From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 00:14:37 2007
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:14:37 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <eulvr5+tt1m@...>
Message-ID: <eumthd+7ehs@...>

--- entropymail wrote:
> No, no! It's arches! And a veil! Sirius is coming back! (Yippee!)

That occured to me, too.  The picture sort of fits the OoP description 
of the Death Chamber, as seen from the other side of the veil....


-- Judy





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 09:00:23 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:00:23 -0000
Subject: Smile, and smile, and be a villain
In-Reply-To: <eumo2d+s9tm@...>
Message-ID: <eunsb7+lasd@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
> Catlady:
> > > > Prince Henry the Navigator? Fernando Magellan? Aren't there any
> > > > Portuguese great authors? 
> CMC:
> > Luis de Camoes (1524-1580) is usually ranked as Portugal's greatest 
> > author Some rank him as the equal of Homer, Virgil and Dante. (I've 
> > not read him, even in translation, so I have no opinion).
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C3%ADs_de_Cam%C3%B5es
> > 
> > Maybe Portugal's educational system has been imitating America's 
> too 
> > closely.....
> 
> Those were my reactions at first, too (Vasco da Gama?), until I 
> meditated on the implications of the phrase "a TV show".  No doubt a 
> poll of all Portuguese would come up with something different.
> 
> David

Surprised me too.
Did a search and the rest of the 10 finalists were:

Admiral Vasco da Gama (1469-1524) who discovered the sea 
route to India, 
King Alfonso Henr?ques, the 12th century founder of the nation, 
15th century King Jo?o II, 
Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460), 
Sebasti?o Jos? de Carvalho de Melo (regent of Portugal in the 
18th century), 
the poets Luiz Vaz de Camoes (1524-1580) and Fernando Pessoa 
(1888-1935), and 
Ar?stides de Sousa Mendes (1885-1954), who as consul in France 
saved the lives of thousands of Jews in the Second World War. 

Seems like a fair list of meritorious types.

However:
"Historian and former parliamentary deputy Jos? Pacheco Pereira 
told the newspaper P?blico de Lisboa on Tuesday that he was not 
surprised at the result, "because the programme format encouraged
the mobilisation of vocal supporters of either Salazar or Cunhal, 
who in a way personify the divisions among Portuguese in the 20th 
century." 

Pandering to the current fashion of 'politics is all', then.
Still surprising that a righty trounced a lefty so convincingly though,
especially in the Europe of today.

Kneasy





From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 12:12:01 2007
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:12:01 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <eulvr5+tt1m@...>
Message-ID: <euo7ih+fbti@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" <entropymail at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely@> wrote:
> >
> > On the US bookcover, it looks like headstones in the background. Is 
> > this the Deadly Hallow? Also, is that an amulet around Harry's neck.
> > 
> > So it looks like HRH will find GG's vault. Final showdown is in a 
> > graveyard. Nagini will be in the picture as well. Looks like she is 
> > contained in an orb on the back cover of the US book.
> > 
> > Fran
> >
> 
> 
> No, no! It's arches! And a veil! Sirius is coming back! (Yippee!)
>
Actually I went to scholastic site to view the US cover and I think the 
headstones are actually people, DE's to exact!  I hope somehow Sirius 
shows up in the this book.

Fran




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 14:49:31 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:49:31 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 1
Message-ID: <euogps+mfu2@...>

WYSIWYG.
Usually.
Question is, how usual is HP?

Twist things around a bit, look at things differently
and guess what? What you get is a chance to be perverse. 
Whether the perversity will actually be *helpful* is 
something else again, but if it isn't then stirring the pot
is a decent second-best. We've been trying for years to 
second-guess an author who by her own admission 
enjoys playing the trickster, so it's unlikely that all the 
sneaky bits have been uncovered and explained. There 
should be loads we haven't sussed out yet; in fact, I'll 
be bloody disappointed if there isn't.

Mind you, it's possible that the misdirection has been 
so slick that we'll be lucky even identifying where and 
when the slight-of-hand occurred, let alone finding the 
right pea under the shuffled shells. Results are by no 
means guaranteed: sometimes you'll giggle at a 
ridiculous idea, or the fog gets even thicker - though 
at other times you may indeed get an insight.

It's what my old Pop called "going at it upside-back'rds",
or by others as never accepting the obvious when the 
alternative looks more interesting. Not the same as 
presenting a fallacious argument IMO, which is more 
about employing, inadvertently or otherwise (naughty!) 
faulty logic, a very different kettle of fish. Nor is it a 
phallacious argument -  that's what you'd call a daft 
idea proposed by a dickhead.

No, the main objective is to question whether you've 
got the right or wrong end of the stick to start with, 
are you looking at it the right way, 'cos if you haven't 
and aren't, logic won't help much. It tends not to when 
one starts from false premises. And it's a question 
well-worth asking, what with Jo chortling into her 
writing pad while planning to throw dust in our eyes. 
Of course we won't know whether she succeeded or 
not until July. Dunno about you, but come the end, I'd 
really like to be able to say that there were a few pieces
of her trickery that I'd seen through... assuming they 
are trickery....um.

Another point worth thinking about. In the earlier books
our appreciation of Harry (or whoever) and the WW was
less developed than it is now - but that wasn't the case 
for Jo. Except in maybe a few instances she knew from 
the beginning what the characters were up to, their 
strengths and weaknesses, what they could and couldn't 
do and when she was going to reveal these little nuggets
of knowledge. We didn't. And when those nuggets 
gleamed in the dawn of a bright new morning, our first 
inclination has been to try to figure out what they mean
for the future, using them to re-assess the past tended 
to come a long way second. IMO we just don't dig 
backwards nearly enough, we tend to take for granted 
that the earlier books are more or less sorted - except 
for on-going mysteries such as the nature of House-
Elfdom or what actually happened at GH, or the missing 
24 hours, or whatever. 

There are incidents where the majority (probably) of fans
consider it's all cut and dried, nothing more to be said, 
not worth going over that again. Boring. Maybe. Maybe not. 
So with a few months before the denouement it might 
help pass the time to look at a few scenes or situations 
in the light of later revelations. Can't hurt, might even help. 
Besides, there are a handful of episodes that niggle, little 
itches, mostly small stuff. You don't mind if I have a bit of 
a scratch, do you? Only one itch per post.

First up, from book 1 - The Mirror of Erised - or should 
that be eriseD fo rorriM ehT? 
And from there to other conclusions - possibly.

We're encouraged to believe that gazing into the Mirror 
will give a reflection of what the viewer desires most. 
First point that occurred: You mean he doesn't already 
know what he desires most? He's never spent hours 
thinking about it? 
Second - if Harry doesn't know what his parents and 
family look like, how come the Mirror does? Harry didn't 
even know that the other family members shown had 
ever existed, so how come the Mirror plonks 'em in as 
buckshee bonus background and classifies them as 
'hearts desire'?  Must have one hell of a database in 
there, puts Google in its place, that's for sure. 

And why is the inscription back-to-front to the viewer? 
"'Cos it's mirror writing, half-wit!" came the reply. 
"Yup. I can see that," says I, "but  why have mirror writing
on a mirror which would require another mirror to read it?
Seems a bit redundant to me."

Right. 
Now apply the upsides-back'rds potion and look at it again.
Change the basic premise.
The inscription would be perfectly intelligible to someone 
on the other side of the Mirror, i.e. inside looking out.
The Mirror would show what *they* desire rather than 
that of a viewer standing in front of the Mirror.
What a nifty device for manipulating the unwary.
Like Harry, Ron and Quirrell. 

Down the trapdoor, bound hand and foot, facing 
Quirrell and at his mercy, it was not Harry's hearts 
desire to smile, wink at himself, pull the Stone out 
of his pocket and then slip it back in again. Quirrell 
could see the Stone in the Mirror, but Harry hadn't 
the slightest idea of where it was or how to find out. 
And the best way to stop Voldy from snaffling it is 
for Harry not to know - what he doesn't know, he 
can't tell.

Yet suddenly he's lumbered with it - and  Voldy, ace 
Legilimens that he is, knows it too. Not a very clever 
ploy, then. Ah, but if we'd known then what we know 
now, it puts a very different complexion on it -  just 
as it did to Quirrell. 
Harry's protection, his Voldy proofing. 
Voldy-ridden beings can't touch him, so it's perfectly safe. 
Unless Quirrell acts sensibly and uses Accio! 
Which he doesn't. 
So - painful collapse of two-faced creep, applause all 
round - paff, paff, paff, "Well done, Harry old thing. 
You saved the day" 


But Harry didn't know about the protection either, he'd
never dreamed that he'd be encountering Voldy, didn't
want the damn thing in his pocket and his dearest wish
was probably to get out of there and warn somebody 
grown-up that there was a spot of bother in the cellars
and can they sort it out, please? 
Conclusion - the  Mirror is under someone else's control
and is showing what that other person wants Harry to see. 
Wonder who it could be?
Must be someone who knows about the protection and 
knows that Harry has already encountered the Mirror and 
knows what it does.
Guess who?

In the WW mirrors are not passive, they're invariably 
some sort of communication device - they may vary - 
from the sarky comments from the mirrors in the Leaky 
Cauldron and GP to Sirius' linked pair, but communicate 
they do. What sort of communicator is the Mirror? 

The developing argument ineluctably leads to the 
conclusion that it was all a set-up, planned in advance. 
There're a lot of fans that'll be shuffling their feet with that.
Understandable - on more than one level - it implies that 
Harry is not quite as free an agent as they would like, and
that DD is a manipulative old bastard. Welcome to my world. 

One of the dangers of theorising is gilding the lily. Coming
up with a neat idea based on scanty though indicative 
evidence is one thing; desperately grabbing at any old 
ambiguous snippet and claiming that it supports the case 
is a risky temptation that's difficult to resist. Not to be 
recommended though, all too often it can weaken the 
over-all argument rather than strengthen it.

However (he said, in a blatant attempt to hijack a few bits 
of text and weasel them in as supportive evidence) the 
following are worth considering as suggestive, IMO. 

Harry is 11 years old, new to magic and the WW and 
there are those at Hogwarts that wish him ill - the bucking
broomstick shows that. (Did anyone ever make any inquiries
about who was responsible for that? No? Odd.)
Yet DD sends him an invisibility cloak with the advice "Use
it well." (Was that wise, do you think?)
So he does. And finds the Mirror. In a room whose door 
just happens to be ajar. Hm.
(Note: Fluffy has been on guard since Day 1 of the term. 
Were the other safeguards in place too? Bet they were. 
Why wasn't the Mirror?)
DD appears (eventually), tells Harry that he (DD) doesn't 
need a cloak to be invisible - and we get strong hints in 
CoS that DD can see through the cloak. So how did he 
know that Harry was sitting in front of the Mirror? An 
alarm of some sort? - or was he following Harry to make
sure he didn't run into problems?
DD tells Harry that what the Mirror shows is not necessarily
true, real or even possible. "If you ever do run across it, 
you will now be prepared." 
Yup. A nod is as good as a wink to a thingy whatsit.

