From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 1 11:45:38 2006 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 11:45:38 -0000 Subject: OT: weird e-mail Message-ID: Hi. This amused me, so I thought I'd share. I just got an e-mail giving me a great offer on Viagra (like I need it), which is par for the course with my e-mail (why DO they think I need it?). The funny part was the signature line, which I have reprinted here: This is urgent, said Harry curtly. Ooooh, urgent, is it? said the other gargoyle in a high-pitched voice. Well, thats put us in our place, hasnt it? Harry knocked. He heard footsteps, then the door opened and he found himself face to face with Professor McGonagall. OK, now. So what does this tell us about HP fans? Or Viagra salespersons? Oh, the rude comments about McG and the Gargoyles that have popped into my head! Just passing it along, Ginger From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 1 15:55:43 2006 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:55:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Doxy from Biloxi Message-ID: Doxy from Biloxi To the tune of Merle Haggard's Okie from Muskogee http://country.mididb.com/merlehaggard/ Dedicated to Ginger NOTE: According to Newt Scamander's text, Doxies generally live in Northern Europe and America, preferring colder climates. Unknown to the Potterverse till now is the fact that some decades ago, a small group of Doxies migrated to the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi, and established a thriving community. Years of warm humid climate, Southern hospitality, and mint julep have gradually civilized these Doxies to the point where they now consider themselves as "beings" rather than "beasts", and look askance upon the practices of their less sophisticated Northern cousins, not to mention the antics of such closely-related species as fairies and pixies. Although they generally shun the limelight, one of the Southern Doxies has agreed to explain the differences between themselves and the more familiar Northern Doxies: A SOUTHERN DOXY: We don't haunt old mansions in Biloxi; We don't break our teeth on tapestries We don't die from Doxycide on carpets; Or get served in no snackboxes by Weasleys. I'm proud to be a Doxy from Biloxi, A place where former pests puff out their chests We don't act like fairies straight off the fruit farm Or those Pixie chicks, a species we detest We don't fly at folks in fits of fury Venom's not a thing that we deploy We don't let our kids hang out in curtains, Or get written up by Newt or Gilderoy And I'm proud to be a Doxy from Biloxi, A species that has but a single "X" If we would be "beings" we must have culture And stop acting like those Grimmauld Place rejects Quintapeds may still have quarrels in clannish warfare Ghouls and Grindlylows can be quite rude Footsteps flee the rough old hippocampus, But we Doxies keep respectful attitudes So I'm a Dixie Doxy from Biloxi, That's why I'm singing this doxology We are no longer beasts, but we're fantastic In Biloxi, Mississippi, USA - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From lunalovegood at tbernhard2000.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 2 03:17:39 2006 From: lunalovegood at tbernhard2000.yahoo.invalid (tbernhard2000) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:17:39 -0000 Subject: The Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter - why Rowling talks about death Message-ID: So, Jo has been talking about death again, and the fandom goes banana-float. But why is she on this subject now? It's not like we knew before who was going to die, or live, so the fact that she told us she's altered some character's fates is, well, utterly and fascinatingly meaningless. What IS meaningful is exactly what the fandom too often forgets, or ignores, overrun as it is by a kind of television gnosis. The fandom forgets that Rowling is writing, in all cases and at all times, about life and death. There is no other subject, there is no other theme, there is never anything else at stake in Rowling but life and death. One of the first things Harry learns at Hogwarts, besides meeting those who will be his best mates, is that a horrible death awaits those who venture into the forbidden corridor, and that forest seems dangerous too. In every book, it is death that threatens - a weak, scheming teacher, a giant snake, a creepy sociopathic boy, dementors and the grim, dragons and drowning and finally Voldemort himself, DE henchmen.... Is this because Rowling has some odd fascination with death? Or is it, as I hold, a sense that, in this world, almost every day, we are making life and death decisions (but are generally careful not to face the facts) - making decisions all the time, compromises, that keep us from precisely the spot Harry is in, originally not by choice, but by this point in the story, is there by conviction. Harry is at the centre of things, and always on that razor edge. The comfortable fandom, however, can only refer obliquely to a part of themselves that identifies with Harry and would do as he does "if compelled". (I know that the personal automobile is the most destructive thing in the world environmentally, and so I have never even wanted to own or drive one. But all the time we hear car owners, even SUV owners, talking about the environment, and still driving these things. How is that possible? I*s there an automatic justification going on, that is claimed by those with the money to own and drive such things? - no one and nothing, in actual fact, compels people to buy what they don't want to buy. What a strange concept - compelled to use and SUV! These same people talk about poor people "choosing" their poverty.) In other posts here and all over my fandom, I have said that Rowling writes continuously about a kind of ethical imperative - one that is not discrete, nor is it limited by methodological considerations - an ethical imperative that operates within a facsimile of the difficult and complex situations that obtain in our lives, written up as fantasy. Rowling insists that in all things, there is an ethical dimension (Dumbledore insisting on consulting with the judges