From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 3 19:03:45 2006 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:03:45 -0000 Subject: Sorcerous Stone? Message-ID: Here is a very very minor point that I've been wondering about. In Order of the Phoenix, Harry and a bunch of students are in the Hogshead tavern, with Harry presenting his idea for teaching them DADA. Several of the students praise Harry's previous accomplishments against Voldemort. Neville says that Harry rescued the "sorcerous" stone, and Hermione corrects him by saying "Sorcerer's." In the original (British) books, the stone was called the Philosopher's Stone (as it should have been), not the Sorcerer's Stone. So, what does Neville call the stone in the UK version of OoP? Phosphorus Stone? ("Sorcerous stone" always struck me as a kind of lame error; it sounds almost the same as "Sorcerer's stone.") By the way, if House Elves had house cats, they'd probably look just like this: http://www.dailykitten.com/archives/536-Mickey.html -- Judy, getting back into Harry Potter after a busy summer From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 3 21:16:51 2006 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:16:51 -0000 Subject: Sorcerous Stone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote in : << In the original (British) books, the stone was called the Philosopher's Stone (as it should have been), not the Sorcerer's Stone. So, what does Neville call the stone in the UK version of OoP? >> Philological Stone. And the bathed kitty was adorable. From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 4 21:19:31 2006 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:19:31 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort Message-ID: Bloomsbury had a poll to vote for the best villian in children's lit. Moldyshorts won (will wonders never cease?). http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/323 Anyway, Jo has responded, including this tidbit on her plans for him in book 7: "I am sorry not to be there in person to join your celebration of literary evil, but Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in exile. "I have always felt that cardboard baddies make weak heroes and that Harry deserved a really deluxe model, so I have done my best to make Lord Voldemort a real person, red eyed and snakelike though he might be. He, of course, is one of the reasons the Harry Potter books are often banned, but I remain of the firm belief that we need our imaginary villains, the better to brace ourselves for the ones we need to fight in reality." Now *there's* fiendish glee for you. Anne From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 12 14:24:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:24:00 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Annemehr" wrote: > > Anyway, Jo has responded, including this tidbit on her plans for him > in book 7: > > "I am sorry not to be there in person to join your celebration of > literary evil, but Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at > the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly > glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read > enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the > legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in > exile. > > "I have always felt that cardboard baddies make weak heroes and that > Harry deserved a really deluxe model, so I have done my best to make > Lord Voldemort a real person, red eyed and snakelike though he might > be. He, of course, is one of the reasons the Harry Potter books are > often banned, but I remain of the firm belief that we need our > imaginary villains, the better to brace ourselves for the ones we > need to fight in reality." Kathy W: Anne sent the above quote. I'm surprised it didn't generate at least a few comments. A similar post at TOL didn't get a rise either. You'd think lines like, "grisly glory... aching for legroom...deluxe model..." would have gotten something. My first thought was "grisly"---**grisly?** Just what is she planning? I don't like the sounds of this. Are we going to find out what sort of Dark Magic results in wounds similar to Moody's? Is Greyback going to get free reign? Or, does no one believe her? From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 12 16:57:34 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:57:34 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320609120957y1bb1b1acxe3245f0ca11b2210@...> On 9/13/06, potioncat wrote: > Kathy W: > Anne sent the above quote. I'm surprised it didn't generate at least > a few comments. A similar post at TOL didn't get a rise either. You'd > think lines like, "grisly glory... aching for legroom...deluxe > model..." would have gotten something. Probably waiting for someone else to have an opinion first, classic deadlock ;) Or, to be more kind, it's likely to remind us that this is the final book, and we still have the luxury of uncertainty. > My first thought was "grisly"---**grisly?** Just what is she > planning? I don't like the sounds of this. Are we going to find out > what sort of Dark Magic results in wounds similar to Moody's? Is > Greyback going to get free reign? > > Or, does no one believe her? I have no trouble believing her, that's the problem really. It may well be dictacted by the demands of the story, but the temptation to see meta-story imperatives, particularly a need to avoid ending up like Conan Doyle, is particularly difficult to overcome when Jo says such things. There will be an End. The Ultimate Baddy needs to demonstrate his Ultimate Badness in unavoidably Permanent Ways. Stopping him is going to lead to Irrevocable Loss and Resolute Finality with more than a dash of Didactic Parallels. After all, it's the parallels that make this world, it was a deliberate choice. But it paints Jo into a corner, and I wonder how she intends to avoid coloured feet. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 12 17:10:20 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:10:20 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kathy W: > You'd > think lines like, "grisly glory... aching for legroom...deluxe > model..." would have gotten something. You are right - there's significant canon there. We now understand that Voldemort's robes were *tight-fitting*. As he relaxes into his deluxe robes he will undergo a Scrooge-like transformation, spreading sweetness and light and bringing clarity and simplicity where formerly there was only Dumbledore's devious scheming. In the final chapter, he will cure Snape's bitterness with a wave of his wand, turn Greyback into a lovable puppy, persuade the Centaurs and Wizengamot to reach a new accord, and teach Dobby grammatical English. James, Lily, and Sirius will get a new lease of life as Inferi. Only Harry, whose scar will render him proof against all Voldemort's help, will be left crying in his butterbeer, a dinosaur whose grisly warrior skills are unfitted for the new age. David From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 12 22:54:04 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:54:04 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > "Annemehr" wrote: > > "I am sorry not to be there in person to join your celebration of literary evil, but Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in > > exile. > > > Kathy W: > Anne sent the above quote. I'm surprised it didn't generate at least a few comments. A similar post at TOL didn't get a rise either. You'd think lines like, "grisly glory... aching for legroom...deluxe model..." would have gotten something. > > My first thought was "grisly"---**grisly?** Just what is she > planning? I don't like the sounds of this. Are we going to find out what sort of Dark Magic results in wounds similar to Moody's? Is > Greyback going to get free reign? > > Or, does no one believe her? > Dung: I'm rather cheered. I was thinking the other day, it's got to be darkest before dawn, right? So, Scrimgeour's dead, Voldemort's in control of the Ministry, and all supporters of DD are now in hiding, because they're being hunted by the aurors? Or, Scrimgeour's dead, A Death Eater is puppet Minister for Magic, Voldemort's Headmaster of Hogwarts and has burned DD's portrait? Or, Hogwarts doesn't reopen, the Death Eaters get in and make it their base, (probably killing Hagrid) and fortify it against the aurors and the Ministry. (I like this one, because then you could have Voldemort not being able to get into the Head's office because he's not the rightful Head, McGonagall is - and thus he can't get at the sword or at DD's painting - but Harry, with his intricate knowledge of the Castle and the help of the invisibility cloak and the Marauder's map manages to get in because the password is clearly raspberry jam. - Ha! And when he gets in there he finds Snape talking to DD's portrait...) Any takers? From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 13 20:25:31 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:25:31 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Dung: > > I'm rather cheered. I was thinking the other day, it's got to be > darkest before dawn, right? > > So, Scrimgeour's dead, Voldemort's in control of the Ministry, and > all supporters of DD are now in hiding, because they're being hunted > by the aurors? > > Or, Scrimgeour's dead, A Death Eater is puppet Minister for Magic, > Voldemort's Headmaster of Hogwarts and has burned DD's portrait? > > Or, Hogwarts doesn't reopen, the Death Eaters get in and make it > their base, (probably killing Hagrid) and fortify it against the > aurors and the Ministry. > > (I like this one, because then you could have Voldemort not being > able to get into the Head's office because he's not the rightful > Head, McGonagall is - and thus he can't get at the sword or at DD's > painting - but Harry, with his intricate knowledge of the Castle and > the help of the invisibility cloak and the Marauder's map manages to > get in because the password is clearly raspberry jam. - Ha! And when > he gets in there he finds Snape talking to DD's portrait...) > > Any takers? > All very well, but not exactly grisly, are they? To be grisly it needs the yuck factor. Grisly would be if Voldy had to open up Harry's skull like an unfolding rose and rummage around in the porrage stuff for his missing fragment. And wiping his hands on his shirtfront afterwards. Grisly would be Neville kissing Trevor in the deluded belief that it'll turn him into Miss Wonderful - and getting Madeline Bassett. Or Crookshanks getting hit by a truck and being stenciled down the road by heavy-duty Dunlops. Or Luna being eaten by trolls. Won't happen of course. But I can dream. And if the long-anticipated Weasley cull doesn't happen I shall be seriously pissed. Kneasy From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 14 01:43:20 2006 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:43:20 -0000 Subject: Connections...again Message-ID: This is a duplicate since I will be sending this to TOL as well since it originated there. Dumbledore may certainly be dead but will his spirit live on to give direction? My thoughts start with the connection (I wrote about in message 109837 before HBP) between Dumbledore, Fawkes and Harry. I hadn't thought about the connection again until recently when I reread The Phoenix Lament and found a further connection to my first summary. Basically it goes something like this: (1) Harry's first true introduction to Fawkes was hearing his arrival by way of phoenix song in the Chamber immediately after saying "He's not as gone as you might think!" {COS pg. 315} Dumbledore confides to Harry that only true loyalty to him could have caused such a reaction from the phoenix. This is when and how the connection may have been created between the three of them. (2) The next connection that we see is in the Priori Incantatem chapter of GOF when the brother wands that