Hagrid is a key figure in the affair:
He's been DD's gopher for years, he does whatever DD 
wishes him to do, and DD knows him and his weaknesses 
better than anyone else. He also likes Harry - a lot. He'd 
make a marvellous foil if DD wanted to lead Harry 
around by the nose, don't you think? A conduit for 
information that Harry would never question.

It's while with Hagrid that Harry learns that a special 
something is being taken to Hogwarts from Gringott's.
It's Hagrid that Harry (plus Ron and Hermy) visit frequently.
No other pupil does so as far as we can tell.
It's in Hagrid's hut that Harry sees a clipping about the 
Gringott's break-in. (A clipping? Why would Hagrid cut 
that out - and leave it where Harry could see it?)
It's Hagrid that lets slip the name Flamel.
It's Hagrid that lets slip that he has accidentally told a
mysterious stranger how to get past Fluffy - and does the
same for the trio.
The trio hardly need to be rocket scientists to figure out 
what's going on, do they?

And so three 11 year olds dive down the trapdoor.
The puzzles are not particularly easy ones to solve - for most
11 year olds, that is. For an experienced nasty-type wizard 
it's unlikely they'd be much of a problem. Hardly magical at all, 
most of 'em. And they play to whatever strengths the trio have;
wheedling Hagrid; Hermy - remembering lessons and basic logic;
Ron - chess; Harry - flying. There's even a troll (a challenge 
they've successfully faced before) though this one is hors de 
combat. Could hardly have been better, could it? Like an exam 
where you've been asked the questions previously.

And afterwards - the DD snow-job.
Lovely.

Yet after all that it seems that the best protection the Stone
could have *against Voldy* was Harry. He was probably the one 
obstacle Voldy wouldn't be able to get past - so long as Harry 
physically had the Stone.
Wonder if DD realised that?
Must have done - the protection thwarted Voldy at GH, didn't
it? 
Why change a winning formula?
And win it did. Harry 2 - Dissoluted Voldy 0.
So just how much of a coincidence was it that Harry turned up
when he did and that the Stone slipped into his pocket?

Can't help being suspicious.
Just goes to show, express doubts about how a plot device 
really works and who knows where you'll end up?

Kneasy




From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 14:54:50 2007
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:54:50 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <euo7ih+fbti@...>
Message-ID: <euoh3q+sm2n@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely at ...> wrote:
> Actually I went to scholastic site to view the US cover and I think the 
> headstones are actually people, DE's to exact!  I hope somehow Sirius 
> shows up in the this book.
> 
> Fran

I think you're referring to the shadowy figures *in front* of the
arches. In the foreground is a draper or veil, then Harry, then the
figures, then the big, big arches. Is that correct?





From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 15:00:02 2007
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:00:02 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <euoh3q+sm2n@...>
Message-ID: <euohdi+7rao@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" <entropymail at ...>
wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely@> wrote:
> > Actually I went to scholastic site to view the US cover and I
think the 
> > headstones are actually people, DE's to exact!  I hope somehow Sirius 
> > shows up in the this book.
> > 
> > Fran
> 
> I think you're referring to the shadowy figures *in front* of the
> arches. In the foreground is a draper or veil, then Harry, then the
> figures, then the big, big arches. Is that correct?
>

Also, should have mentioned this before: If you look at the UK cover,
the background is clearly made up of a big, single arch (keystone and
all). Just sayin'...


:: Entropy ::





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 21:37:58 2007
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:37:58 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 1
In-Reply-To: <euogps+mfu2@...>
Message-ID: <eup8nm+38oq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> Second - if Harry doesn't know what his parents and 
> family look like, how come the Mirror does? Harry didn't 
> even know that the other family members shown had 
> ever existed, so how come the Mirror plonks 'em in as 
> buckshee bonus background and classifies them as 
> 'hearts desire'?  Must have one hell of a database in 
> there, puts Google in its place, that's for sure. 

Harry remembers, at least unconsciously, what his parents looked like
(just as he unconsciously remembered his mother's last words), so the
mirror picked their images from his mind. I believe that the other
people shown were images generated by the mirror on the principle
'people of varied ages with family resemblance to Harry' rather than
pictures of real people.

> 
> And why is the inscription back-to-front to the viewer? 
> "'Cos it's mirror writing, half-wit!" came the reply. 
> "Yup. I can see that," says I, "but  why have mirror writing
> on a mirror which would require another mirror to read it?
> Seems a bit redundant to me."

It's not really mirror-writing, as the individual letters are
right-ways round altho' the words are spelled backwards. The viewer
inside the mirror has as much trouble reading the backwards letters
(unless, like my DH, he is too dyslexic to NOTICE that each letter is
backwards) as the viewer outside the mirror has reading the backwards
words.

The Mirror could be a big fake, programmed by DD to show Harry this
videoclip, show Ron this videoclip, show Hermione a videoclip that us
readers didn't get to see; then the picture of Ron older with the Head
Boy badge and the Quidditch Cup would have to be cgi, so the picture
of people who look like Harry could be cgi or real photographs because
DD did know so many people, but cgi or real doesn't make any
difference to DD's scheme. Are you suggesting that DD knew what each
kid's heart's desire was, because it was pretty obvious, or that he
was taking the opportunity to implant desires that were convenient for
him?

The Mirror could be exactly what DD told Harry it is, and still DD put
it in front of Harry as part of a plan to send Harry through those
silly obstacles to confront Voldemort -- such has been suggested by
many people on the other list, a few of whom even suggested that DD
expected Neville to be the fourth in the party, and the Devil's Snare
was intended for him, the budding herbologist, rather than for Hermione.




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 21:37:53 2007
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:37:53 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 1
In-Reply-To: <euogps+mfu2@...>
Message-ID: <eup8nh+p2eq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> Second - if Harry doesn't know what his parents and 
> family look like, how come the Mirror does? Harry didn't 
> even know that the other family members shown had 
> ever existed, so how come the Mirror plonks 'em in as 
> buckshee bonus background and classifies them as 
> 'hearts desire'?  Must have one hell of a database in 
> there, puts Google in its place, that's for sure. 

Harry remembers, at least unconsciously, what his parents looked like
(just as he unconsciously remembered his mother's last words), so the
mirror picked their images from his mind. I believe that the other
people shown were images generated by the mirror on the principle
'people of varied ages with family resemblance to Harry' rather than
pictures of real people.

> 
> And why is the inscription back-to-front to the viewer? 
> "'Cos it's mirror writing, half-wit!" came the reply. 
> "Yup. I can see that," says I, "but  why have mirror writing
> on a mirror which would require another mirror to read it?
> Seems a bit redundant to me."

It's not really mirror-writing, as the individual letters are
right-ways round altho' the words are spelled backwards. The viewer
inside the mirror has as much trouble reading the backwards letters
(unless, like my DH, he is too dyslexic to NOTICE that each letter is
backwards) as the viewer outside the mirror has reading the backwards
words.

The Mirror could be a big fake, programmed by DD to show Harry this
videoclip, show Ron this videoclip, show Hermione a videoclip that us
readers didn't get to see; then the picture of Ron older with the Head
Boy badge and the Quidditch Cup would have to be cgi, so the picture
of people who look like Harry could be cgi or real photographs because
DD did know so many people, but cgi or real doesn't make any
difference to DD's scheme. Are you suggesting that DD knew what each
kid's heart's desire was, because it was pretty obvious, or that he
was taking the opportunity to implant desires that were convenient for
him?

The Mirror could be exactly what DD told Harry it is, and still DD put
it in front of Harry as part of a plan to send Harry through those
silly obstacles to confront Voldemort -- such has been suggested by
many people on the other list, a few of whom even suggested that DD
expected Neville to be the fourth in the party, and the Devil's Snare
was intended for him, the budding herbologist, rather than for Hermione.




From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  1 22:02:05 2007
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:02:05 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <euoh3q+sm2n@...>
Message-ID: <eupa4t+8jr7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" <entropymail at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely@> wrote:
> > Actually I went to scholastic site to view the US cover and I 
think the 
> > headstones are actually people, DE's to exact!  I hope somehow 
Sirius 
> > shows up in the this book.
> > 
> > Fran
> 
> I think you're referring to the shadowy figures *in front* of the
> arches. In the foreground is a draper or veil, then Harry, then the
> figures, then the big, big arches. Is that correct?
>
Yes indeed! I will go with drapes rather than a veil.  The book cover 
for SS has Harry flying by similar lookin arches.  I looked at the 
book covers at The Leaky site. This point was brought up as well. I 
have no idea if there is any relationship or not.

Fran




From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr  2 13:42:51 2007
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:42:51 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0704020640g785559fcm2353bb2d8b700ce9@...>
References: <euoh3q+sm2n@...> <eupa4t+8jr7@...>
	 <56f2b65c0704020640g785559fcm2353bb2d8b700ce9@...>
Message-ID: <56f2b65c0704020642u72010930h1b0741402ee88dc0@...>

On 4/2/07, fhmaneely <fmaneely at ...> wrote:
> Yes indeed! I will go with drapes rather than a veil.  The book cover
> for SS has Harry flying by similar lookin arches.  I looked at the
> book covers at The Leaky site. This point was brought up as well. I
> have no idea if there is any relationship or not.
>
> Fran
>

I've been to the scholastic site. No idea on the figures in the back,
but guy in the front is snake eyed, that points to Voldemort. The
curious thing is that he and Harry are not paying atention to each
other, both are focused on something else.

And where is Harry's scar? I don't see it even using the lens.

Silmariel



From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr  2 14:03:56 2007
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:03:56 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: DH cover
In-Reply-To: <euhnk0+u744@...>
References: <268956.16216.qm@...>
	 <euhnk0+u744@...>
Message-ID: <56f2b65c0704020703p30573940nfe4e071186823f45@...>

On 3/30/07, fhmaneely <fmaneely at ...> wrote:
> Fran:
> I bet its Dobby with what looks like GG's sword,as it has a ruby
> hilt. Anyone notice the red marks on the trio? Harry looks like he
> has a bite on his arm. You can see this when the pic is magnified
> 400x. Regardless, looks like they are in deep doo.

Seemed like a standard treasure cave, but on a closer look, it's not.
Every single gem in the scene is red...

It would be very fun if Dobby is griffindor heir. What an insult to
purebloodness.