at the second task!) that, ultimately, is what matters, regardless of the outcome. In fact, outcome-based motivation is practically anathema to Rowling - this is a criticism of both Slytherin and Ravenclaw - of ends justifies the means (sort of) and of knowledge for knowledge's sake. The first can lead to simple opportunism (rather like the GOP to the south, and that creepy little Nixon guy who turned it into the anti-intellectual redneck organization it is today) or worse, a kind of fascism. The second can lead to cultish behaviour like Luna's, which is not dangerous, and a kind of traitor mentality (Edgecombe) that looks only at the letter and not the spirit, which is much more dangerous, and to which Rowling attaches a particularly nasty stigma, no doubt a reference to collaborators. There is a circle of people in the Harry Potter series who operate within this ethical imperative - it is not based on anything as goofy as common beliefs or traits - it is based solely on whether or not people facing difficult times share courage, friendship, and love, or become self-centred, nasty little pricks, who worry only about themselves. That Rowling can be so clear about these things, and that the vast majority of the fandom, including almost all of those over the age of 10, don't get it, is weird as felt bananas. Rowling is saying: You know what's going on, don't pretend you don't know. If you act in ways that exacerbate things because you kid yourself, you are not operating within the ethical imperative, and you risk being a traitor, a mindless follower of orders (like real world armies or terrorists, where being a whole human being is anathema, cause whole human beings don't blast other people to bits) or just really ugly and stupid, like the Dursleys. So Rowling writes about death because we live in a world that is shot through with it. This is no Stephen King instruments of destruction lame-ass stuff, this is our world. Hogwarts is almost a Breslan, nascently. Without the trio and their accomplices, perhaps it would have been a Breslan by now. Certainly without Dumbledore it would have been. What if Draco had had explosives tied to him? That's the manner of ethic he has! But on the tower, he had a way out - I don't know if the bombers in the real world feel that they have a way out. Some failed one's (who weren't shot in the head) have said no, they felt there was no other way to go... We pass a nastiness on the street - do we run away? Help without endangering ouselves? Drive on? At any moment of the day, we can (and sometimes are, whether we admit it or not) faced with choices that could be really uncomfortable, but mostly we avoid it. Harry Potter cannot. He inscribes himself with a tattoo of honesty, that, although it came from that sad cow Umbridge, is the centre and circumference of his ethic. dan From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 2 16:07:31 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (sean dwyer) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 02:07:31 +1000 Subject: book 7 mayhem Message-ID: <89DFAE4E-8309-49CD-B7E2-C1494B245B29@...> Talisman: You are a wicked clever penguin. And quick with those little flippers too, as I had no sooner popped my fuzzy head out of my hidey-hole than I deleted the opening salvo. Yet, with such charming observations, you coax me out again. *preens a bit, raises one flipper to corner of beak* I have zis power... I do like your Austen comparisons, authors are such fiends for structure. I've always felt JKR is at least unconsciously influenced by Christie, it does explain howlers like Ginny. (For those unacquainted with Agatha Christie's style, her detective novels often reveal major backstory for hitherto unimportant characters that then dramatically affects the plot. Bloody Unfair is a perennial character in her works). Talisman: She'll show you and let the "other woman" live. Ha. Mayhap even rub a few well-thumbed noses in it when, as the smoke clears, Harry throws long-suffering Ginny across his broom for a mile-high victory lap. I have a horrific image ala Titanic bow scene no doubt followed by Mile High Broom Club shenanigans. *shudder* now there's some Fantasy Ginny Action. You might also be right about the Twins, which is a depressing prospect. My wicked comment about Hermione notwithstanding, given JKR's focus on the morality of the series, it would make sense for an appropriate character or two to close the it with apposite moral comparisons. For example, a stern lecture by McGonagall, a teary affirmation by Hagrid, shocked miaows from Mrs Norris, perhaps even Filch himself will come out with a hackneyed phrase or two. That's getting a bit G&S but perhaps not so far-fetched :) bluesqueak: I'd bet on Molly for the simple reason that she's *so* scared it will be one of her children or Arthur, it feels like a mislead away from her being a target herself. But Molly's hand on the clock is also pointing at 'mortal peril'; she is the death that will most affect the Weasley family - and as Harry's surrogate Mum, she'll also continue the theme of his losing all protection. This is a dreadfully seductive notion. And fervently wished for by not a few listys. Harry can then prod Ron (if still alive) with taunts of "See? There is no spoon!" and Ron can transform into The Great Weasel and marshall his horde of Battlestoats to rout the Death Eaters in the final apocalyse, bloodcurdling screams of...sorry, just a little carried away there. contritely, evil2, seer penguin to MM From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 2 23:19:01 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:19:01 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Radio TBAY - A new Prophesy? In-Reply-To: <5BB34302-AFFB-48F5-BB8D-5BCBC9418BE2@...> References: <5BB34302-AFFB-48F5-BB8D-5BCBC9418BE2@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320607021619x15589fft70291b4dc0ad3c6d@...> On 6/29/06, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > or...." > > "You don't think.....!" > > "Wouldn't be me thinking it, old boy; it'd be her. > Still, it'd explain why young Potter acts like a plonker so much of > the time, wouldn't it?" > > "And on that disturbing note, this is Kaynes, signing off for this > week." > > [cue theme] disconcerting. i foresee a hand-picked group of wizards from St. Mungos furtively mouthing "happy thoughts!" in JKR's proximity. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 3 02:35:22 2006 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:35:22 +1000 Subject: OT: But I have to share In-Reply-To: <91d14f320607021619x15589fft70291b4dc0ad3c6d@...> References: <5BB34302-AFFB-48F5-BB8D-5BCBC9418BE2@...> Message-ID: <44A90F0A.24973.3E7AAEC@...> I've recently got a digital camera - I need it for my final teaching rounds starting next week (at one of Melbourne's exclusive private schools, of the type I'd love to teach in at some point). Anyway, I've been using the camera - basically for practice - and taking photos of places that are special to me in my memories. http://drednort.livejournal.com/59127.html#cutid1 are my most recent bunch. They are of the school I attended when I was 13. The first school I was every really happy in, the first place I felt that I fitted in, the first place where I started to work out why I'd felt different all my life. In short, this was the start of my Hogwarts. And when I first read the Harry Potter books, it was Harry's reaction and discovery of the same type of things that first really drew me into them. Just felt the need to share this with some people who might get this. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 12 13:04:47 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:04:47 -0000 Subject: The Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter - why Rowling talks about death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan wrote: > In other posts here and all over my fandom, I have said that Rowling > writes continuously about a kind of ethical imperative - one that is > not discrete, nor is it limited by methodological considerations - an > ethical imperative that operates within a facsimile of the difficult > and complex situations that obtain in our lives, written up as > fantasy. Rowling insists that in all things, there is an ethical > dimension (Dumbledore insisting on consulting with the judges at the > second task!) that, ultimately, is what matters, regardless of the > outcome. In fact, outcome-based motivation is practically anathema to > Rowling... I'm not sure about this: I think there's more than one way of looking at it. It's clear that in JKR's universe (as in ours) killing is wrong. I agree with your opinion that this is not really because it results in people being dead who should have been alive. There are places where it's made clear that death is not the worst thing: that being so, you'd expect killing not to be the worst crime (or ethical violation, or whatever you want to call it). To that extent, her ethics seem not to be 'outcome-based'. However, that's not quite tantamount to saying 'killing is wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong' (I'm not sure I've understood you here, though). There is, in my view, at least one other possibility, which is that killing is wrong because of what it does to the killer. That seems to be at least part of the abhorrence of Horcruxes in the WW (it can't *just* be the daft name, can it?). Though, even there, it's not really explained *why* killing is so supremely bad. It also gives a rationale for the observation that Avada Kedavra is 'unforgivable', whereas killing someone via, say, Sectusempra presumably is not. This *is* a kind of 'outcome-based' ethics: the difference between it and, say, the MoM's ethics, is the type of outcome, not whether outcomes are involved at all. There is also the question of how, in JKR's universe, you distinguish between competing ethics. After all, Lucius Malfoy is only a hypocrite insofar as he has to be to survive. I'm sure he'd prefer a soociety that is openly oppressive of Muggles and Muggle-borns. Why should we take Dumbledore's ethics, rather than his? While this is ultimately a problem with all ethical schemes, it seems to me that if you can focus discussion on the outcomes rather than the imperatives it's easier to make progress. Even SUVs are not *intrinsically* evil. David From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 19 02:41:34 2006 From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:41:34 -0000 Subject: What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? Another Filking Reply Message-ID: What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? Early in the morning! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Early in the morning! She might escape and tell the Ministry! She might escape and tell the Ministry! She might escape and tell the Ministry! Early in the morning! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Early in the morning! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Early in the morning! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Early in the morning! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Early in the morning! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Early in the morning! McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" Early in the morning! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Early in the morning! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! Early in the morning! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Early in the morning! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Early in the morning! So what do you do with Dolores Umbridge! What do you do with Dolores Umbridge! What do you do with Dolores Umbridge! Early in the morning! I just could not get that tune out of my head tonight! Thanks so much to whoever came up with that funny phrase! Red Eye Randy From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 19 15:00:29 2006 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:00:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number Message-ID: I'm attempting to do the questions each day on the Scholastic HBP count-down, and yesterday's question required us to know Harry's Grigott's vault number. Is that in the books anywhere? We're told Sirius' vault number, and the vault number that the Philosopher's Stone is in, but I can't recall any references to Harry's vault number. Thanks! ~Phyllis P.S. Is anyone on this list going to Lumos? I'll be there, and am doing a presentation on Friday (28 July) at 3:00. I hope to be able to see some of you in person soon! From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 00:11:53 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:11:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: > > I'm attempting to do the questions each day on the Scholastic HBP > count-down, and yesterday's question required us to know Harry's > Grigott's vault number. Is that in the books anywhere? We're told > Sirius' vault number, and the vault number that the Philosopher's > Stone is in, but I can't recall any references to Harry's vault number. Not having POA, I can't check, but did Sirius mention that his vault was next to the Potters'? David From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 01:07:36 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:07:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > > I'm attempting to do the questions each day on the Scholastic HBP > count-down, and yesterday's question required us to know Harry's > Grigott's vault number. Is that in the books anywhere? We're told > Sirius' vault number, and the vault number that the Philosopher's > Stone is in, but I can't recall any references to Harry's vault number. > > Thanks! > > ~Phyllis > > P.S. Is anyone on this list going to Lumos? I'll be there, and am > doing a presentation on Friday (28 July) at 3:00. I hope to be able > to see some of you in person soon! > Pippin: Can't help you with the Gringott's number, but I'll be at Lumos. I look forward to seeing you again! Pippin From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 02:50:41 2006 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:50:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: <> I can't recall Sirius ever saying that - he only mentions his vault number at the end of PoA in the context of explaining where Harry's Firebolt came from, but there isn't a reference there as to where his vault is in relation to the Potters'. The weird thing is, the math in the problem works if you use 710 (which would be next to Sirius' 711), but the even weirder thing is that Scholastic, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, edited out Sirius' vault number in the US version of PoA. So since the question was posed on a Scholastic site, it would be strange for them to require information that can only be found in the UK version of the books in order to answer the question. Even odder still is that most of the people who answered the question did so correctly. I am truly stumped. Pippin, I will look forward to seeing you at Lumos! ~Phyllis who apologizes for misspelling "Gringotts" twice in her original post - eeek! From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 03:10:43 2006 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:10:43 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number References: Message-ID: <00dd01c6abaa$16c1afa0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Phyllis: > I'm attempting to do the questions each day on the Scholastic HBP > count-down, and yesterday's question required us to know Harry's > Grigott's vault number. Is that in the books anywhere? We're told > Sirius' vault number, and the vault number that the Philosopher's > Stone is in, but I can't recall any references to Harry's vault number. David wrote: <> Phyllis: > I can't recall Sirius ever saying that - he only mentions his vault > number at the end of PoA in the context of explaining where Harry's > Firebolt came from, but there isn't a reference there as to where his > vault is in relation to the Potters'. The weird thing is, the math in > the problem works if you use 710 (which would be next to Sirius' 711), > but the even weirder thing is that Scholastic, in their infinite (lack > of) wisdom, edited out Sirius' vault number in the US version of PoA. > So since the question was posed on a Scholastic site, it would be > strange for them to require information that can only be found in the > UK version of the books in order to answer the question. SSSusan: I think vaults which are next to one another go up in number by TWO, as with addresses on one side of the street vs. the other (odds on one, evens on the other). That would make the vaults next to Sirius's 713 and 709, not 712 and 710? As to Harry's vault number, this from the Lexicon: >>> The vaults, of which there are more than seven hundred, are opened by >>> various means. The typical ones use small keys. The high security vaults >>> have enchantments placed on their doors. The goblin strokes the door to >>> make it melt away; if anyone but a Gringotts goblin tries it, however, >>> they will be sucked through the door and trapped inside the vault. >>> Dumbledore's high security vault was number 713. Sirius Black's vault >>> was number 711 (British edition of PA). Harry's vault is number 687 >>> (SS/f). <<< Note, however, that the source for that vault number of Harry's is the FILM of SS. Siriusly Snapey Susan From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 13:40:12 2006 From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:40:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: > > I'm attempting to do the questions each day on the Scholastic HBP > count-down, and yesterday's question required us to know Harry's > Grigott's vault number. Is that in the books anywhere? We're told > Sirius' vault number, and the vault number that the Philosopher's > Stone is in, but I can't recall any references to Harry's vault number. > > Thanks! > > ~Phyllis > > P.S. Is anyone on this list going to Lumos? I'll be there, and am > doing a presentation on Friday (28 July) at 3:00. I hope to be able > to see some of you in person soon! Sigune: Of course I don't know anything about any vaults , but yes, I'll be at Lumos, presenting a paper about Slytherin House on Saturday at 2.30 :). From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 20 14:11:36 2006 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:11:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's