have Fawkes cores, connect and form a webbed dome which simultaneously induced music: "And then an unearthly and beautiful sound filled the air It was coming from every thread of the light-spun web[ ]" {GOF pg. 664} This was a sound that Harry recognized because he heard it before; it was the phoenix song. To Harry "It was the sound of hope" {GOF pg. 664} and "He felt as though the song were inside him instead of just around him It was the sound he connected with Dumbledore "{GOF pg. 664} This connection Harry made between the sound of the phoenix song and Dumbledore was giving Harry orders: "Don't break the connection." (3) In the OOP we have yet another example of the connection between the Phoenix, Dumbledore and Harry but different from the first examples. This time the sight of Dumbledore induces the feeling that the Phoenix song gives Harry. "A powerful emotion had risen in Harry's chest at the sight of Dumbledore, a fortified, hopeful feeling rather like that which phoenix song gave him. {OOP pg. 139} (4) The final connection we see in HBP, there are three separate instances. (a) Harry had just announced to the persons visiting Bill that Dumbledore was dead: "-more Death Eaters arrived ? and then Snape ? and Snape did it. The Avada Kedavra." Harry couldn't go on. {HBP pg. 614} At these words Madam Pomphrey bursts into tears and Ginny whispers "Shh! Listen!" {HBP pg. 614} This is when everyone notices that the phoenix song is filling the air outside but Harry felt as though "[ ] the music was inside him, not without: It was his own grief turned magically to song that echoed across the grounds and through the castle windows." {HBP pg. 615} (b) Again we see that Harry's statement to Bill's room of visitors of Snape's comment "He shouted, `It's over," [ ] "He'd done what he'd meant to do." {HBP pg. 621} is directly followed by more feelings induced from the phoenix song, which Harry relates to Dumbledore when he thinks what has happened and will happen to Dumbledore's body. (c) The final mention occurs at Dumbledore's funeral {HBP pgs. 644- 45} directly after Harry has come to terms with the fact that Dumbledore really is dead and that there was no one left to protect him. At almost this precise moment "white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body", white smoke was obscuring the body which made strange shapes one of which Harry thought was a phoenix flying "joyfully into the blue". In example (1) Harry unknowingly calls Fawkes by making a loyal statement that Dumbledore is the greatest wizard that ever lived and is not as gone as Voldemort thinks he is. Voldemort snickers and comments that Dumbledore sent Harry a songbird and an old hat. Dumbledore told Harry that his loyalty called Fawkes to him and yet Voldemort states that Fawkes was sent: "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender!" {COS pg. 316} However it may be important to notice that although Harry didn't know what use Fawkes or the hat could be, Harry took comfort that at least he wasn't alone. (Unusual that Harry would take comfort, I would think, to not feel alone with a bird and an old hat that tells you were you will be sorted) In example (2) Harry's wand, which was created from Fawkes feather, spins a web that not only soothingly sings to Harry but also gives orders to Harry of what he should do. Now the music seems to not only be around him but in him to the point of telling Harry what to do. In example (3) the sight of Dumbledore induces the same feeling Harry found comforting about the phoenix song he heard in the graveyard. This example is quite unique since Harry doesn't actually hear the song but equates how the song made him feel to be the same as seeing Dumbledore; it gave Harry hope. (This makes me think of a quote from the bible "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 Harry possesses great quantities of love; Harry feels hope inside his very soul when he hears phoenix song; Faith is all that is left for Harry to capture of the three.) In example (4a) we find the announcement that Dumbledore is dead at the hand of Snape directly followed by phoenix song that Harry felt was in him and about him (his own grief over Dumbledore's death). In example (4b) Harry recounts the storyline of what happened that night with all parties involved and when he reaches the concluding statement that Snape had done what he meant to do, Harry finds himself lost in the music from the phoenix song thinking about Dumbledore's body, which in turn causes Harry to ask for a funeral. The final example (4c) is my favorite because it happens like an answer to a question. Harry is questioning himself and the loss of his mentors and protectors to a final conclusion that he is all alone when all of a sudden Harry envisions a phoenix joyfully flying from the place were his mentors body lay into the blue sky above. It's almost like Dumbledore could read Harry's thoughts and gave him a sign that he's not alone. Just a few extra thoughts Examples (2) and (4a) are quite similar since both of these instances conclude with Harry feeling the phoenix song is inside him. It isn't simply that Harry hears the song but that he feels the song strongly enough that it becomes part of him, like a bond. Examples (4a) and (4b) also have something in common both instances of phoenix song occur just after Harry concludes important messages about Snape killing Dumbledore. The first message is that Snape did the Avada Kedavra the second message was "He'd done what he'd meant to do." I will end this with but one more thought from COS pgs. 263-64: "However," said Dumbledore [ ] "you will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." Is Dumbledore really gone remember; "He's not as gone as you might think!" Snow From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 14 10:13:11 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:13:11 -0000 Subject: Jo on Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Dung: > > > > I'm rather cheered. I was thinking the other day, it's got to be > > darkest before dawn, right? > Kneasy: > All very well, but not exactly grisly, are they? > To be grisly it needs the yuck factor. Dung: Fair enough, I was thinking more about the leg-room. Kneasy: > Grisly would be if Voldy had to open up Harry's skull like an unfolding > rose and rummage around in the porrage stuff for his missing fragment. > And wiping his hands on his shirtfront afterwards. > Grisly would be Neville kissing Trevor in the deluded belief that it'll turn him > into Miss Wonderful - and getting Madeline Bassett. > Or Crookshanks getting hit by a truck and being stenciled down the road > by heavy-duty Dunlops. > Or Luna being eaten by trolls. > Won't happen of course. But I can dream. > Dung: Yeah, and on that score Potioncat's right, I don't believe her. (JKR, rather than Potioncat, obviously.) AKs, Imperius and Crucio are far too clean for that sort of thing, they just don't lend themselves to grisliness. Though inferi might, I suppose; particularly if they're made from people Harry once knew. I've always had the impression that Voldy and the DEs enjoy seeing fear much more than they enjoy seeing blood, anyhow. But where has JKR really written any good grisle? There isn't actually a lot of it in the books. A few examples spring to mind... Troll bogies hardly count. She could have got good and detailed with Quirrell touching Harry, stench of burning flesh and whatnot, but no; and moreover, Harry passes out before the good bits. Likewise, the Basilisk was a great opportunity, missed. We didn't even *see* Buckbeak's execution, nor what Lupin got up to in the forest, and Dementors, unpleasant as they are, don't count as grisly, neither. Cedric's death? Nope. Dementor attack at Little Whinging? Nope. Sirius' death? Nope, - in fact the injuries sustained throughout the MOM battle were far more comical than disturbing. Brains, planets, veil, baby-headed DE... No grisle. Too *clean*. Never found out anything except the Bones and Vance murders were 'nasty'. Fenrir Greyback and Bill's disfiguration had potential too, but we didn't see the action, and the results were hardly dwelt on. On the other hand: 1. Wormtail cradling his stump - tick (In fact I'd put in quite a bit from the ending of GoF, from the acromantula in the maze to the priori incantatem, where it all got clean again.) 2. Hagrid's story about the giants' cultural idiosyncrasies - tick 3. Uhmm... 4. Oh yeah, the lake full of inferi marching slowly towards a panicking Harry who fires sectumsempra at them, that was cool. So she *can* do it, but I reckon she's better at frightening than gross. > And if the long-anticipated Weasley cull doesn't happen I shall be seriously > pissed. > > Kneasy > Dung: Well we've got a wedding coming up. They're usually good for a few tears. My money's on Arthur copping it at the wedding (and fingers crossed, Fleur will be a Weasley by the time she gets it too), then the twins later in the book. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 14 21:47:46 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:47:46 -0000 Subject: OMG! Message-ID: jkrowling.com update. JKR was almost prevented from taking the manuscript (literally so - parts were handwritten) of Book 7 onto the aeroplane home from New York. Just imagine, if we had been deprived of Book 7 by the mindless paranoia security officials, it would have meant that THE TERRORISTS WOULD HAVE WON!!! Talking of mindless paranoia, there's something about Dumbledore and the invisibility cloak, too, for the theorists to get their teeth into. David From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 15 02:27:26 2006 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:27:26 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: <> I feel as if I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm having difficulty understanding why an airline would give her a hard time about taking a bunch of papers on board the plane? Presumably her manuscript is not in liquid form, which is what they seemed to care most about at the time. David: <> I've always been more intrigued by how Dumbledore was able to become invisible without a cloak (which has never been adequately answered, has it?) than as to why James left it with him in the first place. I just assumed James knew he and his family were being targeted by Voldemort, so he left the cloak with Dumbledore for safekeeping (since presumably he didn't need it, given that he was being protected - or so he thought - by the Fidelius Charm). Although I suppose once Pettigrew betrayed the Potters, they could have hidden under the cloak when Voldemort approached their home. Hmmm. ~Phyllis who spent a mindless, non-paranoid day packing her office in preparation for an office move tomorrow From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 15 15:45:44 2006 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:45:44 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > David wrote: > > < parts were handwritten) of Book 7 onto the aeroplane home from New > York.>> > Phyllis: > I feel as if I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm having > difficulty understanding why an airline would give her a hard time > about taking a bunch of papers on board the plane? Presumably her > manuscript is not in liquid form, which is what they seemed to care > most about at the time. > Pippin: Probably the manuscript was excess (a purse plus a carryon plus the manuscript would be three items) or just too bulky for the increased restrictions. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 15 16:12:17 2006 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:12:17 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > > David wrote: > > < parts were handwritten) of Book 7 onto the aeroplane home from New > York.