Silmariel



From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr  4 02:51:04 2007
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:51:04 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 1
In-Reply-To: <euogps+mfu2@...>
Message-ID: <euv3qo+bnh3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> WYSIWYG.
> Usually.
> Question is, how usual is HP?
> 
> Twist things around a bit, look at things differently
> and guess what? What you get is a chance to be perverse. 
> Whether the perversity will actually be *helpful* is 
> something else again, but if it isn't then stirring the pot
> is a decent second-best. We've been trying for years to 
> second-guess an author who by her own admission 
> enjoys playing the trickster, so it's unlikely that all the 
> sneaky bits have been uncovered and explained. There 
> should be loads we haven't sussed out yet; in fact, I'll 
> be bloody disappointed if there isn't.


Snow:

Oh yes! And yes Dumbledore has been hiding information...or should I 
say shelving it out as the boy seems fit to handle it! Just look at 
one excerpt from HBP, wherein Harry is outraged over Trelawney's 
enlightenment that Snape was the culprit who heard and reported the 
newsworthy info to the boss. What did Dumbledore say as his reply to 
Harry:

"When did you find out about this?" pg 548 U.S. (The Seer Overheard)

Dumbledore knew all along (as he always does) and only gives Harry 
the bare minimal facts. (Don't want to mess with the power of choice 
you know) 

Or maybe an excerpt from one of the other books that have the same 
impact to Dumbledore's authority where it concerns Harry being kept 
in the dark. (The Order of The Phoenix pg. 88 when Sirius boldly 
states that:

"That's your parents' decision. Harry on the other hand ?"

And Molly replies:

"It's not down to you to decide what's good for Harry!" [...] "You 
haven't forgotten what Dumbledore said, I suppose?"

(Dumbledore did have quite a time of it keeping Sirius under thumb... 
didn't he?)

My favorite has to be Dumbledore's indecision on what to tell Harry 
in reply to:

"...how can you be sure Snape's on our side?"

"Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was 
trying to make up his mind about something. HBP 549 (the Seer 
Overheard)  

Dumbledore knew what was facing him in the cave and after, or fairly 
sure he would not survive one of the encounters, but remained 
steadfast that Harry should not be enlightened over this particular 
situation even if...

Harry is damned to figure out from point A to point B by his lonesome 
self. Why? 

How can it matter whether Dumbledore confides everything to Harry or 
not...oh yeah...Voldy can read Harry's mind, that is if he's close 
enough and Harry allows it. 

Harry didn't succeed in Occlumency because there was no memory he 
thought he needed to protect from anyone...until there was (Cho) and 
then the boy kicked butt. So I don't think Snape's report to 
Dumbledore could have included that the boy sucks under certain 
personal circumstances. (That is if he reported it)

So why is Dumbledore being mister obscure about information 
concerning Snape or his parents and a rather long list of parental 
friends and acquaintances? 

Why is Dumbledore on a teaching mission with Harry in the cave:

"I cannot touch [...] See? I cannot approach any nearer than this. 
You try." HBP 568 (The Cave)

And yet, Dumbledore gives Harry the hush when Harry asks a 
significant question:

"Harry made to speak again, but this time Dumbledore raised his hand 
for silence... HBP 569

Every time the boy asks a valid question (throughout the books) he 
gets the heave hoe. 

Is Dumbledore wielding a plan that concerns the boy or is he simply 
protecting the boy and allowing him to choose his own path? 

My vote would be that Dumbledore has a plan; in fact, I believe he 
mentions it in OOP during his great prophecy speech. 

It isn't like children haven't been used before. No one wants to 
acknowledge a child being used to such a circumstance but the Order 
realizes that "there are things worth dying for!" 
OOP 477 (St. Mungo's...)

Mom and Dad Potter knew there were things worth dying for otherwise 
they wouldn't have defied the Dark Lord three times like the 
Longbottoms who, as much as we might not like to have acknowledged, 
abandoned their son for the greater good when they denied Bella. 

I'm not saying that Harry was brought into the world as a weapon but 
when `they' found that he was the intended weapon; he ended up being 
the Ginny Pig that may or may not survive the threat and the 
protection against it. 

In the end, `they knew'!

Snow ? glad to see Kneasy ruffling some old feathers although I would 
like it better if he shook up the main list again...they need big 
time shake up...You never no what you might get!





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr  4 14:10:06 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:10:06 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 1
In-Reply-To: <euv3qo+bnh3@...>
Message-ID: <ev0bju+kch6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
> Snow:
>
> Oh yes! And yes Dumbledore has been hiding information...or should I
> say shelving it out as the boy seems fit to handle it! Just look at
> one excerpt from HBP, wherein Harry is outraged over Trelawney's
> enlightenment that Snape was the culprit who heard and reported the
> newsworthy info to the boss. What did Dumbledore say as his reply to
> Harry:
>
> "When did you find out about this?" pg 548 U.S. (The Seer Overheard)
>
> Dumbledore knew all along (as he always does) and only gives Harry
> the bare minimal facts. (Don't want to mess with the power of choice
> you know)
>
>snip interesting selection of material>

Oh, yes.
Tell Harry as little as possible - mushroom mangement par exellence.
(Though the 'eavesdropper' incident is one of the four or five itches 
I'm intending to have another scratch at.) But in general, whatever 
the actual sequence of events the result is the same - DD says as 
little as possible and on closer analysis the actual words/phrasing 
aren't as enlightening as one first assumed - which is just how Jo 
likes it, much to our continuing frustration. 

>
> Is Dumbledore wielding a plan that concerns the boy or is he simply
> protecting the boy and allowing him to choose his own path?
>
> My vote would be that Dumbledore has a plan; in fact, I believe he
> mentions it in OOP during his great prophecy speech.
>

Agreed.
He has a plan, he's had one from the start and Harry is integral to it.
We have to assume that it will take more than just magic to beat 
Voldy - otherwise DD as the numero uno magikmeister would have 
been able to stroll out and nail the bugger any time he wanted to. 
He didn't, yet in the MoM battle Voldy was the one under pressure, 
not DD. 
Something more is needed, and Harry either has it/will have it/is 
part of it.

plan (OED)
4a - An organised and esp. detailed method according to which
something is to be done; a scheme of action, a design; an intention;
a proposed proceeding. Also, loosely, a way of proceeding.

To some fans the plan is quite simple - defeat Voldy.
Erm.... no. That's not a plan, that's an aspiration, an aim.
Nor do the 'victories' in the sporadic encounters with Voldy and his
dastardly hench-wizards throughout the series count as a plan IMO.
They're tactical skirmishes, a concatenation of incidents local in
space and in time, mostly reactive rather than pro-active (horrible
term, that), and as such are unlikely to be more than incidental
to a Master Plan. More about keeping Harry alive than in getting
Voldy dead.

True, fend off Voldy's attacks often enough and his options may
start to get somewhat limited - and in HBP the Horsecrutch hunt
is a DD initiative that could force further limitations on Voldy by
eliminating the reincarnation ploy, so that when the crunch comes
it's do or die for Voldy. But has it weakened Voldy? Will it make it 
easier for Harry to zap him come High Noon in Hogsmead? No.
Harry still has to be able to beat him (we assume). The absence 
of Hosscruxes merely ensures that when Voldy is beaten there'll 
be no replays.

A long time ago I observed that there were times when it seemed
that DD had already read the script, that he knew of events before
they heaved up over the horizon and that perhaps his function 
was to make sure that it all stayed on the rails, that there was no
deviation from a fairly specific 'foreseen' progression. Not only 
mentor but also monitor. And one of his functions was to prevent 
anyone else pre-empting events and (perhaps) cocking things up.
So Harry (nor anyone else) gets told anything that could trigger
premature activities. Good job too; he'd only mess it up. 

It's an idea that has its attractions, though since it would 
probably involve my two least favourite plot devices (time-travel
and/or fool-proof prophesying) it doesn't get my blood pounding
from excitement. 

However, one thing is clear - DD has had Harry on an accelerated
learning programme. And occasionally he's learnt the necessary 
skills just in time to avoid disaster. For sure Harry is 'it', the 
culmination of DD's schemes. Though whether 'it' is Weapon!Harry,
Pawn!Harry or Sacrifice!Harry, or how it is intended to play out, is 
still up for grabs.


> It isn't like children haven't been used before. No one wants to
> acknowledge a child being used to such a circumstance but the Order
> realizes that "there are things worth dying for!"
> OOP 477 (St. Mungo's...)
>

Interesting you should say that.
Has any child died within the time sequence of the books?
Myrtle was decades back and Diggory was 17 and therefore an
adult in WW terms. Authorial distaste? Probably. 
"No child has been killed in the writing of this epic." 
But Harry is no longer a child, he's an adult. 
So are his friends.
How nice. 
How encouraging.
How..... fatal?


> Snow ? glad to see Kneasy ruffling some old feathers although I would
> like it better if he shook up the main list again...they need big
> time shake up...You never no what you might get!
>

Kind of you to say so, but no, I'll not be going back to tol, 
despite it offering the opportunity to rattle a lot more cages than
here on toc.


Kneasy  






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  7 12:14:45 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:14:45 +0100
Subject: GoF unfinished...
Message-ID: <5FBFE6ED-A4C9-4CD9-9156-637D2031AD3C@...>

.... by 32% of UK readers in an online poll.

Wasn't that bad, was it?

Anyway, it rated as the second most unfinished-by-readers book in the  
fiction section, just behind Vernon God Little and ahead of Ulysses,  
Satanic Verses, War and Peace and a handful of other critically  
acclaimed but grossly over-rated (IMO) tomes.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/ 
books/article1500061.ece

If only booksellers offered refunds for the unread bits ..... and  
registered the number of returns in the best-sellers lists to give  
net  sales. That would be fun. Embarrassing for some authors, too.

Kneasy



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  7 12:21:33 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:21:33 -0000
Subject: GoF unfinished...
In-Reply-To: <5FBFE6ED-A4C9-4CD9-9156-637D2031AD3C@...>
Message-ID: <ev82cd+1om6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
> 
> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/ 
> books/article1500061.ece
 
Caution.
As the url can't be contained on one line it doesn't load to the 
right page.
Bugger.
All very well Yahoo having fancy layout, but if it doesn't do
what you want it to...


 Kneasy






From pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  7 13:14:07 2007
From: pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid (pengolodh_sc)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:14:07 -0000
Subject: GoF unfinished...
In-Reply-To: <ev82cd+1om6@...>
Message-ID: <ev85ev+35c1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote:
> Caution.
> As the url can't be contained on one line it doesn't load
> to the right page.
> Bugger.
> All very well Yahoo having fancy layout, but if it doesn't
> do what you want it to...

And once the digest makes it to me, Yahoo!Mail has also inserted a 
ton of spaces at random spots throughout the URL, making copy&paste 
needlessly difficult too.

Anyway, when you're faced with long URLs, you can use tinyurl.com or 
similar services to make a short redirection link that will lead to 
the same page - in the case of this Times Online article, the URL is:
http://tinyurl.com/2xhllr

Best regards
Christian Stub?




