snapes interesting remark about Patronuses (Snape Victorious pp152-153), the Polyjuice requirement, and certain Tonks appearances. b) The Patronus excuse is too weak, and in apparent conflict to canon (A Very Frosty Christmas p319. What did Harry guess it was?). A metamorphagus unable to metamorph (pp93-94, why didn't Ron think so? He immediately gets contradicted) is believeable but not in conjunction with a different Patronus. And where's the clumsiness, eh? (according to Fleur, ibid.) c) "Tonks" appears in odd places. She needs an excuse to be close to Snape/Draco but wasn't assigned guard duty (p126 suggests she shouldn't have been anywhere near the train or Hogwararts. Why the sudden change?), but somehow manages it. So why was she elsewhere? (Silver and Opals p232) Where was she really during the fight at Hogwarts? (The Phoenix Lament p578 but see also p571 for an intriguing comment) Is her story credible? But she is often near Draco, and conveniently not too close (3d for why). d) The ignorance of asking about letters between the Order members is so obvious it should even have made Harry notice. But then, a Patronus that doesn't send messages is pretty useless for an Order member isn't it? And why ask Harry, who has never been at the centre of Order communications as frequently shown in OoP? Just because she knows he sees DD? (pp435-436 The Unknowable Room) e) The story slips. First she's upset about Sirius (p93) then suddenly it's all about unrequited love of Lupin (p582). Why Lupin? Any connection to the fact that Snape HATES Lupin? And if we're to believe the time-scale, either its an amazingly sudden transformation, something major has happened we're not being told about, or porkys are hovering outside the window. Just because Harry makes 2+2=5 does not convince me we should also. 2. Molly's involvement (pp313 and 318): a) While not ruling out Silmariel's idea below, Molly is ideal protection for Narcissa's cover. She provides Narcissa with the means to track OotP movements whilst also diverting others from close inspection by championing the "unrequited love" legend. Of course, in the end, she has to play the part to the hilt to protect her cover in the hospital wing. Molly shushes Fleur because she won't hear of anyone slighting the poor girl in her desperation. Why would she not choose to be with her family at Christmas? The fact remains that oddly, Fleur is the only evidence for a clumsy Tonks at all, and Fleur is hardly a credible witness. (Slug Club p126, A Very Frosty Christmas pp313, 318) b) Silmariel suggests that Molly may be in with Narcissa on the basis of saving their children, which is a good motive. So Molly makes sure that Fleur doesn't draw too much attention to "Tonks". But in the final scene, Molly would know Narcissa!Tonks is acting, could she really keep quiet about it? What kind of duress could Molly be under to enforce her silence? 3. DD knows what's going on. a) "Tonks" is fearful of spending any time in DD's presence. She was lucky DD wasn't going to stay back with Molly, but then if Molly is 2a, she's in more danger from DD herself than Molly. Of course, if DD already knows because he is protecting her, then he probably wants her off as quickly as possible so as not to tip Harry off. (An Excess of Phelgm pp81-82) b) Assume Snape told DD about the Vow and Draco. He *may* have told him about Narcissa!Tonks. This bears on a more general question: Has DD successfully Legilimens Snape? It is a vital question in other ways, but in this case at least, if DD suspects that the Vow was a conspiracy, he may have his own ideas about Narcissa's involvement; we do not know if he was around "Tonks" long enough to suspect except at the Weasleys. c) DD refuses to give his motives for many of his actions leading up to his death. If we find it hard to believe he does not know something vital about Snape that redeems his actions, then it is impossible that he heard about "Tonks" also but had nothing to say about it unless she is completely genuine or he knows its an imposter. And if we're right about 4a below, then he certainly knows, but may be keeping this secret from Snape because it was a condition of Narcissa's. It's a fair bet DD is a good Occulumens too. d) What is DD likely to know about Snape that may have a bearing on this? Silmariel thinks two things: Snape Loves Narcissa. Snape's Patronus is a dragon. Yes, we *do* mean Draco. Never awaken a sleeping Dragon, or daddy Snape. It fits the Vow, it fits Narcissa!Tonks, and it fits DD's puzzling silence. DD may also have kept his knowledge secret from Snape. but that's not necessarily the case (4c). e) Assuming DD knows about Narcissa, why? Because Snape may fail to fulfil the Vow in the end (p573, "Tonks" needs to know how DD died). Because he can use her to keep an eye on Snape. Because in any case Harry knows enough now to stop Voldy (only he doesn't quite know that yet). Is DD responsible for the Vow? Look at the resistance Bella puts up to the idea of even dealing with Snape, and the Vow leaves her dumbstruck. This almost certainly means that the real Tonks is dead or out of reach of help. 4. Snape and Narcissa!Tonks (pp152-153) a) If 3d isn't enough to satisfy you, Silmariel has the original idea that Snape's remark about a "new Patronus" is exactly that: a new guardian, from Voldy to DD. Narcissa wouldn't be pleased to have that hinted at in front of Harry, but Snape seems arrogantly sure Harry wouldn't pick it up and he's unfortunately right. Of course, he also has to cover for the fact that Narcissa's Patronus wouldn't send messages anyway. Snape is covering for Narcissa's presence at Hogwarts by answering the "Patronus". May she not only be minding Draco but is a go-between for Snape and others? b) One scenario is Snape knows about Narcissa going to DD but thinks DD doesn't know this (3c & d). c) The other option, naturally is that DD has masterminded the Vow for Snape and Narcissa to protect Draco in any case. There are minor questions that arise from the situation not covered above: does Bella have another motive for making Draco Legilimens-proof from Snape apart from several obvious ones? If she knew of Draco's real parentage it would be a powerful motive. Problems with the theory: 1. Where is the real Tonks? a) If DD knows of Narcissa!Tonks, then he presumably knows about what happened to the real Tonks. Is she dead, or merely out of reach? Why would he allow this situation? b) If Molly knows, she would be even less capable of keeping quiet about it. This strongly argues against Molly's knowing involvement. c) Is it possible that Lupin (assuming the lovestory is not mere legend) can be fooled by Narcissa!Tonks? It's all a bit sudden isn't it? Silmariel adds: They don't appear to be together in the whole book, at least not with the Tonks we see. Lupins says in Christmas he hasn't seen her in a long time, and if we are to believe chapter 21 at face value (hinting what the real Tonks is about with Lupin), Tonks is desperate looking for Lupin's news. My reading was they could have seen each other say 2 or 3 times, and that is not out of reach, if the couple doesn't know each other well enough, they might don't know exactly if the other has changed in such a period and with a war at hand, and insecurity can run rampart. d) We are faced with another missing time-period. Something happens between OotP and HBP that we are not privy to. Is this credible? e) It is still possible that the real Tonks is in fact in love with Lupin and Narcissa!Tonks stole the legend to provide cover. So the real Tonks could conceivably appear at the end. But I have two problems with this: surely the real Tonks would be warning the others about a ring-in! How could she be allowed to escape otherwise? How successful a conspirator could Molly be in this case? f) It must also be conceded that despite the apparent contradiction, a Patronus might possibly change as a result of the "happy memory" being connected to a loved one. But this 'palely loitering' form of attachment that inteferes with Patronuses and Metamorphagi doesn't satisfy my inner Ockham's Razor, it's too far-fetched. 2. Snape, Narcissa, Draco. a) Where is the tangible evidence? As a theory to explain current events, it may hold up but where is outside confirmation? Why didn't Harry see something of this in the Pensieve? Silmariel: Draco went to Hogwards because Narcissa didn't want him in Durmstrang. Suspicious minds can tie it to Snape (we knew so little of Narcissa up to OoP but we knew that). b) What was the point of the Vow if it was only to convince Bella and Voldy? 3. Does DD have to know EVERYTHING? a) Well no. But then, we didn't know about silent magic or many other major things before HBP. We don't know what DD knew. We can't rule it out. But its not necessary for him to know it all for the theory to be plausible. Silmariel adds this zinger: "Only taking your life would not satisfy me" - that's throwing a gauntlet, as I see it, he told Voldie he was going to hunt him, he could expect a reaction. A question: if all magic leaves traces, Can Cissy's arm and hand betray her? So there's a possble path to proof and a threat from beyond the grave. Rhetorical or not? 4. Surely Molly isn't that stupid? a) No, but she is a romantic well-meaning mother. I differ from Silmariel in that I don't see a conspiracy as necessary and indeed possibly too dangerous. But then it's possible she is under duress. Silmariel: Don't see it as necessary but I can't disregard conspiracy shadows over Fleur. I still think she has to serve for something other than being perfectly pretty and perfectly in love with Bill because she was one of the champions in GoF, she should be a competent wizard. Oh, at least I hope so. Ok, we're done. Over to you! -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 14:41:15 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:41:15 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSusan: > That phrase "clue to his vulnerability" feels to me more than > just "he's a regular kid who has to wear specs," you know? What > it DOESN'T show clearly is whether she was referring to his eyes > or to his glasses, but it was a pretty strong statement, I think. Jen: That's a new thought, Susan, the idea the glasses *or* the eyes could be the 'clue to his vulnerability'. I've always thought of the quote (upthread) referring literally to Harry's eyes, that his eyes have a vulnerable property, and the glasses are merely protection. But if JKR is referring to the glasses, then maybe the quote is more metaphorical. Which is basically what Talisman seems to be saying, so I'll move on to her analysis! Talisman: > I would say the answer can be found, in fair measure, in SS at > page 213: `"Strange how nearsighted being invisible can make you," > said Dumbledore.' > > Of course evidence indicates that Harry actually *is* nearsighted, > but that's not exactly what Dumbles means, is it? The symbolic > nearsightedness, to which I believe Harry's glasses are a clue, is > an inability to see the big picture. Jen: So true. Sometimes I wish we could view Potterverse like one of those scenes in a movie, where you watch the same event from 3 or 4 different people's perspectives and you get to see what bias each person holds. At least we have the Pensieve, to see certain events exactly as they are without personal beliefs causing misinterpretation. Many people have suggested we'll get to see GH through the Pensieve, and after its extensive use in HBP, I hope this is true. Talisman: > We know Harry's been *invisible* for a about 10 years by the time > he turns up at Hogwarts: not a picture on the mantle, people > pretending he isn't there, etc. Among other things, this has > engendered certain solipsistic modes of looking at the world. > > Oh, sure, he rocketed to instant celebrity, but it takes a little > longer to develop insight into people and situations. Some folks > never manage. > > Our boy still has trouble reading what's going on (Hey, why are > these marionette strings tied all over me?), though he is > improving. Jen: After a brief detour to look up solipsistic, I'd have to agree-- with a provision. Harry's view of the world is a double-edged sword. He can be woefully wrong in certain situations, especially when he's operating with half-truths and holes in his informtation. The tower scene comes to mind here, plus Quirrell/Snape in PS. When no one is interfering or witholding information, Harry can be a very good judge of character, i.e., recognizing Sirius was not as he seemed when Harry finally got the chance to hear primary information. And he made his own assessment of Scrimgeour and the MOM with absolutely no input, and more importantly, no witholding of facts. JKR: > "He is vulnerable; he is frequently afraid; he has a very strong > conscience, and it is my belief that with the overwhelming > majority of human beings--maybe I'm a wild optimist--most people > do try to do the right thing, by their own lights." (International Writers and Readers Festival," Cinescape, 3 November 2000) Talisman: > Sure, everyone does what they think is the *right thing;* it's > just that a lot of them are chowder-heads. The trick is to be > possessed of adequate *light* to see what exactly the right thing > might be. Information /comprehension is critical to those almighty > *choices* everyone is so enamored of. Can't make meaningful ones > without it. Otherwise you're just left with a lot of pavers for > the road to hell. Chin held high, or not. Jen: Lol on the pavers image, but Harry *is* possessed of the adequate light or the story will sink. That's why he seeks the stone, but not to use it, and gains courage from the phoenix song. JKR probably *is* saying Harry's vulnerability or weakness is his inability to read situations correctly, but no matter, he's saved by his untarnished soul at the most critical junctures. Talisman: > "Also, it will take 7 books to get Harry to the point where he has > to face, um I can't say. But in Book 7, you know, there's a big > climax coming here and it will take that many books to get him > there." ( The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999) > > Face what? Love? Death? Voldemort? Dementors? Inferi? Hagrid's > cooking? All old news. Nah, he's got to face the truth of events- -which is something quite different than he currently perceives. > He's got to finally see the big picture. > > Oh, Guilty!Dumbledore. Oh, lovely Snape. Jen: Hee--you think so? Surely DD will get a pass now, being dead and all. Everyone looks better in retrospect. As for what Harry faces, I've never seen that quote. I'll be a little disappointed if he only faces Voldemort at the end. Didn't we get that in the graveyard scene? Voldemort's demise needs to be trickier than a duel to the finish, or whatnot. But you will undoubtedly get your lovely Snape, he'll finally be seen for who he is before the end. Perhaps the reality will be *after* his end, but the hero will discover the beautiful and terrible truth. > PS Thanks for the heads-up on that Hawthorne post, Jen. No > reference to Hawthorne should go unacknowledged. I actually > posted on TOL to give our poster an answer. Jen: I saw your post and learned something! Potioncat replied to you, if you haven't seen it. From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 17:11:11 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:11:11 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: Lol on the pavers image, but Harry *is* possessed of the > adequate light or the story will sink. That's why he seeks the > stone, but not to use it, and gains courage from the phoenix song. > JKR probably *is* saying Harry's vulnerability or weakness is his > inability to read situations correctly, but no matter, he's saved by > his untarnished soul at the most critical junctures. > Carolyn: Jen, pardon the irritated tone after trying day in the office, but what *is* this insistance on Harry's 'untarnished soul'?? As you know, I'm a heathen, therefore damned for ever more according to the second sight only vouchsafed to the converted, but *really*. What we have in these books is a reasonable portrait of a teenager, warts and all. The kid has made several (justified IMO) attempts at chucking unforgiveables at people he dislikes; he lies frequently (some signs of intelligence in the lad); instinctively avoids creeps like Creevey, Rita and Lockhart and is not unreasonably confused about Snape, who's playing a deep game, hand in hand with DD. The only incidents I can think you are referring to are is his expulsions of Voldie from Quirrell!Mort, and when Voldie possesses him at the MoM. Neither of these episodes had anything to do with untarnished souls, but in the first case, him suddenly realising that he can hurt Quirrell by holding on tight, and in the second case a pretty sensible wish to be dead and with his godfather, rather than endure the pain he was in at that point. Perhaps JKR really does see it this way, that the boy is possessed of some extraordinary qualitity of love, vulnerability, whatever that will conquer all in the end. Very touching I'm sure. However, the way she's written him comes across to me as a good deal more prosaic, and I hope she doesn't lose sight of this in the final resolution. Carolyn, grumpy. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 18:03:19 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:03:19 -0000 Subject: The trouble with Harry and how Snape saves the day. Message-ID: Hi all and welcome to the newbies. For a couple of months now life (other people) has taken up most of my time so have not been able to participate in what have been some thoroughly enjoyable threads. So in passing I will note they have provided much thought provoking stuff and entertainment and I proffer a big thanks to you all. Having been silent for so long I find I must compensate by submitting this extremely long and tedious post, feel free not to read it and accept it's a sort of overexcited `hello I'm back`! I sense in JKR's interviews a frustration that we don't really `get' Harry. JKR clearly is emotionally invested in him but somehow her readers will keep focussing on Snape, Neville, Ron, Hermione, Baggy, Mark Evans, whoever. I believe this is because, ironically, Harry sprung to her mind fully formed. In other words he was a character at the end of his inner emotional journey and not at the beginning of it. There has been much discussion regarding the plausibility, given his background, of Harry arriving at school on his first day as a competent, well balanced, functioning human; but my point is, that in a narrative sense, this makes him very dull indeed. Harry's failings are not driven by some inner conflict but a tendency to go off half cocked without getting the facts straight. A tendency to make value judgements, eg Snape is bad, based on incomplete evidence. This is prone to colour him annoying rather than compelling which JKR doesn't seem to have anticipated! I think HP is, at heart, a morality tale. The dilemma that JKR is exploring, well illustrating really, is essentially about how we distinguish good from evil, how do we make moral choices. To date Harry has had very little difficulty in making the right choices. Yes he's done stupid things, ill advised things, dangerous things but always the *right* thing. His story is not one of moral ambiguity rather it is an investigation into the world around him, its history, his own history and a search for a surrogate father. In the first 5 books of the series Harry (and the reader) is never presented with a dilemma to which the answer is not clear to him. Should Harry be merciful to Wormtail, should Flammel destroy the philosophers stone, should Harry trust DD, should Harry fight Voldy, should Harry care about people, are mud bloods bad, is freedom good etc? I get a sensation that in these books JKR is presenting ideals in a kind of shopping list manner: prejudice (tick), bullying (tick), greed (tick), arrogance (tick), overreaching ambition (tick) and so on. Which brings me to the question if Harry's story isn't the moral focus of this series who`s is? At the end of HBP we are left with our first true dilemma - is Snape good or bad? We are also aware that for the first time Harry is in peril because his hatred for Snape is the one failing that might, just might, corrupt his moral compass. JKR has repeatedly stated that what makes us good is our choices. Snape made two big choices in HBP, the unbreakable vow and offing DD. Now we can tie ourselves in knots (removes leg from behind ear) trying to justify these choices but without knowing the full story we can't make a judgement. We can, however, deduce the laws governing that judgement from the previous choices made by good people and bad people. Almost saintly Lily's big choice was to sacrifice herself, *not* to save her son (there was no special charm, no extra magic at GH, Lily didn't know her sacrifice would protect Harry *it had never happened before*), not for the greater good (committed to defeating Voldy she was given the option to live and fight another day but didn't take it) but because she would not sacrifice her ideals (a mother must never abandon her child). Lily placed her moral beliefs above rational thought not knowing that this would have a positive outcome but because it was the *right* thing to do. No longer human Voldy's big choice was to use the death of others to avoid his own death. Murder alone was not the big evil, it was the rational abstraction and application of that evil that condemned Tom Riddle. So we have an essential conflict between what is right and what is rational, where right always has priority. With the introduction of HRXes and the information that a living being can be the vessel for same we have the perfect scenario for confronting this conflict. If Voldy declares that his final HRX is in an innocent (unconscious) third party, say, oh I don't know, um, Stunned Neville, what`s to be done? Should Neville be killed so that Voldy can be destroyed? Is the purposeful killing of an innocent ever justifiable? Snape and Harry would have a different view of this question and polarised conclusions I suspect. Even Good!Snape would say yes, that unbreakable vow is proof of that, thus failing to reach Lily's level of enlightenment. So Snape is the moral focus of the story. Harry would say no, he has his mother's eyes after all. What's the point in Harry then? Well he's the catalyst for Snape's redemption. He can stop Snape nixing Neville. Followed through this dynamic has a rather sticky outcome. To save Snape the last HRX must not be destroyed and thus Voldy gets to win this round, at least until Neville shuffles off the mortal coil. Nothing to stop Voldy repeating the process with a succession of vessels either! Still the advantage of a story is you *can* have it both ways. If Voldy is deliberately misleading Snape and Harry, Snape's rational approach would enable him to perceive the deceit and the solution more readily than short sighted Harry. This way JKR can qualify her absolutist moral position by indicating that rational thought is still important. If Harry can stop Snape from killing Neville then Snape will have the opportunity to see that the HRX really is, for example, Neville's wand. Happy endings all round. Harry still has something to learn and Snape is the man to teach him, Snape equally can continue to learn from Harry (on the subject of bullying students for starters). Like father and son perhaps. If Snape is married Harry might just have found some new parents. The end. Regards Jo From sherriola at ... Thu Sep 22 18:13:50 2005 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:13:50 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] The trouble with Harry and how Snape saves the day. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007701c5bfa1$6386ddb0$bc21f204@pensive> Oh dear! If I could only know in advance that Snape will be the moral core of the series in the end, I could stop reading the damn thing all together. Funny, though I debate that he is evil, because I believe he most definitely murdered Dumbledore, i am so uninterested in Snape as a character. I don't care about his back story, nor his turmoil, nor his spying or anything else. He has abused children, his students, and to me, he isn't a bit interesting or complex because of it. if it has to turn into Snape's story in the end, i would long to know in advance, so I can throw out the books and find something else to obsess over! Sherry -----Original Message----- From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mooseming Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:03 AM To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com Subject: [the_old_crowd] The trouble with Harry and how Snape saves the day. Hi all and welcome to the newbies. For a couple of months now life (other people) has taken up most of my time so have not been able to participate in what have been some thoroughly enjoyable threads. So in passing I will note they have provided much thought provoking stuff and entertainment and I proffer a big thanks to you all. Having been silent for so long I find I must compensate by submitting this extremely long and tedious post, feel free not to read it and accept it's a sort of overexcited `hello I'm back`! I sense in JKR's interviews a frustration that we don't really `get' Harry. JKR clearly is emotionally invested in him but somehow her readers will keep focussing on Snape, Neville, Ron, Hermione, Baggy, Mark Evans, whoever. I believe this is because, ironically, Harry sprung to her mind fully formed. In other words he was a character at the end of his inner emotional journey and not at the beginning of it. There has been much discussion regarding the plausibility, given his background, of Harry arriving at school on his first day as a competent, well balanced, functioning human; but my point is, that in a narrative sense, this makes him very dull indeed. Harry's failings are not driven by some inner conflict but a tendency to go off half cocked without getting the facts straight. A tendency to make value judgements, eg Snape is bad, based on incomplete evidence. This is prone to colour him annoying rather than compelling which JKR doesn't seem to have anticipated! I think HP is, at heart, a morality tale. The dilemma that JKR is exploring, well illustrating really, is essentially about how we distinguish good from evil, how do we make moral choices. To date Harry has had very little difficulty in making the right choices. Yes he's done stupid things, ill advised things, dangerous things but always the *right* thing. His story is not one of moral ambiguity rather it is an investigation into the world around him, its history, his own history and a search for a surrogate father. In the first 5 books of the series Harry (and the reader) is never presented with a dilemma to which the answer is not clear to him. Should Harry be merciful to Wormtail, should Flammel destroy the philosophers stone, should Harry trust DD, should Harry fight Voldy, should Harry care about people, are mud bloods bad, is freedom good etc? I get a sensation that in these books JKR is presenting ideals in a kind of shopping list manner: prejudice (tick), bullying (tick), greed (tick), arrogance (tick), overreaching ambition (tick) and so on. Which brings me to the question if Harry's story isn't the moral focus of this series who`s is? At the end of HBP we are left with our first true dilemma - is Snape good or bad? We are also aware that for the first time Harry is in peril because his hatred for Snape is the one failing that might, just might, corrupt his moral compass. JKR has repeatedly stated that what makes us good is our choices. Snape made two big choices in HBP, the unbreakable vow and offing DD. Now we can tie ourselves in knots (removes leg from behind ear) trying to justify these choices but without knowing the full story we can't make a judgement. We can, however, deduce the laws governing that judgement from the previous choices made by good people and bad people. Almost saintly Lily's big choice was to sacrifice herself, *not* to save her son (there was no special charm, no extra magic at GH, Lily didn't know her sacrifice would protect Harry *it had never happened before*), not for the greater good (committed to defeating Voldy she was given the option to live and fight another day but didn't take it) but because she would not sacrifice her ideals (a mother must never abandon her child). Lily placed her moral beliefs above rational thought not knowing that this would have a positive outcome but because it was the *right* thing to do. No longer human Voldy's big choice was to use the death of others to avoid his own death. Murder alone was not the big evil, it was the rational abstraction and application of that evil that condemned Tom Riddle. So we have an essential conflict between what is right and what is rational, where right always has priority. With the introduction of HRXes and the information that a living being can be the vessel for same we have the perfect scenario for confronting this conflict. If Voldy declares that his final HRX is in an innocent (unconscious) third party, say, oh I don't know, um, Stunned Neville, what`s to be done? Should Neville be killed so that Voldy can be destroyed? Is the purposeful killing of an innocent ever justifiable? Snape and Harry would have a different view of this question and polarised conclusions I suspect. Even Good!Snape would say yes, that unbreakable vow is proof of that, thus failing to reach Lily's level of enlightenment. So Snape is the moral focus of the story. Harry would say no, he has his mother's eyes after all. What's the point in Harry then? Well he's the catalyst for Snape's redemption. He can stop Snape nixing Neville. Followed through this dynamic has a rather sticky outcome. To save Snape the last HRX must not be destroyed and thus Voldy gets to win this round, at least until Neville shuffles off the mortal coil. Nothing to stop Voldy repeating the process with a succession of vessels either! Still the advantage of a story is you *can* have it both ways. If Voldy is deliberately misleading Snape and Harry, Snape's rational approach would enable him to perceive the deceit and the solution more readily than short sighted Harry. This way JKR can qualify her absolutist moral position by indicating that rational thought is still important. If Harry can stop Snape from killing Neville then Snape will have the opportunity to see that the HRX really is, for example, Neville's wand. Happy endings all round. Harry still has something to learn and Snape is the man to teach him, Snape equally can continue to learn from Harry (on the subject of bullying students for starters). Like father and son perhaps. If Snape is married Harry might just have found some new parents. The end. Regards Jo Yahoo! Groups Links From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 18:38:50 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:38:50 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Jen: Lol on the pavers image, but Harry *is* possessed of the > > adequate light or the story will sink. That's why he seeks the > > stone, but not to use it, and gains courage from the phoenix > > song. JKR probably *is* saying Harry's vulnerability or weakness > > is his inability to read situations correctly, but no matter, > > he's saved by his untarnished soul at the most criticaljunctures. > Carolyn: > Jen, pardon the irritated tone after trying day in the office, but > what *is* this insistance on Harry's 'untarnished soul'?? Jen: Hey, this is JKR's construct not mine. I'm trying to fit the story around what I understand to be fact now. I do have some thoughts on this idea, though, since you ask ;). Carolyn: > As you know, I'm a heathen, therefore damned for ever more > according to the second sight only vouchsafed to the converted, > but *really*. What we have in these books is a reasonable portrait > of a teenager, warts and all. The kid has made several (justified > IMO) attempts at chucking unforgiveables at people he dislikes; > he lies frequently (some signs of intelligence in the lad); > instinctively avoids creeps like Creevey, Rita and Lockhart and is > not unreasonably confused about Snape, who's playing a deep game, > hand in hand with DD. Jen: Yes, well...since nothing can be done for your soul, I'll look at Harry's. HBP convinced me the health of the soul is a much more important concern in the WW than either physical or mental health. The soul seems to be more vulnerable in the WW, and open to injury from the powers of dark magic. The banter between Dumbledore and LV made this clear--there's love magic and dark magic, and a huge part of being a magical person is choosing which road to go down. One keeps your soul healthy and strong, and the other is degrading and injurious. >From Harry's example we find out a magical person doesn't have to be perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! What seems to be remarkable about Harry is how many times he's been in contact with pure evil and never succumbed to darkness. He's been touched by the curse-that-failed, had his thoughts invaded by Voldemort, been possessed, partially soul-sucked, etc. From a WW perspective, I think we're meant to see his still-pure soul as a Very Big Deal. Whether you buy this idea is another matter. Carolyn: > The only incidents I can think you are referring to are is his > expulsions of Voldie from Quirrell!Mort, and when Voldie possesses > him at the MoM. Neither of these episodes had anything to do with > untarnished souls, but in the first case, him suddenly realising > that he can hurt Quirrell by holding on tight, and in the second > case a pretty sensible wish to be dead and with his godfather, > rather than endure the pain he was in at that point. Jen: I don't know if the specific incidents are so important as the magical clues we have about Harry. I already mentioned the Mirror of Erised incident, and gaining courage from the phoenix, which is something only granted to the 'pure of heart'. Another symbol is his white stag patronus, symbolizing purity and creation. I guess I'm saying his soul isn't there *doing* things to prove itself, it just is. I'd imagine Riddle, in contrast, would have given his true essence away pretty quickly if he'd looked in the Mirror and shown Dumbledore his secret desire for immortality at all costs! I'm not saying people and symbols can't change, either. Just 'cause Riddle might see immortality in the Mirror one time, he could change his vision along the way. See, you may not think that stuff as important, but I think it's going to save Snape's butt, because it will prove his Nature in a way Harry's biased POV could never do. JKR has very carefully hidden clues to Snape's soul from Harry and therefore, us. We don't get to see his greatest fear, or what he sees when looking into the Mirror of Erised. If he has an animagus form, we don't know what it is, and his patronus form is a mystery. We don't know anything about the wand that chose this particular wizard, or what it was good for. Nothing, nada, zip. We get no outside corroboration for who Snape is expect that DD trusts him. Pitiful little to go on. Carolyn: > Perhaps JKR really does see it this way, that the boy is possessed > of some extraordinary qualitity of love, vulnerability, whatever > that will conquer all in the end. Very touching I'm sure. However, > the way she's written him comes across to me as a good deal more > prosaic, and I hope she doesn't lose sight of this in the final > resolution. Jen: Harry will still act like Harry, even if he is carrying around the weight of an untarnished soul. He'll know what to do to vanquish Voldemort, but I doubt he's going to change externally. > Carolyn, grumpy. Jen: Chocolate? wine? One of those should do the trick. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 19:21:26 2005 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:21:26 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] The trouble with Harry and how Snape saves the day. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050922192126.GD31150@...> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 06:03:19PM -0000, mooseming wrote: Yay a thematic post that also screams comparative literature! I agree with much that you have said, and I'll wade (waddle?) in quickly to be the first to say Gollum. I know, "Always with the Gollum and that dratted Hobbit," you say, but I remain unrepentant because if the moral compass is true to this line, you can't escape the comparison. Many intensely dislike the very idea of Gollum being the moral pivot of LOTR yet he is. Likewise Snape who (though far less evil in my opinion), so clearly illustrates by example a choice for Harry. > In the first 5 books of the series Harry (and the reader) is never > presented with a dilemma to which the answer is not clear to him. The dead-horse efforts of Hermione to be Harry's conscience when he has already decided what he will do has become wearying by HBP. > At the end of HBP we are left with our first true dilemma - is Snape > good or bad? We are also aware that for the first time Harry is in > peril because his hatred for Snape is the one failing that might, > just might, corrupt his moral compass. Dilemma for the reader, perhaps; Harry rarely changes his mind about anyone. I never got any sense he'd come to see Sirius the way Hermione did (one of the instances where I think she was correct). How does Harry change the habit of a lifetime? I'm not suggesting he start treasuring Dudders for instance - but he might think about DD's comment that Dudley has been ruined by his parents. Snape is far more difficult, and without the benefit of a shared burden like a Ring. Or could there be? > If Voldy declares that his final HRX is in an innocent (unconscious) > third party, say, oh I don't know, um, Stunned Neville, what`s to be > done? Oh I can think of a *much* better candidate - Draco. And Snape his real father. > Snape and Harry would have a different view of this question and > polarised conclusions I suspect. In entirely the opposite direction to a Neville Horcrux. Now we ask, is Harry capable of appreciating what parents will do for their child? But he should already know the answer to that. Snape retains the moral focus, because he certainly is going to force Harry to make a choice. Whatever the specifics, Harry will have to decide whether or not to kill someone. What's interesting about all these ideas is that Voldemort becomes almost as abstract as Sauron, he becomes the background of the morality play between Snape and Harry. > Still the advantage of a story is you *can* have it both ways. They could find a way to transfer the Horcrux to someone else, which I think is a wonderful opportunity for Wormtail to have his shining moment before being shoved through the Veil (Precious!) :) > If Voldy is deliberately misleading Snape and Harry, Snape's rational > approach would enable him to perceive the deceit and the solution more > readily than short sighted Harry. This way JKR can qualify her absolutist > moral position by indicating that rational thought is still important. If we can accept that Snape and Harry will work together in any way at all. It's going to take some brilliant writing to convince many readers of that, I fear. I like the idea of Snape becoming a parent to Harry (a Saturnine parent nonetheless), but in a sense he already is. And to summon a final Tolkienesque parallel, so was Gollum to Frodo in a similar sense. It wasn't merely the Ring in common, it was the lesson that personhood does not depend on artifacts, and the peril of an ultimate tool is ultimate slavery. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 19:34:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:34:44 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > > Jen, pardon the irritated tone after trying day in the office, but > > what *is* this insistance on Harry's 'untarnished soul'?? Jen: > Hey, this is JKR's construct not mine. I'm trying to fit the > story around what I understand to be fact now. I do have some > thoughts on this idea, though, since you ask ;). Carolyn: > > What we have in these books is a reasonable portrait > > of a teenager, warts and all. The kid has made several (justified > > IMO) attempts at chucking unforgiveables at people he dislikes; > > he lies frequently (some signs of intelligence in the lad); > > instinctively avoids creeps like Creevey, Rita and Lockhart and is > > not unreasonably confused about Snape, who's playing a deep game, > > hand in hand with DD. Jen: > From Harry's example we find out a magical person doesn't have to be > perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! What seems to > be remarkable about Harry is how many times he's been in contact > with pure evil and never succumbed to darkness. He's been touched > by the curse-that-failed, had his thoughts invaded by Voldemort, > been possessed, partially soul-sucked, etc. From a WW perspective, > I think we're meant to see his still-pure soul as a Very Big Deal. > > Whether you buy this idea is another matter. > > I don't know if the specific incidents are so important as the > magical clues we have about Harry. I already mentioned the Mirror > of Erised incident, and gaining courage from the phoenix, which is > something only granted to the 'pure of heart'. Another symbol is > his white stag patronus, symbolizing purity and creation. I guess > I'm saying his soul isn't there *doing* things to prove itself, it > just is. Carolyn: > > Perhaps JKR really does see it this way, that the boy is possessed > > of some extraordinary qualitity of love, vulnerability, whatever > > that will conquer all in the end. Very touching I'm sure. However, > > the way she's written him comes across to me as a good deal more > > prosaic, and I hope she doesn't lose sight of this in the final > > resolution. Jen: > Harry will still act like Harry, even if he is carrying around > the weight of an untarnished soul. He'll know what to do to > vanquish Voldemort, but I doubt he's going to change externally. SSSusan: Hey, those are excellent examples Carolyn has put out of ways in which Harry's shown us his warts and ways in which JKR has painted him as "a good deal more prosaic" than what one might think of when hearing the term "untarnished soul." BUT I think Jen's right, that for JKR, at least, it doesn't have to do with behaving perfectly. I thought Mooseming made some quite relevant points for this discussion in 3265, even though she wasn't actually responding to Carolyn. To wit: >>>>To date Harry has had very little difficulty in making the right choices. Yes he's done stupid things, ill advised things, dangerous things but always the *right* thing. Should Harry be merciful to Wormtail, should Flammel destroy the philosophers stone, should Harry trust DD, should Harry fight Voldy, should Harry care about people, are mud bloods bad, is freedom good etc? At the end of HBP we are left with our first true dilemma - is Snape good or bad? We are also aware that for the first time Harry is in peril because his hatred for Snape is the one failing that might, just might, corrupt his moral compass.<<<< SSSusan again: See, I think this is the key. It's not that "untarnished" means "perfect" nor that Harry never makes mistakes. It's what he's all about inside, what he strives to do, what his choices say about him, that speaks to the "untarnished soul." Because, yep, as Mooseming says, Harry tries, most of the time, to do what is *right*. Here are some things JKR has said over the years about Harry: >>> "Harry is someone who is forced, for such a young person, to make his own choices. He has very limited access to truly caring adults and he is guided by his conscience. Now, Harry makes mistakes repeatedly. Harry did things like --- he did steal the flying car. That was a very stupid thing to do, but it seemed like a great idea at the time. We've all been there. But, ultimately Harry is guided by his conscience. He is flanked by 2 friends. They work far better as a team than apart though Harry tends to be the one who has to shoulder most of the burden. He is a true hero in that sense." "Harry doesn't have that [parental safety net] so he's more alone than most children are. And therefore his choices are revealing him as someone who is brave, someone who is trying to do the right thing. Someone who occasionally slips up as we all do." [WBUR interview, 1999]<<<< >>>> "I mean, Harry is a human boy, he makes mistakes, but I think he came as a very noble character, he's a brave character and he strives to do the right thing." [Diane Rehm Show, 1999]<<<< >>>> "I see Harry as someone who is struggling to do the right thing, who is not without faults, who acts impetuously as you would expect someone of his age to act, but who is ultimately a very loyal person, and a very very courageous person. So, in as much as he has qualities that I admire most I would say he is a good role model. That doesn't mean that he is saintly, but then frankly, who is? But I think you do see enough of Harry's inner life, the workings of his mind in the books to know that he is ultimately human, struggling to do the right thing, which I think is admirable." [ITV, 2005]<<<< >>>> "But Harry is also innately honorable. He's not a cruel boy." [Booklinks, July 1999]<<<< >>>> "Harry, Ron and Hermione are innately good people. [Washington Post, Oct. 1999]<<<< SSSusan again: So Harry is human, he's flawed like all of us, he makes mistakes and does stupid things. Maybe the problem is that those facts may make it seem ludicrous to call his soul "untarnished." But I think "innate goodness," "innately honorable," and "strives to do the right thing" all speak to Harry's essence, which is not that of perfection, but which is honorable, noble and with a drive to doing what is right. Siriusly Snapey Susan From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 19:59:47 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:59:47 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: >From Harry's example we find out a magical person doesn't have to be perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! What seems to be remarkable about Harry is how many times he's been in contact with pure evil and never succumbed to darkness. He's been touched by the curse-that-failed, had his thoughts invaded by Voldemort, been possessed, partially soul-sucked, etc. From a WW perspective, I think we're meant to see his still-pure soul as a Very Big Deal. Whether you buy this idea is another matter. Carolyn: Well I don't. In fact, codswallop [I took your advice and opened a bottle..Miss H on the rampage, you have been warned ]. There's nothing remarkable about Harry. Quite a lot of people/and non humans in the WW have been in touch with what laughably passes for 'pure evil' (mostly incompetence, actually) and seem to emerge relatively unscathed. Take Ginny, Dobby, Slughorn, Dumbledore, Dudders, Mad-eye Moody, even Draco to some extent. And you've conveniently side-stepped my point. Harry doesn't always do the right thing, and to a certain extent he does submit to temptation on numerous occasions. As do numerous of the other supposedly good characters in the story. And every adult reader is fascinated by this, because that's what really happens. Things get mucky, despite best intentions. Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly, he doesn't make too many magnificent 'right' decisions on his own. All sorts of people help and advise him, and actually rescue him on numerous occasions. Left to his own devices, he isn't too reliable. In fact, I would argue that if he is meant to represent the blinding white light as compared to Voldie's black void, then this really is stunningly bad writing on her part. It's like a pair of childish cartoon cutouts; no wonder everyone is riveted by Snape instead. Since I still have (somewhat battered) hopes that she is trying to do something a bit more complex, my reading of her Harry character is just of a well-observed teenage boy, nothing more, nothing less. And that his so-called heroic decisions to fight the good fight are nothing more than an inevitable outcome of DD's expert manipulations. Jen: I don't know if the specific incidents are so important as the magical clues we have about Harry. I already mentioned the Mirror of Erised incident, and gaining courage from the phoenix, which is something only granted to the 'pure of heart'. Another symbol is his white stag patronus, symbolizing purity and creation. I guess I'm saying his soul isn't there *doing* things to prove itself, it just is. Carolyn: But I say, so what if his badges say he is on one side or another? Frankly, all it amounts to is that he's gonna be collateral. Look at the millions of children that have died in conflicts around the world. I don't expect that they had black little hearts either, but a lot of good it did them. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be a conflict between much well-written gritty reality in the stories, and the alleged soppy fairy tale morality underpinning it. 'A quest, a quest..' said Sir Cadogan, before tripping over and failing to pull his sword out of the ground. Very Monty Python, very JKR, very mordant humour - and then we are supposed to switch tone and gear and believe in a gallant, plucky little lad with his heart full of goodness overcoming the biggest baddie of all time. Aaah, sweet... Jen: See, you may not think that stuff as important, but I think it's going to save Snape's butt, because it will prove his Nature in a way Harry's biased POV could never do. JKR has very carefully hidden clues to Snape's soul from Harry and therefore, us. We don't get to see his greatest fear, or what he sees when looking into the Mirror of Erised. If he has an animagus form, we don't know what it is, and his patronus form is a mystery. Carolyn: Just because we don't know what makes Snape tick is not an argument in favour of the black and white soul show, per se. In fact, his very complexity throws the Harry/Voldy cardboard cut outs into sharp relief. Somehow, he has escaped her simplistic morality (if it is so simple, as you claim), and stalks the pages in all his shades of greasy grey and black. His very opaqueness gives hope that there's something more interesting afoot. Not much hope, I admit, as she appears as worried about him as the worst fluffy on HPfGU, but perhaps.. Carolyn Who has also found some Green & Black organic choc in the cupboard, so is fully caffeinated.. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 22 22:54:16 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:54:16 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > What I'm getting at is that there seems to be a conflict between > much well-written gritty reality in the stories, and the alleged > soppy fairy tale morality underpinning it. 'A quest, a quest..' > said Sir Cadogan, before tripping over and failing to pull his > sword out of the ground. Very Monty Python, very JKR, very mordant > humour - and then we are supposed to switch tone and gear and > believe in a gallant, plucky little lad with his heart full of > goodness overcoming the biggest baddie of all time. Aaah, sweet... Maybe it's just me, but I've always seen a fairly strong streak of (dare I say it?) sentimentality running through the books. Power of love, power of friendship, who cares about books when you have that kind of stuff, loyalty and devotion--the whole nine yards. It's an individual reading choice which of these two aspects the reader wants to emphasize, but the reader who doesn't follow the author's balance is probably going to end up a little lost. And if you pay attention to interviews (I do) and don't think she's grossly lying to us (I don't), she's really very interested in us-the- readers realizing her utter sincerity and picking up on it. I think of two things from the last interview. One is her interest in whether or not people took Sirius' declaration in the Shrieking Shack as sincere (and let's not segue off on that part of the sentence), because she definitely meant it as such. The other is her discussion of Ginny as the ideal girl for Harry, also done with no caveats or anything of the like. She doesn't seem inclined to abandon Harry as The Hero of her story, although who knows what complications we'll see. But is that really a shock? -Nora notes that complexity created by lack of information can go away awfully fast, too From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 00:35:52 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:35:52 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > Well I don't. In fact, codswallop [I took your advice and opened a > bottle..Miss H on the rampage, you have been warned ]. > > There's nothing remarkable about Harry. Quite a lot of people/and non > humans in the WW have been in touch with what laughably passes > for 'pure evil' (mostly incompetence, actually) and seem to emerge > relatively unscathed. Take Ginny, Dobby, Slughorn, Dumbledore, > Dudders, Mad-eye Moody, even Draco to some extent. > > And you've conveniently side-stepped my point. Harry doesn't always > do the right thing, and to a certain extent he does submit to > temptation on numerous occasions. As do numerous of the other > supposedly good characters in the story. And every adult reader is > fascinated by this, because that's what really happens. Things get > mucky, despite best intentions. > Pippin: Harry often errs, especially when he doesn't consider the consequences of what he's doing. But he has never considered a moral consequence and thought, "I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway" or "Serve them right" or "It doesn't matter as long as it's not (fill in the blank) who gets hurt." We *have* seen this behavior from other 'good guys', from Sirius and Lupin especially, as well as from the twins and of course it's the hallmark of the bad guys, regardless of the reward they expect to get from their evil-doing. We certainly see it from Snape in his treatment of Harry . I think that's what Jo and Dumbledore are talking about--that despite being exposed to a great many models of this behavior, even in people he admires, Harry has never been tempted to imitate it. Harry's untarnished soul does not mean he doesn't have the same base instincts as the other characters. What it seems to mean is that he knows they are base when he bothers to think about it and then he has no difficulty rejecting them. He's lashed out reflexively attempting to use the cruciatus curse, but if I understand what Bella was saying, cruciatus can't be used that way. You have to think about what you're doing to make it work, unlike sectum sempra. Along with the fear expressed by some that Jo is going to turn all insipid, sacharine and preachy is there a fear that she might have something to say, in a non-preachy unsacharine fashion, that will compel the invested reader to take it seriously? I wonder about that --I don't think her ideas coincide about the soul or religion are going to coincide with mine at all, at all, and I thoroughly expect to encounter some cognitive dissonance when Everything Is Explained. Pippin From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 02:35:17 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:35:17 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: > From Harry's example we find out a magical person doesn't have to be > perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! Neri: I think Dumbledore's words "a soul that is whole and untarnished" should be taken in the context in which they were said. The context was Voldy's ripped soul. By "whole and untarnished soul" Dumbledore simply means that Harry didn't commit murder, despite having some good personal reasons to do it. So as a whole Dumbledore doesn't say Harry is some kind of a saint. Canon pretty much establishes that Harry is far from that. He's just a basically decent person who doesn't murder people. He can love, but so can most of the other characters and most of us, so this isn't A Big Deal by itself. The Big Deal is that he can still love *despite* everything that happened to him. The "despite" here is the important part. I find it instructive that Dumbledore, while explaining to Harry that "it will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort even without his Horcruxes", never actually teaches Harry any skill. Only during the sixth year he finally gives Harry some privet tutoring, and even then it's not "really advanced defensive magic powerful countercurses anti-jinxes" as Hermione naturally conjectures. It's only the biography of Voldemort. Why doesn't Dumbledore ever teach Harry something *useful*? Obviously, because he believes Harry already knows everything he'll need. Harry was marked by the Dark Lord as his *equal*, remember? Dumbledore thinks that Harry is a most dangerous wizard, that he possesses uniquely deadly weapons, that Voldemort himself handed him all the needed tools. He says all that in HBP Ch. 23 with plenty of exclamation marks for emphasis. Look: "Voldemort singled you out as the person who would be most dangerous to him ? and in doing so, he made you the person who would be most dangerous to him!" "He heard the prophecy and he leapt into action, with the result that he not only handpicked the man most likely to finish him, he handed him uniquely deadly weapons!" "By attempting to kill you, Voldemort himself singled out the remarkable person who sits here in front of me, and gave him the tools for the job! It is Voldemort's fault that you were able to see into his thoughts, his ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike language in which he gives orders." When the time of the final match finally arrives, Dumbledore fully expect (or perhaps the word is "afraid") that Harry will hit Voldy with every power in Voldy's own arsenal. The love part isn't really needed for vanquishing the Dark Lord. It's needed for protecting Harry from becoming the Dark Lord's servant, or worse, the next Dark Lord. Dumbledore says that too, immediately after the previous words, with some additional exclamation marks: "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly. "The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's! Voldy's power can only be a "lure" if it's power that Harry already possesses, or will possess if he's ever "seduced by the Dark Arts" (again, Dumbledore's words, one paragraph before). And it appears Snape too suspects Harry's powers. In the occlumeny "lessons" he never actually attempts to *teach* Harry occlumeny, he tries to shake it out of him. He sees no point in teaching Harry occlumency because Harry doesn't stand a chance of ever becoming the Dark Lord's equal, unless he already *is*. Snape knows that Harry showed an ability to resist Imperius. He heard Harry speaking Parseltongue. He knows Harry escaped Voldemort several times. By rattling Harry in the occlumency lessons he was attempting to awaken the powers that might be hidden in there. He probably wanted to unearth the proof that Harry is The One, that he is really the Dark Lord's equal, and that Snape has a chance to end up on the winning side by sticking with Dumbledore. Dumbledore himself was much wiser than that. Better not awaken *those* powers until they're absolutely needed. *One* Dark Lord is quite enough to contend with. > Sherry wrote: > Oh dear! If I could only know in advance that Snape will be the moral core > of the series in the end, I could stop reading the damn thing all together. > Funny, though I debate that he is evil, because I believe he most definitely > murdered Dumbledore, i am so uninterested in Snape as a character. I don't > care about his back story, nor his turmoil, nor his spying or anything else. > He has abused children, his students, and to me, he isn't a bit interesting > or complex because of it. if it has to turn into Snape's story in the end, > i would long to know in advance, so I can throw out the books and find > something else to obsess over! > Neri: While I find Snape interesting enough, I really don't see why many readers think he's a more interesting character than Harry. Does Snape ask himself if he has to do something because it's fated or because it's his own choice? Does he ever wonder if he's still himself? Does he search his memory for blank periods? Does he have to be told by others that he had just spoke a language that he didn't know even existed? Snape is interesting because he keeps secrets from us. Harry tells us everything he knows, and still he has dark secrets even from himself. Neri From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 05:36:13 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:36:13 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' / Harry's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I said: > > I didn't take JKR's comment on Harry's glasses as meaning > > that his eyes or glasses have some sort of magical vulnerability. > > I just thought she liked the glasses because they show he is > > ultimately a regular boy, not a superhero. SSSusan replied: > That phrase "clue to his vulnerability" feels to me more than > just "he's a regular kid who has to wear specs," you know? What > it DOESN'T show clearly is whether she was referring to his eyes > or to his glasses, but it was a pretty strong statement, I think. > That, the uses of dragon's blood, DD's trust of > Snape, and the missing 24 hours were what got me interested in > DRIBBLE SHADOWS, so I'm banking on it being significant. Well, it looks like a number of people agree here with your analysis, Susan. Still, I have trouble accepting it. The main problem, as I see it, is that for Harry's eyes or glasses to be his one vulnerable spot, the rest of him would need to be INvulnerable. And really, he isn't presented that way. His only real invulnerability is while at the Dursleys'. Even that will go away on his 17th birthday. If I'm right and the glasses just show that Harry is Everyman, then this will illustrate another problem with JKR's many interviews -- she drops hints that seem to be point to some major plot development, but then sometimes don't pan out. I've just said that I don't think JKR presents Harry as having amazing defensive powers. As for whether he has amazing powers for going on the offense, Neri said: > [Dumbledore] believes Harry already knows everything he'll > need. Harry was marked by the Dark Lord as his *equal*, remember? > Dumbledore thinks that Harry is a most dangerous wizard, that he > possesses uniquely deadly weapons, that Voldemort himself handed him > all the needed tools... Dumbledore does spend a lot of time during this conversation saying that Harry is Voldemort's equal. Still, it's not clear to me that Dumbledore is talking about magical powers. Consider this exchange: "So, when the porphecy says that I'll have 'power the Dark Lord know not', it just means --- love?" asked Harry, feeling a little let down. "Yes -- just love," said Dumbledore. And later, as Neri quoted, Dumbledore says: "By attempting to kill you, Voldemort himself singled out the remarkable person who sits here in front of me, and gave him the tools for the job! It is Voldemort's fault that you were able to see into his thoughts, his ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike language in which he gives orders." Dumbledore goes on to say that any Death Eater would kill to have Harry's privileged insight into Voldemort's world. It seems to me that Dumbledore is saying Harry is uniquely equipped with the *psychological* tools -- not necessarily the magical tools -- to defeat Voldemort. Few people understand Voldemort and Voldemort intensely uses this to his advantage; consider how he bamboozled Slughorn into giving the Horcrux information and how he got Hepzibah to show him her treasures -- without realizing he would kill her for them. Harry understands Voldemort's personality, and yet (unlike, others who may have some understanding of Voldemort, such as Barty Crouch, Jr. and Bellatrix ) he has no attraction to the Dark Side. Neri asked, about Harry's private lessons in Book 6, > It's only the biography of Voldemort. > Why doesn't Dumbledore ever teach Harry something *useful*? > Obviously, because he believes Harry already knows > everything he'll need. If Harry's real "ace in the hole" is his understanding of Voldemort, though, then Voldemort's biography *would* be important. Neri said: > Voldy's power can only be a "lure" if it's power that Harry > already possesses, or will possess if he's ever > "seduced by the Dark Arts" This doesn't necessarily mean Harry is as powerful as Voldemort. Dumbledore could be referring to the temptation to share in Voldemort's power. (After all, this seems to appeal to many of the Death Eaters.) Voldemort did, in fact, try to recruit Harry in Book 1. But Harry wasn't interested, even if death seemed the only alternative. So far, we really haven't seen much evidence of Harry as uber-wizard. He really didn't do well in the fight with Snape at the end of Book 6. Even before that, Snape described Harry (with some exaggeration, no doubt) as "mediocre to the last degree." "He had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination of luck and more talented friends." I fully expect that, in Book 7, Snape will prove to be one of those "talented friends" who help Harry out of tight corners. I'm not sure if Harry will realize that at first, though. -- Judy From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 10:54:50 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:54:50 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200509231254.50192.silmariel@...> El Jue 22 Sep 2005 21:59, carolynwhite2 escribi?: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" > wrote: > > From Harry's example we find out a magical person doesn't have to be > perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! What seems to be > remarkable about Harry is how many times he's been in contact with > pure evil and never succumbed to darkness. He's been touched by the > curse-that-failed, had his thoughts invaded by Voldemort, been > possessed, partially soul-sucked, etc. From a WW perspective, I > think we're meant to see his still-pure soul as a Very Big Deal. > > Whether you buy this idea is another matter. > > Carolyn: > Well I don't. In fact, codswallop [I took your advice and opened a > bottle..Miss H on the rampage, you have been warned ]. > My mind tends to disconnect when confronted to accepting Harry as an untarnished soul and pure of heart. It may be a side effect of reading some (always borrowed from some friend) of the monolitic trilogies or series hero-driven that flood fantasy sections, but what I see is Dumbledore cheering Harry in order to reassure him that he is a hero. Agreed he has been tempted, but anguish per se has been so overused in series that is almost a standard, and agreed he takes the right desitions at 'important' points, but what kind of hero would he be in other case? He's suppossed to have some heroic qualities in order to be a hero, it's in the minimum requirements for the job. Really, I couldn't call him a hero if he had executed Peter. Harry simply has to act like a hero sometimes, or is Heoric Quotient will sink. It's his work to save Ginny, it's his work to confront Voldemort, otherwise, this wouldn't be a hero series or we'd have another name in the tittle of the books. Particularly I'd like to point to the Sectumsempra incident. While it is true he laments the results, it's also true when confronted by Hermione he keeps defending the prince. To me, he doesn't think he was wrong in taking the set of steps that led him to using the spell, so it was kind of inevitable, so he would have done it, again. That isn't exactly learning from the incident. You know, even a 'gosh, I can't go on trying spells marked for enemies on human beings without trying to know first what the spell is about' would have been something. It's kind of cheating needing to read the interviews to learn what the author was suppossedly trying to say, imo. I don't do for other books. She might consider using other approaches as 'introductory words from the author', or 'apendix #n', because I see shades of grey and quite an standar hero, that I find likable precisely because he is a predictable adolescent mess, but not my image of a pure of heart hero. Silmariel From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 13:58:59 2005 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:58:59 -0000 Subject: Untarnished soul: WAS Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri wrote: > I think Dumbledore's words "a soul that is whole and untarnished" > should be taken in the context in which they were said. The context > was Voldy's ripped soul. By "whole and untarnished soul" Dumbledore > simply means that Harry didn't commit murder, despite having some > good personal reasons to do it. > Pip!Squeak, raising her head from out of the teacup... No, I think Dumbledore meant more than that. What does Quirrelmort say, way back in PS/SS? "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it ..." (Ch. 17) Power is the one thing Harry *doesn't* seek. In the face of constant temptation, he never even seems to see the possibilities... The most famous boy in the Wizarding World and he finds it irritating. The best Seeker for generations and it never occurs to him to encourage a (very useful) fan club. In OOP he creates his own small army, darn it, mostly very loyal to him - and what happens in HBP? It isn't needed any more, so he drops it. Nor is he attracted to those with power; he rejects Draco, he rejects Voldy. Slughorn has power to mention his name to the 'right people' - but Harry really doesn't seem to understand that bit. He doesn't suck up, Slughorn's parties are more irritating than anything. Scrimgeour offers him a role as poster boy for the Ministry - another route to power. Harry rejects it. Voldemort would have (probably did) *killed* for these advantages. Harry doesn't even seem to understand that they are advantages. Neri: > So as a whole Dumbledore doesn't say Harry is some kind of a saint. > Canon pretty much establishes that Harry is far from that. He's > just a basically decent person who doesn't murder people. He can > love, but so can most of the other characters and most of us, so > this isn't A BigDeal by itself. The Big Deal is that he can still > love *despite* everything that happened to him. > Pip!Squeak: Again, I think we might be looking at the wrong part of love. The ability to love people, rather than the *ideal* of love. I'd lay bets that JKR might well be thinking of a part of the Christian New Testament which is frequently read at weddings in the UK; the letter of St Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 13. Harry certainly falls short now and then of that description of ideal love (as do we all), but its description of love as: 'patient, kind, not jealous, conceited or proud, not ill mannered or selfish or irritable, does not keep a record of wrongs (OK, except with Snape {g}), not happy with evil, but happy with the truth, never giving up and never failing in faith, hope and patience,' is a good description of Harry's character *as a whole*. Always excepting the adolescent angst of HBP {g}.