[the_old_crowd]Dudder Late Magic (WAS Re: Some questions)

[Rebecca Bowen]

>>Talisman:
>>Thanks, Rebecca, I've already seen it.  Let's just say that I read
>>all of Rowling's interviews, with interest.  *Believer* might be too
>>strong a word.  However, I do believe she works very hard to cover
>>her tracks. ::cough::Regulus::cough::

Rebecca:

(snorts) Regulus, indeed ;) I always wondered about Sirius' time spent w/ 
Buckbeak......::cough::, ::cough:: nevermind. ;)

<snipped agreed Petunia/DD contact and the BN chat quote, since you caught 
the "adult" possibility afterwards>

>>Talisman:
>>We also know, or should, that a battle is slated for chez Dursley,
>>preferably before July 31st, which will provide the requisite dire
>>circumstances.

Rebecca:

I'm must be dense - I don't know there's a battle slated for casa Dursley 
and in my superior denseness (it's a talent), I'd think JKR would want to 
wrap up the Dursley interaction fairly quickly so Harry can go forth to the 
Bill/Fleur wedding, go to Godric's Hollow, find Horcruxes, find Snape, 
battle Voldemort and do those other activities that heros in epics 
do.<shrug>  I could be wrong about that, as you'll see later.

Does DD actually say how long Harry has to stay at the Dursleys for the 
protection to continue when he returns to Privet Drive "once more"?  I don't 
think he does actually, just that Harry must return and one can infer he can 
spend 2 weeks and leave, or even only a week:

"This magic will cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen; in 
other words, at the moment he becomes a man. I ask only this: that you allow 
Harry to return, once more, to this house, before his seventeenth birthday, 
which will ensure that the protection continues until that time." (HBP)

I also feel I should mention that while DD states the magic protecting Harry 
will cease to work when he is 17, I do wonder  (what can I say, I'm human) 
if that's valid now as a result of DD's death.


<snipped Kneasy's late bloomer Flich/Figg bet (which I'm not taking)>


>>Talisman:
>>Unless you read the late bloomer comment as *No,...I
>>mean...yes,* the adults are out.  And that's just it, who is left?

>>Rebecca finds the WYSIWYG statement controlling.  That is to say,
>>she reads it to say that Dudley is not magic now--and never will
>>be.
>>She also can't accept the idea of a Dudley redemption--choosing to
>>characterize any such event as a *180* (of course we have to careful
>>not to stumble into the argumentative fallacy asserting that no
>>change can occur except the most extreme change.)


Rebecca:

What I perceive in my reading of the books is that I'm not comfortable with 
saying Dudley will have a magical ability, have a positive change, or be the 
one specified from the 1999 interview quotes. I did not say "never" nor did 
I post I couldn't accept anything counter, nor do I feel "controlled" by any 
WYSIWYG statement - I merely stated that it didn't jive for me. That's just 
my impression; I'm sure others have a different view and probably more 
similiar to yours, that's cool with me.

As far as your comment that I choose the characterization of a Dud 
redemption as a 180 - I'm just going on the data at hand and if that's 
WYSIWYG, well, you can't necessarily blame me, I didn't write the books :) 
Dudley has repeatedly been depicted as shallow, bullying, materialistic, and 
selfish other than the few times he's been (as all bullies are) afraid of 
something he doesn't understand or can't compete with (like magic).  If in 
fictional reality some attack should occur at the Dursley house, given what 
we have seen of Dudley thus far, I'm inclined  (based on the descriptions of 
his past behavior)  to think he'd be much more apt to run and try save his 
own behind or hide behind his parents.

I asked a specific question of "how"  in the interest of discussion simply 
because I don't see the point or the big payoff in the plot for JKR to have 
Dudley, as a supporting (I almost used the word "bit") character, in the 
books suddenly change in some fashion - e.g., be magical or redemptive - 
based on the consistent bad behavior he is described as portraying and the 
fact this is the last book. Where does one *go* with that storyline?.  Use 
magic once and never be magical again? Be magical everafter after the first 
ability to do magic? What non magical character could perform magic that 
would make the greatest statement of value and morality? Read on for the 
rest of my interpretation below.....

>>Talisman:
>>Well, letfs see. If Dudley is just a dud, I suppose all the mystery
>>and intimations of surprise are disingenuous. If there are some
>>surprises and redemption in Dudleyfs future, the notion that there
>>is nothing to look forward to isn't quite true.

>>It's that happy conundrum, was she lying then or is she lying now?