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  7 18:24:41 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:24:41 -0000
Subject: GoF unfinished...
In-Reply-To: <ev85ev+35c1@...>
Message-ID: <ev8nl9+jnr0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pengolodh_sc" <pengolodh_sc at ...> wrote:
> 
> Anyway, when you're faced with long URLs, you can use tinyurl.com or 
> similar services to make a short redirection link that will lead to 
> the same page - in the case of this Times Online article, the URL is:
> http://tinyurl.com/2xhllr
> 
> Best regards
> Christian Stub?
>

Hmm.
Looks useful. 
Can't load it into my toolbar 'cos a mac ain't that sort of girl.
No matter, I've found a nifty bit of software on google that links 
the two.
Thanks

Kneasy





From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  8 01:14:38 2007
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:14:38 -0000
Subject: tinyurl
In-Reply-To: <ev85ev+35c1@...>
Message-ID: <ev9flu+s08o@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pengolodh_sc"
<pengolodh_sc at ...> wrote:

> Anyway, when you're faced with long URLs, you can use tinyurl.com or 
> similar services to make a short redirection link that will lead to 
> the same page - in the case of this Times Online article, the URL is:
> http://tinyurl.com/2xhllr

What does tinyurl get out of providing this helpful service to lots of
people? I suppose they must have a huge server to store all a look-up
table matching all the short names they've given out with the long
actual urls, and servers cost money.




From pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  8 16:29:32 2007
From: pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid (pengolodh_sc)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:29:32 -0000
Subject: tinyurl
In-Reply-To: <ev9flu+s08o@...>
Message-ID: <evb59c+uhr1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote:
> What does tinyurl get out of providing this helpful service
> to lots of people? I suppose they must have a huge server
> to store all a look-up table matching all the short names
> they've given out with the long actual urls, and servers
> cost money.

There are Google-ads (i.e. ads that Google facilitate, not ads for 
Google) on the site, and also a couple of links to donate money to 
the site.  Apart from that, I don't know.

Best regards
Christian Stub?




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 11 18:51:05 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:51:05 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
Message-ID: <evjamp+um83@...>

The second itch comes, appropriately enough, from
the second book, though key parts of our understanding
on this subject come from the fifth volume. But there's 
a chance, judging by the cover of book 7, that we might
get some actual answers regarding this one.

Yup, it's old Big Ears. Yoda without the brains, Gollum 
without the attitude, that disaster dressed in a dish-rag, 
Dobby, often referred to (around Schloss Kneasy, anyway) 
as "That F***ing Elf". 
It's safe to assume he's not my favourite character.

The Shorter OED provides the following definitions:
dobby
1. a stupid fellow;  a booby; a dunce
2. a spirit or apparition attached to  a particular house or 
locality esp. a household brownie.
[...]

Is that typecasting, or what?
But hold on a second, half a dozen entries before that is:
dob
1. put down with an abrupt movement.
Best thing that could happen to him IMO. Pardon? It's not 
that meaning of 'put down'? Well it bloody-well ought to be.
[...]
3.... betray, inform against.

That sounds as if it might fit the obnoxious little creep, 
but who will he/has he betrayed and how? 'Cos it's a racing 
cert he's done the dirty on somebody.

Most fans take the view that he's betrayed his family 
obligations and is offering aid to the enemy by helping Harry,
yet from what we learn about Winky in GoF and Kreacher in
OoP this is difficult to believe. There is a way that he could 
do what he did and still remain within the bounds of the 
H-F Code of Duty and Ethics, but it's not a popular theory 
among the fans.

A stray thought, probably not relevant, but what the hell -
there's something almost feudal in the relationship between 
H-Fs and masters, complete with parallels of ownership and 
high and low justice. Why, we don't know. Is it an instinct, an
imperative in their nature or is it something more formal, a 
form of contract, perhaps. 'Cos there's the old feudal concept
of diffidatio - if a lord doesn't fulfill his responsibilities, then 
revolt is condoned. I wonder if there's a WW equivalent?

We've surmised that H-Fs generally show family loyalty and 
obey more or less any and all orders. There's a is a bit more 
to this than might appear at first sight and this loyalty can be
interpreted in - not so much different ways, but with different
emphases. It's more than whether they approve of what 
individuals in the family are up to, as is evident with Kreacher
and in the Twinky episode. Crouch Snr has always been rabidly
anti-DE, yet Twinkers, even after being cast out, is obviously 
concerned and almost aggressively protective to the pro-DE 
Barty Jnr in GoF, no matter that he's a baddun and that she's no
longer associated with the family. And it was his fault she got 
the elbow, anyway. 

Kreacher turns this loyalty on its head, constructively 
interpreting instructions so as to cause damage to the head of 
the house, and gives the impression that he'd be happy to see 
Sirius come to a sticky end, preferably before tea-time.

Effectively, one puts the care of individual family members 
above the family ethical code (or lack of one), the other puts 
the code first and duty to the individual second. But whichever
gets priority they seem to care little about anyone or anything 
that isn't directly connected to the family - and in direct 
contradiction to all that "Harry Potter is noble and brave" guff.

All very interesting, but it doesn't help in sorting out Dobby.
Since H-Fs invariably gravitate towards family, what the hell 
is Dobby doing in Harry's bedroom? Harry isn't family, isn't 
anything to Dobby. Or so we believe. But it's not just Privet Drive;
Dobby commutes to Hogwarts a couple of times as well. OK, 
Kreacher managed to sneak out of GP by 'misunderstanding' 
Sirius, but when he did he went to Bella - family. Can't 
imagine Lucius giving instructions that sloppy, not on a fairly 
regular and convenient basis. And if he did, wouldn't Dobby 
head for a 'goody' member of the more extended family? 

That's assuming that the Potters have no (or only distant) blood
connections to the Malfoys and the Blacks. Don't forget that 
Narcissa Malfoy, Dobby's (ahem) mistress is a Black and even
at this early stage of plot development is probably determined
to keep young Draino out of trouble. Conceivably this could 
include keeping Harry as far away from him as possible, 
particularly as Lucius intended to drop the Weasleys, close 
associates of Harry, in deep doodoo. Would Narco order 
Dobby to persuade Harry to give Hogwarts a miss? 
Possible, I suppose, but awfully thin.

Which leaves two alternatives that I can see:
1. Dobby used to be a Potter H-F, got relocated but still 
has residual concerns for the last of the line.
Mmm, could have legs, not very exciting  though, is it?

2. Lucius gave clear orders and Dobby followed them to the 
letter; in other words Lucius is being very, very sneaky and 
playing a very complicated game.
(And it might be film contamination, but I can't forget the
expression on Dobby's face when he dumped the cake -
evil, or what? Not nice at all. Typically Malfoy, in fact.)

Which makes Lucius nasty, devious and thoroughly unprincipled.
What a surprise. 
Fair warms the cockles, that does. But likely? Probably not. 
Pity.

Which leaves us where we started - what the hell is Dobby 
all about?

Kneasy




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 14 23:14:21 2007
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:14:21 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <evjamp+um83@...>
Message-ID: <evrn8d+n8h2@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> Dobby, often referred to (snip) as "That F***ing Elf". 
> It's safe to assume he's not my favourite character.

> still remain within the bounds of the 
> H-F Code of Duty and Ethics, 

Throughout this post, you abbreviate House Elf as H-F. Once could be a
typo. F**king Elf would be F-E. Maybe you're thinking H**** **f?

> 'Cos there's the old feudal concept
> of diffidatio - if a lord doesn't fulfill his responsibilities, then 
> revolt is condoned. 

I was struck by how alien that is to Japanese feudal codes -- "the
biggest test of a good samurai is how well he serves a bad daimyo",
and peasants who dare to petition their lords for relief of famine
confidently expect to be crucified for doing it (altho' etiquette
requires the lord to act on their petition).

I wonder if there's a WW equivalent?

> Effectively, one puts the care of individual family members 
> above the family ethical code (or lack of one), the other puts 
> the code first and duty to the individual second. 
 

Maybe not. Maybe both have a favorite family member (Winky - Junior,
Kreachy - first Old Mistress, then Bella) whom they assist despite the
  head of the family.






From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 18 02:00:47 2007
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:00:47 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <evjamp+um83@...>
Message-ID: <f03u4f+kiru@...>



Kneasy:

The second itch comes, appropriately enough, from
the second book, though key parts of our understanding
on this subject come from the fifth volume. But there's
a chance, judging by the cover of book 7, that we might
get some actual answers regarding this one.

Yup, it's old Big Ears. Yoda without the brains, Gollum
without the attitude, that disaster dressed in a dish-rag,
Dobby, often referred to (around Schloss Kneasy, anyway)
as "That F***ing Elf".
It's safe to assume he's not my favourite character.

Snow:

Dobby is a great puzzlement. Dobby shows up under self-interest for 
Harry's well-being (so he says) and the first thing he does is cause 
Harry trouble: making noise so that Uncle Vernon reprimands Harry; 
keeps Harry's letters from his friends (a bit of owl interception) 
and finally the dessert ala disaster. 

Next we meet the dear elf-that-wants-to-save-the-chosen-one, we find 
that his attempt to do so damn near killed Harry and at the very 
least his ways and means to save him have resulted in a hospital 
stay; all this to save Harry Potter sir. 

So far, Dobby is better represented as an enemy than a friend, that 
is, until the end of the book where he saves Harry from his owner. 

The next we meet Dobby, he has knitted socks for Harry; something 
Dumbledore has longed for as a gift. Interestingly enough, something 
that Harry gives back to Dobby, several times. 

Then we find that Dobby has the answer to the second task 
through `mad eye' as he explains it. 

I really like the fifth book wherein, Dobby tells Harry about the ROR 
where Dobby helps poor innocent Winky with her drinking problem. Dear 
Winky gets drunk as a skunk from Butterbeer like Professor Trelawney 
gets toasted from her cooking Sherry. Both of them need the ROR to 
hide their I-took-too-much-Nyquil-problem!!!  

Dobby seems to be a very serviceable elf; he only appears when he is 
needed. Dobby blinks in and out of service as required.  

But here's a thought, why can Dobby enter the home of Harry Potter 
when not even Voldemort can touch him there? Since when can a house-
elf just pop into anyone's house let alone the one whose house is 
protected even beyond his mother's love? 

I can go along with the `powers of the house elf' can disapperate 
when Hogwarts strictly prohibits it, but an elf that is to service 
only his masters desires that can appear anywhere he wishes despite 
his masters orders is a tad-bit bizarre. 

Snow

I'm torn between commenting on the totally late reply or the 
congratulations to the acknowledgements to Barry Arrowsmith for his 
insight to The End of Harry Potter (U.S. edition, March 2007). 
Congrats Kneasy! ... Name in lights! 