[summary is my own, taken from the Good News Bible] > Neri: > Voldy's power can only be a "lure" if it's power that Harry already > possesses, or will possess if he's ever "seduced by the Dark Arts" > (again, Dumbledore's words, one paragraph before). > Voldy's power is the seeking of power. Which is a lure; nipping over to LOTR for a moment for an analogy - the Ring was a lure to both good and evil people. Evil people saw it as simply a means to power; good people were seduced because it offered them power to do good. Even Dumbledore has sought power - he may have rejected political power, but he rejected it in favour of the power to mold young minds. Both Fudge and Scrimgeour see Dumbledore as a rival 'power bloc'. Of the major characters, Harry's the only one who had power thrust upon him - unsought. > Neri: > While I find Snape interesting enough, I really don't see why many > readers think he's a more interesting character than Harry. Does > Snape ask himself if he has to do something because it's fated or > because it's his own choice? Does he ever wonder if he's still > himself? Does he search his memory for blank periods? Does he have > to be told by others that he had just spoke a language that he > didn't know even existed? Snape is interesting because he keeps > secrets from us. Harry tells us everything he knows, and still he > has dark secrets even from himself. Pip!Squeak: I think Snape was so interesting simply because - in the early books - Snape was the only well drawn (more than cartoonish cardboard cut-out) adult character. Probably because JKR knew that he was, after Harry, the most important character and so worked on his chararacterisation more - though whether he's True Antagonist or Second Protagonist (the Protagonist Voldemort knoweth not {g}) will only be seen in Book 7. Why is he more interesting than Harry? Because he's the Man in the Middle. Harry is Good, Voldemort is Evil, and Snape is everyone who ever took a decision they knew to be morally dodgy because they thought they *had* to, or because they didn't know better, or .... Taken a job with a big corporation you strongly suspect is destroying the planet's ecosystem in the name of their greater profits? (I did). Congratulations, you're Snape! Been nasty to your kids 'for their own good'? Snape again. And so forth. So he's more interesting to adults. Children are learning the difference between Good and Evil. Adults are more likely to see the world as a place where sometimes the choice that has to be made is not between Good and Evil, but between 'uh, only *slightly* evil' and 'is that going too far, even if it will be for the best in the long run?' If Snape turns out to be the 'moral core' of the series (quoting Sherry), then I'd suspect it will be because the series is really about 'who claims the grey people'? Do they belong to Evil? Or can Good redeem them? Is this series about Justice? Or Mercy? Do you only belong to the side of Good if your heart is pure, you have the strength of ten and any sins are only minor ones? Or is Good a side that anyone can join (or rejoin)? Whatever they've done? *Whatever* they've done. Pip!Squeak "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act?" - Severus Snape From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 14:52:33 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:52:33 -0000 Subject: Untarnished soul: WAS Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pip!Squeak, raising her head from out of the teacup... > Power is the one thing Harry *doesn't* seek. In the face of > constant temptation, he never even seems to see the > possibilities... The most famous boy in the Wizarding World and he > finds it irritating. The best Seeker for generations and it never > occurs to him to encourage a (very useful) fan club. In OOP he > creates his own small army, darn it, mostly very loyal to him - > and what happens in HBP? It isn't needed any more, so he drops it. > Nor is he attracted to those with power; he rejects Draco, he > rejects Voldy. Slughorn has power to mention his name to > the 'right people' - but Harry really doesn't seem to understand > that bit. He doesn't suck up, Slughorn's parties are more > irritating than anything. Scrimgeour offers him a role as poster > boy for the Ministry - another route to power. Harry rejects it. Jen: HBP surprised me in the sense that Harry is very much encouraged by Dumbledore to use the power he holds, which is certain cases is mighty Slytherin-like. Like using "considerable ingenuity and depths of cunning" (chap. 20) to retrieve the memory from Slughorn. Then there's the power Harry alone possesses to defeat Voldemort, which he has yet to come to terms with or accept as being good enough for the job. Harry doesn't seek *fame* and is embarassed by it very much. He doesn't capitalize on political power or power that serves his own needs. He's not lured by power for power's sake, as you said. But he does attach himself and openly state his loyalty to the most powerful wizard in his world, and he does feel a flame inside at the thought of being the one to defeat Voldemort. Harry has always rejected Draco, yet in this book he obsessively follows him around. I do think most of this was truly believing Draco was up to no good. There was another part, though. Draco was no longer engaging in his boyhood pursuits--harassing Harry, playing Quidditch, being Snape's favorite boy. Harry sensed the shift, and in a way that's what worried him the most, I believe. Suddenly Draco was no longer just a bully, he was a real threat. Harry had yet to leave his 'childish things' behind in HBP, and was still ensconsed in Dumbledore's protection, squabbles with friends, etc. Draco, whatever you think of his actions, had moved on to the real world, where stakes are high and your choices & loyalty, no matter how uncertain, stand between you and death. Harry got there too, by the end of HBP, when he realized the 'last of his great protectors was gone' and his future path was now up to him to decide (with help from his friends of course, and perhaps a few secret allies ). I'm still working some of this out in my own mind, but I think one theme in HBP was Harry's need to come to terms with his Slytherin tendencies, wherever they come from, and being the "One with the Power." He has always rejected power in the traditional sense, yet his future calls for him to be powerful in a way only he can be. Back to a point by Neri, which I think fits here: > Neri: > I think Dumbledore's words "a soul that is whole and untarnished" > should be taken in the context in which they were said. The context > was Voldy's ripped soul. By "whole and untarnished soul" Dumbledore > simply means that Harry didn't commit murder, despite having some > good personal reasons to do it. Jen: I do think Snape had a point in chapter 2 when he mentioned wondering whether Harry would be the next Dark Lord. I doubt he was the only one wondering that. After watching Riddle evolve, I'd say Dumbledore was very keen to see who Harry had grown to be in the intervening years. Nowhere in the prophecy does it say the 'One with the Power' is Good. I think there was a very real possibility in Dumbledore's mind that Harry could be on-track to defeat the Dark Lord, but only for personal gain. So he *is* amazed by his soul and choices, and by the end of COS, he's certain of Harry's loyalty and knows his desire to defeat Voldemort is not for selfish reasons. Jen From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 15:49:32 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:49:32 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' / Harry's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Judy wrote: > Dumbledore does spend a lot of time during this conversation saying > that Harry is Voldemort's equal. Still, it's not clear to me that > Dumbledore is talking about magical powers. Consider this exchange: > > "So, when the porphecy says that I'll have 'power the > Dark Lord know not', it just means --- love?" asked Harry, > feeling a little let down. > > "Yes -- just love," said Dumbledore. > Neri: The words of the prophecy are: "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not". This "but" doesn't sound to me as if the power-the-Dark-Lord-knows- not is what makes Harry equal to Voldy. The *mark* is what makes them equal, and the PTDLNN sounds like an extra, something that makes them *different*. And this is basically what Dumbledore says too. When he talks about what makes Harry equal he refers to Harry's link with Voldy and to the Parseltongue, which is a demonstration of the not-so- innocent powers Harry inherited with his mark. The love, OTOH, is against the "lure", the "temptation" and being "seduced". JKR said herself (as if this wasn't obvious enough) that the scar is on Harry's forehead in order to show that he is "a marked man". Marked like Cain, perhaps? "Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it". > Judy wrote: > And later, as Neri quoted, Dumbledore says: > "By attempting to kill you, Voldemort himself singled out > the remarkable person who sits here in front of me, and gave > him the tools for the job! It is Voldemort's fault > that you were able to see into his thoughts, his > ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike > language in which he gives orders." > > Dumbledore goes on to say that any Death Eater would kill to have > Harry's privileged insight into Voldemort's world. > > It seems to me that Dumbledore is saying Harry is uniquely equipped > with the *psychological* tools -- not necessarily the magical tools -- > to defeat Voldemort. Neri: All this is true, yet psychological tools don't extend very well to cover "uniquely deadly weapons", and having insight into someone's mind isn't usually described as being his "equal". > > Neri said: > > Voldy's power can only be a "lure" if it's power that Harry > > already possesses, or will possess if he's ever > > "seduced by the Dark Arts" > Judy wrote: > This doesn't necessarily mean Harry is as powerful as Voldemort. > Dumbledore could be referring to the temptation to share in > Voldemort's power. (After all, this seems to appeal to many of the > Death Eaters.) Voldemort did, in fact, try to recruit Harry in Book > 1. But Harry wasn't interested, even if death seemed the only > alternative. > Neri: As you say, the last time Voldy tried to recruit Harry was in Book 1, and it doesn't seem probable that he'll try this one again, or if he will, that Harry is in any danger of being tempted by it. So why is Love so crucial now? From what temptations must it guard Harry in Book 7? > Judy wrote: > So far, we really haven't seen much evidence of Harry as > uber-wizard. Neri: But of course we haven't. That would indeed make Harry a very boring character, the predictable Superman/Spiderman type, and we would all know what to expect from the final battle. No, these powers must remain shrouded in mystery, like Snape's motivations, always hinted at but never explicitly described until the climax. We do know, however, that Harry has a mind connection with an uber-wizard, and he has already demonstrated the ability to use a power of this wizard, and Dumbledore explains in his last talk that this very ability is what makes Harry so dangerous to Voldy, and all this potential must somehow prove itself in the climax of Book 7 or I understand nothing about tension building. > Judy wrote: > He really didn't do well in the fight with Snape > at the end of Book 6. Even before that, Snape described Harry (with > some exaggeration, no doubt) as "mediocre to the last degree." "He > had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a > number of tight corners by a simple combination of luck and more > talented friends." > > I fully expect that, in Book 7, Snape will prove to be one of > those "talented friends" who help Harry out of tight corners. > Neri: Thus proving Snape's claim that Harry is mediocre to the last degree? I doubt it. Snape was the one who scorned Harry for being unable to use the Unforgivables, while Dumbledore told him that his greatest power comes from never being seduced by the Dark Arts. My bet is on Dumbledore to prove correct in this specific dispute. Neri From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 17:17:39 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:17:39 -0000 Subject: Blood on his hands? Message-ID: Just encountered this while doing some research into alchemy. cinnabar Cinnabar is the bright red ore of mercury sulfide. Known as "Dragon's Blood," the roasted rocks emit a thick reddish smoke, as pure glistening mercury oozes from cracks. Psychologically, cinnabar represents the hardened habits and terrestrial marriages of soul and spirit that must be broken asunder in Calcination to free the essences with which the alchemist intends to work. Hum that pesky use for Dragon's Blood that Dumbledore discovered turns out to be the catalyst for creation of a HRX. Guilty, guilty DD. Regards Jo From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 20:47:20 2005 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:47:20 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' / Harry's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neri said: > The words of the prophecy are: "and the Dark Lord will mark him as > his equal, but he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not". > This "but" doesn't sound to me as if the power-the-Dark-Lord-knows- > not is what makes Harry equal to Voldy. The *mark* is what makes > them equal, and the PTDLNN sounds like an extra, something that > makes them *different*. I see your point, but I have to say that the prophecy is ambiguous. (As any good prophecy is!) Does the prophecy mean Voldemort made Harry his equal in evil powers, but Harry also has another power (love) that makes him, overall, *superior* in power to Voldemort? Or is it that all of Harry's powers put together (including love) are equal to all of Voldemort's powers? I like the idea that, even with the power of love, Harry is only Voldemort's equal, not his superior, because that means Harry will probably need help to finish Voldemort off. And, given how the story is going, at least some of that help will have to come from my favorite character, Snape. I said: > > It seems to me that Dumbledore is saying Harry is uniquely > > equipped with the *psychological* tools -- not necessarily the > > magical tools -- to defeat Voldemort.... And Neri replied: > All this is true, yet psychological tools don't extend very well to > cover "uniquely deadly weapons", and having insight into someone's > mind isn't usually described as being his "equal". Well, in the Potterverse, psychological tools may well equal "uniquely deadly weapons." After all, it was Lily's love for Harry, not any special magical powers of hers, that tore Voldemort from his body in the first place and stopped Quirrelmort. Whether having insight into Voldemort's mind will make Harry Voldemort's equal depends on just how useful that insight proves to be. If it enables Harry to find the horcruxes, for example, it could make Voldemort mortal again. I understand that you are taking the word "equal" to mean "having equal magical abilities" but that isn't necessarily the only interpretation. In the context of the prophecy, "equal" could mean instead that Harry and Voldemort each have an equal chance of being the victorious one in their battle, taking into consideration Harry's ability to love, his understanding of Voldemort, etc. > Neri: > As you say, the last time Voldy tried to recruit Harry was in Book > 1, and it doesn't seem probable that he'll try this one again, or > if he will, that Harry is in any danger of being tempted by it. So > why is Love so crucial now? From what temptations must it guard > Harry in Book 7? It's possible that Harry's ability to love has already done it's work, and won't play an active role. It's possible that his ability to love will allow him to make the ultimate sacrifice (although I hope he doesn't have to!) There may be something more prosaic -- like rescuing Ginny again. It could serve a number of roles, really. I said: > > He really didn't do well in the fight with Snape > > at the end of Book 6. Even before that, Snape described Harry > > (with some exaggeration, no doubt) as "mediocre to the last > > degree." "He had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought > > his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination > > of luck and more talented friends." > > I fully expect that, in Book 7, Snape will prove to be one of > > those "talented friends" who help Harry out of tight corners... Neri: > Thus proving Snape's claim that Harry is mediocre to the last > degree? I doubt it. Snape was the one who scorned Harry for being > unable to use the Unforgivables, while Dumbledore told him that his > greatest power comes from never being seduced by the Dark Arts. My > bet is on Dumbledore to prove correct in this specific dispute. I don't actually think Harry is mediocre -- I said Snape was exaggerating. (Whether Snape belives Harry is mediocre, or was just pretending to for Bella's benefit, is an open question.) But, there is no question that Harry seems to have amazing luck, and I expect that same "luck" will help him in the final battle. However, I don't see it as luck -- it is destiny. Sure, Dumbledore is no doubt correct in his statement that Harry's greatest power comes from never being seduced by the Dark Arts, but what does that mean? You seem to be saying it means Harry has some other, non-Dark power that no one else has. I tend to think not. I wrote: > > So far, we really haven't seen much evidence of Harry as > > uber-wizard. and Neri said: > But of course we haven't. That would indeed make Harry a very > boring character, the predictable Superman/Spiderman type, and we > would all know what to expect from the final battle. No, these > powers must > remain shrouded in mystery, like Snape's motivations, always hinted > at but never explicitly described until the climax. We do know, > however, that Harry has a mind connection with an uber-wizard, and > he has already demonstrated the ability to use a power of this > wizard, and Dumbledore explains in his last talk that this very > ability is what makes Harry so dangerous to Voldy, and all this > potential must somehow prove itself in the climax of Book 7 or I > understand nothing about tension building. But all along, the books have suggested that magic power isn't really what matters. Dumbledore is far, far more magically powerful than Harry, yet he isn't the one who can defeat Voldemort. The whole idea of infant Harry coming out of his first battle with Voldemort intact, while Voldemort is ripped from his body, seems to emphasize the idea that magical power isn't the most important thing. If it turns out that Harry needs some sort of extreme power to defeat Voldemort, something out of proportion to Harry's previous abilities, I'll be disappointed. It may be that there is nothing in the books to resolve this dispute, Neri. Really, it depends on what sort of hero JKR *wants* Harry to be. We'll just have to wait and see. -- Judy From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 21:46:22 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:46:22 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: Carolyn: > Jen, pardon the irritated tone after trying day in the office, but what > *is* this insistance on Harry's 'untarnished soul'?? > > As you know, I'm a heathen, therefore damned for ever more according to > the second sight only vouchsafed to the converted, but *really*. What > we have in these books is a reasonable portrait of a teenager, warts > and all. The kid has made several (justified IMO) attempts at chucking > unforgiveables at people he dislikes; he lies frequently (some signs of > intelligence in the lad); instinctively avoids creeps like Creevey, > Rita and Lockhart and is not unreasonably confused about Snape, who's > playing a deep game, hand in hand with DD. > Perhaps JKR really does see it this way, that the boy is possessed of > some extraordinary qualitity of love, vulnerability, whatever that will > conquer all in the end. Very touching I'm sure. However, the way she's > written him comes across to me as a good deal more prosaic, and I hope > she doesn't lose sight of this in the final resolution. Geoff: I'm probably late in replying to this message but I've been looking on the wrong group for it and only just realised.... As a Christian, I am to your eyes, I suppose, one of those with the second sight given to the converted. However, as a result, I take a different line to you and believe that (1) no one has an untarnished soul and (2) no one is irredeemable unless they get themselves into the same position as the Dwarves in C S Lewis' "Last Battle" who cannot see redemption because they have turned their back on it for so long that they wouldn't recognise it if it tapped them on the shoulder. I have argued on many occasions on the main group that he can be equated with a Christian making his or her journey through life. It's not only teenagers but oldies like me who make wrong decisions, allow our judgements to be coloured by our own misconceptions and prejudices and generally manage to mess up far too often. Remember that I am speaking from a Chriatian POV - and other memebrs of the group have every right to disagree with me but my belief - after coming to faith over 40 years ago - is that we can be possessed of an extraordinary quality of love and vulnerability which comes from outside when we allow it to. That doesn't make everything soppy and lovey-dovey. I can still be prosaic and matter-of-fact while experiencing the deep, real self-denying "agape". Yes, I know that Harry and the Wizarding World are not overtly Christian but I believe that there is a foundation there which postulates a basic benchmark of goodness which we all lean towards in our better moments. And I consider that to be more - a lot more - than very touching. From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 21:57:36 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:57:36 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) Message-ID: Nora: It's an individual reading choice which of these two aspects the reader wants to emphasize, but the reader who doesn't follow the author's balance is probably going to end up a little lost. And if you pay attention to interviews (I do) and don't think she's grossly lying to us (I don't), she's really very interested in us-the- readers realizing her utter sincerity and picking up on it. Carolyn: I am always curious at this Faith line you take, Nora, of an utterly simplistic face value reading, not only of the books but of the interviews. Without even digressing into the entertainment value of alternative readings, frankly I think you are more familiar than most people as to the many, many layers of meaning that can be buried in text. Conscious or unconscious authorial intent is a pleasant minefield that can lead to endless, profitable and fascinating re- evalutions of books as more information comes to light - whether that derives from one's own more developed understanding of things, or plain new hard facts. Yes, as Kneasy pondered on at length earlier this week, JKR seems keen to close off some avenues of investigation, seems anxious for a particular view to prevail, but so what? So she wants us to take Sirius' declaration as sincere, or DD to be the epitome of goodness, or Harry to be a plucky teenager doing his best? I would take JKR's public view on things as only a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Without even suggesting she is telling porkies, it really is impossible for her ever to be objective really. In 20 years time when it is all over, she could easily write a frank re-evaluation of what she thought she was doing, whether she achieved it, and acknowledge the justice - even truth - of many fandom interpretations. Or she may never actually 'understand' how her simple little morality tale could have been so misunderstood.. Like the furore that greeted new installments of Dickens, mass reader response is way out of mere author's control. Only this evening, we came to the end of a week's gripping installments of a British radio soap, The Archers [I heard those collective groans, you at the back]. A simple tale of country folk, ha ha. A girl finally declares her love for her man. Only snaggette is that she is married to his brother and has also foisted a child of the man she loves on said brother. But the actors played it dead straight, true luurve will out etc. Snap to the online chat boards and it's a different story. Raging essays from gloriously-named posters such as Dame Celia Molestrangler: the public beg to differ - what a selfish little strumpet etc etc. Reader involvement in the story is a new international past-time. Pippin: Harry often errs, especially when he doesn't consider the consequences of what he's doing. But he has never considered a moral consequence and thought, "I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway" or "Serve them right" or "It doesn't matter as long as it's not (fill in the blank) who gets hurt." Along with the fear expressed by some that Jo is going to turn all insipid, sacharine and preachy is there a fear that she might have something to say, in a non-preachy unsacharine fashion, that will compel the invested reader to take it seriously? I wonder about that --I don't think her ideas coincide about the soul or religion are going to coincide with mine at all, at all, and I thoroughly expect to encounter some cognitive dissonance when Everything Is Explained. Carolyn: Well, my interpretation of his attempts to use Crucio is that he meant them as much as he was able to at the time, and would definitely have been very glad to have caused some serious hurt to Bella and Snape. There is no doubt he wanted to avenge Sirius's death, and I think it unlikely he would have felt sorry if he had managed to kill her. Undoubtedly he now thinks the same way about Snape. The sectum sempra incident is a bit different, in that he stupidly had no idea what the curse would do, and not unreasonably assumed it to be another schoolboy jinx - yes, he intended to hurt Draco, but certainly not fatally. I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'the invested reader'. If you mean a child absorbed in the series might take away some understanding that it's a good idea to think before you act, generally a bad thing to kill people and as a principle for life, try your best to do the right thing, well..duh.. ..but probably adults might have worked those things out for themselves, no? Without really wanting to revisit all the tiresome adult/child readership arguments that have raged backwards and forwards over the years, what exactly would the 'invested' adult reader find compelling about these sorts of simplistic moral messages? Neri: While I find Snape interesting enough, I really don't see why many readers think he's a more interesting character than Harry. Does Snape ask himself if he has to do something because it's fated or because it's his own choice? Does he ever wonder if he's still himself? Does he search his memory for blank periods? Does he have to be told by others that he had just spoke a language that he didn't know even existed? Snape is interesting because he keeps secrets from us. Harry tells us everything he knows, and still he has dark secrets even from himself. Carolyn: You don't know he doesn't do any of these things, Neri. The evidence from some of his anguished outcries at different points in the books is that he spends a great deal of his time in black thought about a whole range of such things. Harry's lack of thought about anything is dull by comparison. Going back to my replies to Pippin and Nora, surely it's these adult stories that provide the character interest (such as it is), and which makes JKR's apparent state of denial about them very curious indeed. Silmariel: My mind tends to disconnect when confronted to accepting Harry as an untarnished soul and pure of heart. I see shades of grey and quite an standar hero, that I find likable precisely because he is a predictable adolescent mess, but not my image of a pure of heart hero. Pip: because the series is really about 'who claims the grey people'? Do they belong to Evil? Or can Good redeem them? Is this series about Justice? Or Mercy? Do you only belong to the side of Good if your heart is pure, you have the strength of ten and any sins are only minor ones? Or is Good a side that anyone can join (or rejoin)? Whatever they've done? Carolyn: I'd personally prefer some of these sorts of more complex messages, though (naturally) ignoring their religious connotations. However, they seem at odds with WYSIWYG approach advocated by Neri and Nora. Carolyn Thinking what a satisfying word 'codswallop' is.. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 22:37:40 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:37:40 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > Carolyn: > I am always curious at this Faith line you take, Nora, of an > utterly simplistic face value reading, not only of the books but of > the interviews. Without even digressing into the entertainment > value of alternative readings, frankly I think you are more > familiar than most people as to the many, many layers of meaning > that can be buried in text. Conscious or unconscious authorial > intent is a pleasant minefield that can lead to endless, profitable > and fascinating re-evalutions of books as more information comes to > light - whether that derives from one's own more developed > understanding of things, or plain new hard facts. I find it to be my preferred line to take on a work in progress, because we're all still arguing about things which I'd consider to be fact-based rather than hermeneutic. There may well be lots of lines of inquiry or reading left open when everything is said and done--and then we get to play the game of what criteria we're going to read by, when everything we're going to get is out on the table. I tend to go for maximal coherence--can I explain the most things without leaving any giant gaping holes? > In 20 years time when it is all over, she could easily write a > frank re-evaluation of what she thought she was doing, whether she > achieved it, and acknowledge the justice - even truth - of many > fandom interpretations. Or she may never actually 'understand' how > her simple little morality tale could have been so misunderstood.. I see your point, and I don't think it's invalid. In my experiences in some other areas with this problem, though...okay, I have a good one in mind (because I'm prospectusing at the moment), which is Strauss and Hofmannsthal's _Elektra_. Their correspondence and commentary are very revealing as to what perspective they took on the material, such as the meaning of the ending and some other things. All the readings which deliberately go contra their commentary or choose to ignore it end up with some interesting conclusions, but some really giant holes, or a hell of a lot of "If we assume..." and supposition. [If anyone cares, I'm thinking specifically of the "suicide is grand, Elektra is setting herself free!" feminist reading of Elektra; I *suppose* you can argue for it, but that means you have to ignore a lot of text as well as the tonal structure and key symbolism of the work.] Correct me if I'm wrong, but things like "DD is the puppetmaster pulling the strings" are looking not merely for "this is a plausible reading of events," but are going the further step of saying "we think this may well happen in the text for everyone to see." Lack of overt confirmation/statement may then be taken as space to assert that it's a viable reading--I see that. I'm just skeptical, at the moment. Hey, I'm just calling this one as I see it. It's such an end- weighted strategy that I'm not sure what's going to come out, by any means. > Carolyn: > You don't know he doesn't do any of these things, Neri. The > evidence from some of his anguished outcries at different points in > the books is that he spends a great deal of his time in black > thought about a whole range of such things. I think that Neri's point is that all of this about Snape is implied, although I wouldn't even call it that...it's a definite blank that a reader has to fill in for himself. As such, it's kinda by definition less substantial than the in-text worries and considerably larger page time that Harry has. I have another good music-historical analogue, but I suspect it's way on the far side of esoteric (unless y'all like Lully and Rameau), so I'll keep it to myself for now. :) -Nora sits down with a cup of tea and Ariadne From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 22:48:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:48:56 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn wrote: > I'd personally prefer some of these sorts of more complex messages, > though (naturally) ignoring their religious connotations. However, > they seem at odds with WYSIWYG approach advocated by Neri and Nora. > > Carolyn > Thinking what a satisfying word 'codswallop' is.. Potioncat: Some days I just feel like Winnie-the-Pooh. Most decidedly a bear of little brain. A good bit of this discussion, and similar ones elsewhere leave me scratching my head in puzzlement. What I hear several of you saying (yeah, I studied a bit of psychiatry) is that "the books are beginning to lose some of their sparkle; things aren't going quite the way you had expected; is that all there is?" Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... What about the story really got your attention? And then, what changed? Before I go off on my experience, I'll wait to see what others say. As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody wicked"...but oh well... Kathy W. From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 23 23:10:56 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:10:56 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kathy wrote: >What I hear several of you saying (yeah, I studied a bit of >psychiatry) is that "the books are beginning to lose some of their >sparkle; things aren't going quite the way you had expected; is that >all there is?" > >Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the >books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and >started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... >What about the story really got your attention? And then, what >changed? I'd like to know this too, Kathy. I'm hearing a *lot* of dissatisfation from certain quarters (I won't name names, but you know who you are ;) ). I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? > >Before I go off on my experience, I'll wait to see what others say. Me too. > >As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I >said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away >from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody >wicked"...but oh well... I'm an adult, and I say things like bloody wicked, codswollop, (plus a whole lot more, especially some days) pretty much any early 18th-Century Royal Navy slang, mixed with some nifty Shakespearean terms. The nice thing is, you can be mad as heck, and nobody really catches it...nice when you've got to watch you're language, lest a visitor walk in. Parker > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 04:09:20 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:09:20 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" wrote: > I'm hearing a *lot* of dissatisfation > from certain quarters (I won't name names, but you know who you are ;) ). > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? > Lyn here: I don't think we would find much in the way of music/film/literary criticism and reviews if folks stopped listening/watching/reading the moment they found something dissatisfying, or inconsistent, or poorly done. As for reading the books, how does one ever chose when to stop reading a book, or the next book in a series? There will be a lot of answers, representing individidual sensibilities, including that some might well choose to read them precisely so they could knowledgably critique them. Do you really think that expressing dissatisfaction with some, maybe even many, aspects of an author's work means one doesn't like "the books at all"? Is it required to see the works exactly as the author envisions them (or in alignment with the majority of fans) in order to appreciate the story within. And might you not entertain the idea that one might like some books in a series, or some characters, or some literary contrivances, or some subplots, or some phrasing but find fault with others. From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 04:23:23 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:23:23 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > Well, my interpretation of his attempts to use Crucio is that he > meant them as much as he was able to at the time, and would > definitely have been very glad to have caused some serious hurt to > Bella and Snape. There is no doubt he wanted to avenge Sirius's > death, and I think it unlikely he would have felt sorry if he had > managed to kill her. Undoubtedly he now thinks the same way about > Snape. The sectum sempra incident is a bit different, in that he > stupidly had no idea what the curse would do, and not unreasonably > assumed it to be another schoolboy jinx - yes, he intended to hurt > Draco, but certainly not fatally. Lyn now: Yes! It always amuses me how the pacifists want to dance around the fact that Harry wanted that Crucio to work. He wanted Bella to suffer extreme pain for killing Sirius. Frankly, I'm rather dismayed he didn't try to kill her instead. And I suspect, if he had a bit more presence of mind, and capability, he would have gladly cut her down. And from my perspective, more power to him. She's the enemy, and had already shown she will destroy the lives (Frank, Alice, Sirius, and almost surely more) of both the "good guys" as Harry knows them, and likely the innocents as well. And I agree again with you about Draco. It was stupid to try a spell he had no idea the consequences, or even the effectiveness of. But, it seems it is often overlooked that he uttered that spell in an attempt to block an "unforgiveable" being used on him. This is the Harry who has been instrumental in the death of a Basilisk and Diary Riddle, I really felt his histrionics over the damage he did to Draco to be a bit overplayed. Indeed, I wonder now that he knows how Draco's efforts led to DD's death, if he isn't kind of regretting the SS didn't do the job. From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 06:43:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 06:43:43 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: Potioncat: > Some days I just feel like Winnie-the-Pooh. Most decidedly a bear of > little brain. A good bit of this discussion, and similar ones > elsewhere leave me scratching my head in puzzlement. Geoff: Ah, you haven't quite reached Winnie-the-Pooh's levels of confusion. He was a bear of /very/ little brain. :-) But he did like being up at Christopher Robin's special place at the top of the forest - which I've visited more than once. Potioncat: >> As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I > said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away > from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody > wicked"...but oh well... Geoff: Why on earth not? Codswallop is defined in my dictionary as British informal nonsense. I use it, and many people I know use it including people who would pale at the thought of saying "knickers". I wonder what Harry says when he stubs his toe? From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 09:05:51 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:05:51 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What's in a Patronus? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200509241105.51522.silmariel@...> Kneasy: > Admittedly Narcissa!Tonks is a tempting construction, all sorts of > entertaining repercussions could flow from it - SHIPs (if you're into that > sort of thing), BANGs, devious doings among the DEs and DD doing a > touch of the Nelson's by turning a blind eye to a dyed-in-the-wool DE > supremacist hausfrau clomping round his beloved Hogwarts. > Touche. But she started it, spreading ships all around the book (actually a friend of mine asked me if it was a fake book, she didn't accept easily it was Jo's work). > See, this is what Jo wants you to think, so one should sniff the breezes > for the subtle tang of Clupea harengus radiating light at 650 nm. I don't know what we are supossed to think, seeing at the discussion flow on tol and the general lack of theorising. With Tonks may look simple, but has been a Tonks->Bill => Tonks->Sirius =>Tonks->Lupin => Tonks is not her, and I feel the vast majority left at stage 3. But I prefer having clues of possible diversions and red herrings, indeed. There's something from the giggling interview, with all that redemption and slytherin are not all bad, only a small fragment of them are, that makes me think this is not out of bounds thematically. > So, a few questions - > How come Cissy is hugger-mugger with the inner-most circle of the > Order? She'd have to be if Molly, Snape and DD are aiding and abetting. > They'd know that all she cares about is Draino, Harry comes nowhere on > her list of priorities. She'd happily wipe out Hoggers and all who sail in > her to keep her obnoxious offspring safe. She's shown no indication of > repudiating Voldy's masterplan of "Me for King!" > Why should they trust her? > Snape is already irrevocably bound by the UV. What could Cissy do that > Sevvy can't? > That she's related to the inner circle, well, I suppose she would have gone directly to Dumbledore or Snape, but after that meeting, it would have been quite extrange for Tonks to hang near those two, so Molly's the perfect candidate, considering Tonks and her already had a sort of friendship, iirc, because I don't reread OoP except for especific things or when point to it... To be depressingly simple, being anti-Harry doesn't equal to being anti-everyone, and of course we are not to be shown her true loyalties. It's not as if we knew how she thinks, but to keep it simple, Fawkes could read her heart, no problem here. For a less magic-makes-all-easy approach, there was a time when on his own!Lucius was considered as the surviving nobility archetipe (hope the wording makes sense), but it can be applied to Cissy here. The key is she can trust Voldemort to be ruthless (remembering your cousin helps) and she can trust DD to be merciful (remembering Snape helps), so a true change of sides based on interest is not out of bounds. She can be sincere in her belief that the dark side will help her no more so she'll do anything to remain in the safest side, or at least for his son to remain so. Purely egoistic mother love, but veritaserum-proof. I know discussing this line when it only appears in the USA edition is stretching it, but I'd like to comment on DD telling Draco he can protect his family, deaths can be faked... I didn't though about it first time, I just though Draco and only Draco was being offered mercy, but, exactly how is DD so sure Cissy is going to cooperate, or even believe him? With a plain -she's evil/she hasn't been around in all the book- reading, I imagine Cissy choosing paths here is something not to be taken so easily for granted. Snape can't hang in Hogsmeade at will, not because he lacks the skills, but because he is too visible and expected to follow certain timetables as teacher and Head of house (I was surprised to learn he actually sleeps), he's not the right tool to use here. He doesn't have enough time to cover for the fact there's a metamorphmagy on the loose, you need a lot of free time to do so, and if Narcissa has something, is spare time. With his husband jailed, she has the perfect excuse for turning down social life, she can be almost invisible. Three sisters. Andromeda is DD's woman from the start, Bellatrix is LV's woman from the start, Narcissa is... should be something different from option A and B. > I agree that Tonks looks dodgy, but IMO it's worth bracketing Cissy with > a couple of other suspects. > First - Andromeda Tonks; Nympho's mother, married to a Muggle and so > anti-Voldy and pro-Harry. There'd probably be a family resemblance too, > so Polyjuice, with all its drawbacks (time-limited) may not be required. > IIRC Jo said (yet more of those bloody hints) that in book 7 we would > meet a member of the Order that we'd 'sort-of' met before. > Andromeda would be a logical possibility; Cissy I'd rate as, well, maybe > the author had a funny turn. > That's precisely the point, the funny turn. I didn't expect such a lot of cool or, cheap or not, bangy revelations (I was left with the feeling she was using the kind of bangy cheap tricks I use to do when directing in roleplay) in this book, the DADA curse, Snape as DADA, the multi Tuppers, the vow, the tarot cards being right, Snape as HBP, Draco shipped with a ghost(!), Lily the potion maker, the list gets interminable. Andromeda is a common sense imposter, agreed, but as logical as she is, what's the dramatic or bangy point? The black family avenger? (because with cissy we get enough ooos and aaas, but andromeda's character is still a kind of a sketch) > Secondly - just because Tonks is of the lumpy-front persuasion, it does > not automatically follow that whoever is impersonating her can't be a > bloke. Grabbe and Coyle have used the trick, maybe there's someone > else who wants to show their feminine side. Now who do we know who > has already trod the transvestite path in OoP, who Apparates out in HBP > only for 'Tonks' to appear from round the corner shortly after? > Dear old Dung. A replay of his 'watch over Harry' assignment perhaps? > "He's probably in London already" says 'Tonks'. > Ha! Pull the other one, Harry. He could be standing right in front of you. > I like this one, it's that surname of him, Fletcher, what rings a bell. But doing exactly what? What's the point on asigning Tonks and then asigning Mundungus to replace her? Is he covering Tonks operations in wich case we should be looking for her activities? Is he ESE? Is the 'shock and anger' in her face something likable in him as reaction to Snape's remark? Why an order member asks for letters, when he already should know he can't use his patronus, well, because they are unique? I mean, precisely Mundungus should know how to be sneaky. Too much screen time only for watching over Harry, it may have something to do with future Hxs, but it's a bit dissapointing to find clues to a plot coupon instead of finding clues to character insights. Silmariel loving twisted theories, too From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 09:27:10 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:27:10 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] The List so far (was coming to a conclusion) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200509241127.10479.silmariel@...> Who is to show magic late in life? What did DD see in the mirror of Erised? Are there secrets in the chamber of secrets or was it *a* secret? What happened with third Fawkes' feather? Was Dobby receiving orders/being manipulated into befriending Harry in CoS? What happens with mimulus mimbletonia and the group hearing voices through the Veil? Cho's fate - that patronus of her speaks of tragedy Inconsistences in Sirius scape from Azkaban Egypt Fakwes 'omnipresence' in HBP Silmariel From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 11:39:04 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:39:04 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" wrote: > Kathy wrote: > > > >What I hear several of you saying (yeah, I studied a bit of > >psychiatry) is that "the books are beginning to lose some of their > >sparkle; things aren't going quite the way you had expected; is that > >all there is?" > > > >Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the > >books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and > >started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... > >What about the story really got your attention? And then, what > >changed? > > I'd like to know this too, Kathy. I'm hearing a *lot* of dissatisfation > from certain quarters (I won't name names, but you know who you are ;) ). > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? OK. I'll come clean, but you probably won't be impressed. More likely images of lepers will spring to mind, an untouchable polluting the well- spring of pure fandom. Ah, well, such is life. For sure it wasn't because I'm enamoured of tales of adolescents waving bits of wood around. Nor was it an addiction to the fantasy genre per se. The fascinating aspect of HP was that it was a work in progress, and a work that looked detailed and complicated, that it was unfinished, thus offering an opportunity to let my imagination off the leash. If it were a finished work then I'd not be here. I'd probably read the books once and then leave them on the shelf. Let's face it - great literature they ain't. A reversion to childhood perhaps. Dunno about over the water but years ago back here there was what was known as the 'Saturday morning tanner rush'. The ABC cinema chain (maybe others as well) used to have children's matinees on Saturday mornings - kids only, usually in the 7-10 age bracket, no adults, sixpence (a tanner) to get in. The programme was a couple of cartoons and a load of old serials - and they were old even in the early 50s when I was a participating afficianado. 'Participating' is the correct word, 'cos the place often became a seething mass of irrepressible youth as sword fights were re-enacted in the aisles, invasion by robots was re-interpreted on the balcony, the orchestra pit became a pirate ship that just had to be boarded and generalised mayhem erupted every time Gene Autry unslung his guitar and sang something 'soppy' to Dale whatsername. Wonderful, it was. Quite spoiled the fun when the manager (in a threadbare evening dress suit) used to stop the film, at least 3 times in the 2 hours the prog lasted, and threaten dire consequences if we didn't behave. Usually effective for at least 5 minutes. Thing is, at that time almost no-one had a TV, and even if they did there wasn't much to attract or involve a 10 year old. But those serials! They keep us going until the following Saturday - revising, interpreting, imagining where they would go next. So in the school playground it was "Pretend I'm Flash Gordon and you're a Clay Man disguised as the wall of the tunnel, and I've got this ray gun and...." What we'd seen was merely a starting point for imaginative games. It didn't matter that what we constructed during those games was never going to happen come Saturday. That wasn't the point. The extant characters and plot-lines were no more than templates to be manipulated. SFAIC HP is a long drawn-out serial, just like those films from long ago. To help the illusion along, there's still bugger-all worth watching on the TV. So Harry is mis-treated? So what? That's scene setting, putting the character in context, nothing more. Snape is nasty? Splendid! Lots of potential there. All grist to the mill. And what comes out of the mill is the equivalent of those playground games. One thing about those old serials - the villain always got his come-uppance at the hands of the hero and usually in a satisfyingly violent showdown. Nicely cathartic. An ending such as some, particularly on TOL advocate, of Harry not sullying his soul by stooping to violent revenge would have caused a riot that not even the manager could have quelled. I imagine that those fans getting twitchy about whether the up-coming resolution will meet expectations are those that would have stormed the ticket-office back then if Ming the Merciless, plus minions, didn't eventually get their retributive desserts. It's fair to say that I've never taken HP seriously and can't see any reason why I should. Nor has any emotional involvement ever marred my musings of what has/is/will happen. Others react differently. That's up to them, I won't try to force them to accept my viewpoint so long as they don't try to impose theirs on me. I'm not a great fan of interpretative orthodoxy, it's the differences between posted opinions that makes them interesting, not the conformities. Meantime, I'll continue playing my imaginative games. Sorry if they displease you, but you can always skip over the Kneasy posts if they get unbearable. It won't hurt my feelings, honest. Kneasy From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 13:28:28 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:28:28 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > Well, my interpretation of his attempts to use Crucio is that he > meant them as much as he was able to at the time, and would > definitely have been very glad to have caused some serious hurt to > Bella and Snape. There is no doubt he wanted to avenge Sirius's > death, and I think it unlikely he would have felt sorry if he had > managed to kill her. Undoubtedly he now thinks the same way about > Snape. The sectum sempra incident is a bit different, in that he > stupidly had no idea what the curse would do, and not unreasonably > assumed it to be another schoolboy jinx - yes, he intended to hurt > Draco, but certainly not fatally. Pippin: Even the innocent unicorn will lash out when it is hurt (GoF Weighing of the Wands), so the mere fact that Harry wants vengeance or that he wanted Bella or Snape to suffer in the worst way he could think of does not, in JKR's eyes, make Harry guilty. I disagree that he would have been glad if the curse had worked -- I don't see any canon for that. We're not told that he felt stupid or disappointed that it hadn't, for one thing. Harry has often amused himself with thoughts of Snape or Dudley being punished, but he's never gotten beyond the thought and tried. He certainly wasn't glad to see Dudley attacked by dementors, even though he'd been entertaining the thought of sending Dudders home as something with feelers moments before. Carolyn: > I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'the invested reader'. If you mean a child absorbed in the series might take away some understanding that it's a good idea to think before you act, generally a bad thing to kill people and as a principle for life, try your best to do the right thing, well..duh.. ..but probably adults might have worked those things out for themselves, no? > > Without really wanting to revisit all the tiresome adult/child readership arguments that have raged backwards and forwards over the years, what exactly would the 'invested' adult reader find compelling about these sorts of simplistic moral messages? Pippin: A simple message can argue against a complex one, especially on the grounds that the complex one is overly complicated But that's not really what I had in mind. We are, I presume, going to be in an excited frame of mind as we read Book Seven. Its message is going to make an impression on us whether it has merit or not; or at least that's the psychological theory. We have been told that there is some religious content coming. That's a bit scary, or should be, since, IMO, all religions come down to the same thing: "You have to change your life." Now maybe she will be so heavy-handed and sacharrine that it will break the spell, or maybe the changes being advocated are changes I am trying to make anyway, but there is a reasonable possibility that they are not. Then I will have to deal with the conflict, which could certainly be disruptive to the life I have now, one way or another. So if I said, in advance of reading the book, that it was going to be just childish nonsense and there was no possibility of my taking its ideas seriously, I think I'd be whistling in the dark. Pippin From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 13:32:16 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:32:16 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" wrote: > > Kathy wrote: snip > > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? > > > OK. I'll come clean, but you probably won't be impressed. More likely > images of lepers will spring to mind, an untouchable polluting the well- > spring of pure fandom. Ah, well, such is life. Nah I have a sneaking suspicion we agree! > > For sure it wasn't because I'm enamoured of tales of adolescents waving > bits of wood around. Nor was it an addiction to the fantasy genre per se. > The fascinating aspect of HP was that it was a work in progress, and a work > that looked detailed and complicated, that it was unfinished, thus offering > an opportunity to let my imagination off the leash. Yup, that's why I'm here. I would add that by and large JK is a very generous author, by that I mean not as controlling as some. I like many children's books because of this. Of course she may not really be generous she may simply have plot holes you can drive a bus through but that's an argument for another rainy day. If it were a finished work > then I'd not be here. I'd probably read the books once and then leave them > on the shelf. > Let's face it - great literature they ain't. Perhaps not Booker stuff (and I have own problems with that) but then again it is a great literary *event* and may change how people read and write fiction.... > > A reversion to childhood perhaps. Dunno about over the water but years > ago back here there was what was known as the 'Saturday morning tanner > rush'. The ABC cinema chain (maybe others as well) used to have children's > matinees on Saturday mornings - kids only, usually in the 7-10 age bracket, > no adults, sixpence (a tanner) to get in. The programme was a couple of > cartoons and a load of old serials - and they were old even in the early 50s > when I was a participating afficianado. 'Participating' is the correct word, > 'cos the place often became a seething mass of irrepressible youth as > sword fights were re-enacted in the aisles, invasion by robots was > re-interpreted on the balcony, the orchestra pit became a pirate ship that > just had to be boarded and generalised mayhem erupted every > time Gene Autry unslung his guitar and sang something 'soppy' to Dale > whatsername. sniping nostalgia bit (I was there) those serials! They > keep us going until the following Saturday - revising, interpreting, > imagining where they would go next. So in the school playground it was > "Pretend I'm Flash Gordon and you're a Clay Man disguised as the wall of > the tunnel, and I've got this ray gun and...." Oh all right then but I want the leather boots AND the cape! much snipage of very good stuff I imagine that > those fans getting twitchy about whether the up-coming resolution will > meet expectations are those that would have stormed the ticket- office > back then if Ming the Merciless, plus minions, didn't eventually get their > retributive desserts. Funny you should mention that but I just happen to have a cat named Ming the Merciless! > > It's fair to say that I've never taken HP seriously and can't see any reason > why I should. Nor has any emotional involvement ever marred my musings > of what has/is/will happen. Others react differently. That's up to them, I > won't try to force them to accept my viewpoint so long as they don't try > to impose theirs on me. I'm not a great fan of interpretative orthodoxy, > it's the differences between posted opinions that makes them interesting, > not the conformities. > > Meantime, I'll continue playing my imaginative games. > Sorry if they displease you, but you can always skip over the Kneasy posts > if they get unbearable. It won't hurt my feelings, honest. > > Kneasy Wouldn't dream of it sweety. Regards Jo From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 14:39:05 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:39:05 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > > I'd personally prefer some of these sorts of more complex messages, though (naturally) ignoring their religious connotations. However, they seem at odds with WYSIWYG approach advocated by Neri and Nora. < < Potioncat wrote: > What I hear several of you saying (yeah, I studied a bit of psychiatry) is that "the books are beginning to lose some of their sparkle; things aren't going quite the way you had expected; is that all there is?" Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... What about the story really got your attention? And then, what changed? < Sigune delurking: OK - I'm one of those people, and here is my HP boggart: I was only drawn in after reading Order of the Phoenix. To be quite honest, I wasn't much impressed by the preceding four - meaning they hadn't sparked my imagination and I hadn't taken the trouble of buying the books or looking into fandom, much less subscribe to Potter Yahoo groups. What did it for me was the Worst Memory. I was really taken by surprise when James Potter and Sirius Black fell off their pedestals - I never thought JKR would do that sort of thing, the series had seemed quite stereotypical in its good/evil splits to me. James was a hero, Sirius was charmingly irresponsible; Snape was just mean (and therefore entertaining); Peter was a traitor because he looks like one. To me, OotP was the Potter series' coming-of-age. Harry was obnoxious, Sirius had taken to drink and Snape got a little more background to him (the Occlumency, the schoolday bullying). Lily - well, she was obviously a girl that made use of a fellow student's humiliation to make her mark in her mating dance with Potter Sr. Hey, a number of characters had just acquired extra depth. Also, it was while reading OotP that I discovered that the series might be much more complex and well-thought-out than I had hitherto given it credit for. To give a small example, there were the order members who had been around all along without our realising it, like Arabella Figg and Dedalus Diggle. The older generation's background captured my attention and is essentially what made me peruse the books again and drove me hungrily to fandom. I had great expectations of HBP, but my first reading quite shattered those. Harry's angst has disappeared into thin air over the summer. Lily is obviously a saint. Snape has killed Dumbledore - he's the badass Harry suspected him to be from the beginning, so Sirius was right: he deserved being werewolfed. Yuck. I'm aware of the fact that this is a very simple surface reading; but what alarmed me about HBP is that it suddenly made this kind of simple black-and-white reading and ditto ending a distinct possibility. The book made me suspect I may very well have been expecting far too much from JKR, and what a letdown it would be if all the ambiguous material, all the little things that gave rise to fabulous speculations, turned out to culminate in, "Harry was right all along. He kills Snape, he kills Voldemort with the sheer purity of his heart, he marries Ginny and they live happily ever after." I really dread this - both the book and the interview that followed its publication made me feel as if JKR was preparing us for exactly this. I would be vexed for the simple fact alone that it would mean that with Snape what you see is what you get. I hate that in both books and films: greasy ugly black-clad git = villain. Sad, I call it. I don't *want* to believe it's going that way, but I'm not sure I have much evidence to back my denial. Finally, HBP seems very much an unfinished book. For the one-but-last installment of a series, it has started a lot of new lines of inquiry. As Pippin's list of unresolved issues has shown, there really are a lot of things that need explaining, and I deem it extremely unlikely that all these questions will be answered in one final book. If that is so, the series should have been better monitored and edited. The last book has a lot of stuff that in my eyes was filler, whereas it abandoned a lot of lines about which I was curious. We got a lot of snogging when I wanted to know how Harry dealt with his most hated teacher teaching DADA, or what happened to SPEW. My addition to Pippin's list would be: I hope JKR plans to make the relevance of the Half-Blood Prince stuff clear. I'm probably dumb, but I still don't get that. Your severely, Sigune From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 14:48:50 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:48:50 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neri: > I think Dumbledore's words "a soul that is whole and untarnished" > should be taken in the context in which they were said. The context > was Voldy's ripped soul. By "whole and untarnished soul" Dumbledore > simply means that Harry didn't commit murder, despite having some > good personal reasons to do it. > So as a whole Dumbledore doesn't say Harry is some kind of a saint. > Canon pretty much establishes that Harry is far from that. He's > just a basically decent person who doesn't murder people. He can > love, but so can most of the other characters and most of us, so > this isn't A Big Deal by itself. The Big Deal is that he can still > love *despite* everything that happened to him. Jen: Even though I agree Dumbledore is contrasting Harry's soul with Voldemort's here, your comments stopped me short. Is that all Dumbledore is referring to? Because I don't find it unusual at *all* Harry is not a murderer, most people don't murder just because they've endured 'suffering' as Dumbledore calls it. Riddle's trajectory is somewhat understandable after finding out he received little to nothing in the nature OR nurture department, plus the fact no one intervened with his cognitive distortions. Like when