Gringotts Vault Number In-Reply-To: <00dd01c6abaa$16c1afa0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: SSSusan: <> THANK YOU!! #687 works mathematically. But I think it's atrocious that the question requires knowledge of a factoid that's only found in the film! Films are not canon, doesn't Scholastic know that?!? If anyone's interested in doing the countdown, it's here: http://scholastic.com/harrypotter/funstuff/countdown/ This particular question was posed on July 17. I look forward to meeting you at Lumos, Sigune! ~Phyllis From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 22 22:44:45 2006 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:44:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grigott's Vault Number In-Reply-To: <00dd01c6abaa$16c1afa0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, SSSusan wrote: << I think vaults which are next to one another go up in number by TWO, as with addresses on one side of the street vs. the other (odds on one, evens on the other). That would make the vaults next to Sirius's 713 and 709, not 712 and 710? >> Is there any canon that the vault numbers are associated at all with the vault locations? I have been told that Japanese house numbers are chronological, with the first house built in the area being number 1 and so on, so that even taxi drivers, once they reach the neighborhood, have to ask locals where number so-and-so is. Maybe Goblin logic numbers vault in some system that seems totally random to humans. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 25 15:13:26 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:13:26 +0100 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites Message-ID: <50C5B6DA-85CF-411F-AA55-3B12F757B23F@...> Had an off-site mail exchange - ostensibly about Possession Theory, but wandering into other areas, Hxs for one. they aren't my favourite plot device by a long way - too messy and vague IMO, but we're stuck with them. My correspondent (dung, as it happens) mentioned that Hxs don't necessarily preclude PT - after all Tom had to find out about them from somewhere - and it wouldn't be the Hogwarts library. Why not Sally? Possible. 'Soul' is not a synonym for 'powers' in any usual comparison. But take her line of thought further - supposing the Hxs pre-date Tom? What if they're Sally's? Not unreasonable, I'd have thought. He claimed to be No.1 in the wizarding charts, been there, done that, sought immortality, power, all that good stuff. Who fits the bill better? And the Hxs themselves - HH's cup, SS's ring, possibly RR's wand, though probably not GG's sword (if the Tarot connection holds up). Heirlooms. Really old stuff. Who is more likely to be able to lay hands on artifacts associated with the Founders? Tom (after 1,000 years) or Sally (the wizard on the spot)? And if it was Sally then we can make a good guess at what happened to the Founders, can't we? So Sally!Essence is *using* the Voldy construct to collect Sally Hxs manufactured centuries ago. Sally wants to come back. If correct (bloody big if, I'll admit) then the Diary probably wasn't a Hx within the meaning of the act. Never did like it anyway. If there was only one 'life' shared between her and Tom, then Ginny should have died when that life was snuffed by the Basilisks deadly dentition. Besides, we've been led to believe that when a Hx goes blooey there's some nasty magical fallout in the vicinity - and I don't recall any in the Chamber. Hm. An on the spur of the moment hypothesis. Rough, needs work. Comments please. Oh - and there's a sort of real-life parallel, if you're prepared to stretch a point or two. The parasitologists among us will be familiar with Toxoplasma gondii. Interesting beastie. It has a life cycle switching between cat intestine, followed by excretion, then it's picked up by rats - where it infects the brain and causes behavioural changes that make it highly likely that the said rat will be caught and eaten by a cat - thus perpetuating the cycle. It nearly makes sense, depending on who you cast as what. Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 26 11:05:38 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:05:38 -0000 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites In-Reply-To: <50C5B6DA-85CF-411F-AA55-3B12F757B23F@...> Message-ID: > Had an off-site mail exchange - ostensibly about Possession Theory, but wandering into other areas, Hxs for one. they aren't my favourite plot device by a long way - too messy and vague IMO, but we're stuck with them. > > My correspondent (dung, as it happens) mentioned that Hxs don't > necessarily preclude PT - after all Tom had to find out about them from somewhere - and it wouldn't be the Hogwarts library. Why not Sally? > > Possible. > 'Soul' is not a synonym for 'powers' in any usual comparison. > But take her line of thought further - supposing the Hxs pre-date > Tom? What if they're Sally's? Not unreasonable, I'd have thought. He claimed to be No.1 in the wizarding charts, been there, done that, sought immortality, power, all that good stuff. Who fits the bill better? > > And the Hxs themselves - HH's cup, SS's ring, possibly RR's wand, > though probably not GG's sword (if the Tarot connection holds up). > Heirlooms. Really old stuff. Who is more likely to be able to lay > hands on artifacts associated with the Founders? Tom (after 1,000 > years) or Sally (the wizard on the spot)? > > And if it was Sally then we can make a good guess at what happened to the Founders, can't we? > > So Sally!Essence is *using* the Voldy construct to collect Sally Hxs manufactured centuries ago. Sally wants to come back. > Dung: I think the problem is then, why did Tom (by that time already Voldemort, and possessed by Sally) have to ask Slughorn about them at all? How about... Sally had been working to a 3-Hx plan (three's magical, isn't it?) but got caught, AKed and stuffed in the Chamber until either someone worked out how to get rid of him (since nobody could find the Horseradish) or the Heir came to set him free and revive his dream? That would give Tom a reason to try to confirm that perhaps a 7-hx plan would be surer. So you could