Rebecca:

While you think I may have been too dismissive of JKR's quotes, I'm also 
thinking of the timeline in which JKR's statements were in 1999 before GoF, 
and then 2000 after GoF's release and before OoP and HBP. Since that time, 
keeping an "eye" since then on Dudley has resulted in some interesting 
events:

- In GoF he was forced to diet due to the fact he couldn't fit in a school 
uniform, was called a bully on his report card, and got a taste of his own 
medicine eating the twins Ton-Tongue-Toffee;
- In OoP, he started his new fun with his homeboys bullying, smoking, 
vandalising, not to mention his new boxing habit and his encounter with the 
dementors;
- In HBP, unexpected visit by a wizard who puts his parents in their place 
and a reference from that same wizard that his parents have"damaged" him and 
a description he's "unfortunate"

Those are the "high points" and perhaps the surprises she mentions in her 
1999/2000 interview are some of them.  The latter quote from the World Book 
Day chat regarding the question of Dud's dementor experience is an 
interesting one, but a better than indicating its something special and as a 
result Dud will be magical or redemptive, I rather think might answer why 
Dudley (and perhaps the Dursleys overall)  treated Harry as he did for all 
those years - in other words, tie up loose ends, as I would expect that 
Dud's Dementor episode will let me understand Harry's character better. Poor 
Dudley: how much more dire a circumstance can it be (other than an LV 
appearance) when something scares you that badly and makes you feel as 
horrible as the Dementors did in the alleyway, even if you didn't know what 
was happening to you and they could suck out your soul?

I understand JKR's quote where she says she feels sorry for Dudley, but she 
also says tells us in various interviews to keep an eye on Snape, she likes 
Lupin, Hagrid and Luna, she feels sorry for Draco (The Leaky/Mugglenet 
Interview, July 2005) having to walk the walk with the DE's for the first 
time, yet in the same conversation she says that girls dig Draco, but they 
shouldn't, because he's a not a very nice man. That doesn't mean Snape will 
"change", Lupin, Hagrid or Luna won't die, or Draco (having lowered his wand 
in his attack on DD) won't come back in the next book to cause someone 
else's death or kill someone directly. Nor does it mean Dudley is magical or 
will have some minor or major shift in persona or behavior. There's nothing 
in the books to suggest that Dudley is scootin' towards the late bloomer 
prediction (his encounter with Dementors doesn't indicate that he himself is 
magical in any sense) and JKR's quote which states it's "probably too late 
for Petunia and Vernon" ("probably"=loophole)still leaves at least Vernon in 
the running with Dudley, since she's said "never" to Petunia recently.

In Trelawney's case, she does a lot of mundane things the Muggle way; for 
example, in POA, she uses a dustpan and brush to clear Neville's broken 
teacup (why not evaneso it away or reparo it?) and physically throws books 
at students in OoP. The only 2 times I've been able to find her with a wand 
in the series was when Umbridge sacked her (she didn't use it then, or so it 
would appear) and in GoF, when she supposedly "dims" the lights. She also 
describes magic in terms that could lead one to believe she might not be 
able to perform it adequately herself (POA - ".....wizards talented though 
they are in the area of loud bangs and smells and sudden disappearing") and 
dismisses it's importance in lieu of what her specialty appears to be, along 
with her friction with Hermoine and with McGonagall, who both can cast 
spells all over the place and poo-poo divination. Trelawney displaying magic 
in dire circumstances and an eventual JKR explanation later for it would 
seem similiar to the DD/Petunia communication debacle you pointed out in 
your prior post, wouldn't it?

With Figg and Filch (Squibdom) we've see the context in which JKR has 
answered that question: neither of these characters *can* perform magic.  I 
note that her answer to that question is in present tense for the timeframe 
in which she answered it, so I suppose one can't exclude them from the 
possibility. ("can"= loophole, again.)

The scariest and most disturbing thought I had is one about Uncle Vernon 
instead of Dudley - I say this because someone displaying magic late in life 
(and only once - love conquers all, ya know) could equate to love of a 
father saving his family if you subscribe to the Privet Drive attack in the 
next book and the whole concept of the parent(s) who made Dudley how he is 
providing a different example to him than they ever have before. There's 
those family values for JKR to display; I know that when I put Vernon, 
magic, and love all in the same sentence it makes us all want to hurl, but 
JKR herself made me think of it:

"Much of Rowling's understanding of the origins of evil has to do with the 
role of the father in family life. "As I look back over the five published 
books," she says, "I realize that it's kind of a litany of bad fathers. 
That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where people didn't get good 
fathering." (TIME, July 2005)

I'll pass out the air sickness bags to any who want them...

Rebecca