he concluded his mom couldn't have been a witch because she died--uh- oh, look where that idea went when given free rein! Whatever Dumbledore hoped would happen at Hogwarts, Riddle never gave up on believing he could use magic to hurt people. His path to becoming a murderer was well-charted, I thought. Harry's background and genetics were very different. In fact, COS marked the end of the 'strange likenesses' between Harry and Riddle, they were drawn only to explain the transfer of powers, apparently. The growing likenesses seem to be between Harry and Snape, maybe his soul would provide a better comparison?!? No, I still think Dumbledore's 'whole soul' comment is referring to the siren song of dark magic, and Harry's ability to resist the road where so many before him, like Riddle and Snape, could not. Resist so far, I should say, as suddenly the lure of the 'dark magic equals power' equation is getting difficult to give up. The Choices idea is very slim indeed after HBP. Harry may only have the choice to walk into the arena chin-up or be dragged, but Voldemort had even less of a chance to appreciate a whole soul before he ripped his apart. I'm not sure why JKR chose to draw Riddle's past the way she did, whether it will play again in the end somehow. A more heinous villain would be one who grew up with all the things Harry lacked and turned his back on every one to go down the path to destruction and ruin. For me, anyway. I could feel little but compassion for Riddle, and his deprivation cast an even brighter light on Harry's resources. Neri: > The "despite" here is the important part. I find it instructive > that Dumbledore, while explaining to Harry that "it will take > uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort even > without his Horcruxes", never actually teaches Harry any skill. > Only during the sixth year he finally gives Harry some privet > tutoring, and even then it's not "really advanced defensive magic > powerful countercurses anti-jinxes" as Hermione naturally > conjectures. It's only the biography of Voldemort. Why doesn't > Dumbledore ever teach Harry something *useful*? Jen: The biography of Riddle is definitely for the Horcrux search, something Dumbledore seems to think Harry is uniquely qualified for or he would train someone else. As for the killin' part, well HBP convinced me all roads lead to self-sacrifice, something Harry is also uniguely qualified for, capable of and requires no training for ;). Part of me holds out hope for something trickier, even though the theme is woven throughout the text, and the explanations for how each character will act are evident: We have Harry on one side with no fear of death but only average magical power, and Voldemort on the other side with an all-consuming obsession with defeating death and immense magical power. Who is more powerful in the end, the one with everything to lose or the one with nothing? The truth is, no ending seems satisfying to me now. When Talisman and Carolyn mention the hope of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore coming to light in book 7, well it would harken back to the day, wouldn't it? When GoF was out and the possibilities were endless? Part of me wouldn't mind that either, but only because I don't want this ship to dock yet. Talisman and Carolyn may have other reasons for it ;). > Neri: > While I find Snape interesting enough, I really don't see why many > readers think he's a more interesting character than Harry. Does > Snape ask himself if he has to do something because it's fated or > because it's his own choice? Does he ever wonder if he's still > himself? Does he search his memory for blank periods? Does he have > to be told by others that he had just spoke a language that he > didn't know even existed? Snape is interesting because he keeps > secrets from us. Harry tells us everything he knows, and still he > has dark secrets even from himself. Jen: I find Snape interesting in his omissions, like you said. He's interesting in comparison to Harry, and after the potions book, boy- Snape struck me as much more like Harry and Ron than someone like Riddle. What changed for him? We see he started to become interested in dark magic via the spells in the book, but no real explanation for why. And hoo-boy, Harry sure does have a dark secret from himself--how very much like Snape he really is. Jen From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 15:31:43 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:31:43 -0000 Subject: Untarnished soul: WAS Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pip!Squeak, raising her head from out of the teacup... > > No, I think Dumbledore meant more than that. What does Quirrelmort > say, way back in PS/SS? > > "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak > to seek it ..." (Ch. 17) > > Power is the one thing Harry *doesn't* seek. In the face of constant > temptation, he never even seems to see the possibilities... The most > famous boy in the Wizarding World and he finds it irritating. The > best Seeker for generations and it never occurs to him to encourage > a (very useful) fan club. In OOP he creates his own small army, darn > it, mostly very loyal to him - and what happens in HBP? It isn't > needed any more, so he drops it. Nor is he attracted to those with > power; he rejects Draco, he rejects Voldy. Slughorn has power to > mention his name to the 'right people' - but Harry really doesn't > seem to understand that bit. He doesn't suck up, Slughorn's parties > are more irritating than anything. Scrimgeour offers him a role as > poster boy for the Ministry - another route to power. Harry rejects > it. > > Voldemort would have (probably did) *killed* for these advantages. > Harry doesn't even seem to understand that they are advantages. > Neri: Ah, now we begin to delve into the complexities of Harry's character. Harry indeed doesn't seek all these forms of power, but not because he's a saint with an untarnished soul. He has very good personal reasons to reject them. He is the most famous boy in the WW because he lost his parents before he could even remember them, and has to spend his whole childhood with horrible people like the Durselys. Who wants to be famous for that? Harry was new to the WW, in which he desperately wanted to belong. Naturally he was scared of exposing his ignorance and making a fool of himself in front of everybody. The last thing he needed was a fan club that watches his every move and expects great things from him. This was already established in SS/PS Ch. 5: ********************************************** "Everyone thinks I'm special," he said at last. "All those people in the Leaky Cauldron, Professor Quirrell, Mr Ollivander but I don't know anything about magic at all. How can they expect great things? I'm famous and I can't even remember what I'm famous for. I don't know what happened when Vol ? sorry ? I mean, the night my parents died." ********************************************** And in many other places: ********************************************** "I'm not trying to be brave or anything, saying the name," said Harry. "I just never knew you shouldn't. See what I mean? I've got loads to learn I bet," he added, voicing for the first time something that had been worrying him a lot lately, "I bet I'm the worst in the class." Harry smiled weakly. Yes, trying on the hat was a lot better than having to do a spell, but he did wish they could have tried it on without everyone watching. The hat seemed to be asking rather a lot; Harry didn't feel brave or quick-witted or any of it at the moment. As Harry stepped forward, whispers suddenly broke out like little hissing fires all over the hall. "Potter, did she say?" "The Harry Potter?" The last thing Harry saw before the hat dropped over his eyes was the Hall full of people craning to get a good look at him. ********************************************** Don't you see why such attention would be terrifying, not tempting, for a kid in Harry's situation? And when he grows up his situation, instead of improving, gets much worse. Now he's prophecy boy. Everyone counts on him to save the whole WW *again*, and he still doesn't remember how he did it last time, and he doesn't have a clue how he's going to do it now. Who wants that kind of responsibility? Harry was immunized by the special circumstances of his upbringing against the common forms of fame and power, but it's not because he's a saint, it's because he's scared spitless. The question for Book 7 might be how will Harry resist the temptation of power that he really craves. For example, if he is offered a chance to vanquish Voldemort by using Voldemort's powers against him, and it would look like the only way to do it, and Dumbledore won't be there as a guide, would Harry make the wrong choice? JKR made it a point to clarify that the only difference between Harry and Voldy is their choices. If she goes along with this theme it means Harry faces *two* great dangers: he might lose the battle against the Dark Lord and he might win just to become a Dark Lord himself. This is a known hazard of vanquishing Dark Lords. > Pip: > because the series is really about 'who claims the grey people'? Do > they belong to Evil? Or can Good redeem them? Is this series about > Justice? Or Mercy? > > Do you only belong to the side of Good if your heart is pure, you > have the strength of ten and any sins are only minor ones? > > Or is Good a side that anyone can join (or rejoin)? Whatever they've > done? > > Carolyn: > I'd personally prefer some of these sorts of more complex messages, > though (naturally) ignoring their religious connotations. However, > they seem at odds with WYSIWYG approach advocated by Neri and Nora. > Neri: I have two fully acronymized theories lying in ruin on the GARBAGE SCOW to prove I'm not a WYSIWYG person. But I do agree that for technical considerations at least 95% of canon must be rock solid, which is why Faith has by far the best prediction record in the Bay. The trick that Faith doesn't know is how to identify the remaining 5%, which are of course the most interesting. But there's no contradiction between the WYSIWYG approach and the Grey People approach. There's plenty of grey characters around that can redeem themselves, such as Draco, Kreacher, Munudungus, Regulus, Slughorn, Rita, Fudge, maybe even Narcissa. There isn't even any contradiction between WYSIWYG and Grey Snape. For example, he might be a tragic character who tricked himself into the UV because of his love to Narcissa and then found himself in a situation where it's him or Dumbledore. The only seeming contradiction is between WYSIWYG and White-Disguised-As-Black Snape. This is not only because of what happened on the tower, but because people who feel true remorse about being DEs and taking part in the death of two persons don't usually enjoy torturing every kid in sight and especially the orphan of the parents they are remorseful about. I know there are some potential explanations for both these problems, but they are hardly WYSIWYG. > Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3292 > Thing is, at that time almost no-one had a TV, and even if they did there > wasn't much to attract or involve a 10 year old. But those serials! They > keep us going until the following Saturday - revising, interpreting, > imagining where they would go next. So in the school playground it was > "Pretend I'm Flash Gordon and you're a Clay Man disguised as the wall of > the tunnel, and I've got this ray gun and...." Neri: As I very dimly recall from my own childhood, Flash Gordon had a horrible tendency to get into impossible cliffhangers at the end each chapter only to leap effortlessly out of them in the next chapter. I was appalled even as a 10 yrs old. I feverently hope JKR will do better. Neri From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 16:59:13 2005 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:59:13 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Riddle's trajectory is somewhat understandable after finding out he > received little to nothing in the nature OR nurture department, plus > the fact no one intervened with his cognitive distortions. Like when > he concluded his mom couldn't have been a witch because she died--uh- > oh, look where that idea went when given free rein! Whatever > Dumbledore hoped would happen at Hogwarts, Riddle never gave up on > believing he could use magic to hurt people. His path to becoming a > murderer was well-charted, I thought. > Lyn now: I think there is an underlying theme throughout the series that boarding schools lack some essential elements necessary to healthy development as a person. Nowhere is the more evident than with Riddle and Harry. DD knew the problems for each, but was rather limited in his role (though not necessarily his caring) to deal with them. Same goes for many of the other teachers such as McGonnagol. Snape is the extreme example of the detachment, Lupin the exception. Interestingly, JKR has said the Lupin is her model of the best sort of teacher (or words to this effect). Back to Riddle, JKR I suspect quite deliberately choose to show the boarding school to be as poorly suited for dealing with one's inner troubles as the orphanage. > No, I still think Dumbledore's 'whole soul' comment is referring to > the siren song of dark magic, and Harry's ability to resist the road > where so many before him, like Riddle and Snape, could not. Resist > so far, I should say, as suddenly the lure of the 'dark magic equals > power' equation is getting difficult to give up. Lyn again: Yes, nowhere till now has it been illustrated more clearly how Harry is vulnerable to the Dark Arts. Remember back to SS/PS when the Sorting h=Hat noted Harry's "nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting." After years of Snape creating the conditions for Harry to appear-both to himself and publicly-- to fail at Potions (though by his OWLs, he really wasn't), in HBP he shows that "thirst to prove himself" and bask in the attention. As I've said before, I think may foreshadows events in #7 when Harry will have to run away from LV before all the HXs are destroyed, and face public derision, as only Harry will know the necessity for his actions. Will the "thirst to prove himself" torment his actions, and the one's that follow. Just a thought. > > The Choices idea is very slim indeed after HBP. Harry may only have > the choice to walk into the arena chin-up or be dragged, Lyn again: Yep, very much like in the Graveyard, and we know what he decided there. > Jen: The biography of Riddle is definitely for the Horcrux search, > something Dumbledore seems to think Harry is uniquely qualified for > or he would train someone else. As for the killin' part, well HBP > convinced me all roads lead to self-sacrifice, something Harry is > also uniguely qualified for, capable of and requires no training > for ;). Part of me holds out hope for something trickier, even > though the theme is woven throughout the text, and the explanations > for how each character will act are evident: We have Harry on one > side with no fear of death but only average magical power, and > Voldemort on the other side with an all-consuming obsession with > defeating death and immense magical power. Who is more powerful in > the end, the one with everything to lose or the one with nothing? Lyn now: Two thinks here. First, I would toss out that perhaps the only one (s) to be able to safely dismantle a HX is the one(s) who already possess a portion of that soul. Thus, if Harry does indeed incorporate a portion of the TR soul, then he is safely able to deal with the HX. Second, though somewhat tangetial to your point, is my frustration with the JKR inconsistancies in what are to be Harry's powers. On one hand we have the boy the lived, the boy who flew so extremely well without lessons, the one Hermione says is a "Great Wizard," and most of all, the one whose will and power exceeded Voldemorte's in the Graveyard when they were placed in direct contest to each other. On the other hand, we have all these statements of Harry's mediocrity, are usually shown him displaying rather mediore powers, and we have DD noting in the boat that Harry's powers compared to his were indescernable. So, which is it. > > The truth is, no ending seems satisfying to me now. When Talisman > and Carolyn mention the hope of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore coming to > light in book 7, well it would harken back to the day, wouldn't it? > When GoF was out and the possibilities were endless? Part of me > wouldn't mind that either, but only because I don't want this ship > to dock yet. Talisman and Carolyn may have other reasons for it ;). Lyn once more: Yes, this captures my fears pretty well, also > And hoo-boy, Harry sure does have a dark secret from himself--how > very much like Snape he really is. Lyn: Yes! I think that was one of the slowly developing, under the radar BANGS of the last couple of books. If Harry divorces himself from his friends (as he considered at the end of OOTP and with Ginny at the end of HBP), for whatever reason, that is the road he could follow. I suspect DD is aware of this, and is one of the reasons (along with the boarding school failings) that is why DD does work to encourage Harry to maintain his relationships with healthy others. From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 21:01:56 2005 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:01:56 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" > wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" > wrote: > > > Kathy wrote: > snip > > > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like > them? > > > > > > OK. I'll come clean, but you probably won't be impressed. More > likely > > images of lepers will spring to mind, an untouchable polluting the > well- > > spring of pure fandom. Ah, well, such is life. > > Nah I have a sneaking suspicion we agree! > > > > > For sure it wasn't because I'm enamoured of tales of adolescents > waving > > bits of wood around. Nor was it an addiction to the fantasy genre > per se. > > The fascinating aspect of HP was that it was a work in progress, > and a work > > that looked detailed and complicated, that it was unfinished, thus > offering > > an opportunity to let my imagination off the leash. > > Yup, that's why I'm here. I would add that by and large JK is a very > generous author, by that I mean not as controlling as some. I like > many children's books because of this. > > Of course she may not really be generous she may simply have plot > holes you can drive a bus through but that's an argument for another > rainy day. > > If it were a finished work > > then I'd not be here. I'd probably read the books once and then > leave them > > on the shelf. > > Let's face it - great literature they ain't. > > Perhaps not Booker stuff (and I have own problems with that) but > then again it is a great literary *event* and may change how people > read and write fiction.... > > > > > A reversion to childhood perhaps. Dunno about over the water but > years > > ago back here there was what was known as the 'Saturday morning > tanner > > rush'. The ABC cinema chain (maybe others as well) used to have > children's > > matinees on Saturday mornings - kids only, usually in the 7-10 age > bracket, > > no adults, sixpence (a tanner) to get in. The programme was a > couple of > > cartoons and a load of old serials - and they were old even in the > early 50s > > when I was a participating afficianado. 'Participating' is the > correct word, > > 'cos the place often became a seething mass of irrepressible > youth as > > sword fights were re-enacted in the aisles, invasion by robots was > > re-interpreted on the balcony, the orchestra pit became a pirate > ship that > > just had to be boarded and generalised mayhem erupted every > > time Gene Autry unslung his guitar and sang something 'soppy' to > Dale > > whatsername. > > sniping nostalgia bit (I was there) > > those serials! They > > keep us going until the following Saturday - revising, > interpreting, > > imagining where they would go next. So in the school playground it > was > > "Pretend I'm Flash Gordon and you're a Clay Man disguised as the > wall of > > the tunnel, and I've got this ray gun and...." > > Oh all right then but I want the leather boots AND the cape! > > much snipage of very good stuff > > I imagine that > > those fans getting twitchy about whether the up-coming resolution > will > > meet expectations are those that would have stormed the ticket- > office > > back then if Ming the Merciless, plus minions, didn't eventually > get their > > retributive desserts. > > Funny you should mention that but I just happen to have a cat named > Ming the Merciless! > > > > > It's fair to say that I've never taken HP seriously and can't see > any reason > > why I should. Nor has any emotional involvement ever marred my > musings > > of what has/is/will happen. Others react differently. That's up to > them, I > > won't try to force them to accept my viewpoint so long as they > don't try > > to impose theirs on me. I'm not a great fan of interpretative > orthodoxy, > > it's the differences between posted opinions that makes them > interesting, > > not the conformities. > > > > Meantime, I'll continue playing my imaginative games. > > Sorry if they displease you, but you can always skip over the > Kneasy posts > > if they get unbearable. It won't hurt my feelings, honest. > > > > Kneasy > > Wouldn't dream of it sweety. > > Regards > Jo Ditto here as well. Fran ...going back to lurking.. From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 21:38:34 2005 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:38:34 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Carolyn wrote: > > I'd personally prefer some of these sorts of more complex messages, > > though (naturally) ignoring their religious connotations. However, > > they seem at odds with WYSIWYG approach advocated by Neri and Nora. > > > > Carolyn > > Thinking what a satisfying word 'codswallop' is.. > snippy bit. > > What I hear several of you saying (yeah, I studied a bit of > psychiatry) is that "the books are beginning to lose some of their > sparkle; things aren't going quite the way you had expected; is that > all there is?" > > Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the > books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and > started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... > What about the story really got your attention? And then, what > changed? > > Before I go off on my experience, I'll wait to see what others say. > > As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I > said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away > from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody > wicked"...but oh well... > Kathy W. someone I worked with told me the books were good. So I bit, and starting reading them. I am a sucker for underdogs, so pretty much right off the bat I hooked by an abused orphan. It wasn't until OOTP that I looked for a message board online for adult fans of HP. That book seemed so much more intense and dangerous thanthe previous ones. It's been great fun reading posts and arguments between posters; not so much fun when things got a little nasty sometimes. What has changed for me is that the series is coming to an end which is kinda sad. I will miss the trio, the twins, Molly and Arthur; all the characters really. I hope the last book is a big fat one! As for codswallop and bloody wicked, better than the F*** patois used in the USA. It's used as a noun, verb and adjective as well as the usual expletive. My ex is from Boston and they say wicked up there alot, as a matter of fact I think its wicked bad. My question is what is the similarity amoungst us? Adults dissecting a so called childrens books. From the introductions I have read, most of us are from different areas of the world with varying backgrounds. Is it that we are all kids at heart? This probably will not be answered but I thought I would throw it out anyway :o) Fran still lurking.... From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 23:45:09 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:09 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > Nora: (Of Elektra) All the readings which deliberately go contra their commentary or choose to ignore it end up with some interesting conclusions, but some really giant holes, or a hell of a lot of "If we assume..." and supposition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but things like "DD is the puppetmaster pulling the strings" are looking not merely for "this is a plausible reading of events," but are going the further step of saying "we think this may well happen in the text for everyone to see." Lack of overt confirmation/statement may then be taken as space to assert that it's a viable reading--I see that. I'm just skeptical, at the moment. Carolyn: Mm. It seems to me that you are just arguing a matter of degree. Personally I think that Puppetmaster!DD is more or less a given in the obvious sense. After all, he *has* planned for years, since way before Harry's birth, right back from when he encountered Tom Riddle, certainly from when Riddle came to ask for a job at the school. And he has been leading a covert spy network, often against the Ministry, and thinking endlessly about how best to equip Harry for the challenges he has to face. He thinks nothing of ruthlessly extracting information out of all sorts of people (Kreacher, Sluggy, Morfin, Mrs Cole), or of sending Harry off on similar missions. It seems to me the debate's really about how specifically he planned certain incidents, or how much was a matter of luck and judgement on the day. And the interest is in how he sometimes gets the character analysis of his agents wrong - or does he? He says he thought Snape could get over his childhood grudges enough to teach Harry occlumency, but really, we're now not sure whether there was ever any point in teaching him occlumency in the first place. Did DD know that from the start, and hence not bother to check up on Snape, even if Lupin did pass on the message [we don't know if he did]? Then there is the whole Peter-the-spy business, which once you take it apart, gets more and more incredible by the minute. Just look at it from the Lily angle if nothing else. She, James & DD carefully discuss how best to protect their family, he even offers to be their SK. Yet she apparently keeps her husband's and his friends' secret, that they are animagi, which surely she'd understand could be useful and relevant info for DD - not least for the work they are doing for the Order if nothing else? She's apparently a sensible woman who took no nonsense from James or Sirius. She'd think nothing of getting them to own up if it might help protect Harry. No, DD knew, and the information was factored in to his planning. It was no accident that Peter ended up in Hagrid's hut, or that he escaped that night. But we may never know of course. Now DD's dead, Peter could easily have his predicted Gollum-moment, also die and leave us with endless conjecture. Neri: I have two fully acronymized theories lying in ruin on the GARBAGE SCOW to prove I'm not a WYSIWYG person. But I do agree that for technical considerations at least 95% of canon must be rock solid, which is why Faith has by far the best prediction record in the Bay. The trick that Faith doesn't know is how to identify the remaining 5%, which are of course the most interesting. Carolyn: The only thing that tiresome, and increasingly blowsy woman in her unsuitable gymslip and silly heels can predict is what she thinks JKR wants us to hear. And that's about as interesting and reliable as Lavender Brown hanging on to Trelawny's every word. Frankly, Faith doesn't realise how much cooking sherry writing this series takes. You should also know that there's a round-the-clock armed guard kept on the GARBAGE SCOW, by order of the Catalogue Office. All items are removed, cleaned, polished and labelled and will eventually be on permanent display to the viewing public. We have long since removed the criteria for 95% rock solid canon, as it got a bit boring and cramped everyone's style. Lyn (in answer to KathyW's question): Do you really think that expressing dissatisfaction with some, maybe even many, aspects of an author's work means one doesn't like "the books at all"? Is it required to see the works exactly as the author envisions them (or in alignment with the majority of fans) in order to appreciate the story within. And might you not entertain the idea that one might like some books in a series, or some characters, or some literary contrivances, or some subplots, or some phrasing but find fault with others. Carolyn: I think this is a fair summary of my view too. I don't think they are total rubbish, not at all or I wouldn't still be here, but on the other hand I now think the series is less likely to deliver on its early promise. When I first came across them I was struck by the very obvious (to me) conversation that was going on with an adult reader in books that were apparently aimed at children. They were not only pacy page-turners, but there were jokes, satire, sarcasm, sex, historical allusions, politics....and from the interviews, she came across as a feisty, clever, funny woman who'd had a bit of a tough time and who had thought of this brilliant, complicated, deeply- plotted publishing idea. I was extremely intrigued, amused and supportive. I'm a publisher, a woman, and I spend a lot of time discussing structure, content and style with authors (tho' I'm not a fiction editor). It looked good to me, and even more so when I discovered HPfGU and found a lot of other very talented, funny people who were equally inspired by the ambiguity. The gilt started to come off the gingerbread a bit for me in GOF, where the plot really still needs some work, but then..she wrote it under pressure, it's still good. In OOP I got worried, I thought she'd started to struggle with some themes that it was beyond her writing skill to deliver, and worse, that her fame had intimidated her editors from insisting on some much-needed tightening up in the first half. On HBP (and latest interviews), although it is a more enjoyable book superficially, I am much inclined to agree with all those like Lyn, Neri, Sigune, Kneasy who are annoyed with the lack of plotlines being addressed, the closing down of options, the heavy hints, the careless plot detail. She seems to have chickened out, or alternatively never had the fabulous vision in the first place, which saddens me. So, I respond rather cautiously and apologetically to Pippin - Carolyn: what exactly would the 'invested' adult reader find compelling about these sorts of simplistic moral messages? Pippin: But that's not really what I had in mind. We are, I presume, going to be in an excited frame of mind as we read Book Seven. Its message is going to make an impression on us whether it has merit or not; or at least that's the psychological theory. We have been told that there is some religious content coming. That's a bit scary, or should be, since, IMO, all religions come down to the same thing: "You have to change your life." Now maybe she will be so heavy-handed and sacharrine that it will break the spell, or maybe the changes being advocated are changes I am trying to make anyway, but there is a reasonable possibility that they are not. Then I will have to deal with the conflict, which could certainly be disruptive to the life I have now, one way or another. So if I said, in advance of reading the book, that it was going to be just childish nonsense and there was no possibility of my taking its ideas seriously, I think I'd be whistling in the dark. Carolyn: Um, you've been very upfront about your emotional investment in the books and I must respect that. I guess all I can say is that I find it unlikely that JKR's writing could impact on my life to such an extent, whatever the message she's trying to get out, and very especially if it has any kind of religious content. I'm afraid I just don't think she is an engaging enough or powerful enough novelist to have the remotest chance of becoming my road to Damascus, even supposing I was looking. In contrast, a good many of the commentaries/theories I have seen generated by the books on this and other HPfGU lists have stayed in my mind as interesting areas for discussion. A curious point-counter- point to what she apparently wants to do with the books perhaps. SHORTS.. Kathy W As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody wicked"...but oh well... Carolyn: (Boggling at Yankee sensibilities somewhat)..didn't you meet your husband in the navy?? This is surely pretty mild by comparison?! And not olde englishe at all apparently - first used in print in the 1960s, origin unknown. Kneasy: 'Participating' is the correct word, 'cos the place often became a seething mass of irrepressible youth as sword fights were re-enacted in the aisles, invasion by robots was re-interpreted on the balcony, the orchestra pit became a pirate ship.. Carolyn: I am going to treasure this image of 10-year old Kneasy, socks round his ankles like Just William, staging fights with cardboard swords, and Violet Elithabeth Bott screamin' fit to bust in the background.. oh it explains a lot .. From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 24 23:46:55 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:46:55 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (Quite a bit of snippage) >My question is what is the similarity amoungst us? Adults dissecting >a so called childrens books. From the introductions I have read, >most of us are from different areas of the world with varying >backgrounds. Is it that we are all kids at heart? This probably will >not be answered but I thought I would throw it out anyway :o) > >Fran >still lurking.... Frankly, I think children's (and young adult) fiction is some of the best that's being written these days. I'm not as into dissecting HP as some of you, but I've enjoyed the ride (all in all--there are *still* some things I wish she'd done differently). As a child and young adult, I was quite busy reading books that were on my level--meaning adult books (I was reading at 2, Shakespeare, the