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 18 02:35:06 2007
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:35:06 -0000
Subject: Petunia's Secret
Message-ID: <f0404q+eo84@...>

Excerpt from something I posted on TOL today with a few changes:

Pippin:
Try this --

She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix (the Order,
that is, not the bird.)

No, seriously, wipe the coffee off your keyboard and think about it.

We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because
there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines,
listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors
are up to. She'd make a very good spy. And it would be helpful
to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things-- he can
follow the Muggle media, but not with a Muggle's eyes. He
doesn't have the intuitive knowledge to separate tabloid stuff
about water-skiing budgies from possible reports of wizard 
interference, but Petunia does.

I've always thought there was a parallel between her and Snape.
Both driven by jealousy, yet both seeming to have at their core
not so much envy as outrage that life's gifts are distributed
so unfairly. Lupin says James was what Snape always
wanted to be -- I can certainly see that between Lily and Petunia.
It would certainly extend the parallel further if they
were both spies.

I can't see Lily recruiting Petunia, but maybe
Dumbledore did. Maybe young Petunia nursed a hope,
like Filch, that she could somehow learn enough to become a
witch. And then, when she grew up enough to realize how vain
that hope was, she quit. She got involved with Vernon and
hoped she had left the WW behind.

Sirius says you can't quit the Death Eaters. That implies that
you can leave the Order if you choose.

Having released Petunia from his orders, Dumbledore could
issue no commands or threats, he could only hold her to a
bargain. Perhaps the bargain Dumbledore made with his
ex-spy was this: if you will take your sister's child into the
house on Privet Drive until he comes of age, the
Order will keep your secret, you'll never see them at Privet
Drive and no Muggle will ever have to know that you once
worked with us.

That is why no Order member (except Dumbledore
himself) ever came to Privet Drive to visit when the Dursleys
were there. It explains why Petunia trusted Mrs. Figg to babysit
Harry but wouldn't let anyone else do it, even when it caused
her massive inconvenience. She knew that Mrs. Figg was a
Squib, and wouldn't be alarmed if Harry did any childish magic.

It would also explain why Hagrid expected Petunia would
have told Harry everything, even though the general wizard
assumption is that Muggles know absolutely nothing.
It would explain why Petunia hustles Harry away from the
oddly dressed strangers who seem to know who they are
even though Harry's never seen them before.

It would explain why the Order can accost Vernon and Petunia
at Kings Cross, but doesn't seem able to follow up on Moody's
threat to send someone along if they haven't heard from Harry
in three days. I note that Petunia reacts very differently from
Vernon in this scene. Vernon blusters angrily, but Petunia is
immediately terrified.

And of course it explains why Dumbledore can presume to be
so familiar with Petunia when he's polite even to the gang of
DE's that's trying to murder him. It's why he can leave a baby
on her doorstep with only a letter of explanation, send her
a Howler, or barge into her house with only the pretense of
an invitation. They're old acquaintances, and Petunia is
desperate that Vernon never, ever finds this out. That's why
"Remember my last" is such a threat.

Naturally when Dumbledore shows up in HBP, he makes
like they've never met. But "You must be Petunia"
is the sort of equivocal language we've heard before.

Thoughts?

Pippin




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 18 10:48:15 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:48:15 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f03u4f+kiru@...>
Message-ID: <f04t1f+ha4v@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
>
> snip >
> 
> So far, Dobby is better represented as an enemy than a friend, that 
> is, until the end of the book where he saves Harry from his owner. 
> 
> snip >
> Dobby seems to be a very serviceable elf; he only appears when he is 
> needed. Dobby blinks in and out of service as required.  
> 
> But here's a thought, why can Dobby enter the home of Harry Potter 
> when not even Voldemort can touch him there? Since when can a house-
> elf just pop into anyone's house let alone the one whose house is 
> protected even beyond his mother's love? 
> 
> I can go along with the `powers of the house elf' can disapperate 
> when Hogwarts strictly prohibits it, but an elf that is to service 
> only his masters desires that can appear anywhere he wishes despite 
> his masters orders is a tad-bit bizarre. 
> 

Pertinent observations.
Is Dobby a sort of grab-bag plot device, there to provide justification/
explication for bits it would be awkward to assign to other characters,
or does he have (or has had, or will have) a key role in his own right in
the plot arc? And if so, how and why?

The former would be understandable, but the latter would have a much
bigger bang factor.

For example - there's a post up from Pippin suggesting that Petunia is
a Phoenix member - mmm, possible but unlikely IMO. But what if Dobby
had been co-opted as a little helper for the organisation?  Who on the
Voldy side would suspect the lowly House-Elf of a DE as a spy for DD?
And DD does have spies.

It could explain why DD isn't too bothered about Dobbles making
free with the Hogwarts air-space; visiting Harry when possible with
timely (if incompetently communicated) warnings; how he came to 
appreciate Harry's importance - and, possibly very significant if the 
theory has legs - the reason why Dobby has ended up at Hogwarts 
under DD's protection. 

SFAIK it's never explained why, at the end of CoS, Lucius turns up
to see DD *with Dobby*. Why was Dobby there? Can't say, but there
he was and *in the presence of his master* was busy giving signals to
Harry connecting the diary to Malfoy. Does anyone else think that this
is strange behaviour from a House-Elf?

DD has it all sussed of course. He knows or has surmised that Lurkio
was behind the whole thing. Time for the traditional end-of-vol 
explication from DD, omniscience on the hoof.
Except. How did DD find out? 
Good question.
Logical deduction might help somewhat, but a spy would be better.
 
Dobby's actions at the end of CoS are more or less redundant - unless
as a clue to the reader that there's been something very interesting 
going on.
Why should Harry be the only person that Dobbles visited at Hogwarts?
Lets face it, he'd make an ideal agent-in-place; right in the centre of
the enemy camp, able to overhear anything discussed, and totally
ignored. 

Have we been under-estimating the little freak?


> 
> I'm torn between commenting on the totally late reply or the 
> congratulations to the acknowledgements to Barry Arrowsmith for his 
> insight to The End of Harry Potter (U.S. edition, March 2007). 
> Congrats Kneasy! ... Name in lights!
>

Um.
Thank you.
It was a surprise to me, too.
Or will be; SFAIK the 2nd ed. hasn't been released here in the UK yet.
Langford is a friend of a friend, so I traded on that in contacting him
and noting that there were lots more ideas and theories available
from the Potterhead fanatics on the boards and did he want 
suggestions? And by the way, here's one: Ravenclaw's wand.
To-ing and fro-ing of emails, but unfortunately he couldn't. 
Gollancz wanted the same page count and there was no space to 
expand, though he did like the idea I'd thrown in and would squeeze 
it in as a footnote.

I hope he's included my caveat that the idea that it was the wand in
Olivanders window came from someone else; hate it to be thought 
that I'd claim another fan's brainwaves as my own.

Kneasy




From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 19 02:27:48 2007
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:27:48 -0000
Subject: OT The Book, was: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f04t1f+ha4v@...>
Message-ID: <f06k34+jkn1@...>




Snow previous:

> I'm torn between commenting on the totally late reply or the 
> congratulations to the acknowledgements to Barry Arrowsmith for his 
> insight to The End of Harry Potter (U.S. edition, March 2007). 
> Congrats Kneasy! ... Name in lights!
>

Kneasy:

Um.
Thank you.
It was a surprise to me, too.
Or will be; SFAIK the 2nd ed. hasn't been released here in the UK yet.
Langford is a friend of a friend, so I traded on that in contacting 
him
and noting that there were lots more ideas and theories available
from the Potterhead fanatics on the boards and did he want 
suggestions? And by the way, here's one: Ravenclaw's wand.
To-ing and fro-ing of emails, but unfortunately he couldn't. 
Gollancz wanted the same page count and there was no space to 
expand, though he did like the idea I'd thrown in and would squeeze 
it in as a footnote.

I hope he's included my caveat that the idea that it was the wand in
Olivanders window came from someone else; hate it to be thought 
that I'd claim another fan's brainwaves as my own.


Snow:

I'm shocked you didn't even know your were given credit, not just any 
credit but the lead credit of the Acknowledgements and Thanks section 
at the back end of the book. I must enlighten you of what was written:

"When I write a book, I need a good many people to get behind and 
shove hard. Thanks are due to all the following:

Barry Arrowsmith, for the Ravenclaw-Tarot-Wand theory and other 
interesting comments on this book's hardback edition." (The End Of 
Harry Potter? By David Langford)

The list continues on to include Rich Coad, Malcolm Edwards, Nick 
Lowe, Christopher Priest, Lizzy Priest, Mark Rodgers, J.K. Rowling 
(credit given before the author), Yvonne Rousseau, Gordon Smith, 
Martin Morse Wooster and W. Fredrick Zimmerman. 

The wand in the window was part of the scenario but no specifics as 
to who gave the actual idea appeared at the citation so I would say 
you were off the hook as to whether or not you attempted to take 
credit for that particular idea within the theory. In fact, I'm 
rather curious what other ideas you gave him after reading his first 
hard back edition, since he doesn't specify directly. (Hell, you 
might be asking yourself the same question once you read this edition)

Langford was an interesting read, unlike the majority of 
the `unauthorized' guild. There were a few delicious tidbits that I 
hadn't thought of which brought the old mind back to churning out new 
possibilities. I hadn't read Langford's first copy but in this one he 
questions whether Voldy is an animagus of the snake in the 
ministry...and I thought I scoped everything. 

It was very cool to see your name in the book...although I always 
thought, like many, that you would have broke down and wrote one 
yourself. (I remember you being encouraged to do so some time ago) 

Congrats again,

Snow





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 19 09:51:25 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:51:25 -0000
Subject: OT The Book, was: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f06k34+jkn1@...>
Message-ID: <f07e2t+seek@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
> 
> I'm shocked you didn't even know your were given credit, not just any 
> credit but the lead credit of the Acknowledgements and Thanks section 
> at the back end of the book. I must enlighten you of what was written:
> 
> "When I write a book, I need a good many people to get behind and 
> shove hard. Thanks are due to all the following:
> 
> Barry Arrowsmith, for the Ravenclaw-Tarot-Wand theory and other 
> interesting comments on this book's hardback edition." (The End Of 
> Harry Potter? By David Langford)
> 
> The list continues on to include Rich Coad, Malcolm Edwards, Nick 
> Lowe, Christopher Priest, Lizzy Priest, Mark Rodgers, J.K. Rowling 
> (credit given before the author), Yvonne Rousseau, Gordon Smith, 
> Martin Morse Wooster and W. Fredrick Zimmerman. 
> 

Not surprising I'm first; it's one of the benefits of having a surname
starting with a letter from the front end of the alphabet.

I recognise a couple of heavyweights from the UK SF crowd amongst
the names - Malcolm Edwards and Chris Priest (he wrote 'The Prestige'
recently filmed, along with many other good books). The others, I'm
not familiar with, though Fred Zimmerman rings a faint bell.