have 3 from Sally, and 3 from Tom, and the mingled Sally!Tom would be the 7th. Then Harry's Horcrux would be an unintended 8th, a piece of the mingled Sally!Tom soul, weakening the whole shebang. Sally's would probably be the Locket, the Cup and the Something of Ravenclaw, Tom's would be the Ring, the Diary and ... um ... well I *like* Nagini, so I'll stick her in there too until someone thinks of something better. Kneasy: > If correct (bloody big if, I'll admit) then the Diary probably wasn't a Hx within the meaning of the act. Never did like it anyway. If there was only one 'life' shared between her and Tom, then Ginny > should have died when that life was snuffed by the Basilisks deadly dentition. Besides, we've been led to believe that when a Hx goes blooey there's some nasty magical fallout in the vicinity - and I don't recall any in the Chamber. > Dung: Not necessarily. There was a terrible curse on that ring, we're never led to believe that it was destroying the Horsebox that fried DD's hand rather than just a protective curse when he was breaking through Tom's enchantments in the ruin of the Gaunt House; on the other hand, the diary was *meant* to be read and used, so grilling the wielder's extremities and then expecting them to make it all the way down to the Chamber would be a bit, well, unsubtle. Kneasy: > Hm. An on the spur of the moment hypothesis. Rough, needs work. > Comments please. > Dung: I don't believe a word of it, but it's fun nonetheless, needs further thought; thematic relevance to the books etc. It was the cries of "AK's don't do that!" in discussions of Horcrux- Harry over on HPfGU which reminded me that there were other possibilities I'd almost forgotten about but that others had covered. Had completely forgotten about old Sally. I'm most interested in the possibility that a possession attempt at GH was what made Harry into a Horcrux, and whether Lily's sacrifice could have had something to do with it's nature. Kneasy: > Oh - and there's a sort of real-life parallel, if you're prepared to stretch a point or two. > The parasitologists among us will be familiar with Toxoplasma gondii. Interesting beastie. It has a life cycle switching between cat intestine, followed by excretion, then it's picked up by rats - where it infects the brain and causes behavioural changes that make > it highly likely that the said rat will be caught and eaten by a cat - thus perpetuating the cycle. > Dung: With extra parasites! Isn't that the one that has also been linked to behavioural changes in humans, like schizophrenia? (I'm sure I've read something about it on the web in the last few months.) My favourite's the worm that gets into snail tentacles (a brief google tells me it's a trematode called Leucochloridium) where it swells up to look like a juicy caterpillar. It also stops the snail hiding in its shell and makes it seek out sunny positions ... where birds are searching for fat juicy caterpillars. The eggs are excreted by the bird to be eaten again by another snail. And so the happy dance continues. > It nearly makes sense, depending on who you cast as what. > > Kneasy > Dung: Can I be the s...? oh. No, perhaps not. Dung. Who's actually really had enough of both parasites and parasitologists, having just fought off another horde of Plasmodium, during which her teeth were chattering so hard she thought she'd break the thermometer. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 26 13:22:27 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:22:27 -0000 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Dung: > I think the problem is then, why did Tom (by that time already > Voldemort, and possessed by Sally) have to ask Slughorn about them > at all? Good question. Ask me another. Hmm... plot requirements? The need to get some explication/explanation into the realm of the reader? IIRC (and this wasn't about JKR) fantasy writers sometimes complain how difficult it is to introduce new concepts in a neat and apparently natural fashion. Not claiming that that's what Sluggy is for here, but it would be an understandable reason for the backstory. Plus if Tom hadn't at that time been totally subsumed he might be looking for confirmation of what he'd been told. Guessing, but it's the best I can come up with pre-lunch. > > How about... Sally had been working to a 3-Hx plan (three's magical, > isn't it?) but got caught, AKed and stuffed in the Chamber until > either someone worked out how to get rid of him (since nobody could > find the Horseradish) or the Heir came to set him free and revive > his dream? That would give Tom a reason to try to confirm that > perhaps a 7-hx plan would be surer. > > So you could have 3 from Sally, and 3 from Tom, and the mingled > Sally!Tom would be the 7th. Then Harry's Horcrux would be an > unintended 8th, a piece of the mingled Sally!Tom soul, weakening the > whole shebang. > Wouldn't surprise me if there weren't 7 extant after all. Sure, that's the general expectation based on DD's whitterings, but just because there *were* seven doesn't guarantee that there are 7 still cluttering up the landscape. Some may have returned to base already. Gonna be a helluva long book if they haven't. Never did warm to the idea of Harry!Horsecocks either - having one and a seventh soul seems a bit excessive somehow. And why should off-cuts of soul mean power transfer? Power is learned, developed, a soul just *is*, immutable annd indivisible, right from the beginning, in my cosmology. I'm not happy. You can tell, can't you? > Not necessarily. There was a terrible curse on that ring, we're > never led to believe that it was destroying the Horsebox that fried > DD's hand rather than just a protective curse when he was breaking > through Tom's enchantments in the ruin of the Gaunt House; on the > other hand, the diary was *meant* to be read and used, so grilling > the wielder's extremities and then expecting them to make it all the > way down to the Chamber would be a bit, well, unsubtle. > Exactly. I thought the idea was that Hxs would be hidden, safe and protected. Tampering by unauthorised persons strictly forbidden. So why have one whose function is to be dipped into by others? Does