W.O.M.B.A.T.S---fun, diversion, or fun diversion?

[Talisman]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" 
<kumayama at ...> wrote:

>Lynn:
>My guess is that it is a tactical diversion, aimed at the very 
>people who are most serious about exploring what will happen next. .

I obviously agree, Lynn.

She tossed it in to keep us busy and diverted. 

Though have no fear, she will not win.  I vouchsafe many a fevered 
brain can handle this fluff without neglecting its own darkling 
suspicions.  And I expect the fuss will die off soon enough after 
the answers are available.  Maybe earlier, if she takes too long.  
The family tree tizzy didn't last long. 

>Kneasy:
>You can always claim that some of the questions were ambiguous. For 
>example, the witch who was *using* (not turned him into, note) her 
>dear hubby as a coffee table: has he been transfigured, Imperio-ed 
>or is this a touch of the kinky stuff?  

Oh, in my imagination he still looks very much like a man.   You 
know how those powerful love potions kick in; the little dears 
become so happy to be useful.  I do think a bit of wand work would 
be necessary, though, to steady the knick-knacks.

Diverting and ambiguous.

Yes, alas. So far the exam seems unlikely to contain useful clues 
for us, and, while I try not to underestimate the devious abilities 
of  market researchers, I find it hard to see how it would be 
helpful to them, either.  

For instance, none of the questions in the Natural World or Everyday 
Magic sections lend themselves to evaluating reader values or 
tolerances, etc.  They are much more trivia oriented.  

Even if there were some excruciatingly subtle value markers hidden 
in these questions, the likelihood that many people have simply 
forgotten the details of minor plants/critters would tank the whole 
clever plan.

It has been suggested that Rowling wants to avoid explaining things 
in her final text--and so wants to see if we can guess/recall how 
various magical things might work.  Puh. It would certainly be 
cheaper, and more effective, to simply toss in the explanatory 
line.  

********************************

gI can't thank you enough, Pomona.  Arthur's a new man since I 
stewed up that Tentaculah

********************************

Moving on, I thought the young mother's Transportation problem was 
interesting.  Reminded me of an old IQ test question.  Perhaps 
Rowling will make Book 7 an Easy Reader, if we prove to be too dim. 

Other Transportation questions remained ambiguous, in spite of good 
canon knowledge.  

Take the matter of travel to Hogwarts.  Broom was a necessary part 
of every answer, yet, for at least most of HBP, protections were in 
place to prevent broomstick infiltration.

So, is this a hypothetical question re: what could you use to 
reach/enter  Hogwarts *if special protections are not in place?*  
That certainly changes the way we might look at remaining choices, 
too.  

Or, are we supposed to take the hint and ignore the HBP broom 
deterrent as an atypical event, series wide?  

After all, Madame Maxim sailed in for the funeral. But was security 
relaxed just for that day?  Or, did the shield never go up again 
after it was lowered on tower night?  Wouldn't McG opt for maximum 
coverage now that the Dark side is ahead?  Or, is she simply unable 
to handle the requisite magic?

Someone suggested to me that just getting close--say, up to the 
outside of the winged-boar gate--should count as valid 
transportation.  Maybe. Certainly debatable.  That would add in the 
Knight Bus.  Heck, even Apparition would get the nod, in that case. 

Of course Apparition is teamed with Floo Powder on the answer list.  
So how will you interpret that?  Per usual?  Special Occasional? 
Hypothetical? 

>Lynn:
>My suspicion is that this has been in the bank for some time, to be 
>pulled out when the faithful need to have their attention drawn 
>away from something which threatens the next book

Heck, maybe that's the explanation: it was ginned up pre-broom ban.

However each individual handled the question, trivia knowledge 
wasn't decisive.  Nor moral judgment.  It was reasoning / question 
interpretation, in the main. 

Moreover, whatever readers know or surmise, JKR can change the 
status of things, including transportation methods, as it pleases 
her:

**************************

Hermione ran up to them, clearly shaken.  g OMG! All of Hogwartsf 
defenses have crashed!h  she gasped.  

gFlitwick says it was the mother of all Finite Incantatems!  DEs 
are swarming the Great Hall! 

McGonagall has instructed students to disguise themselves as 
furniture, until the danger has past!h  

 Ron groaned, rubbing the drawer splinters from his escritoire 
attempt.

gYou'll have to do it for me,h he muttered, woodenly.

gWhy not,h she sniggered.  gWe're practically married, anyway.h 

************************************

The Law section is no better.  At a minimum, pitfalls for the 
unknowledgeable or the unwary would have been removed if insight 
into fan values were the true goal. 

Yes, where shaky canon, bemused interpretation, deviant preferences, 
and intermittent brain farts freely mix, answers offer little in the 
way of serious conclusions.

The practice of noticing a dwindling hourglass and *throwing a dart* 
in exasperation has probably not been rare.

In sum: The thing, as it's offered, is shot through with 
opportunities to confuse intent, ignorance, and whimsy. 

Talisman

PS Lynn, I also owe you a withering response in defense of  DD's 
prowess: GH, Hx and otherwise. : )