> The wand in the window was part of the scenario but no specifics as 
> to who gave the actual idea appeared at the citation so I would say 
> you were off the hook as to whether or not you attempted to take 
> credit for that particular idea within the theory. In fact, I'm 
> rather curious what other ideas you gave him after reading his first 
> hard back edition, since he doesn't specify directly. (Hell, you 
> might be asking yourself the same question once you read this edition)
> 

None, as a matter of fact. Though I did push the idea that Possession 
Theory had wider applicability than many currently appreciate.  
(In retrospect it didn't matter. The 2nd ed. was intended to correct
errors, not introduce new material, though this only emerged later.
There was a tight time-frame, too. Gollancz wanted the corrections 
like, yesterday. This was in January.)

In the 1st. ed. he suggests linking the Mirror to RR because it has
clawed feet - reaching a bit IMO, so my opening gambit was to
posit a Tarot connection (plenty of other Tarot references in HBP) to 
identify the Ravenclaw relic as a wand and as a theory with pointers
already in the text. 
"Ah," said he,"mind if I use that?"
"Feel free," says I, "but I didn't think up the Olivander window bit."
(That was Neri, I think; must check back.)

The main reason I contacted him was to lead up to the suggestion 
that someone, sometime, ought to produce a book looking at the 
HP phenomenon from the *adult* fan perspective, including the 
boards, theorising, fan-fiction and so on, and since his book 
seemed to be clearly aimed at that end of  the market, had he 
ever considered the idea?
Hell of a cheek, but he has written a lot of reviews, analyses and 
lit. crit. pieces on SF and Whodunnit books and phenomena already.

Mostly it was an exercise in trying to tempt/persuade him to
get more heavily involved in adult Potterdom (he's a fan but by
no means a Potterhead). Swamping him with theories and 
extracts of posts from distinguished posters was ajudged as 
probably being counter-productive. 

Caused him enough trouble as it was - a comment from Carolyn
questioning the quality of his research - an observation he made
re: Jo's plotting and info dumps becoming more sophisticated, and
using the scene in the PM's office at the start of  HBP to highlight 
his contention (even though Jo has stated that she had considered
using this scene as far back as book 2). That caused a groan - he 
knew this but didn't think fans would bother about it and wasn't 
aware that such a piece of trivia misuse could cause outrage. 
It was then that I introduced him to the existence of LOONs and
the possibility of doubts being cast on his credibility. 
I assume that's been tidied up as well.

> Langford was an interesting read, unlike the majority of 
> the `unauthorized' guild. There were a few delicious tidbits that I 
> hadn't thought of which brought the old mind back to churning out new 
> possibilities. I hadn't read Langford's first copy but in this one he 
> questions whether Voldy is an animagus of the snake in the 
> ministry...and I thought I scoped everything. 
> 

He's a good bloke, has a pleasant and informed writing style and has 
an eye for plotting and clues. Seemed an ideal candidate for authoring
more on HP. Unfortunately he's committed to other stuff and so
escaped the net. For the time being, anyway. I plan a further campaign
at a later date.

> It was very cool to see your name in the book...although I always 
> thought, like many, that you would have broke down and wrote one 
> yourself. (I remember you being encouraged to do so some time ago) 
> 

Yes, it will be... when I eventually get a copy.
Mind you, conscientiously quoting sources, references etc. is inbred,
he started life as a nuclear physicist and in the sciences any back-
sliding in that area results in a professional lynching.

Me write a book? Too much like hard work.
Besides, can you imagine the quantity of unsolicited HP related material
from unknowns that's already cluttering up publishers offices?
How much of it will actually be read, do you think?
Much better if someone who already has a foot in the door does it.

Kneasy





From svderark at hp_lexicon.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 19 12:12:35 2007
From: svderark at hp_lexicon.yahoo.invalid (Steve Vander Ark)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:12:35 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Petunia's Secret
In-Reply-To: <f0404q+eo84@...>
References: <f0404q+eo84@...>
Message-ID: <002601c7827c$04c89bc0$0e59d340$@com>

This is a wonderful theory. I'd love to post it on the Lexicon, Pippin.
Would you mind sending me an email so we can talk about that?

Steve
The Harry Potter Lexicon

-----Original Message-----
From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of pippin_999
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:35 PM
To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Petunia's Secret

Excerpt from something I posted on TOL today with a few changes:

Pippin:
Try this --

She's not a witch, nor a squib. Petunia is ex-Phoenix (the Order,
that is, not the bird.)

No, seriously, wipe the coffee off your keyboard and think about it.

We know you don't have to be magical to be in the Order, because
there's Mrs. Figg. Petunia reads the newspapers and the magazines,
listens to the news, always has her eye on what the neighbors
are up to. She'd make a very good spy. And it would be helpful
to Dumbledore to have a Muggle's view of things-- he can
follow the Muggle media, but not with a Muggle's eyes. He
doesn't have the intuitive knowledge to separate tabloid stuff
about water-skiing budgies from possible reports of wizard 
interference, but Petunia does.

I've always thought there was a parallel between her and Snape.
Both driven by jealousy, yet both seeming to have at their core
not so much envy as outrage that life's gifts are distributed
so unfairly. Lupin says James was what Snape always
wanted to be -- I can certainly see that between Lily and Petunia.
It would certainly extend the parallel further if they
were both spies.

I can't see Lily recruiting Petunia, but maybe
Dumbledore did. Maybe young Petunia nursed a hope,
like Filch, that she could somehow learn enough to become a
witch. And then, when she grew up enough to realize how vain
that hope was, she quit. She got involved with Vernon and
hoped she had left the WW behind.

Sirius says you can't quit the Death Eaters. That implies that
you can leave the Order if you choose.

Having released Petunia from his orders, Dumbledore could
issue no commands or threats, he could only hold her to a
bargain. Perhaps the bargain Dumbledore made with his
ex-spy was this: if you will take your sister's child into the
house on Privet Drive until he comes of age, the
Order will keep your secret, you'll never see them at Privet
Drive and no Muggle will ever have to know that you once
worked with us.

That is why no Order member (except Dumbledore
himself) ever came to Privet Drive to visit when the Dursleys
were there. It explains why Petunia trusted Mrs. Figg to babysit
Harry but wouldn't let anyone else do it, even when it caused
her massive inconvenience. She knew that Mrs. Figg was a
Squib, and wouldn't be alarmed if Harry did any childish magic.

It would also explain why Hagrid expected Petunia would
have told Harry everything, even though the general wizard
assumption is that Muggles know absolutely nothing.
It would explain why Petunia hustles Harry away from the
oddly dressed strangers who seem to know who they are
even though Harry's never seen them before.

It would explain why the Order can accost Vernon and Petunia
at Kings Cross, but doesn't seem able to follow up on Moody's
threat to send someone along if they haven't heard from Harry
in three days. I note that Petunia reacts very differently from
Vernon in this scene. Vernon blusters angrily, but Petunia is
immediately terrified.

And of course it explains why Dumbledore can presume to be
so familiar with Petunia when he's polite even to the gang of
DE's that's trying to murder him. It's why he can leave a baby
on her doorstep with only a letter of explanation, send her
a Howler, or barge into her house with only the pretense of
an invitation. They're old acquaintances, and Petunia is
desperate that Vernon never, ever finds this out. That's why
"Remember my last" is such a threat.

Naturally when Dumbledore shows up in HBP, he makes
like they've never met. But "You must be Petunia"
is the sort of equivocal language we've heard before.

Thoughts?

Pippin



 
Yahoo! Groups Links







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 19 21:04:35 2007
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:04:35 -0000
Subject: OT The Book, was: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f07e2t+seek@...>
Message-ID: <f08lh3+je2h@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> The main reason I contacted him was to lead up to the suggestion 
> that someone, sometime, ought to produce a book looking at the 
> HP phenomenon from the *adult* fan perspective, including the 
> boards, theorising, fan-fiction and so on, and since his book 
> seemed to be clearly aimed at that end of  the market, had he 
> ever considered the idea?
> Hell of a cheek, but he has written a lot of reviews, analyses and 
> lit. crit. pieces on SF and Whodunnit books and phenomena already.
> 

Carolyn:
Nearly worked, too. Might still come off..let's keep on at him.


> 
> Caused him enough trouble as it was - a comment from Carolyn
> questioning the quality of his research - an observation he made
> re: Jo's plotting and info dumps becoming more sophisticated, and
> using the scene in the PM's office at the start of  HBP to 
highlight 
> his contention (even though Jo has stated that she had considered
> using this scene as far back as book 2). That caused a groan - he 
> knew this but didn't think fans would bother about it and wasn't 
> aware that such a piece of trivia misuse could cause outrage. 
> It was then that I introduced him to the existence of LOONs and
> the possibility of doubts being cast on his credibility. 
> I assume that's been tidied up as well.


Well, tut tut. Have to uphold standards y'know. Not trivia. LOONS 
forever etc.

Anyway, his carelessness defeated the point of his observation; I was 
only trying to help.. 


> 
> He's a good bloke, has a pleasant and informed writing style and 
has an eye for plotting and clues. Seemed an ideal candidate for 
authoring more on HP. Unfortunately he's committed to other stuff and 
so escaped the net. For the time being, anyway. I plan a further 
campaign at a later date.

C:
Still think an edited digest of the very best theory might whet his 
appetite.



Snow:
> > It was very cool to see your name in the book...although I always 
> > thought, like many, that you would have broke down and wrote one 
> > yourself. (I remember you being encouraged to do so some time 
ago) 

> 
> Me write a book? Too much like hard work.
> Besides, can you imagine the quantity of unsolicited HP related 
material from unknowns that's already cluttering up publishers 
offices?
> How much of it will actually be read, do you think?
> Much better if someone who already has a foot in the door does it.
> 
> Kneasy
>


Ah, but, nothing like the twisted Kneasy mind on top form. 'It is a 
truth universally acknowledged, that a man of a certain age would be 
vastly entertained to annoy a significant number of people by being 
ever-so right..' etc

Carolyn
..always a publisher, despite other distractions




From joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 19 23:15:39 2007
From: joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_z_curmudgeon)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:15:39 -0000
Subject: Petunia's Secret
In-Reply-To: <f0404q+eo84@...>
Message-ID: <f08t6r+akvs@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

a really interesting theory about Petunia that explains a lot, to me.

> 
> Thoughts?
> 

Wow, you're brilliant, Pippin.  Wrong about Lupin, but brilliant.

--Joy




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 20 14:27:12 2007
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:27:12 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f04t1f+ha4v@...>
Message-ID: <f0aik0+ud19@...>

Kneasy:> 
> DD has it all sussed of course. He knows or has surmised that Lurkio
> was behind the whole thing. Time for the traditional end-of-vol 
> explication from DD, omniscience on the hoof.
> Except. How did DD find out? 