>> > > I feel as if I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm having > difficulty understanding why an airline would give her a hard time > about taking a bunch of papers on board the plane? Presumably her > manuscript is not in liquid form, which is what they seemed to care > most about at the time. > Presumably it was in a file-folder which beached rules for the size of items allowed to be taken into the cabin. Finally allowed when the manuscript had a couple of rubber bands stretched round it, according to the BBC. The same report also stated that she was struck by an alternative idea for the title while in the shower. HP and the Loofah of Doom? HP and the Shower-cap of Destiny? And I've seen onn the web that the title for the *eighth* volume will be: HP and the Sequel of Profitability. Tut, tut. Kneasy From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 15 16:41:20 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:41:20 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: > I feel as if I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm having > difficulty understanding why an airline would give her a hard time > about taking a bunch of papers on board the plane? Presumably her > manuscript is not in liquid form, which is what they seemed to care > most about at the time. I recall in the initial clampdown books were banned (unless maybe bought airside). I don't rememebr the reason. David From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 15 16:39:26 2006 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:39:26 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: > JKR was almost prevented from taking the manuscript (literally so - > parts were handwritten) of Book 7 onto the aeroplane home from New > York. Just imagine, if we had been deprived of Book 7 by the mindless > paranoia security officials, it would have meant that THE TERRORISTS > WOULD HAVE WON!!! Ginger: Or worse, the officials WEREN'T being paranoid that day, and a real terrorist got on the plane with her and the manuscript was lost, as well as the author. Talk about the terrorists winning. Um, don't forward this idea to any terorists. We really don't want this getting out, but think of the impact it would have. As with Hogwarts being taken by LV, if you have the children, you have the adults. Ginger, shuddering at the possibilites. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 16 09:53:48 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:53:48 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ginger: > Or worse, the officials WEREN'T being paranoid that day, and a real > terrorist got on the plane with her and the manuscript was lost, as > well as the author. Well, they did let her on the plane in the end. If there were any terrorists present, maybe they held off for her sake? "Pssst! You remember those Harry Potter books we used to read in Gitmo? That's *her*! JK Rowling, who wrote them!" "Oh, those were the days! I miss my orange suit and the camaraderie. Being an unlawful combatant *meant* something, then. I think I'm going to cry - I can't do this today. What say we wait for another flight? Maybe Lemony Snicket will be on board. I can't stand his post-modernist deconstruction of the conventions of the children's novel." "OK, then, good idea." David From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 16 12:16:33 2006 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:16:33 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > > > > David wrote: > > > > < > parts were handwritten) of Book 7 onto the aeroplane home from New > > York.>> > > > > I feel as if I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm having > > difficulty understanding why an airline would give her a hard time > > about taking a bunch of papers on board the plane? Presumably her > > manuscript is not in liquid form, which is what they seemed to care > > most about at the time. > > > > Presumably it was in a file-folder which beached rules for the size of > items allowed to be taken into the cabin. Finally allowed when the > manuscript had a couple of rubber bands stretched round it, according > to the BBC. > > The same report also stated that she was struck by an alternative idea > for the title while in the shower. > HP and the Loofah of Doom? > HP and the Shower-cap of Destiny? > > And I've seen onn the web that the title for the *eighth* volume will be: > HP and the Sequel of Profitability. > Tut, tut. > > Kneasy How about HP and the Shower Gel of Grief of HP and the rubber ducky of Death. Fran > From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 16 18:56:34 2006 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:56:34 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > I recall in the initial clampdown books were banned (unless maybe > bought airside). I don't rememebr the reason. Kathy W: Well, of course books are banned, but she wasn't flying out of the Bible Belt. ... No seriously, books are very, very dangerous. ... But what was the lady thinking? If the plane had gone down we'd have lost her "and" the manuscript! From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 16 21:37:50 2006 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:37:50 -0000 Subject: Ivisibility Cloak (was: OMG!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote in : << I've always been more intrigued by how Dumbledore was able to become invisible without a cloak (which has never been adequately answered, has it?) >> For a long time, I simply thought that Dumbledore meant he had learned to walk and breathe so silently and, well, motionlessly, that he was unnoticed. Biologists observing animals in the wild often report never seeing their animal, only its tracks and scat and kill sites (if a predator) because it can walk right past them without being seen because it blends in so well with the scenery. However, there IS that"Invisible Book of Invisibility". It seems to me that the only way it could have been a hoax/joke, taking advantage of being invisible to also be blank or mostly blank, would be if BOTH the author and the publisher had that kind of humor. So I prefer to believe that there was an entire book written about invisibility, which strongly suggests that it would mention more ways to become invisible than an Invisibility Cloak. Surely the Snape fans would be delighted if their idol had invented the first reliable Invisibility Potion! From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 16 22:44:51 2006 From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:44:51 -0000 Subject: Invisibility (was Re: OMG!