Bible, and pretty much everything else came at 4)--I just didn't like kids' books, and only discovered them when I was in college, taking a Children's Lit class for my Library Science degree. I like a book where I can totally lose myself in the world. To take a couple of examples, I'm currently reading "Will of the Empress" by Tamora Pierce and the Aubrey/Maturin novels by Partick O'Brian. Both of these have characters who seem real to me and places that seem real (O'Brian included a few made-up places. These are as real to me as the places that do exist). The O'Brian books serve as well as a textbook for both me and Doug (my husband), as we do Royal Navy reenacting. And yes, I'm still a kid at heart (sometimes in action too ;). Parker From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 11:05:29 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:05:29 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > > Of course she may not really be generous she may simply have plot > holes you can drive a bus through but that's an argument for another > rainy day. > > > Let's face it - great literature they ain't. > > Perhaps not Booker stuff (and I have own problems with that) but > then again it is a great literary *event* and may change how people > read and write fiction.... > Kneasy: Don't get me started on Booker. I get very irritated when some self-selected clique arbitrarily decides which other members of the same clique have written books that are worthy of being elevated to the giddy heights of literary prominence. Words like 'incestuous' spring to mind. Look up past winners and finalists and many are deservedly forgettable. There are exceptions, "Figures in a Landscape" by Barry England was shortlisted in the first Booker (1969); now that I really rate. But over the past couple of decades many works seem to have been picked on a "Buggins turn" basis. But this probably isn't the time or place for a consideration of what is or isn't literature, it's a fairly subjective decision IMO and tends to be further complicated by whether one actually enjoys a book or not. The proof of Jo's pudding will come post book 7, that final volume will probably be the determinant of how she's viewed as a writer, we all realise that. The book-buying public is unlikely to be canvassed though, it'll be the whingings of the likes of Byatt that will grace the literary circles. One thing I do admire about Jo is that she's resolutely unapologetic. She doesn't seem to give a damn for what these flatulent sages of literary worthiness have to say - which probably pisses them off even more. She can smile, point to ever-mounting royalties, and look forward to seeing her critic's books in the remaindered pile while hers are regarded as childrens classics. It's a variant of old Rochefoucauld's maxim - "For true happiness it is not enough to succceed; your friends must also fail." It'd be an impossibility to fulfill all the expectations, expressed or not, of the actual fans. An awful lot are destined to suffer disappointment of varying degrees, but that'll mostly be confined to how neatly it all works out rather than the esoteric sub-textual delvings beloved of the litcritter brigade. Still, it keeps 'em out of mischief, I suppose. In contrast to the professional critics, it'll be impossible to ignore fandom, I think. There's so many of them and they're on the web. Millions of 'em. And every single one of them will have an opinion. If I were Jo, I'd go on a long, long holiday - starting the day the last installment is published - to somewhere without net connections. It'll be the only way to get some peace. > > Carolyn: > I am going to treasure this image of 10-year old Kneasy, socks round > his ankles like Just William, staging fights with cardboard swords, > and Violet Elithabeth Bott screamin' fit to bust in the background.. > oh it explains a lot .. Kneasy: Don't forget the scabby knees and pudding basin haircut. We didn't have a V.E.B. in our gang, we had Geraldine - mean as a snake, ornery as a mule, with a draw like greased lightnin'. From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 13:56:08 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:56:08 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kathy W: Whether it works or not, the best thing to do seemed to be to respond to all the posts in one reply. Here we go: Post 3285 "Parker Brown Nesbit" wrote: > I'd like to know this too, Kathy. I'm hearing a *lot* of dissatisfation > from certain quarters (I won't name names, but you know who you are ;) ). > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? Potioncat: Well, there's that, but I haven't seen any "I don't like HP books" type posts here. On one of the other sites there are a couple of writers who don't seem to enjoy the series at all and take great joy in complaining about it. I honestly think they're just out to annoy the rest of us. What I've seen both here and at TOL is a growing dissatisfaction with the books. This is from individuals who have spent a great deal of thought and time writing posts about HP and Rowling; who have spent even more time behind the scenes supporting the lists. The disillusionment is real. I was wondering why. Has something changed; was something promised and not delivered? I'm not asking sarcastically. In Post 3286 Lyn wrote: > Do you really think that expressing dissatisfaction with some, maybe even many, aspects > of an author's work means one doesn't like "the books at all"? Is it required to see the > works exactly as the author envisions them (or in alignment with the majority of fans) in > order to appreciate the story within. And might you not entertain the idea that one might > like some books in a series, or some characters, or some literary contrivances, or some subplots, or some phrasing but find fault with others. Potioncat: Oh, no, of course not. And that wasn't why I was asking. In spite of having 6 books out, JKR is really a new writer. In a way she happens to have one very long book. I would expect that had she written one book about a boy wizard and then a different book about something else, even something different within her Potterverse, that the books and her style would have changed and grown more than they have. One of my criticisms is that she fleshed out her minor characters too well. Marc Evans didn't need a name. Look at all the trouble it caused! It's not the posts about what didn't work, or concerns about plot twists or lack of them that I'm asking about. That sort of discussion can be lots of fun. In Post 3292 Kneasy wrote: > > For sure it wasn't because I'm enamoured of tales of adolescents waving > bits of wood around. Nor was it an addiction to the fantasy genre per se. > The fascinating aspect of HP was that it was a work in progress, and a work > that looked detailed and complicated, that it was unfinished, thus offering > an opportunity to let my imagination off the leash. If it were a finished work > then I'd not be here. I'd probably read the books once and then leave them > on the shelf. Let's face it - great literature they ain't. Potioncat: Agreed. This could have just been a book I read to my kids. But somehow the series grew on me. And it isn't literature . OK it ain't literature. And for Heaven sakes, I could do without the snogging. I've got my own teenagers to worry about! The movie serials were so much fun! For me the serials were shown on a local TV station's kids show. I don't remember if we saw a new episode every week or every day but it was good fun! I never realized it, but we are playing Cisco Kid aren't we? And some guy who flew a plane with Noah Berry Beerey? Or was it Wallace? For me though, it never mattered if the way I played it at home was reflected in the next episode. If it was predictable, fine, and if it was a surprise, that was OK too. And when that serial was over, we kept on playing. That won't be so easy for the discussion groups, I guess the fanfic folk can carry on. I've no idea what I'll do after book 7. If it's surprising, I might read through one more time to take one more look with an "all knowing" eye. Once the discussions are over, once there's no more clues to hunt for, there won't be any reason to keep reading the books. But, I've never read any other set of books so many times before. Although, I do tend to re-read books that I enjoy. > > Kneasy: > > Meantime, I'll continue playing my imaginative games. > Sorry if they displease you, but you can always skip over the Kneasy posts > if they get unbearable. It won't hurt my feelings, honest. > > Potioncat: Nope, I'll be reading and playing along. In post 3295: Sigune wrote: > OK - I'm one of those people, and here is my HP boggart: > > I was only drawn in after reading Order of the Phoenix. To be quite > honest, I wasn't much impressed by the preceding four - meaning they > hadn't sparked my imagination and I hadn't taken the trouble of > buying the books or looking into fandom, much less subscribe to > Potter Yahoo groups. > > I'm aware of the fact that this is a very simple surface reading; but > what alarmed me about HBP is that it suddenly made this kind of > simple black-and-white reading and ditto ending a distinct > possibility. The book made me suspect I may very well have been > expecting far too much from JKR, and what a letdown it would be if > all the ambiguous material, all the little things that gave rise to > fabulous speculations, turned out to culminate in, "Harry was right > all along. He kills Snape, he kills Voldemort with the sheer purity > of his heart, he marries Ginny and they live happily ever after." > > Finally, HBP seems very much an unfinished book. For the one-but- last > installment of a series, it has started a lot of new lines of inquiry. Potioncat: See, this is what I meant. For you, it was expectations from OoP that seemed dashed in HBP. That makes sense. So, do you feel disappointed in the series, or just in HBP, or are you instead somewhat apprehensive about the next book? And for everyone who asked: Bloody wicked! What a bunch of codswallop! Well, it's not that I think there's anything "wrong" with these phrases. I just wasn't sure that they were still in use. As far as wrong goes, these would improve my angry vocabulary. Sad to say, it's gotten salty. But saying them makes me sound as if I'm trying to be British. Humph! I'm from the South. I've always been British. I used to say "Ashes and cinders!" or "Oh my fur and whiskers!" mostly because it annoyed my kids. If I said bloody anything or Codswallop it would really, really annoy them .wait, where's the disadvantage in that? Bloody wicked! Kathy W From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 14:00:11 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:00:11 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > It seems to me the debate's really about how specifically he planned certain incidents, or how much was a matter of luck and judgement on the day. > Then there is the whole Peter-the-spy business, which once you take it apart, gets more and more incredible by the minute. Just look at it from the Lily angle if nothing else. She, James & DD carefully discuss how best to protect their family, he even offers to be their SK. Yet she apparently keeps her husband's and his friends' secret, that they are animagi, which surely she'd understand could be useful and relevant info for DD - not least for the work they are doing for the Order if nothing else? She's apparently a sensible woman who took no nonsense from James or Sirius. She'd think nothing of getting them to own up if it might help protect Harry. No, DD knew, and the information was factored in to his planning. It was no accident that Peter ended up in Hagrid's hut, or that he escaped that night. Pippin: Did Lily know they were animagi? It's a staple of fan fic, but I can't recall any canon. It's also still secret what James and Lily were doing for the Order (have to add that to my list), so no idea whether being an animagi would have helped or not. Peter hid in Hagrid's hut because he knew Crookshanks wasn't welcome there and it's a blind spot on the Map. Of course his escape was no accident -- ESE!Lupin arranged it. My take on Puppetmaster!DD is that at any given moment he knows more than we think, but less than we'll know by the end of the volume. Harry mistakes his motivations easily and often. Forex, I think DD did indeed plan for Harry to find the mirror and gave him the cloak for that purpose. It was of vital importance to him to know what Harry would see in it. What else would he have been doing there? But I believe him when he said he had no intention of sending Harry to tackle the stone, certainly not at the age of eleven. The obstacles were weak because they were a feint -- the real trap was the mirror, in which, as JKR has now confirmed, Voldemort would have seen himself all-powerful and eternal. As Dumbledore says, people have wasted away in front of it, and Voldemort, quite conveniently, was wasted away already and couldn't have been distracted by his bodily needs. Most of the plot holes, especially in regard to Peter, resolve nicely with ESE!Lupin, as does the lack of any moral dilemma that would interest adults. Is nice the same as good, and if it's not, how do you tell the difference? How do you reconcile the moral superiority of good, implied in the existence of good and evil, with the moral value of tolerance? Can one believe in good and evil and not divide the world into good guys and bad guys? For those who just want to see the bad guys thrashed, I think they may be disappointed, not because JKR is going to go all soft and loveydovey, but because she thinks goodguys/badguys blinds you to evil that isn't twirling its mustache. Of course to view the series that way you have to start seeing ESE!Lupin as more than a game, and that's dangerous at this point for anyone who minds getting egg on their face. I obviously don't. I take the last three books as a three part novel, which is why so many things seem unresolved at this point. But I really don't think she has introduced plot elements randomly as she went along with no idea as to how she was going to resolve them. I think that she, like Dumbledore, has a plan, perhaps with some of the same weaknesses that Dumbledore's plans have. I do think she lets Harry lose interest in people in a way that's probably seems like bad writing if you're not detached the way she is. It doesn't bother me that Harry isn't keeping up with Neville and Luna in HBP -- I'd probably act just the same way. Kneasy, if you're still reading, I loved Flash Gordon too. I rarely got to see it as a child, since it ran on Sunday morning TV and my parents, atheistic Jews to the core, insisted that I attend Sunday School (this probably explains a lot.) I seldom got to see more than the last five minutes of each episode (the most exciting part, of course), except when I was wandering in fever. Naturally the serials took on the lustre of forbidden fruit, and I was ever so disappointed when I finally was able to watch the shows in their entirety on videotape, and discovered that, um, they weren't all that good. I still have a weakness for Princess Aura characters. Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 15:03:43 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:03:43 -0000 Subject: The List update Message-ID: 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? Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs Fate of Draco Malfoy Fate of Dolores Umbridge Fate of Percy Fate of Norbert/the boa constrictor from the zoo Fate of Fenrir Fate of Krum Trio romances Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? Lupin/Tonks Fleur/Bill wedding The prank/change in James's character Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation Grawp does something useful Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles Hagrid/Maxime Fate of the founders/Houses unite What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover the attack? What happened during the missing 24 hours? What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander?/which supposed DE victims have been saved by the Order? What did the Longbottoms know/the resolution of their story/fate of Bellatrix/who sent the Lestranges Why Lily was so extra-special to Slughorn What other ways of being invisible (besides an Invisibility Cloak) does Dumbledore refer to (I think we have the answer to this with the disillusionment charm and the invisibility spell on the flying car-Pippin.) Stubby Boardman (Stubby Boardman??? -Pippin) Will the goblins fight? On which side? Centaur predictions about Harry/Firenze Significance of Sirius's death Are any of the teachers married Two-way Mirrors Who loved Snape DD's backstory/defeat of Grindelwald/Aberforth/hand/basin vision/green goo Pettigrew life debt/inconsistent powers/silver hand Lupin's missing years/peeling letters mystery Why Sirius thought Lupin was the spy James and Lily's occupations/source of wealth Gryffindor's sword Prince's book -- Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 15:54:44 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:54:44 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >snip> Here's a few more:- Why did DD trust Snape? Was Lupin being employed as DADA in PoA chance or design? What role did Peter play in the Prank? Why did Voldy wait 2 years before trying to kill Harry? Is Sybil really a seer or DDs catspaw? Did DD plan/foresee the conflict of wands when he gave the feathers to Olivander? Was Sirius allowed to 'escape' from Azkaban? Where is Bagman - and is he a baddy? Did he send Bertha to Voldy? What is worse than death? (In the opinion of DD/Jo) Why are there no pictures/statues of the Founders? Is the Mirror one of DD's tricksy devices for manipulating people? Did Fudge get Barty Snr's job through dirty tricks? Is the Hat correct? Does Harry belong in Slytherin? Voldy negates the protection in the graveyard - so why is DD claiming in HBP that it's still important? Why is Hagrid called 'Keeper of Keys'? Uncle Algy (and possibly Trevor) If I brood a bit, some more might spring to mind. Kneasy From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 16:34:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:34:03 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: So, the idea is we send this to her with worked answers and/or key points underlined three times, together with extensive offers of copy- editing help?? Carolyn From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 17:48:31 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:48:31 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > So, the idea is we send this to her with worked answers and/or key > points underlined three times, together with extensive offers of copy- > editing help?? Pippin: ::shrug:: Maybe Steve will consider adding to the lexicon's mystery and puzzles page http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/puzzles.html BTW, Kneasy, there is a statue of Slytherin in the chamber of secrets. I still don't think it's unmanageable. If we could dip into JKR's notes and see the Snape/Marauder backstory, the DD backstory and the outcome of the final battle, most of our questions would be answered, no? Pippin From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 19:11:38 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:11:38 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: snip I guess all I can say is that I find > it unlikely that JKR's writing could impact on my life to such an > extent, whatever the message she's trying to get out, and very > especially if it has any kind of religious content. I'm afraid I just > don't think she is an engaging enough or powerful enough novelist to > have the remotest chance of becoming my road to Damascus, even > supposing I was looking. Potioncat: I don't think JKR is trying to be anyone's road to Damascus. It's pretty obvious that she has drawn on a wide range of readings and teachings in her own story. So if the book 7 ends the story with a theme that is consistent with Christian teachings, it would be because that is her own foundation. > Carolyn: > (Boggling at Yankee sensibilities somewhat)..didn't you meet your > husband in the navy?? This is surely pretty mild by comparison?! And > not olde englishe at all apparently - first used in print in the > 1960s, origin unknown. Potioncat: Yes we were both in the Navy...just not the Royal Navy. He would also distance himself if I said "ya'll" or "youse", which I do sometimes having lived in South Carolina and New Jersey. From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 19:22:55 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:22:55 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: Kneasy: > Don't get me started on Booker. > I get very irritated when some self-selected clique arbitrarily > decides which other members of the same clique have written books > that are worthy of being elevated to the giddy heights of literary > prominence. > Words like 'incestuous' spring to mind. Look up past winners and > finalists and many are deservedly forgettable. There are exceptions, > "Figures in a Landscape" by Barry England was shortlisted in the first > Booker (1969); now that I really rate. But over the past couple of > decades many works seem to have been picked on a "Buggins turn" > basis. Geoff: Your comments remind me of some comments in Tom Shippey's excellent critique of LOTR - "J R R Tolkien: Author of the Century (HarperCollins 2000). He has a hilarious section detailing the reactions of the so-called literati including folk like Germaine Greer to the success of the books in various popularity polls. I think one of my favourites was the response of a Sunday Times employee (unnamed) who, hearing that LOTR had won the BBC/Waterstones poll, said: "Oh hell! Has it? Oh my God. Dear oh dear. Dear oh dear oh dear." I can visualise similar reactions to the HP books in certain quarters..... From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 19:33:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:33:14 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Kathy W: > I've no idea what I'll do after book 7. If it's > surprising, I might > read through one more time to take one more look with an "all > knowing" eye. Once the discussions are over, once there's no > more > clues to hunt for, there won't be any reason to keep reading the > books. But, I've never read any other set of books so many times > before. Although, I do tend to re-read books that I enjoy. Geoff: Come now, I'm sure you'll want to read the books again and again. Like Christopher Lee, I used to read LOTR every year or two and only reduced this when additional books such as "The Silmarillion" and the books charting the development of the material began to appear. But I've certainly read the story 25-30 times and I still seem to find another gold nugget which I had missed in its pages each time I set out. And there are other books for which I do the same - in the fantasy genre, Alan Garner's two books about Alderley Edge ("The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" and "The Moon of Gomrath") and non-fantasy such as the Brother Cadfael books by Ellis Peters. Perhaps I like to tread familiar paths for I have favourite passages which sometimes I will read without covering the whole book; I do this with Harry as well. From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 19:48:09 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:48:09 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > Come now, I'm sure you'll want to read the books again and again. > snip > Perhaps I like to tread familiar paths for I have favourite passages > which sometimes I will read without covering the whole book; I do > this with Harry as well. Kathy W: Yeah, you're probably right. I was just thinking JKR joked (at least I think she was joking) that she'd write under a different name after HP. I can just see this list going dormant until some new writer with the name Dearborn or Greengrass appears. From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 21:37:34 2005 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:37:34 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat wrote: Sigune again: The last option. I can't be disappointed in the series yet, simply because I can't form a final opinion before I've read the story's conclusion. I agree with Kneasy that the experience would have been entirely different if I had come to the books as a finished series - I'd have read them one after the other and I would probably not have taken the ime to form my own theories. As it is, I even have to suspend my judgement on HBP until I've read Book 7, because it seems to me that books six and seven are, more than the others, two halves of one whole. So far, I really don't know how I feel about HBP as a book. The interesting thing about the Potterverse for me is the characterisation of the players. I like reading about human motivation, even in fantasy settings - HP is close enough to real life to be interesting in terms of real choices people make. I'm not saying that I take the books as a guide or anything; OotP gave me the idea that Rowling was someone whose vision on people and their choices might interest me, by way of entertainment. You (Potioncat) wrote: Sigune again: Yes, that was one mistake that surprised me. You'd think she would have remembered that *Harry's mother* was called Evans too - I thought her "Oh well, I didn't think the fans would be looking that closely" a bit lame. Surely it was obvious we'd jump to conclusions? The fleshing out of minor characters is what first attracted me in the series. Pippin called JKR "a generous writer"; I don't know if she meant that the way I interpret it, but to me she is indeed that: her creation has the feel of a wonderful playground into which we are welcomed. As you well know, I perpetrate the much frowned-upon genre of fan fiction - that is only possible because there are so many corners to explore in JKR's world. But it becomes a fault, a kind of authorial dishonesty (to put is harshly), if there is too much of this that doesn't lead anywhere. I am beginning to wonder if she takes her readers at all seriously. I mean, it is one thing to say that she writes for herself and her own pleasure; but she *is* a published author, which means she has a certain responsibility towards her readers. There is much pressure upon her, but she owes it to us to do, say, decent editing. A few red herrings are all right, but too many of them is plain unfair. Or bad writing. As I said above, I'm interested in characterisation. I am also greatly drawn to subversions of clich? and to all kinds of undermining and re-interpretation. I like Wilde's Mrs Erlynne, a woman who abandoned her child and husband and according to melodrama conventions should have caught consumption and died, preferably while repenting. She catches a rich husband instead. I like Sir Robert Chiltern, a corrupt politician who according to melodrama conventions should be exposed and shamed, but whose scandal is nicely hushed up and his way to Downing street certain. I like irony. Straightforwardness is uninteresting. I can read it wy way of diversion, but it doesn't fascinate. When I first started reading HP I was, as I said in my earlier post, not impressed, because I couldn't find any significant subversion in the books. There was nothing to chew on. The house held up for all of us to admire throughout was Gryffindor, the house of the brave. That always rang false with me. It's - I don't know - sort of cheap and easy. If you read about the great, brave heroes of history, you nearly always find that they weren't really that brave and perfect in reality, and they often had other motives for their actions than selfless sacrifice. I'm not sure bravery is such an ideal; it stopped working for me when I was twelve. Now, in PoA we were introduced to Peter Pettigrew, a Gryffindor who has betrayed his friends. Great, a subversion of Gryffindor's perfection! But look at how he is drawn: he is this ratty, watery- eyed 'fat little lump' of a man - he just *looks* unreliable, and a large part of fandom is at a total loss as to how he could possibly have been the fourth part of the Marauders. I require a decent explanation for this. And I'll share my first thought on reading the Spinner's End chapter, which puts Snape and Pettigrew in one house: my gut told me Wormtail was being set up as opposed to Snape, and because he was a Gryffindor (and the Sorting hat doesn't make mistakes), *he* is the traitor-spy who will be redeemed, and bad Slytherin Snape will burn in hell. That's not what I want to read - not because Snape is my favourite character, but because it's plain stupid. I pray it doesn't turn out that way. But - hey, is that Pettigrew's life-debt to Harry looming at the horizon? Then there is Slytherin. I really liked the fact that we finally got some backstory on Voldemort, but I was alarmed by the picture painted of the Gaunts. It reeked of clich?: the last descendants of Slytherin are degenerates. Here, again, I need some extra info. After the Chamber of Secrets, the Muggleborn bias, the degenerate family and the psychopath Heir, I strongly suspect that in JKR's mind, Salazar Slytherin was very simply the epitome of Evil. Then how come that for years he lived and worked together with the other founders as their friend? That jars. Similarly with Snape. I'm not going to buy that Dumbledore was wrong to trust him. The man isn't a complete idiot, is he? Snape has everything against him, from his looks over his temper to his past. I want a rock solid argument for Dumbledore's trust. If that doesn't come, my judgement will be (yet again, not because I like Snape as a character, but for credibility's sake): plain stupid and unacceptable. And no, "Dumbledore likes to believe the best of people" won't do. What troubles me about HBP is that, before reading this book, I didn't think the things I just named were among the options. Like some others, OotP gave me hopes for Slytherins like Theo Nott, who one supposed was named for a purpose. It gave an extra dimension to Snape - and it specifically showed him working against Umbridge. It introduced the DA and the possibility of House unity. I didn't like the prophecy, but I was hoping that it would receive an ironic twist and turn out to be 'much ado about nothing'. Now in HBP the prophecy is dead serious; there was no DA; we had five apparently redundant seconds of Blaise Zabini and NO Theo Nott; Snape kills Dumbledore (no, I don't believe he faked it or didn't mean it) and it turns out nobody really trusted him anyway, only Dumbledore; and that RAB pops up out of nothing. Moreover, when asked if Snape is bad, JKR says she has to "leave us some hope" and Dumbledore "makes greater mistakes than other people". I now think there is a distinct possibility that yes, what we have seen is what we get. It wouldn't make sense to me because it does not, for me, follow logically from what we have been given so far, but well, we may just be going there, and it has never seemed more plausible than now. For me, it really all hinges on Snape. If he turns out to have been bad all along, there will have been enormous holes and inconsistencies in the narrative - and am I the only one who felt his explanations in Chapter 2 sounded too easy? Small wonder Bella didn't buy them. I wouldn't either. No, if that's true, I will feel throughly cheated, and I'll have totally misjudged JKR as a writer. I won't stand up and cry out that the series is bad; it just won't be my cup of tea, and I will have invested my enthusiasm in something I don't like after all. To conclude: Since HBP there is, to me, no middle way for the series. The last book is either going to prove it brilliant or totally disappointing. That's what frightens me. Yours severely, Sigune From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 25 23:07:29 2005 From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:07:29 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Parker Brown Nesbit" >wrote: > > > I'm hearing a *lot* of dissatisfation from certain quarters (I won't >name names, but you know who you are ;) ). > > I'm wondering then, why read the books at all, if you don't like them? > > > >Lyn here: >I don't think we would find much in the way of music/film/literary >criticism and reviews if >folks stopped listening/watching/reading the moment they found something >dissatisfying, >or inconsistent, or poorly done. Probably not, but I have, in the past, stopped reading/watching/listening to something that I found dissatisfying, inconsistent, and poorly done. (Black Beauty--the book--comes to mind here. I started reading it, and when I got to the part where the horse is abused, I threw the book across the room, and never have finished it. And I won't.) I left the movie version of The Shining because it was just too awful to sit through. > (Snip) >Do you really think that expressing dissatisfaction with some, maybe even >many, aspects >of an author's work means one doesn't like "the books at all"? Is it >required to see the >works exactly as the author envisions them (or in alignment with the >majority of fans) in >order to appreciate the story within. And might you not entertain the idea >that one might >like some books in a series, or some characters, or some literary >contrivances, or some >subplots, or some phrasing but find fault with others. I agree--for me, OotP has replaced CoS as my least favourite book. I've only read OotP twice, whereas I've read the others leading up to it many times (51 at last count). I'm certainly not implying that one must love all the books in a series or overlook literary contrivances, plot holes, etc. But I'm not hearing anything on the positive side here. All I'm hearing is she's left holes here, there's plot inconsistencies there, and so on. So I'll throw out another question--what do you *like* about the books? What does she do well? Parker From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 01:21:45 2005 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:21:45 -0000 Subject: thin skin / list / Horcrux!Stunned!Neville /Harry's soul/orphanage/positives Message-ID: Elfun Deb wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3229 : << And the other disappointment is a nagging feeling I've always had that JKR just doesn't "get" characters like Percy, and that lacking appreciation for his inner struggles, assumes that the overly sensitive deserve to be driven away with mean-spirited jokes, and then blamed when they do leave. >> Alas, that may well be what she believes in real life. The thick- skinned often consider thin-skin to be a moral flaw like avarice or cowardice. The Sorting Hat has said that Gryffindors are distinguished by courage and chivalry, but thick-skin may be part of its definition of 'courage'. So why was Percy in Gryffindor? Furthermore, I very much get the feeling from Rowling's interviews in which the topics of depression or Harry's emotions have come up, that altho' she has intellectually learned that mental illnesses are diseases to be medically treated, she still emotionally feels that they are shameful signs of moral weakness that should be overcome by willpower. It makes sense to me that she would be no more tolerant of thin-skin than of having 'had a bad war' (as the Little Hangletonians said of Frank Bryce). Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3241 : << I've (snip) never seen a comprehensive list of everything that needs to be resolved for a satisfactory conclusion. Is there one? ::googles, doesn't find much:: Let's start one! >> *My* most burning question remains: In the Potterverse, what is a warlock? I suppose JKR doesn't have an answer, that she just sometimes used that word instead of wizard because it sounded good. G'rrr. I'd also like to know what were the 12 OWLs that Bill and Percy and Barty Jr got, since IIRC we have canon only for 11 OWLs that Hermione got, but I don't believe she'd get fewer than they did. If "all the Weasleys" have "more children than they can afford", where are Ron's cousins? JKR said that Mrs Figg does a roaring trade in cat-Kneazle cross- breeds, but who would pay MONEY for a cat-kneazle cross? (Hermione, but that isn't a whole lot of business.) There are surely other burning loose ends on my mind, but I never remember them when called upon. I can't believe you didn't include: Why did Dumbledore trust Snape? (and maybe: why did Hagrid trust Snape?) Maybe you'd add it to << Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? >> or << Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart >> (SSSusan mentions "DD's trust of Snape" in passing in 3245.) (Kneasy finally mentioned it again in 3307.) I can't believe YOU didn't include: Is Lupin ESE? << Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs >> They won't need career plans if they're all killed in Book 7. Mooseming wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3265 : << If Voldy declares that his final HRX is in an innocent (unconscious) third party, say, oh I don't know, um, Stunned Neville, what`s to be done? Should Neville be killed so that Voldy can be destroyed? Is the purposeful killing of an innocent ever justifiable? (snip) the last HRX must not be destroyed and thus Voldy gets to win this round, at least until Neville shuffles off the mortal coil. Nothing to stop Voldy repeating the process with a succession of vessels either! >> Why would anyone believe anything Voldie says? Is there a test to find where the Voldie-soul-fragment is? There must be, as you have Snape using it to find that actually Neville's WAND is the Horcrux, not Neville. But supposing that Stunned!Neville were the final Horcrux, surely there is some way to imprison Voldie with anti-Apparation spells, strip him of his magic, maybe even keep him Stupefied for the rest of Neville's life. That would stop him from 'repeating the process with a succesion of vessels"! Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3272 : << Harry often errs, especially when he doesn't consider the consequences of what he's doing. But he has never considered a moral consequence and thought, "I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway" or "Serve them right" or "It doesn't matter as long as it's not (fill in the blank) who gets hurt." >> Off the top of my head, he thought 'served them right' when he saw by Ron and Hermione's minor injuries that Hedwig had followed his instructions to bite them until they wrote answers. Jen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3296 : << For me, anyway. I could feel little but compassion for Riddle, and his deprivation cast an even brighter light on Harry's resources. >> It had almost the opposite effect on me. While I have believed since CoS that Riddle was born a sociopath, I had imagined that the Muggle orphanage had been a cruel place which had mistreated him, like Oliver Twist or such, thus causing his hatred of Muggles. But HBP showed that the orphanage, while not the greatest home for a child, was not a cruel place (unlike the Dursleys!). Sure, the Matron drank too much and there weren't enough staff for each child to have a Mama, but they *tried*. The children were allowed toys and even a *pet* (the pet rabbit that Riddle murdered) and their annual outing was supposed to be *fun*. A cruel orphanage's annual outing might have been to a creepy old graveyard to hear a sermon on Hellfire, or to a garbage dump to do volunteer work sorting out the paper, tin, and other things for the War Effort. Parker wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_ old_crowd/message/3315 : << But I'm not hearing anything on the positive side here. All I'm hearing is she's left holes here, there's plot inconsistencies there, and so on. So I'll throw out another question--what do you *like* about the books? What does she do well? >> The posts since you asked the question include mention of the positives: a richly detailed invented world, characters with human motivations and human flaws, humor and sarcasm, references to folklore/mythology/history that we can feel clever for recognizing.... From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 02:34:29 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:34:29 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > I still don't think it's unmanageable. If we could dip into JKR's > notes and see the Snape/Marauder backstory, the DD backstory > and the outcome of the final battle, most of our questions would > be answered, no? Neri: The original idea was to estimate if JKR can do all that in a single book, right? So here's my estimation for the minimum text needed for each of these items. > Harry/horcrux/RAB/prophecy/Voldemort death/scar This is the biggest item and needs to be further detailed. I think that finding and destroying each of the four missing Hxs must take at least 3 chapters on average. Less than that would hardly be believable, since it took the great Dumbledore three years to find and destroy the ring and another year to fail in finding the locket. For another useful reference we might look at the amount of text it took Harry to find, explore and destroy the diary Hx in CoS. I believe it was more than 3 chapters by any count. So with 3 chapters for each missing Hx we're already looking at 12 chapters. The final battle itself should be *at least* 3 chapters, since the climaxes of PoA, GoF, OotP and HBP are all 3 ? 5 chapters each. Overall 15 chapters > Which side is Snape really on/what happened on the tower? I'd say the resolution of the whole Snape subplot should take *at least* 3 chapters overall, which is approximately his stage time in HBP. --------------------------- Current total: 18 chapters. Now there are several items that IMO should take at least one chapter each (not necessarily one continuous chapter, but when summed up over the whole book): > Fate of Draco Malfoy > Trio romances > Dobby/Kreacher/SPEW/House Elf liberation > Fate of the founders/Houses unite > What does Petunia know/what is Dudley's dementor memory > What happened at Godric's Hollow/Who was there?/How did DD discover > Pettigrew life debt/inconsistent powers/silver hand My own additions to this category include: Ministry politics (Scrimgeour, Fudge, Arthur, Muggle Prime Minister, etc.) Harry visiting GH and his parents' graves. ----------------------------- Current total: 27 chapters Now to items that IMO might be solved in several pages, perhaps half a chapter each: > What did the Longbottoms know/the resolution of their story/fate of > Bellatrix/who sent the Lestranges. > Why did Voldie try to spare Lily? > Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville career plans/NEWTs > Fate of Percy > Fate of Krum > Lupin/Tonks > Fleur/Bill wedding > What's become of Fortesque & Ollivander?/which supposed DE victims > have been saved by the Order? > What happened during the missing 24 hours? > Why are eyes/glasses the key to Harry's vulnerability? > Will the goblins fight? On which side? > Centaur predictions about Harry/Firenze > DD's backstory/defeat of Grindelwald/Aberforth/hand/basin > vision/green goo My own additions to this category include: Hogwarts (new Headmaster, teachers, operation during wartime, etc.) Secrets of the DEs (Dark Mark, saying Voldemort's name, backstory of the gang, etc.) If we assume each of the above takes overall 1/3 chapter on average then we're looking at about 5 chapters. -------------------------- Current total: 32 chapters The next items IMO might be solved in a single page, perhaps two pages each: > The prank/change in James's character > Fate of Dolores Umbridge > Fate of Fenrir > Snape and Lupin patronus and/or boggart > Fate of Norbert/the boa constrictor from the zoo > Hagrid/Maxime > Flying car/motorcycle/Fluffy and other forest exiles > Why Lily was so extra-special to Slughorn > Grawp does something useful > Two-way Mirrors > Prince's book > Significance of Sirius's death Lets say 2 chapters for all of these together. ---------------------------- Current total is 34 chapters And now to items that only deserve a honorable mention but IMO might be taken care of in a single paragraph: > What are the 12 uses of dragon's blood? > Do any of the creatures Luna believes in actually exist? > What other ways of being invisible (besides an Invisibility Cloak). > Why Sirius thought Lupin was the spy. > James and Lily's occupations/source of wealth. > Gryffindor's sword. > Lupin's missing years/peeling letters mystery. > Are any of the teachers married. --------------------------------- Current total remains 34 chapters This is already more than HBP (30 chapters) but still less than GoF (37). However, here I estimate that we must reserve *at least* 5 chapters just for moving the characters around in a believable manner, developing the plot (in ways that aren't a part of any of the items above), describing locations (especially since we won't be at Hogwarts so there are likely to be many new locations), atmosphere, weather, times and dates, character descriptions, red herrings, twins' tricks, trio's arguments, Molly's hugs, Hagrid's cooking and other house-keeping chores. ------------------------ Final total: 39 chapters This is even longer than OotP (38 chapters) and yet it's only my *minimal* estimation. That is, The Story Of Severus Snape or The Final Battle of the series *can* be summed up in just three chapters, but I think most of us would like something grander. I mean, there's should be some epic plot development and satisfying resolution in there, not merely ticking check marks. JKR's current plan for Book 7 is probably more detailed than the list above, and yet she doesn't seem worried about the overall length. This might be because: 1. She has a serious problem with math. 2. She's going to cheat big time. Say, Draco mentioned only in passing, or the Hxs found and destroyed in one chapter each. Prepare for BIG disappointments. 3. There's going to be *a lot* of combining items together. Say, Draco helps Harry finding one Hx, Kreacher helps him finding another, Snape brings him a third, and the Longbottoms the forth. Then Wormtail tells him what happened in GH and why Voldy spared Lily while paying his life debt. Yet all this must not happen in a way that everything is done for Harry by other characters. I personally hope it's mainly explanation 3, since it helps with theorizing if you know your theory should solve several items at once, but I suspect that explanations 1 and especially 2 cannot be disregarded either. Neri From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 07:59:28 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:59:28 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > Why is Hagrid called 'Keeper of Keys'? ............................................. ES: Hagrid's Keeper of the Keys title: does that mean anything? JKR: Just simply that he will let you in and out of Hogwarts, so it's slightly more interesting than that but it's not loads more interesting. So, again, that is something that people shouldn't get too excited about. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-3.htm ~Eloise From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 10:39:21 2005 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:39:21 +0200 Subject: TBAY (Sort of): An Interview with a Giggle Message-ID: <200509261239.21597.silmariel@...> Now that interviews are being discussed, I'd like to offer this irreverent sketched parody I've made in order not get completely lost when trying to find something in the interview. Hope it helps. Silmariel reference: http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml [Part 1] G: Let's start with a couple of boring literary questions to look serious Jo: *Answers* G: Let's relax and ask some more futile questions about web site and future work. Jo: Fine. *Answers* G: I can't stand more, I have to say Snape's name. Spoil his loyalties! Jo: I won't! *general giggle start* G: *insist* Jo: *giggle* G: *attack shippers* *all giggle* Jo: *elaborates* Hey, I said I'm not going to spoil the series, got it? *somehow she keeps giggling* G: is DD an old fool? Jo: *giggle* he makes emotional mistakes because he is detatched. *elaborates* G: Will you respond to a direct question that would spoil GH? *insists* Jo: *silence* Of course I won't, but Lily was granted a choice and we can talk of her bravery G: Did she die expecting a reward? Jo: No, she had not idea. [Part 2] G: Let's talk about Sirius' character. Jo: Fine. G: Your fiendish glee was important? Jo: Oh, no, just quiddich. *giggle* *giggle* G: let's talk of peeves and umbridge. Jo: No problem, if we keep giggling. G: I have this question from the public about Voldemort's boggart. Jo: I know this one! G: and DD's boggart and Erised? Jo: sorry, no way I tell. G: let's jump to book 7 Jo: if you must. G: let's ask about the Dark Lords names or lack of, and world events Jo: *gives background* G: Sorting hat is wrong? *insist**insist* Jo: No. No. *giggle* No. *giggle* G: Founders? Jo: *mistery* book 7 *giggle* G: book 7 lenght? Jo: No idea. G: RAB Jo: *expecting that one* let's play mouse and cat for a while, you are the mouse. *all google, I mean, giggle* G: Gonna edit? Jo: Feel OoP is overlong also feel it is important for not cheating in 7 that everything is told. Won't do anything till the series is over. *Two full paragraphs without laugh* G: something new about DD? Jo: a bit *all laugh* G: *launches giggling questions and they all have some giggles for a while* G: Will you please answer that battered horse of wizard/muggle ratio? Jo: Ups. I'm driving the fandom mad. *tries to clarify* G: Shipping! Jo: Yes! I did! Red herring Tonks, btw. G: We yelled! *grin/laugh* people is delusional!! *all giggle* *G goes hysterical* Jo: hey wait, that's too harsh *comes with the ever popular anvil size hints, but it takes time with all the giggles* *more giggling H/G R/H shipping talk* *long* *longer* *websites* G: let's talk of fascinating Draco Jo: *stops the laughs* *explains occlumency* Bully. Trapped like a stupid. Not a killer. G: DD planned to die? Jo: can't say *little laugh* G: but Snape... Jo: *giggle* can't say *elaborates* but he's not a vampire, and he's not the Lord of Darkness G: ask yourself a question. Jo: in case it wasn't clear I don't mind to spoil RAB, i'll reiterate that was the question I really hoped to be asked *they RAB a little* Jo: btw, Tonks/Lupin? G: Shipping! Yes! *little chat about shipping and websites, giggles* [Part 3] G: question from the public: pensieves? Jo: The Real Thing. G: Yucks, I failed that! Jo: *explains* G: question from the public: Grindewald? Jo: He's dead. *dodges* G: public, again: Gum Wrappers? Jo: nope. Character Moment. G: public: detail on the Veil? Jo: as old as the MoM, study room G: tell me more. Jo: No. G: Dumbledore? *insist* Jo: look for his family, that's all. *giggle* G: Harry's grandparents? Jo: *desmitifies them* G: No gryffindor heir? Jo: No. *giggle* *they move on to DD's death* G: Wise bearded old wizard always dies? That's-too-starwashis-Jo: Yes. *giggle* *choices and prophecy reloaded, Macbeth, giggles* G: Sirius line about dying for his friends? Jo: he meant it G: .... Jo: he would have done it *digresses* there's a reason for Uglybaby!Voldemort G: Let's talk of eyecolors! Jo: That's easy. G: Ron's patronus? Jo: A small dog. G: Family experience? Jo: *talks of it* G: Two missing Gryffindors? Jo: Oops. I forgot. G: More shipping! Jo: Ok! *G/H shipping time* G: Is Ginny special? Jo: Magically gifted! Seventh of a seventh! G: Can we banish Slytherin house? *all giggle* Jo: No. Harmony is the key. G: But... Jo: No! *giggle* G: *insist* Jo: You know I'm the author, don't you? G: Their common room is gloomy- Jo: Has beauty. G: *insist**all laugh* Jo: DE children is only a small fraction of the house. G: But other houses don't have DE? Jo: Sure they have. G: But less? Jo: Oh, let me reiterate again on the Harmony Thing. And sideways, houses are based on the four elements. G: lily's ships? Lupin? Snape? Jo: Popular. Can't tell. Can't tell. G: *insist**insist mentioning misleading* Jo: *clarifies misleading**talks a little of lupin* G: battered horse again, the twins bet in GoF? Jo: That's easy. G: Marauders map? Jo: *explains how you can learn to use the map* G: Aberforth? *all goat-giggle* G: Gleam? Jo: Still enormously significant, book 7. G: Is Harry on a quest? Jo: Oh yes. G: Buuut... Jo: Not so difficult. G: Ginny possessed or a parsel? Life Debt? Jo: No, no. No, and I can't explain. *joke**giggle* G: Harry's godmother? Jo: He doesn't have. *explains* *realize the time, movie-talk till next row of questions* G: Hagrid's tittle? Jo: It's only a tittle. G: Dobby knew the prophecy? Something about the Potters? Jo: No. Just common knowledge. G: has Snape been loved? Jo: Yes. G: Why don't we see disaparation in combat? Jo: Usually they can't, or they don't want to. G: Identity of Fourth man at GH? Jo: No way! *all giggle* [End] From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 10:31:25 2005 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:31:25 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- snip pippin's list Here's mine: Elf hats/SPEW Winky What will happen to Kreachur? Creevy brothers. They were developed and then ... ? Aberforth Mer people/giant squid Schism in the centaurs Whatever happened to Umbridge with the centaurs, anyway? Norbert CV From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 11:06:34 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:06:34 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: > Kneasy: > > Why is Hagrid called 'Keeper of Keys'? > > ............................................. > ES: Hagrid's Keeper of the Keys title: does that mean anything? > > JKR: Just simply that he will let you in and out of Hogwarts, so it's > slightly more interesting than that but it's not loads more > interesting. So, again, that is something that people shouldn't get too > excited about. > That's boring. Not to say irritating. It seems that Jo has undergone a change of heart since the Paxman interview in 2003. Jo's answers are responses to the pre-publication secrecy and to a question about SHIPs, but many have believed that this attitude had been there from the start so far as letting the cat out of the bag prematurely was concerned. * Pax: But do you find the whole secrecy issue, the need for secrecy, a bit ridiculous? JKR: [...] but I don't want the kids to know what's coming, because that's part of the excitement of the story, and having sweated blood to create all my red herrings and lay all my clues.. [...] I don't really want to say as it will ruin all the fan sites. They have such fun with their theories...and it is fun, it is fun. * Except when the author blithely knocks harmless speculations on the head for no good reason. What's next, I wonder? A re-assurance that there won't be a Weasley cull after all? Or perhaps a judicious leak will spare us the anxiety of worrying further about Snape's motivations? Recent posts have wondered what's changed, why are there increasing numbers of fans expressing doubts, concerns, pessimism about the way things are going. Maybe it's because not only is there the always present worry as to whether the inventiveness could be maintained through 7 books, but now there is the awful possibilty that this inventiveness isn't as comprehensively inventive as we had hoped. Worse - it's coming from Jo herself. Perhaps I'm being too demanding in my expectations. OK, that has always been a possibility. Maybe I'll end up disappointed with the resolution - that's always been a real possibility too. But can't this disappointment be postponed until the last book is published? Then I can vanish muttering into the sunset, but at least be able to reflect that the pointless theorising had been fun while it lasted. It seems to me that the ground is being laid (for the inevitable let down for some?) by administering the disillusionment in small doses in advance - "Don't concern yourself with that, and this means nothing and yes, you're right about that - ooh! aren't you clever!" Doubleplusungood. Not only do I not want to know what's coming, I don't want to know what isn't coming either. Each is as bad as the other IMO. Way, way back on TOL I made a suggestion that Carolyn expanded into what has become The Catalogue Project - it deserves capital letters, it's bloody enormous. Anyway, originally it was a simple if sadistic idea - list all the theories and score them right or wrong when it was all over. A bit of harmless fun, replete with plaudits, pursed lips, embarassments and moderate public ridicule for being so daft as to propose whatever. (If you can't bear to be seen to be wrong you shouldn't post your theories for all to gaze at in open-mouthed disbelief.) Looks like Jo has started on this exercise early. Kneasy with the Monday morning grumps. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 11:19:39 2005 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:19:39 -0000 Subject: A Look Back was Re: 'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: snip > Clarify something for me though, what first brought you into the > books? Not, why did you start reading them, but what captured you and > started you on this time consuming hobby of Harry Potter and the... > What about the story really got your attention? And then, what > changed? > snip >> Kathy W. Now listen guys I simply *cannot* keep up with all the interesting, thought provoking discussions going on here! I have decided to group some of my associated thoughts into a *how I got here post*; although it's really a response to loads of different questions raised. I read books 1 through 4 on a superficial level, I enjoyed them but couldn't say I was stimulated by them. At the end of GoF I started to get the feeling JKR was going somewhere *new* although not sure where. On publication of OOP I felt sure she was subverting the genre in an unexpected way and that's when I looked for and found HPFGU. First off I realised some people had been *much* quicker in seeing the potential in the books than I had. In searching for a HP discussion group it was the Fantastic Posts section of HPFGU that convinced me that I wanted to participate. Florence, magic dishwasher, stoned!Harry how much I had missed! How dull my previous readings had been, how stupid was I? A couple of years of reading and sporadic posting taught me that if I thought I'd understood the potential after reading OOP I was deluding myself. So many compelling arguments, different interpretations, focal interests (is that the right way to say that?) it seemed incredible. It came to me eventually that JKR couldn't possibly explore all the fascinating avenues her world had created. It also became apparent that my theories were always generated by what I wanted to say about the `real' world, although based on canon the theoretical development of themes, characters, plot was driven by my internal world. A large group of posters are similar to me I think, some are more `scientific' in their approach, some less. Like many posters I started to enjoy the HPFGU experience not because we were hunting for the 'true' ending to the series but because I was enjoying the collective creativity, playfulness and respect whilst learning about other peoples internal worlds and therefore my own. By this time I didn't care what ending JKR was aiming for so long as it fulfilled at least some of the potential of the world she'd created. However, just before the publication of HBP, mostly in respect to JKR statements, I started to get the ghastly premonition that JKR wasn't going to capitalise on ANY of the *alternative* futures for her story and characters. HBP has not quieted those fears. Much of the disillusionment I see is based on this. Yes some people will be disappointed when JKR ends the series in a way that is at odds with their own interpretation. Others, like me, will be disappointed that she isn't saying something more radical. To be fair JKR has never said she was attempting to challenge accepted beliefs, she has said she is a Christian, that her beliefs are what the books are about, that Harry is an everyman making moral choices in a world divided by good and bad. I cannot accuse her of misleading me. She has said that she is attempting to subvert the genre, whether she achieves this in the end I cannot say, the jury is still out. My fear is that she is not. She also said she did not realise she was writing a fantasy novel. Now I'm with Terry Pratchett on this one who said "I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds... would have given her a clue?". To be sure I sense a certain defensiveness to `his' genre here but its still fair none the less. It seems then that what she *thinks* she is doing and what she actually *is* doing needn't be the same. Where does that leave me? The potential for more radical interpretations of the `real' world still exists in HP. If JKR doesn't follow through the life questions raised by her own text to my satisfaction well hey ho! It's a small step from accepting any number of theories on HP could be satisfying to many may be far more interesting than the author's. JKR still demands respect from me because she has created a fictional world that is so complete and compelling that we can all explore it and use it as fuel for our own thoughts and creations. I don't think I'm going to get any unexpected philosophical answers from JKR's completion of the tale, though I remain open to the possibility, on the other hand you lot are definitely going to keep me occupied! Regards Jo From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 13:40:59 2005 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:40:59 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The List update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One more to add to the list. The London underground map on Dumbledore's leg, Jo replies to the map on her website under the news section: How did Dumbledore get his scar in the London Underground? You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar. Sounds like it's important, I always thought so but how would it be now that he's dead, or is he? Snow?with never enough time to play [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 13:57:51 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:57:51 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Final total: 39 chapters > > This is even longer than OotP (38 chapters) and yet it's only my > *minimal* estimation. That is, The Story Of Severus Snape or The Final Battle of the series *can* be summed up in just three chapters, but I think most of us would like something grander. I mean, there's should be some epic plot development and satisfying resolution in there, not merely ticking check marks. Pippin: If JKR shifts to the epic scale, I would expect some characters to meet their fate in a sentence or two, each "but a drop, though a shining one, in a vast and sparkling sea" . That's the nature of the beast. But the real artistry would be the revelation that the plot elements which seem disparate now were woven together all the time, the way the Marauders Map and Scabbers turned out to be related to Sirius, and the solution to the mystery of Hermione's mysterious appearances and disappearances was also the way to rescue Sirius. It seems like we haven't seen that kind of clever plotting lately, but then we didn't know we were seeing it in PoA until everything came together all at once. Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 14:32:14 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:32:14 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > Not only do I not want to know what's coming, I don't want to know > what isn't coming either. Each is as bad as the other IMO. Pippin: What about the harmless fun of all those fans who *do* want their questions answered in advance? At least I suppose they do, or they wouldn't be burying her in inquiries. Then there's the innocent, or should I say guilty, pleasure of having 'inside information' to pass out when discussing the books with the majority who don't read interviews or follow the website. I'm afraid you're outnumbered, Kneasy. Alas! Pippin From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 15:10:00 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:10:00 -0000 Subject: The List -- Going Public Message-ID: I'm pleased to announce Steve has asked to have the list prepared for the lexicon, with 'a nicely worded introduction.' If any of the Crowd would like to help with this, please email me offlist. Since the intent is to devise a list of everything that needs to be resolved in order to bring the series to a satisfactory conclusion, I'd like to avoid including theories except where they've been expressed in the books themselves (ie, ESE!Snape) since it would obviously be impossible for Jo to deal with them all. Anyway the catalog project is dealing with those, and far more extensively, too. And a very wonderful thing it is. Pippin From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 16:22:01 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:22:01 -0000 Subject: 'Clue to his vulnerability' / Harry's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Judy wrote: > > Dumbledore does spend a lot of time during this conversation saying > > that Harry is Voldemort's equal. Still, it's not clear to me that > > Dumbledore is talking about magical powers. Consider this exchange: > > > > "So, when the prophecy says that I'll have 'power the > > Dark Lord know not', it just means --- love?" asked Harry, > > feeling a little let down. > > > > "Yes -- just love," said Dumbledore. > > > > Neri: > The words of the prophecy are: "and the Dark Lord will mark him as > his equal, but he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not". > This "but" doesn't sound to me as if the power-the-Dark-Lord-knows- > not is what makes Harry equal to Voldy. The *mark* is what makes them > equal, and the PTDLNN sounds like an extra, something that makes them > *different*. And this is basically what Dumbledore says too. > > > > Judy wrote: > > And later, as Neri quoted, Dumbledore says: > > "By attempting to kill you, Voldemort himself singled out > > the remarkable person who sits here in front of me, and gave > > him the tools for the job! It is Voldemort's fault > > that you were able to see into his thoughts, his > > ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike > > language in which he gives orders." Anne: I've been ruminating on this exchange on the lists over the weekend. I think this is the clue to what makes Harry so special, even though he is clearly not the most talented wizard out there, nor arguably any more loving than many others. I think we can take it literally that LV gave Harry the tools to vanquish him. LV is now practicing Occlumency against Harry. Their wands are dodgy in battle against each other, and Jo has carefully set it up so that each would have to submit to having a disadvantage were they to substitute "another wizard's wand." It would be the depths of cheating were she merely to have LV's wand snap (but perfectly kosher if she does it to Harry). So how is Harry to battle LV in a way that no other wizard can? My thoughts pull together a few different lines of speculation: ~My theory that Possession is one of the powers that Harry received from LV; ~My feeling that the final battle will echo the confrontation in the GoF graveyard (or rather, vice-versa); ~The reason "love" will turn out to be such an advantage; ~There's even room for Snape! Possession is apparently a very rare and powerful tool. It's like all three unforgivables rolled into one, and then some -- more complete and reliable than Imperius, potentially much more excruciating than Crucio, and apparently lethal to boot (eventually). A Possession battle between LV and Harry would echo the Priori Incantatem battle in GoF as a battle of wills (the dominant will symbolised in GoF by the direction of movement of the beads of light), and the "love factor" which gives Harry the advantage was symbolised by the phoenix song in GoF. A possible resolution might even echo what LV tried to do in OoP. "Kill me now, Dumbledore." Suppose Harry, gaining possession of LV, said such a thing to Snape (or whoever)? Your guess as to whether Harry would have time to vacate LV while the jet of green light travelled their way. (Not that this has much bearing on the theory, but I believe Jo slipped the subject of possession into HBP. I think that's exactly the talent little Tommy Riddle was honing when he lured those orphans into the cave.) I think the main magical tools that Harry needs to defeat LV are indeed the ones that LV handed to him in Godric's Hollow. Other than that, he "only" needs to be made of good stuff - decent magical talent, willfulness, with guts and a determination to oppose LV to the end - in short, being like a member of the Order of the Phoenix. In other words, "better" (as a practical matter) than a Percy, Fudge or Scrimgeour, but not so out of the ordinary as to be unbelievable. A drawback to my theory is that, if DD really hoped Occlumency could prevent LV possessing Harry, then it's something Harry will have to overcome in LV in order to possess him. It may happen that LV will be the one to try to possess Harry again and Harry will merely turn the tables, or it may be just a matter of wills. Another drawback, for what it's worth, is that I had imagined that Harry's defeat of LV would also echo Lily's partial defeat of him when he murdered her, and I don't see how this does that -- unless it's to be the fact that Harry and Lily both love. Is that too tenuous? Or complete rubbish? (If Nagini is really a Horcrux, it may help explain how LV could possess her without causing her pain or damaging her.) Anne From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 17:57:00 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:57:00 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > What about the harmless fun of all those fans who *do* want their > questions answered in advance? At least I suppose they do, or they > wouldn't be burying her in inquiries. > > Then there's the innocent, or should I say guilty, pleasure of having > 'inside information' to pass out when discussing the books with the > majority who don't read interviews or follow the website. I'm > afraid you're outnumbered, Kneasy. Alas! > There are always the thoughtless who think only of immediate gratification, unable to realise that anticipation adds flavour to the feast. Plus the types that are so puffed up with "I know something you don't" that they'll blurt out the solution to a whodunnit when they can see you're only halfway into it. No doubt there've been those of that ilk around HP from the beginning. But for years they got nothing, despite all their entreaties. Now it seems to be different. I don't blame them, I blame Jo. She's the one that's changing, not them. Kneasy From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 20:12:24 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:12:24 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > If JKR shifts to the epic scale, I would expect some characters to > meet their fate in a sentence or two, each "but a drop, though a > shining one, in a vast and sparkling sea" . That's the nature of > the beast. Geoff: JKR has been very terse in getting some of her characters to shuffle off this mortal coil. As an example, from the beginning of the Basilisk's entry in COS to Tom's exit occupies just under four pages. If you include the friendly and uplifitng exchanges of conversation between Tom and Harry as well, that only produces eleven pages. Odds bodikins, at that rate you could dispose of a dozen or so of your favourite villains and still have time to write about five or six Quidditch matches.... :-) From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 26 21:07:58 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:07:58 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > But for years they got nothing, despite all their entreaties. > Now it seems to be different. > I don't blame them, I blame Jo. > She's the one that's changing, not them. Pippin: Nah. She started answering what she calls "technical questions" back in 2000, discovered that they were popular, and kept going from there. Probably a nice change from, "Where do you get your ideas?" Pippin From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 15:51:47 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:51:47 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > > If JKR shifts to the epic scale, I would expect some characters to > > meet their fate in a sentence or two, each "but a drop, though a > > shining one, in a vast and sparkling sea" . That's the nature of > > the beast. > > Geoff: > JKR has been very terse in getting some of her characters to shuffle > off this mortal coil. > > As an example, from the beginning of the Basilisk's entry in COS to > Tom's exit occupies just under four pages. If you include the friendly > and uplifitng exchanges of conversation between Tom and Harry as well, > that only produces eleven pages. > > Odds bodikins, at that rate you could dispose of a dozen or so of your > favourite villains and still have time to write about five or six > Quidditch matches.... > :-) Neri: But getting rid of Diary!Tom in CoS wasn't really disposing of his character. We get plenty of Voldemort and even young Tom Riddle in following books. Granted, JKR killed Quirrell, Cedric, Karkaroff, Sirius, Crouch Sr. and Crouch Jr. pretty quick. She clearly doesn't like drawn out death scenes (for which I personally am thankful). But the death itself was typically the culmination of a well-developed plot that took many pages per character. Crouch Sr. and Cedric each got at least a chapter overall in GoF. Even Karkaroff got at least half a chapter overall. Crouch Jr. got a whole chapter just for his confession and Sirius got more than a chapter overall in OotP despite contributing very little to the plot itself. So killing a character *isn't* an economical way of disposing of it. The most economical way to handle Lupin, for example, in Book 7, would be to give him several useful tasks for the Order and Harry, let him take care of Greyback and perhaps an additional DE or two, each with a one-sentence counter curse, and then spend another paragraph in the epilogue about his happy marriage and many children with Tonks. Hardly satisfying, but it would be only about 3 pages overall, and most of it needed anyway for advancing the plot. However, if JKR is going to give Lupin a hero's death, then before that he'll have to fill some key role in the plot, and he'll need to say things like "you don't understand, there are things worth dying for" and tell us how happy he is with Tonks, and Harry will have to try saving him but fail, or try avenging him with several unsuccessful unforgivables, and after that we need to be told about Harry's feelings and Tonks' mourning, and you're already looking at 20 pages at least. Not to mention the possibility of ESE!Lupin, in which case he'll need a whole chapter just for his confession. Now if Lupin was one of a short list of secondary characters that wouldn't be much of a problem. But JKR also need to take care of Ginny, Neville, Luna, Draco, Molly, Arthur, the twins, Percy, Hagrid, McGonagall, Tonks, Moody, Krum, Firenze, Dobby, Kreacher, Snape, Wormtail, Lucius, Bellatrix, Narcissa and even Moaning Myrtle (oops, she can't be killed. But she can finally find peace for her troubled soul and go behind the veil). A satisfying resolution, either happy or sad, for each of these characters seems to require half a chapter minimum, even if death itself is mercifully quick. Neri From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 12:30:52 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:30:52 -0000 Subject: A few thoughts in passing Message-ID: I think JKR can roll it up pretty quickly when she wants to. Remember that the trio got through the first 6 steps to the stone in one chapter in PS/SS. So I don't think that JKR will have too much trouble dispaching of the horcruces in a timely fashion. What I think would be cool (which means that she probably will come up with something cooler) would be for Harry to get notes via owl with messages like "Go to Godric's Hollow and look at the base of the elm tree in the back yard. Sincerely, your friend who likes raspberry jam." We'd be wondering all book long if DD is still alive, or if it was someone like Snape (if he's good) using the jam as a password. Either it could be DD, who faked his death, finally having time to go hunt the horcruces unhindered, or it could be Snape, who has found out about them by Legilimancing LV and is passing on the info, or something else I haven't thought of yet. Another thought I had was about dragon's blood. Could it have healing powers? Hagrid used a dragon steak for his black eye in OoP as one might use a beefsteak in real life. The twins wore dragon jackets rather than plain leather, explaining that they were treating themselves as business was so good. It would seem that dragon is more expensive that cow, so why was Hagrid using the more expensive cut of meat? Healing powers? Was that Dragon's blood trickling from DD's mouth? If so, what did he intend by it? On a final note, I'd just like to say that I'm probably in the minority here, but I have no doubt that book 7 will totally blow me away and that I will be happy as a clam when I'm done with it. Then again, I'm easily amused. Anything JKR answers will be answered, and anything else is up to my imagination. I will be able to speculate with total abandon on anything she doesn't cover, which means I can go nuts in a way I haven't been able to since I finished PoA. I read the first 3 in a row without having any time to sit and amuse myself with the "what if"s. After each sucessive book, I've had to change something. For example: Remus and Sirius will not be living happily ever after, with Remus tutoring the offspring of H/R and H/G. When book 7 is done, I can do with JKR's world as I please, so long as it fits canon. Ginger, thanking y'all for letting me ramble From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 14:20:43 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:20:43 +0100 Subject: RADIO T-BAY. Grappling with Darkness Message-ID: "..... give a warm welcome to that doyen of explorers, that exemplar of archeological investigations, author of those best-selling books that delved into ancient arcane mysteries - "Angkor What?" and "Sutton Who?" - the wizard whose name is synonymous with deeds of derring-do and breathless excitement - Arbuthnot Pobble!" "Mornin', Kaynes. Good to be here." "So tell me Buthy, slain any vampires lately?" "Just a few, old boy, just a few. But that's more for relaxation than anything else. Good sport donchaknow - moonlit night, tether a Muggle in a forest clearing and they can't resist it. Swarm round like bats to a belfry. Meantime you're up a tree with a few sharp bits o'wood and as soon as you see the whites of their canines it's 'Locomotor talea!' Don't know what's hit 'em. Called a 'stake-out' in the trade. O'course, it's not like the old days - have to dissolve the stakes before dawn and let 'em go back to the graveyard, now. "All in the name of conservation. The Virgin's Guild was complainin' because there weren't enough vampires around to fulfill their commitments to the Gothic Writers Association. These young gels, dolled up in the plungin' neckline nightie, the casement window left carefully ajar, all ready an' eager for a bit of repressed eroticism - and what happens? Nothin'. Poor show, poor show. Had to get the numbers back up again, so you can't kill the Undead anymore. 'Cept on Thursdays." "Right. So what have you been up to? A new book, I understand. What can you tell us?" "Glad you asked me that, Kaynes. Damned excitin'. I keep my extendable ears close to the ground, as you know - and there were rumours circulatin', tales of how not long ago, acolytes of a dread sect had gathered in foul conclave to celebrate their unnatural practices. Supposed to be centred around this ancient magic stone. Hold it aloft, speak the right incantation, and the world comes to an end. Usual sort of thing. Eventually after much research and bribery I determined the lair, the nexus of this depraved cult." "What did you do?" "Had a word with me sponsor - Crone's Cauldrons - they've got a new model out - got a reversing spell, it unstirs potions, lets you check that you've added the right stuff. Just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, they came up with a few Galleons, enough to outfit a small expedition, just me and 17 House-Elves to carry my kit. Cauldrons, Foe-glasses, Sneakoscopes, Dark Magic detectors, ironing board, hampers from Gourmet Gutbusters - just the basics, otherwise me broom can't cope." "You get all that on one broom?" "Oh no, just lash 'em together with bits of rope and tow 'em behind. Have to be careful landin' though. There was one occasion when the three at the end of the line got tangled up in some of these metal strings that Muggles have cluttering up the broomspace. Lit up the sky for miles around. Damned nuisance. Curdled the milk one of 'em was carryin'. Had to make do with lemon in me tea for the rest of the trip." "What about the Elves?" "All tickety-boo. Only took three weeks before they stopped glowin' in the dark and ruinin' the neighbour's radio reception." "That's a relief. But you were telling us about the expedition." "Not enough time to give more than an outline. If you want more you'll have to buy the book. The trials and tribulations, the false trails, the hardships, the sad loss of two of the party." "Good grief! What Happened?" "Feral Goblins got 'em. Accountants gone to the bad. There are things in this world that can twist any Being's mind, but double-entry book- keepin's the worst. All we found was half a sock, Limpit's wooden leg and a claim form for expenses marked "rejected". Poor devils. "Next day we struck lucky - this degenerate coven had been hidin' amongst Muggles, but magic always leaves traces that the skilled can see. That night I immobilised all the locals and ventured into that foul place. It was redolent with evil, fairly throbbed with it, and scattered about were the bones of those who had come before me, who had sought glory - and failed. "For long hours I struggled against the warding spells, eventually breaking through as the sun rose. And there it was, the key to Armageddon, the Ragnor Rock. A single shaft of light from high above was falling directly onto it. Fashioned into the form of a dragon's eye it was, and mounted in imperishable meteoric iron into which dread runes were incised. The doom of the world stood before me. "When one gazed into its Cyclopean depths it seemed penetrate into one's inner-most being, to lay bare one's most secret fears. Damn disconcerting, I can tell you. Forcing back the terrors it had re- awoken in my mind - no, I'll not speak of them - with trembling hands I lifted up the malefic totem and read aloud those fell runes. Destroyed the evil. Those deluded celebrants won't be practicing their dire communion there ever again. Then stumbling back into the wholesome air outside, we left that noisome place, that desolate wasteland, and journeyed wearily home." "You read it? You actually spoke the words? What did it say?" "Best before 1407." "Oh. That's .... incredible. Before we go, where was this place?" "Berkshire." "And the title of your book?" "Reading - the Runes." "Thank you and goodnight!" From eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 17:49:02 2005 From: eloiseherisson at eloise_herisson.yahoo.invalid (eloise_herisson) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:49:02 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > JKR has been very terse in getting some of her characters to shuffle > off this mortal coil. > > Odds bodikins, at that rate you could dispose of a dozen or so of your > favourite villains and still have time to write about five or six > Quidditch matches.... > :-) Thank goodness she said (in the Leaky/Mugglenet intervew) that there will be no more. Quidditch, that is, not deaths. ~Eloise From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 18:31:37 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:31:37 -0000 Subject: The List update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > Perhaps I'm being too demanding in my expectations. OK, that has > always been a possibility. Maybe I'll end up disappointed with the > resolution - that's always been a real possibility too. But can't > this disappointment be postponed until the last book is published? > Then I can vanish muttering into the sunset, but at least be able > to reflect that the pointless theorising had been fun while it > lasted. It seems to me that the ground is being laid (for the > inevitable let down for some?) by administering the > disillusionment in small doses in advance - "Don't concern yourself > with that, and this means nothing and yes, you're right about that - > ooh! aren't you clever!" > > Doubleplusungood. > Not only do I not want to know what's coming, I don't want to know > what isn't coming either. Each is as bad as the other IMO. SSSusan: This is what I tried to get at in a post 10 or so days ago: >>>Anyhoo... for right or for wrong, I think the BIG revelations she's dropping -- the theory-stopping types -- she's doing because she either wants to help us along or because she wants to avoid huge segments of pissed-off fans at the end. I mean, think about it. EITHER she leaves it all under wraps -- thereby ensuring the Kneasys among us can have loads of fun by virtue of a gazillion open possibilities -- OR she shuts down a few possibilities to help guide us to "more fruitful lines of inquiry." WHY would she do the latter at the risk of pissing off those who really don't want to have their possibilities limited, thankyouverymuch? I think she might because she also knows that to NOT shut down any possibilities might mean big disappointments for that OTHER group of fans which is inclined to be royally pissed that they spent hours & hours & hours of their time developing, crafting, arguing & defending their theories... only to find out not only were they wrong, JKR didn't even *address* their pet topic. Sure, you can blame these folks for not just looking at it all as the fun of the game, for getting "overly invested," but can you not also see their annoyance when perhaps a simple sentence or two dropped by JKR along the way would've let them know that *that* one isn't going to be a big issue in the story? This is how I took her remark about DROOBLES & the Longbottoms. I'm sure JKR knew many fans were really into the possibility that the gum wrappers were a huge secret, a major clue to something that was going to happen. Maybe she felt the time had come to let them down NOW? Maybe it's a disappointment... but wouldn't it be easier to adjust to NOW, rather than waiting 'til the end and THEN going, "WTF?!? She didn't even MENTION the gum wrappers!!"<<<<< When I wrote that, it seemed the only response I got (though maybe I misread) was that this WASN'T really what she was doing (or at least that she wasn't doing so out of a sense of concern for her fans). But, in fact, I still do think this IS what she's doing, because I can't really see any other explanation for why she'd be engaging in the behavior of shutting down some possibilities or encouraging others, other than that she IS trying to minimize the huge disappointments she envisions coming at the end if she doesn't. You have absolutely, positively every right in the world to be pissed that she's doing this, because you happen to be one of the ones who likes to tinker & to imagine possibilities -- a FULL range of possibilities. For myself, I haven't quite decided how I feel about the revelations. Being hungry for new tidbits, I tend to get excited about new information, but also having been someone who's managed (not from some *talent* of mine, but simply by virtue of the way I tend to read her) to have gotten pretty much what I'd hoped to get from JKR so far, I don't worry so much about Major Disappointments. And so I do think JKR could cool it with some of the debunking side of things at least. (But, dang, some of those H/H Shipper people WERE really *scary* in their reactions after HBP!!!) By way of example, at first after HBP, I'd hoped JKR would come out with SOMETHING in an interview or on her site which would help us get a read on which side of the ESE!Snape/OFH!Snape/DDM!Snape debate is on the right track. But now, truth be told, the only reason I'd be glad for any "help" from JKR there is that it might SHUT PEOPLE THE F*** UP ABOUT SNAPE for awhile! (Sigh. I do get so tired of 90% of posts being about Snape!) Other than that, as "painful" as it'll be to wait 'til Book 7 is here, I think it'd be more fun to have her leave it all open 'til we get what we get. So I suppose I'm more in agreement with you than disagreement with you, Kneasy. It's just that I'm less worried about what we're going to get in the end. And speaking of getting what we get, I'm still fairly confident about what I'm going to get. I've been holding out since OotP for a conclusion which is "elegantly simple," and I still have faith JKR can pull that off. Something which will be stunning and profound in its way and yet will still elegantly simple. I think she can do it. Yeah, I was surprised by some of the things which didn't get addressed in HBP [SPEW (thank God!), Neville's development, etc.], and I see some of the places where people are frustrated by plot holes, but I'm not one of those fans who's horribly worried about the possibility of an ending which totally disappoints. Siriusly Snapey Susan From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 27 21:48:58 2005 From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:48:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's powers/Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > I've been ruminating on this exchange on the lists over the > weekend. I think this is the clue to what makes Harry so special, > even though he is clearly not the most talented wizard out there, > nor arguably any more loving than many others. I think we can > take it literally that LV gave Harry the tools to vanquish him. Jen: I'm quite fond of the idea Voldemort would indirectly vanquish himself. Particularly after HBP, the story is in place for Voldemort's obsessions to cause his ruin. His obsession with Harry is especially intractable because he refuses to do the obvious and allow someone else to kill him. Anne: > A Possession battle between LV and Harry would echo the Priori > Incantatem battle in GoF as a battle of wills (the dominant will > symbolised in GoF by the direction of movement of the beads of > light), and the "love factor" which gives Harry the advantage was > symbolised by the phoenix song in GoF. Jen: The Gleam could factor in here too, as a weakening agent for Voldemort. In fact, doh!--is that why LV lost the battle in the graveyard? He seemed to be weakening from his fear, generated by the phoenix song (FBAWTFT), but also because he had Harry's blood flowing in him? Then you add in Neri's idea that the Power is yet another protection in place for Harry, rather than a weapon to defeat Voldemort. That power already saved him from possession, and provided the means for LV to employ Occlumency against him. What else will it save him from? Anne: > A possible resolution might even echo what LV tried to do in OoP. > "Kill me now, Dumbledore." Suppose Harry, gaining possession of > LV, said such a thing to Snape (or whoever)? Your guess as to > whether Harry would have time to vacate LV while the jet of green > light travelled their way. Jen: So the self-sacrifice, or willingness to sacrifice could fit in here. Gosh, wouldn't Snape love to be the one to kill Harry and Voldemort ;). Anne: > (Not that this has much bearing on the theory, but I believe Jo > slipped the subject of possession into HBP. I think that's exactly > the talent little Tommy Riddle was honing when he lured those > orphans into the cave.) Jen: I wondered why JKR didn't spell out Riddle's heinous crime, because we hear about his other deeds. If she's saving it for the big ending, though, makes sense. Could possession be one of the curses on the Horcrux objects, therefore answering why Dumbledore found it so excruciating to destroy them? Omigosh!! The *potion*. That's how Voldemort would keep someone alive long enough to find out how they penetrated his defenses! Dumbledore may have been possessed in the cave. The excruciating pain, the "I don't want to....I don't want to....Let me go!" And finally, "KILL ME" just as Harry felt when Voldemort possessed him in the DOM: "Let him kill us...End it, Dumbledore...." Was Dumbledore fighting possession the entire time, was that what weakened him and caused him to slip down the ramparts? Did Snape understand what was happening to him, that the potion made him too weak to fight the possession, and he was going to become a another Voldemort pawn? Anne: > A drawback to my theory is that, if DD really hoped Occlumency > could prevent LV possessing Harry, then it's something Harry will > have to overcome in LV in order to possess him. It may happen > that LV will be the one to try to possess Harry again and Harry > will merely turn the tables, or it may be just a matter of wills. Jen: This turns the tables on your thought above, but maybe part of LV's plan for killing Dumbledore was to make it possible to attempt posssessing Harry again, only this time with someone present who *would* 'kill the boy'? LV could be doing something to strengthen himself in order to possess Harry long enough to have a henchman cast the AK. But of course, if he does *that* there's something he's overlooking again, as he always does (like Peter being the chosen henchman perhaps ). Or as you said, the battle of wills may ensue this time, Harry will be stronger than he was in OOTP, after a year with LV invading his mind. Anne: >Another drawback, forwhat it's worth, is that I had imagined that > Harry's defeat of LVwould also echo Lily's partial defeat of him > when he murdered her, an I don't see how this does that -- unless > it's to be the fact that Harry and Lily both love. Is that too > tenuous? Or complete rubbish? Jen: I love symmetry! I picture another failed AK, only this time there are no Horcruxes saving him. He's made Harry somehow impossible to kill with all the weapons he handed him, and Voldemort's own AK destroys him in the end. Anne: > (If Nagini is really a Horcrux, it may help explain how LV could > possess her without causing her pain or damaging her.) Jen: Hmm, more evidence Harry is *not* a Horcrux, since he felt excruciating pain at the DOM? This is a good one to keep in my back pocket for when the Harrycrux debate starts again on TOL, hehehe (full credit to you, of course). Thanks, Anne. Jen, enjoying this discussion immensely and hoping Anne won't mind she changed the thread title a little bit. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 28 00:27:41 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:27:41 -0000 Subject: Is Bella the keeper of a Horcrux? Message-ID: While looking up something in "Spinner's End" (no, not SHIPping clues, I do think of other things too) I stumbled upon an intriguing slip of the tongue by Bellatrix. Here it is: *************************************************************** HBP, Ch. 2 p. 29 (US): "He shares everything with me!" said Bellatrix, firing up at once. "He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful ?" "Does he?" said Snape, his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief. "Does he still, after the fiasco at the Ministry?" "That was not my fault!" said Bellatrix, flushing. "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious ? if Lucius hadn't ?" "Don't you dare ? don't you dare blame my husband!" said Narcissa, in a low and deadly voice, looking up at her sister. *************************************************************** Look at it again, it's easy to miss: "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious ? " and then she cuts herself short and changes tack. What was the next word to be? Going by the context of Lucius' fiasco in the Ministry it would have been "missions" or something similar, but that doesn't fit well with the adjective "precious", and besides why would she censor herself so abruptly? OTOH, going by "most precious" the appropriate next word would be "secrets" or, even more appropriate, "possessions". Now, Lucius *is* part of the context, and Lucius *was* entrusted with guarding a Hx, while Snape apparently wasn't. So was Bella about to brag that she was entrusted with another Hx before cutting herself short? Maybe the Hufflepuff Cup? Of course, she said "in the past" so perhaps she meant she's no longer entrusted with it, but she might have an idea where it is now. Granted, Bella isn't likely to tell. But wasn't she tutoring Draco in occlumency? And I bet she didn't take the precautions Snape took to hide his classified memories first. And Draco perhaps thought to use a shield spell at some point, just like Harry did, and was treated with a stream of Bella's most precious secrets. And Draco isn't very chummy with Voldy and the DEs at the moment. So might Draco redeem himself by revealing the location of a Horcrux to Harry? Neri From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 28 18:42:26 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:42:26 -0000 Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neri wrote: > 2. She's going to cheat big time. Say, Draco mentioned only in > passing, or the Hxs found and destroyed in one chapter each. Prepare > for BIG disappointments. Interesting, that you think it would be disappointing for Harry to dispose of the Horcruxes quickly. I take a different view. I think JKR *could* write an interesting book in which a major element is a picaresque succession of Horcrux adventures. It would be rather episodic. However, it would IMO be seriously out of kilter with the rest of the series and the way it has been building up. (Admittedly PS is very episodic, but the episodes are different from each other in character.) What is needed, IMO, is some way to roll them up so they don't take too much page time and JKR can concentrate on the important stuff. For example, Voldemort gets really worried that RAB has been at them all and decides the current security arrangements are inadequate, so collects them all prior to hiding them again; or V now trusts Snape and tells him to go check them out, and Snape disposes of most of them off-page; or something rather better than either of those - my imagination is not very good for this type of thing. You get the idea. David, returning to TOC after a couple of weeks' inattention From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 30 13:00:18 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:00:18 -0000 Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Neri wrote: > > > 2. She's going to cheat big time. Say, Draco mentioned only in > > passing, or the Hxs found and destroyed in one chapter each. > Prepare > > for BIG disappointments. > > Interesting, that you think it would be disappointing for Harry to dispose of the Horcruxes quickly. I take a different view. > > I think JKR *could* write an interesting book in which a major element is a picaresque succession of Horcrux adventures. It would be rather episodic. However, it would IMO be seriously out of kilter with the rest of the series and the way it has been building up. (Admittedly PS is very episodic, but the episodes are different from each other in character.) Pippin: I'm expecting something like GoF, where we had several self-contained tasks, as a result of which Harry gained both the knowledge and the confidence he needed to survive his confrontation with Voldemort. Then we can end up with an epic confrontation. An huge battle on the Hogwarts grounds would provide an arena in which a great many characters could prove their worth, meet their fate and fire off some of the Chekhov's guns all at once. Wormtail, for example, could smash the case which holds Gryffindor's sword with his silver hand and throw it to Harry to use on Nagini, while meanwhile someone else is exercising magic late in life, the houses unite, and so on. Voldemort's body vanished when he possessed Harry at the MoM. 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. I suspect Harry will inadvertently kill Voldemort too soon, decide to chuck the last horcrux through the veil, and that's when ESE!Lupin will try to stop him. Pippin From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 30 16:00:30 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:00:30 -0000 Subject: Horcrus disposal (was Re: The List update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin: > Voldemort's body vanished when he possessed Harry at the MoM. > 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. Anne: His body vanished? I had wondered whether Voldemort apparated out of the column of water into a handy nearby broom closet or something, and then his psyche or whatever left his own body to possess Harry's. This, of course, would make possessing someone while you have a body of your own a somewhat risky business -- something which as a vapor entity he didn't have to deal with. On the other hand, I tried not to think about the possibility that Voldemort entered Harry with his entire body and soul (or what was left of it). It's technically imaginable, since there's actually plenty of room between atoms in a "solid" body, and it might help account for the pain. Anyway, I find it hard to imagine that Voldemort's body simply vanished into nothing during that time, although for all I know that's exactly what JKR intended. Yours is still an interesting scenario. > I suspect Harry will inadvertently kill Voldemort too > soon, decide to chuck the last horcrux through the veil, and that's > when ESE!Lupin will try to stop him. Aha, the veil. No matter what the timing, it seems like it would be a way for Harry to dispose of all of them. We have no idea why Harry got off so easily destroying the diary while dealing with the ring cost Dumbledore his arm, and we have no idea how Harry or even Hermione are supposed to research Horcrux disposal -- but I can see Harry managing to sneak into the DoM again with his cloak and a few other accoutrements courtesy of Fred and George. We can assume Dumbledore would not have risked doing this for fear of being caught and tipping his hand to LV, but Harry might get away with it especially if he does all of them at once. Anne