Pippin:
Unless Dumbledore's peripheral vision is extraordinarily poor, he should
be able to see  Dobby pointing to the diary too.  Besides, Lucius slips up 
a bit. "Have you caught the culprit?" should have been "I take it Hagrid had 
an accomplice?" Only someone with information on the real villain would 
*know* that Hagrid had been innocent all along. Even Harry couldn't be
sure till he'd heard from Aragog.

Kneasy:  
> Dobby's actions at the end of CoS are more or less redundant - unless
> as a clue to the reader that there's been something very interesting 
> going on.

Pippin:
Kneasy, my boy, you're on to something. Not that I believe Dobby was
Dumbledore's agent-in-place at the Malfoys though I could well believe be
became a Dumbledore agent when he went to work at Hogwarts. But since
he's the one who warns Harry of Umbridge's ambush and he seems
to be currently employed in supervising Kreacher, that's hardly bangy.

But according to Dumbledore in HBP, Lucius believed The Diary would 
simply cause the Chamber to reopen.  A memory, we're told,  should not 
have been able to think and act for itself. I assume  that means the Diary
should have had only limited volition, like the  portraits and the
Marauder's Map -- they can do the sorts of things they've always 
done, but they don't attempt anything new. Mrs. Black can't be
persuaded to temper her opinions, and the Map, though it is now
older than two of its makers will ever be, still has the sensibility
(so to speak) of a teenager.

If the Diary were an object of that sort it would have been no 
threat to Harry. His blood is purer than that of many a Slytherin --
Severus Snape for one. But Dobby knew it was something more,
knew that Harry Potter specifically would be in great danger. So,
did Dobby recognize the Diary as a horcrux? Do all House Elves
have this ability? Does Kreacher?

Pippin
Congratulating Kneasy on his ascent to the heights of BNFdom




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 20 16:30:52 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:30:52 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f0aik0+ud19@...>
Message-ID: <f0aprs+j9e0@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Pippin:
> Unless Dumbledore's peripheral vision is extraordinarily poor, he should
> be able to see  Dobby pointing to the diary too.  Besides, Lucius slips up 
> a bit. "Have you caught the culprit?" should have been "I take it Hagrid had 
> an accomplice?" Only someone with information on the real villain would 
> *know* that Hagrid had been innocent all along. Even Harry couldn't be
> sure till he'd heard from Aragog.
> 

Depends on positioning, which is alluded to, but not nailed down for certain.
According to the text:
"And still, behind his back, Dobby was pointing..."
The assumption being that Dobby is behind Malfoy when viewed from DD's
position, 'cos if he'd been in front or to the side, then Lucius would have 
seen his signals. And if he's behind Malfoy, can DD see what he's up to?
Probably not. 
And anyway, it's more fun if DD is a sneaky, conniving old rogue who 
keeps his cards (and his sources) close to his chest. 

> 
> Pippin:
> Kneasy, my boy, you're on to something. Not that I believe Dobby was
> Dumbledore's agent-in-place at the Malfoys though I could well believe be
> became a Dumbledore agent when he went to work at Hogwarts. But since
> he's the one who warns Harry of Umbridge's ambush and he seems
> to be currently employed in supervising Kreacher, that's hardly bangy.
> 
> But according to Dumbledore in HBP, Lucius believed The Diary would 
> simply cause the Chamber to reopen.  A memory, we're told,  should not 
> have been able to think and act for itself. I assume  that means the Diary
> should have had only limited volition, like the  portraits and the
> Marauder's Map -- they can do the sorts of things they've always 
> done, but they don't attempt anything new. Mrs. Black can't be
> persuaded to temper her opinions, and the Map, though it is now
> older than two of its makers will ever be, still has the sensibility
> (so to speak) of a teenager.
> 
> If the Diary were an object of that sort it would have been no 
> threat to Harry. His blood is purer than that of many a Slytherin --
> Severus Snape for one. But Dobby knew it was something more,
> knew that Harry Potter specifically would be in great danger. So,
> did Dobby recognize the Diary as a horcrux? Do all House Elves
> have this ability? Does Kreacher?
> 

Hmm. Worth thinking about, might offer more on that after pondering.
Though as one who doesn't totally trust everything that DD says to 
Harry, the deductions do tend to get a bit twisty. For example, how
did DD know what Lucius thought would happen?

> Pippin
> Congratulating Kneasy on his ascent to the heights of BNFdom
>

BNF?
Wasszat?
Go on, I'm mug enough to fall for it.





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 20 21:26:08 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:26:08 -0000
Subject: Professor Snape still on the loose
Message-ID: <f0bb5g+v502@...>

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007180391,00.html

David




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 20 21:34:02 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:34:02 -0000
Subject: Once more - with answers
In-Reply-To: <f0aprs+j9e0@...>
Message-ID: <f0bbka+eug3@...>

Pippin
> > Congratulating Kneasy on his ascent to the heights of BNFdom
> >
>
Kneasy: 
> BNF?
> Wasszat?
> Go on, I'm mug enough to fall for it.

It's an ancient fandom curse.  Big Name Fan.  The normal fate of a BNF 
is to be torn to pieces by all the other BNFs.

D




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 20 22:06:21 2007
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:06:21 -0000
Subject: Once more - with questions. part 2.
In-Reply-To: <f0aprs+j9e0@...>
Message-ID: <f0bdgt+ftgn@...>


Kneasy: 
> Depends on positioning, which is alluded to, but not nailed down for certain.
> According to the text:
> "And still, behind his back, Dobby was pointing..."
> The assumption being that Dobby is behind Malfoy when viewed from DD's
> position, 'cos if he'd been in front or to the side, then Lucius would have 
> seen his signals. And if he's behind Malfoy, can DD see what he's up to?
> Probably not. 

Pippin:
 Dobby is pointing first to the diary, which is in Dumbledore's hand,
and then to Lucius. If he were standing directly behind Lucius in a
line with Dumbledore, then he shouldn't be able to point at the diary 
because Lucius would be in the way. He must be leaning out, or be 
standing at an angle. Dumbledore would be able to see him pointing 
at the diary and then pointing at something else, then a pause, and 
the sound of Dobby punching himself, which Lucius has learned to 
ignore.

Kneasy:
> Hmm. Worth thinking about, might offer more on that after pondering.
> Though as one who doesn't totally trust everything that DD says to 
> Harry, the deductions do tend to get a bit twisty. For example, how
> did DD know what Lucius thought would happen?

Pippin:
Snape, I suppose, though doubtless you will come up with a twistier 
answer.
> 
> > Pippin
> > Congratulating Kneasy on his ascent to the heights of BNFdom
> >
> 
> BNF?
> Wasszat?
> Go on, I'm mug enough to fall for it.

Pippin:
Big Name Fan, ie, someone who has achieved recognition for his fandom.

The proper response of course, is to deny that one is any such thing <g> 
Well done.

Pippin




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 21 09:56:22 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:56:22 -0000
Subject: Will there be dragons?
Message-ID: <f0cn46+dntf@...>

Dragons are popular, dragons are fun - in the abstract, 
that is.
Kids love 'em, or the idea of them - monstrous, scaly, 
flying flame-throwers, what could engage the imagination
of a blood-thirsty little 'un more?

The treatment dragons get in legend, fiction and especially
art, tends to be ... patchy. There are some weird and 
wonderful depictions out there, usually of St George doing 
his stuff, with things from the size of a house down to the 
Pistrucci representation. Titchy thing. Hardly worth polishing
your armour for. No wonder George won. In fairness, it had 
to be fitted onto the reverse of gold sovereigns 0.75 inches
across, so perhaps he was forced to think small. Still, it 
does call to mind Pratchett's swamp dragons - small, dim, 
harmless and liable to explosively self-destruct at the 
slightest provocation. You don't think that copies of his 
books slipped through a time-warp back to 1816, do you?

Fantasy writers soon put things in their true perspective. 
After all, if you want to paint someone as really heroic, he'll 
need to face down something a bit more impressively sized
than a pig with a goose-neck. As a consequence Diana 
Wynne Jones, in her ''Tough Guide to Fantasy Land' can assert: 

"Dragons  are very large [...] They are always very old [...] They
are quite like people, provided you can get their attention. 
They are very wise and can do magic of a type not known to
other magic users. But they do not have human emotions. 
This can cause misunderstandings [...] the relationship can 
be a bit edgy. This is because dragons can, if they want, 
eat people."

Sounds more like the description of a fearsome aunt from 
Wodehouse than a species of killer lizard, but perhaps I'm 
out of date.

And what's with the fashion for inter-species chatter?
Never did get to grips with that. Why would dragons want to 
talk to humans anyway instead of getting on with dragonish 
things for dragonish reasons? And age-old wisdom and 
philosophising thrown in for good measure. Ugh. It's irritating
enough having know-it-all mages acting smugly omniscient
while swanning around the fantasy tales without the livestock 
getting in on the act as well. Personally, if dragons have to 
communicate, I'd prefer the ones that look the hero in the eye 
with the words "Ah! Lunch!" 

(Note:  McCaffreys lot on Pern aren't proper dragons - they 
came out of a test-tube, a deliberate GM breeding programme -
though how you invent a telepathic beastie when your own 
species isn't telepathic even amongst themselves defeats me. It's
to up the slush-factor during those heart-warming 'impressings' 
that occur with depressing regularity, I suppose.) 

And why make them magical? They've enough going for them 
already -  big verging on ginormous, more or less impervious 
scales, able to fly intercontinental without a break, big teeth, 
claws, a touchy disposition and with a built-in pest-zapper. 
Isn't that enough? 

Happily, with Jo, it is.
None of the flaming philosophers, arcane arsonists, nor 
inscrutable incendiarist types here, thank you very much. And 
not a dietary preference for chubby sacrificial maidens and/or 
a gold fixation in sight for the flammenwerfing reptiloids in HP. 
(Though as explained in a previous post, the gold bedding thing
is a misunderstanding. In short, in olden days gold was portable
currency, dragons ate people wearing their life savings (who says
you can't take it with you), and gold being a notoriously inert 
element, it survived the journey through the chemical hell of the
dragon digestive system to be expelled at the distal end. 
Dragons therefore sleep on their own droppings. Most unhygienic.)

No, Jo gives us the full monte of short-tempered ravening monsters 
who just want to be left in peace to snack on cattle and unwary 
travellers and any interferring busybody who pokes their nose into
dragon affairs is liable to find that it's reduced to a dribble of ash
down their shirt-front.
No short-changing of mayhem-addicted readers or infliction of
insipid fluffiness here.
Splendid.

But are they to feature in book 7, that's the question.
Be nice if they did, but rumours (unsubstantiated? dunno) say not,
which would be a pity. Crispy wizards scattered around the fringes
of the Last Battle would add that little extra something, not so 
much a blaze of glory as a blaze of gory. 
Mmm! Yes please!