not compute. And if the Diary was a Hx, containing soul, power or whatever, then it seems unlikely that Ginny would be able to discard it quite so easily. Once it started exercising mind control she'd be caught, subject to its every whim, potentially with lots of power at her disposal: a Tom reprise. Or maybe a Bella Weasley in the making. Wouldn't that be fun? Harry'd have some fascinating dates, for sure. But that didn't happen. In fact it was no more dangerous (less so in some respects) than other cursed objects - the book one can't stop reading, for example. > > It was the cries of "AK's don't do that!" in discussions of Horcrux- > Harry over on HPfGU which reminded me that there were other > possibilities I'd almost forgotten about but that others had > covered. Had completely forgotten about old Sally. I'm most > interested in the possibility that a possession attempt at GH was > what made Harry into a Horcrux, and whether Lily's sacrifice could > have had something to do with it's nature. > Sally. He's the one, I'm convinced of it. Has to be, in fact. It's the logical conclusion of Possession Theory. He's the main protagonist, the source of evil that everything is tied to. The puller of strings, the final opponent young Potter will be up against. "Slytherin will help you become great," thus spake the Hat - and IMO it didn't mean Slytherin House, it meant Sally himself, 'cos it could see him inside the Potter noggin. But hopefully not as a Hx. Which admittedly makes it a bit difficult when incorporating the current understanding of what's going on. Nobody ever claimed it would be easy. > Dung. > Who's actually really had enough of both parasites and > parasitologists, having just fought off another horde of Plasmodium, > during which her teeth were chattering so hard she thought she'd > break the thermometer. > You have my sympathy. Which flavour did you get? Me, it's just the opposite - I developed a severe allergy to a range of anti-malarials years ago while in Africa. No more foetid mosquito infested swamps on my travel itinerary. By order. Hooray! Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 27 11:59:11 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:59:11 -0000 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Never did warm to the idea of Harry!Horsecocks either - having one and a seventh soul seems a bit excessive somehow. And why should off- cuts of soul mean power transfer? Power is learned, developed, a soul just *is*, immutable annd indivisible, right from the beginning, in my cosmology. > I'm not happy. > You can tell, can't you? > Yep, I can tell. Unfortunately JKR *doesn't* think that souls are indivisible, nor, as far as I can tell, immutable. And Harry didn't have to do any developing or learning to get his Parseltongue to work, it was just there, ready and waiting. I'm surprised you don't like Harry!Hedgehog. I'd have thought you'd enjoy the implications, Harry having to die (or, imo more interestingly, kill) to get rid of the last Hx and have a proper go at the now mortal Voldybeast. Ties up lots of threads, explains the scar connection amongst other things. > > Dung. > > Who's actually really had enough of both parasites and > > parasitologists, having just fought off another horde of Plasmodium, > > during which her teeth were chattering so hard she thought she'd > > break the thermometer. > > > > You have my sympathy. > Which flavour did you get? > Me, it's just the opposite - I developed a severe allergy to a range of > anti-malarials years ago while in Africa. > No more foetid mosquito infested swamps on my travel itinerary. > By order. > Hooray! > Not sure, but I think it's mostly falciparum we get around here. Actually the mosquito-infested swamps (or at least the ones I frequent) are pretty malaria-free, I think I got this last dose at a house party in the city. Grumble grumble. If your travel itinerary is limited, you have *my* sympathy; I'd still rather put up with the parasitologists. I mean, parasites. For now, at least. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 27 17:03:39 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:03:39 -0000 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Yep, I can tell. Unfortunately JKR *doesn't* think that souls are > indivisible, nor, as far as I can tell, immutable. And Harry didn't > have to do any developing or learning to get his Parseltongue to > work, it was just there, ready and waiting. > > I'm surprised you don't like Harry!Hedgehog. I'd have thought you'd > enjoy the implications, Harry having to die (or, imo more > interestingly, kill) to get rid of the last Hx and have a proper go > at the now mortal Voldybeast. Ties up lots of threads, explains the > scar connection amongst other things. > > Oh, he was going to die anyway, or so I'd hoped - and along with a small multitude of others, with a bit of luck. But horseboxes - they're in the list of possible plot patches that I mentioned previously. Doesn't seem to have been thought through, unlike most of the other plot devices. All sorts of questions arise - how many pieces can it be divided into; are they all the same size; if so, how, when the splitting is performed piecemeal at ad hoc intervals; is a fraction is equal to the whole; aren't souls supposed to be the one indestructible personal part? - and so on. I get the impression that someone has painted themselves into a corner and hxs are the only way to extricate themselves from a sticky situation, plotwise. Could be wrong, but there again.... Folklore regales us with tales of wizards who stuff their souls in a safe deposit while they get up to magical mischief, (and they seem to function quite satisfactorily in its abscence - a plus for the argument that the soul is not the source of magical power), soul-stealers (interesting plot possibilities there) and then there's avatars (strictly speaking the incarnation of a deity, but that could be glossed over, nobody'd notice), but snipping souls like coupons whenever one feels like it is stretching it a bit for my taste. Be difficult trying to explain that one to the Spanish Inquisition. > > Not sure, but I think it's mostly falciparum we get around