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: >>> I've always been more intrigued by how Dumbledore was able to become invisible without a cloak (which has never been adequately answered, has it?) than as to why James left it with him in the first place. I just assumed James knew he and his family were being targeted by Voldemort, so he left the cloak with Dumbledore for safekeeping (since presumably he didn't need it, given that he was being protected -or so he thought - by the Fidelius Charm). Although I suppose once Pettigrew betrayed the Potters, they could have hidden under the cloak when Voldemort approached their home. Hmmm. <<< First, about Harry's Invisibility Cloak, and why Dumbledore had it. When I read in Book 1 that Dumbledore had given Harry the Invisibility Cloak, I figured that Dumbledore had possession of the cloak for the best possible reason -- namely, the fabled "Plot Device" Charm, which allows the author to avoid all sorts of difficulties (such as, if Harry had had the cloak all along, he would have been able to use it to hide from Dudley) while throwing in some good suspense (as in, "Just who gave Harry the cloak???") I hadn't thought there was any significance to Dumbledore having the cloak until now, when JKR said so on her site. JKR now says there "IS a significant - even crucial - answer" to the question of why Dumbledore had the cloak. See http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=23 So, what could this reason be? I don't think it's simply that Invisibility Cloak are rare, making it a problem if Voldemort got his hands on one. After all, there are other Invisibility Cloaks around. Moody had one of his own, I believe, and then "inherited" a second one when Barty Crouch Jr. got soul-sucked. So, if Voldemort really wanted one, he would have just gotten one from someplace. So, I see two other possibilities for why Dumbledore had the cloak. One possibility is that Dumbledore had some special use for James' Cloak, although I'm not sure what, exactly. To protect Harry? But, presumably leaving the cloak with James would work best for that. Also, Hagrid doesn't have Harry in the cloak when he shows up with Harry at the Dursleys' home. And, even if Hagrid used the cloak to hide baby Harry at some point when when he transporting him, Hagrid himself was too big to hide under the cloak, so presumably it would still be noticeable that he was carrying something. So, it doesn't look like the Cloak was used to hide infant Harry after his parents were killed. The second possibility I see is that maybe there was something special about James' Invisibility Cloak, which made it essential that it not fall into Voldemort's hands. Could it have belonged to one of the founders? Dumbledore says that "the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe," and points at Gryffindor's Sword. Perhaps by "known relic," Dumbledore meant publicly known, or known to Vodlemort. In that case, the cloak could be Gryffindor's, but if no one but Dumbledore knew it, then the cloak wouldn't count as a *known* relic. Or perhaps the cloak belonged to someone else important, or had some other sort of important "provenance" that would have intrigued Voldemort? I wouldn't expect the cloak to be Ravenclaw's -- I really believe Ravenclaw's relic will be a wand. I've long found it odd that Dumbledore doesn't count the Sorting Hat as a "known relic of Gryffindor," since it was Gryffindor's hat. I also recall that ages ago, JKR said the Sorting Hat would have a larger role in the future. Maybe something special happens if you wear both Gryffindor's hat and cloak. (Add in his boots, and you have the whole set!) I really want the Sorting Hat to somehow unexpectedly help Harry, as it did in Book 2, although I suppose when JKR said the Hat would have a larger role, she might just have meant the Hat's warning song in Book 5. Ok, now, about Dumbledore using invisibility in Book 1. When I read Book 1, I wondered how Dumbledore was able to become invisible, and whether it would ever be explained. Since then, I've started to think that maybe being invisible isn't that big of a challenge. In one of the books, Harry is in the library, and is described as "hidden in the invisibility section." JKR presumably intended that to be a bit of irony, but it does imply that there are enough books on invisibility to fill a whole section of the Hogwarts' library. Of course, this isn't *proof* that any of the books have useful information -- the many books on divination are presumably useless -- but it does make it *probable* that there are many working invisibility spells. It should be much easier to tell if a invisibility spell works than to tell if a divination method does, so if few of the invisibility spells worked, I'd expect people to stop writing books on them. Invisibility pops up again with the Disillusionment Charm, which we first see in Book 5. Moody performs it to protect Harry as the "Advance Guard" escorts Harry to Orders HQ. Of course, Moody is quite an accomplished wizard, so my thought at the time was perhaps that the Disillusionment Charm was quite difficult. (Especially since Tonks or someone congratulates Moody on doing such a good job with it.) But then, the self-defense pamphlet that the Ministry issues at the beginning of Book 6 says that to make sure that "all family members are aware of emergency measures such as Shield and Disillusionment