OK. If no dragons, so be it, disappointing as that may be - but 
what about dragon's blood? Will that have a role to play? Many 
hope so, convinced that among the 12 properties of dragon's 
blood is a little something of plot significance. In Norse 
mythology being dipped in dragon's blood makes one impervious
to weapons, but since there aren't many weapons as such in the 
WW, that's not much help. 

One small thing, though - dragon's blood is 'greenish'.
And green is such an important colour in the Potter books.

Kneasy

P.S.
Calling Sally Gallo!
What happened with your ponderings over dragon's blood?
Seem to recall it's been, what, a year or more?
Any conclusions?


P.P.S.
Re: BNF.

>Dave:
>It's an ancient fandom curse. Big Name Fan. The normal fate of a
>BNF is to be torn to pieces by all the other BNFs.


Ah. Thank you (I think).
Do you mean literally, or just my posts?
'Cos that's been happening for years... no change there, then.
Psst! What's the counter-curse?


>Pippin:
>Big Name Fan, ie, someone who has achieved recognition for his
>fandom.
>The proper response of course, is to deny that one is any such 
>thing <g>

BNF? Me? Nah, just a humble scribbler, a dewy-eyed ingenue toiling
away on the boards, undeserving of reward or recognition, surprised
and grateful if the newest of neo-fans deigns to notice his 
insubstantial offerings. 
The acknowledgement? Probably an editorial error.
Like that, you mean? 






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 21 12:29:54 2007
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:29:54 -0000
Subject: Will there be dragons?
In-Reply-To: <f0cn46+dntf@...>
Message-ID: <f0d042+7j2i@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
> BNF? Me? Nah, just a humble scribbler, a dewy-eyed ingenue toiling
> away on the boards, undeserving of reward or recognition, surprised
> and grateful if the newest of neo-fans deigns to notice his 
> insubstantial offerings. 
> The acknowledgement? Probably an editorial error.
> Like that, you mean?
>

One of those posts where it's inadvisable to be drinking anything 
whilst sat at the keyboard. The clean up operation may take some time.

C






From Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 21 19:40:16 2007
From: Pookie1_uk at pookie1_uk.yahoo.invalid (S Culfeather)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:40:16 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Professor Snape still on the loose
In-Reply-To: <f0bb5g+v502@...>
Message-ID: <378288.11076.qm@...>

Haha, love the picture's title - "Rickman as Sanpe" I
reckon Severus would have a thing or three to say
about that typo!

Serena



>
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007180391,00.html
> 
> David
> 
> 




From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 21 23:59:38 2007
From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:59:38 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Will there be dragons?
References: <f0cn46+dntf@...>
Message-ID: <002e01c78471$2d402d60$482fdcd1@...>

Magical ones--

Gatta is just coming down from a writing assignment (actually, several writing assignments), which is why she has been incommunicada lately.

Gatta would love to adopt a swamp dragon, except that she isn't sure how it would get along with her cat children. Also, she has a shag carpet, which might suffer catastrophically should the poor little guy ingest a can of beans.... (Gatta wonders, do dragons ever spout flames at both ends?)

She is pleasantly reminded of a fantasy short story a friend of hers wrote, in which the Princess is explaining kindly but firmly to the rescuing Knight in Shining Armor that yes, she really prefers to go on living with the dragon, because he talks with her, something no human males she has encountered ever do, and she finds his company much more enjoyable than that of ardent swains in or out of armor. (He's also teaching her serious magic.)

In re Harry Potter: The Latin word draco is both a dragon and a serpent. Has anyone speculated that LV is on his way to becoming a dragon? Perhaps in the last battle, Harry will become the archetypal hero prince facing down the archetypal dragon?

Purrs,

--Gatta


  Dragons are popular, dragons are fun - in the abstract, 
  that is.
  Kids love 'em, or the idea of them - monstrous, scaly, 
  flying flame-throwers, what could engage the imagination
  of a blood-thirsty little 'un more?

  The treatment dragons get in legend, fiction and especially
  art, tends to be ... patchy. There are some weird and 
  wonderful depictions out there, usually of St George doing 
  his stuff, with things from the size of a house down to the 
  Pistrucci representation. Titchy thing. Hardly worth polishing
  your armour for. No wonder George won. In fairness, it had 
  to be fitted onto the reverse of gold sovereigns 0.75 inches
  across, so perhaps he was forced to think small. Still, it 
  does call to mind Pratchett's swamp dragons - small, dim, 
  harmless and liable to explosively self-destruct at the 
  slightest provocation. You don't think that copies of his 
  books slipped through a time-warp back to 1816, do you?

  Fantasy writers soon put things in their true perspective. 
  After all, if you want to paint someone as really heroic, he'll 
  need to face down something a bit more impressively sized
  than a pig with a goose-neck. As a consequence Diana 
  Wynne Jones, in her ''Tough Guide to Fantasy Land' can assert: 

  "Dragons are very large [...] They are always very old [...] They
  are quite like people, provided you can get their attention. 
  They are very wise and can do magic of a type not known to
  other magic users. But they do not have human emotions. 
  This can cause misunderstandings [...] the relationship can 
  be a bit edgy. This is because dragons can, if they want, 
  eat people."

  Sounds more like the description of a fearsome aunt from 
  Wodehouse than a species of killer lizard, but perhaps I'm 
  out of date.

  And what's with the fashion for inter-species chatter?
  Never did get to grips with that. Why would dragons want to 
  talk to humans anyway instead of getting on with dragonish 
  things for dragonish reasons? And age-old wisdom and 
  philosophising thrown in for good measure. Ugh. It's irritating
  enough having know-it-all mages acting smugly omniscient
  while swanning around the fantasy tales without the livestock 
  getting in on the act as well. Personally, if dragons have to 
  communicate, I'd prefer the ones that look the hero in the eye 
  with the words "Ah! Lunch!" 

  (Note: McCaffreys lot on Pern aren't proper dragons - they 
  came out of a test-tube, a deliberate GM breeding programme -
  though how you invent a telepathic beastie when your own 
  species isn't telepathic even amongst themselves defeats me. It's
  to up the slush-factor during those heart-warming 'impressings' 
  that occur with depressing regularity, I suppose.) 

  And why make them magical? They've enough going for them 
  already - big verging on ginormous, more or less impervious 
  scales, able to fly intercontinental without a break, big teeth, 
  claws, a touchy disposition and with a built-in pest-zapper. 
  Isn't that enough? 

  Happily, with Jo, it is.
  None of the flaming philosophers, arcane arsonists, nor 
  inscrutable incendiarist types here, thank you very much. And 
  not a dietary preference for chubby sacrificial maidens and/or 
  a gold fixation in sight for the flammenwerfing reptiloids in HP. 
  (Though as explained in a previous post, the gold bedding thing
  is a misunderstanding. In short, in olden days gold was portable
  currency, dragons ate people wearing their life savings (who says
  you can't take it with you), and gold being a notoriously inert 
  element, it survived the journey through the chemical hell of the
  dragon digestive system to be expelled at the distal end. 
  Dragons therefore sleep on their own droppings. Most unhygienic.)

  No, Jo gives us the full monte of short-tempered ravening monsters 
  who just want to be left in peace to snack on cattle and unwary 
  travellers and any interferring busybody who pokes their nose into
  dragon affairs is liable to find that it's reduced to a dribble of ash
  down their shirt-front.
  No short-changing of mayhem-addicted readers or infliction of
  insipid fluffiness here.
  Splendid.

  But are they to feature in book 7, that's the question.
  Be nice if they did, but rumours (unsubstantiated? dunno) say not,
  which would be a pity. Crispy wizards scattered around the fringes
  of the Last Battle would add that little extra something, not so 
  much a blaze of glory as a blaze of gory. 
  Mmm! Yes please!

  OK. If no dragons, so be it, disappointing as that may be - but 
  what about dragon's blood? Will that have a role to play? Many 
  hope so, convinced that among the 12 properties of dragon's 
  blood is a little something of plot significance. In Norse 
  mythology being dipped in dragon's blood makes one impervious
  to weapons, but since there aren't many weapons as such in the 
  WW, that's not much help. 

  One small thing, though - dragon's blood is 'greenish'.
  And green is such an important colour in the Potter books.

  Kneasy

  P.S.
  Calling Sally Gallo!
  What happened with your ponderings over dragon's blood?
  Seem to recall it's been, what, a year or more?
  Any conclusions?

  P.P.S.
  Re: BNF.

  >Dave:
  >It's an ancient fandom curse. Big Name Fan. The normal fate of a
  >BNF is to be torn to pieces by all the other BNFs.

  Ah. Thank you (I think).
  Do you mean literally, or just my posts?
  'Cos that's been happening for years... no change there, then.
  Psst! What's the counter-curse?

  >Pippin:
  >Big Name Fan, ie, someone who has achieved recognition for his
  >fandom.
  >The proper response of course, is to deny that one is any such 
  >thing <g>

  BNF? Me? Nah, just a humble scribbler, a dewy-eyed ingenue toiling
  away on the boards, undeserving of reward or recognition, surprised
  and grateful if the newest of neo-fans deigns to notice his 
  insubstantial offerings. 
  The acknowledgement? Probably an editorial error.
  Like that, you mean? 



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 22 22:54:39 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:54:39 -0000
Subject: Will there be dragons?
In-Reply-To: <f0cn46+dntf@...>
Message-ID: <f0gp3f+r782@...>

Dave:
> >It's an ancient fandom curse. Big Name Fan. The normal fate of a
> >BNF is to be torn to pieces by all the other BNFs.
> 
Kneasy:
> Ah. Thank you (I think).
> Do you mean literally, or just my posts?
> 'Cos that's been happening for years... no change there, then.
> Psst! What's the counter-curse?

If you get the choice, go for literally.  It's much more humane.

David




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 23 12:34:30 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:34:30 -0000
Subject: Will there be dragons?
In-Reply-To: <f0gp3f+r782@...>
Message-ID: <f0i94m+3b15@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
>
> Dave:
> > >It's an ancient fandom curse. Big Name Fan. The normal fate of a
> > >BNF is to be torn to pieces by all the other BNFs.
> > 
> Kneasy:
> > Ah. Thank you (I think).
> > Do you mean literally, or just my posts?
> > 'Cos that's been happening for years... no change there, then.
> > Psst! What's the counter-curse?
> 
> If you get the choice, go for literally.  It's much more humane.
> 
> David
>

Good thinking.
Right, soon sort that out -
Schloss Kneasy to DEFCON 4.
Igor, get that oil on the boil, grease the man-traps  and load the 
catapults with the collected works of Leonard Cohen.
And from now on Plonker, The Hound from Hell, will relocate
to the main gate, where she can practice sleeping in an
agressive manner. 
Now where did I put that chain-mail bunny-suit....