here. Ooh! Nothing but the best for Dung. > Actually the mosquito-infested swamps (or at least the ones I > frequent) are pretty malaria-free, I think I got this last dose at a > house party in the city. Grumble grumble. If your travel itinerary > is limited, you have *my* sympathy; I'd still rather put up with the > parasitologists. I mean, parasites. For now, at least. > Nah. No sympathy needed, thanks. Spent a lot of time in a lot of places in Africa, (see list of places where I've been arrested - rule No. 1, it's always the wrong visa, especially at a land border crossing miles from anywhere), ten years in the Middle East, another 5 years commuting out there (usually monthly), years (or it feels like it) at check-ins, check-outs, customs, immigration, (with fixers intent on baksheesh/dash/cadeau), waiting lounges with no a/c - all for the inestimable joys of lost baggage and airline food. Then having to get to grips with places hot, foreign and usually not particularly salubrious. Now I stay in my own little lair and avoid any kind of travel whenever possible. In the past two years I've turned down contracts that required travel to Russia, Pakistan, the Virgin Islands, Iraq, Mozambique and Barbados. No regrets. A burnt-out case. Kneasy From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 27 21:35:04 2006 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:35:04 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites References: Message-ID: <00ba01c6b1c4$964d6a00$482fdcd1@...> But horseboxes - they're in the list of possible plot patches that I mentioned previously. Doesn't seem to have been thought through, unlike most of the other plot devices. All sorts of questions arise - how many pieces can it be divided into; are they all the same size; if so, how, when the splitting is performed piecemeal at ad hoc intervals; is a fraction is equal to the whole; aren't souls supposed to be the one indestructible personal part? - and so on. I get the impression that someone has painted themselves into a corner and hxs are the only way to extricate themselves from a sticky situation, plotwise. Could be wrong, but there again.... Gatta now: I'm with you there. Sounds like a cute and clever plot device that came along with unanticipated baggage, rather like the house elves. Nah. No sympathy needed, thanks. Spent a lot of time in a lot of places in Africa, (see list of places where I've been arrested - rule No. 1, it's always the wrong visa, especially at a land border crossing miles from anywhere), ten years in the Middle East, another 5 years commuting out there (usually monthly), years (or it feels like it) at check-ins, check-outs, customs, immigration, (with fixers intent on baksheesh/dash/cadeau), waiting lounges with no a/c - all for the inestimable joys of lost baggage and airline food. Then having to get to grips with places hot, foreign and usually not particularly salubrious. Now I stay in my own little lair and avoid any kind of travel whenever possible. In the past two years I've turned down contracts that required travel to Russia, Pakistan, the Virgin Islands, Iraq, Mozambique and Barbados. No regrets. A burnt-out case. Kneasy Gatta now: I hear you. I too hate to travel, fly, go by train, ride in cars..., having spent most of my childhood and youth doing it and contracting, among other things, tuberculosis in Panama and a chronic sensitivity to motion sickness on the way home as a kid. Now I don't even commute to work. It's lovely. Who, by the way, came up with this idiotic canned formatting with all the quaint little floating text boxes? Anybody come up with a way to turn it off, other than, as I do, editing the HTML source? Purrs! Gatta Quantum me cogitis omnes! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 28 11:16:57 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:16:57 +0100 Subject: Wave your wand, Harry! Message-ID: <95441BAA-2028-4378-B078-7DEEE432D166@...> Dear, oh dear: http://timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2289090,00.html Mind you, it could be the start of an exciting trend - Hermione transformed to play Messalina in the remake of Caligula, perhaps? From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 29 17:46:39 2006 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:46:39 -0000 Subject: Wave your wand, Harry! In-Reply-To: <95441BAA-2028-4378-B078-7DEEE432D166@...> Message-ID: Barry brought to our attention: > Dear, oh dear: > > http://timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2289090,00.html Ginger reads the article and shudders: I've changed my mind. I do not want to see Firenze play a bigger role in book 7. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 31 13:32:28 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:32:28 -0000 Subject: Of Hxs and parasites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy: > > But horseboxes - they're in the list of possible plot patches that I > mentioned previously. Doesn't seem to have been thought through, unlike > most of the other plot devices. All sorts of questions arise - how many > pieces can it be divided into; are they all the same size; if so, how, when the > splitting is performed piecemeal at ad hoc intervals; is a fraction is equal to > the whole; aren't souls supposed to be the one indestructible personal part? > - and so on. I get the impression that someone has painted themselves > into a corner and hxs are the only way to extricate themselves from a > sticky situation, plotwise. > Could be wrong, but there again.... > Pippin: Nope, I think they've been there all along, or at any rate since Book Two, when we learned that Sally left. The school survived when it should have died, but in a weakened, fragmented state, unable to heal itself. Sound familiar? And we don't know *why* Sally up and quit the place, do we. I'd bet there's a death at the heart of it all, a death for which Sally alone was blamed, when in truth none were innocent and all were responsible. We all know Salazar left something of himself behind. The question we should be asking, IMO, is, What did he take with him? Return that to the school and the Houses can exist in harmony once more. Pippin