Charms." This makes it sound as if anyone can do a Disillusionment Charm, kind of as if the Disillusionment Charm is the "plastic sheeting and duct tape" equivalent of the magical world. On the other hand, we see in Book 5 that many of the students Harry teaches in the DA can't even do a Disarming Charm, let alone the Shield Charm. So, maybe young wizards can't do the Disillusionment Charm either, and JKR intends the MoM's self-defense pamphlet to be ridiculous (as these pamphlets usually are), advising the populace to do all sorts of things that many of them simply aren't capable of doing. You would also think that, if invisibility charms were easy, students at Hogwarts would be forever going around invisible. So, maybe invisibility isn't easy, or maybe Hogwarts has some sort of charm on it that prevents most forms of invisibility (but not invisibility cloaks) from working. This wouldn't prevent Dumbledore from being invisible in Book 1: as Headmaster, Dumbledore would have the authority to lift Hogwarts' anti-invisibility spell, just as he lifted the anti-apparition spell so that 6th year students could take apparition lessons in the Great Hall. Also, I'd expect Dumbledore to be able to get around many of Hogwarts' defenses even if he *weren't* Headmaster, given his skills. -- Judy, still wondering why Dumbledore had the Cloak, but not too concerned about his invisibility in Book 1 From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 17 14:54:35 2006 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:54:35 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > David: > > I recall in the initial clampdown books were banned (unless maybe > > bought airside). I don't rememebr the reason. > > > Kathy W: > Well, of course books are banned, but she wasn't flying out of the > Bible Belt. > > ... > No seriously, books are very, very dangerous. > > ... > But what was the lady thinking? If the plane had gone down we'd have > lost her "and" the manuscript! Fran again: I think we should demand she and the manuscript fly on seperate planes in case of the a crash. hee hee Then again, she must have a copy of it some place safe, wouldn't she? > From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Sun Sep 17 23:58:25 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Rebecca Bowen) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:58:25 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OMG! References: Message-ID: <00f201c6dab5$2a86c950$6501a8c0@...> >>David: >>I recall in the initial clampdown books were banned (unless maybe >> bought airside). I don't rememebr the reason. Rebecca: Unless it's something that JFK or LaGuardia was doing as an airport policy (or perhaps the airline she was flying - they too could impose their own restrictions), bringing a book on a plane is anctivity with is not or was not banned via TSA or FAA regulations here in the US. >Kathy W: >...No seriously, books are very, very dangerous. >But what was the lady thinking? If the plane had gone down we'd have >lost her "and" the manuscript! Rebecca: I'm sorry, call me a skeptic, non-conformer, what have you. I can take it. The whole "airplane security and manuscript" thing is IMO, well, overly dramatic. I've noticed on other forums and messageboards folks freaking out about "what if..". "how dare they try to part her from her manuscript", yada, yada.. I couldn't help myself to create trouble with them by pointing out this sentence in the second paragraph of her news entry: "(a large part of it is handwritten, and there was no copy of anything I had done while in the US)" Ergo IMO, there's a copy of what was done (whether handwritten or not) prior to her coming to the US. There just wouldn't have been a copy of the 2 or 3 sentences (heh) that she did while she was in New York. Considering all the charity events and other excursions she's taken, one might assume it will take another 2 years before she finishes; I also think that the whole "news" posting Wednesday is to assure everyone she's working on Book 7 since she's obviously had sooo much else to do. As it is, the Daniel Handler's series (while not as popular) is going to end with "The End" October 13th - 7 years since "The Bad Beginning" was published. Chronicles of Narnia from the first book to the last were published/completed in 6 years. By publish dates, it's been 9 years already since the PS/SS. I can tell you that for me, JKR is fast approaching the same feeling I have about Axl Rose and his Chinese Democracy album.....if it takes this long to produce. Rebecca From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 18 09:48:31 2006 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:48:31 -0000 Subject: OMG! In-Reply-To: <00f201c6dab5$2a86c950$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: > >Kathy W: > > >...No seriously, books are very, very dangerous. > > >But what was the lady thinking? If the plane had gone down we'd have > >lost her "and" the manuscript! > > Rebecca: > > I'm sorry, call me a skeptic, non-conformer, what have you. Yeah, totally. If there's a copy of the half completed manuscript back home, she's basically expendable. David From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 18 10:00:03 2006 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:00:03 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: OMG! In-Reply-To: References: <00f201c6dab5$2a86c950$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320609180300p17ea385apbae3446054b09be2@...> On 9/18/06, davewitley wrote: > > >Kathy W: > > > > >...No seriously, books are very, very dangerous. > > > > >But what was the lady thinking? If the plane had gone down we'd have > > >lost her "and" the manuscript! > > > > Rebecca: > > > > I'm sorry, call me a skeptic, non-conformer, what have you. > > Yeah, totally. If there's a copy of the half completed manuscript > back home, she's basically expendable. > > David Lord Archer's chance has come at last! Like a phoenix he rises to ghostwrite book 8! It all fits! ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 18 11:21:02 2006 From: azriona at azriona1.yahoo.invalid (Sharon) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:21:02 -0000 Subject: How long is too long? In-Reply-To: <00f201c6dab5$2a86c950$6501a8c0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca Bowen" wrote: > Rebecca: > Considering all the charity events and other excursions she's taken, one > might assume it will take another 2 years before she finishes; I also think > that the whole "news" posting Wednesday is to assure everyone she's working > on Book 7 since she's obviously had sooo much else to do. As it is, the > Daniel Handler's series (while not as popular) is going to end with "The > End" October 13th - 7 years since "The Bad Beginning" was published. > Chronicles of Narnia from the first book to the last were > published/completed in 6 years. By publish dates, it's been 9 years already > since the PS/SS. I can tell you that for me, JKR is fast approaching the > same feeling I have about Axl Rose and his Chinese Democracy album.....if it > takes this long to produce. > Sharon: Six years? Nine years? Heck, you haven't even scratched the surface. Look at the Lord of the Rings cycle - the first book, The Hobbit, was published in 1937, but readers had to wait until 1955 before the trilogy was actually published....an 18-year wait! And let's not even get into Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which began in 1990, was supposed to conclude with the seventh novel, and so far has 11 published books with no sign of wrapping things up. Personally, I am not one bit surprised that it's taking JKR this long to finish her series. She's been living with Harry and his companions for over fifteen years - longer than her kids, longer than her husband. And they've been a huge part of her life until now. Saying goodbye to them - because ending the series IS saying goodbye, no matter how many encyclopedias or Hogwarts, A Histories she may write - has got to be the single hardest thing she will ever do. (And yes, I know she's written the last chapter. But that's not goodbye, that's only a direction.) I went to Lumos, and it quite frankly shocked me how many folks there were so quick to assume that we'd have the seventh book in our hands by Summer 2007. If we have it by Spring of 2008, I will consider us to be lucky indeed. A thirteen-year wait for the conclusion of the series, to my mind, looks awfully good, given the alternatives. --Sharon/azriona From joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 18 19:47:07 2006 From: joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_z_curmudgeon) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:47:07 -0000 Subject: Invisibility (was Re: OMG!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've always thought that Dumbledore was speaking figuratively rather than literally when he said he didn't need a cloak to be invisible. I think he was "invisible" around Hogwarts only because of his network of spies --mostly the portraits of the old Headmasters, but also the other paintings, ghosts, staff, Peeves, etc., all of whom live at Hogwarts and report to him when asked. --Joywitch ::waves to Judy:: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: > > Phyllis wrote: > >>> I've always been more intrigued by how Dumbledore was able to > become invisible without a cloak (which has never been adequately > answered, has it?) From dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 19 01:09:55 2006 From: dontask2much at dontask2much.yahoo.invalid (Rebecca Bowen) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:09:55 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] How long is too long? References: Message-ID: <015001c6db88$51ffc670$6501a8c0@...> >Sharon: >Six years? Nine years? Heck, you haven't even scratched the >surface. Look at the Lord of the Rings cycle - the first book, >The Hobbit, was published in 1937, but readers had to wait >until 1955 before the trilogy was actually published....an 18-year >wait! Rebecca: And to add coincidentally to your comment about Tolkien, his son just finished one of his father's partial works, The Children of Hurin. It's being published next spring, and Christopher Tolkien spent 30 years working on it: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-09-18-tolkein_x.htm I'm not one to put Rowling's works at the caliber of Tolkien's epics myself - while I like reading and discussing HP, I think I hit what I perceive to be my marketing threshold with the WOMBATS test. Rebecca From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 26 19:46:41 2006 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Ivisibility Cloak (was: OMG!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060926194641.9241.qmail@...> > Phyllis wrote in > : > > << I've always been more intrigued by how Dumbledore was able to > become invisible without a cloak (which has never been adequately > answered, has it?) >> > If you're referring to the scene in PS/SS when Harry meets him in the room that holds the Mirror of Erised, I've always assumed that it was Dumbledore's gentle way of telling Harry that he was so focussed on getting to the mirror that he walked right past a visible Dumbledore standing against the wall. I don't think Dumbledore was literally invisible. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 30 00:27:31 2006 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:27:31 -0000 Subject: She's Evil Message-ID: The second WOMBAT is up on JKR.com, and I don't see how in the world we're supposed to know how to answer some (actually most) of the questions. Even getting into the room is a huge challenge - I tried to follow the directions on TLC, but I couldn't get the key to work properly until I found a screenshot of the correct key placement on Mugglenet. As if I didn't already feel incredibly intellectually inferior to Jo ... ~Phyllis