From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 6 11:33:56 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:33:56 -0000 Subject: Oh, Wolf. Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6276682.stm Revised ending: "Sobbing his heart out, Harry downed half a bottle of champagne from the mini bar in one and went home with ma*scar*a all over his face." D From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 8 05:20:21 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:20:21 -0000 Subject: 'chained these 12 years' / Order-on-Order death / Message-ID: Talisman wrote in : << I totally agree that the DE's--even Lucius-- knew Pettigrew was the SK/traitor/spy, that's exactly why they believed he had a role in Lv's downfall. As in the cite I offered, they all believed he was the "double-crossing double-crosser." >> I don't think Herself is going to sort this out in DH: HOW and WHAT did all the Death Eaters know? Did LV summon them to a meeting (which he must have done fairly often, because in GoF they still remembered their assigned places in the circle) and announce: "A spy named Wormtail will guide me to the hiding place of James and Lily Potter so I can kill them in person"? Did they know Wormtail's name was Peter? Pettigrew? Did they see his face? WHY would LV make an announcement like that? << CL: > It's not the same as theories in which DDM!Snape obediently killed DD, because Sirius didn't agree to it. T: How do you know that Sirius didn't agree? Notice his increasingly bleak mood after Christmas. Notice his tactful, regretful, avoidance when Harry speaks of the possibility of living with him in the future. Now, maybe Sirius just happened to be on the dias when DD arrived, and DD obligingly used the gentlest method at hand to do the job. Then again, maybe Sirius jumped up there for a reason. I still think the Order on Order deaths relate to that comment Lupin makes to Harry, in the kitchen of GP: that being in the Order entails awful things that they (Harry et al) can't imagine--even though Harry has faced death/Voldemort/Dementors/torture, etc. >> You may well be right. But OoP says Sirius's eyes 'widened in shock' and 'Harry saw the look of mingled fear and surprise on his godfathers wasted, once-handsome face'. Shock and surprise are responses to something being unexpected. I don't want Remus to be ESE, but even more I don't want Sirius's last thought in life to have been that Remus unexpectedly killed him. If Sirius expected it, or Sirius didn't notice that it was Remus, or it wasn't Remus, those are better outcomes. << We have been told that we will see Sirius's communications mirrors again. But, Rowling tells us, it's not so much the message, as the *fact* of the mirrors that will make it meaningful. What would it mean, if someone else has the other one? Because Sirius entrusted it to them (maybe Snape?), before Sirius went to his own Order execution? >> It'd be in character for Harry to think that Snape stole it from Black, not to believe that Black gave it to him. I suppose Harry might believe Tonks if she told of Sirius giving her the mirror -- altho' I still suspect that 'Tonks' in HBP was some bad guy Polyjuiced. Talisman wrote in : << just as Barty Crouch, Sr., Bertha Jorkins, and Quirrell, etc. got, in a sense, their respective comeuppances. >> Just because Bertha was stupid and nosy, and sometimes blabby, doesn't mean she deserved to be abused so very painfully before being killed. Stupid and nosy and blabby are commonplace minor failings, not like helping a convicted murderer/enemy agent escape from prison and hiding him for years, still less trying to resurrect Lord Voldemort and murder Harry. Pippin wrote in : << If JKR has somehow managed to inspire in me the plot of a full blown spy novel which she didn't write, I shall be far too busy filing off the serial numbers and writing it myself. :) >> I think 'filing off the serial numbers' would be plenty difficult. The cauldron-full of Wolfsbane Potion is kind of recognizable, and the Fidelius Charm... From lunalovegood at tbernhard2000.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 8 06:55:01 2007 From: lunalovegood at tbernhard2000.yahoo.invalid (dan) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:55:01 -0000 Subject: The Battle for Rowling Message-ID: I know a number of you are on livejournal, but I really wanted to post this to a wider audience. Perhaps I can massage it into shape for the big group, but it seems to fit here better. Iwrote this right after seeing Jo emerge on the BBC from what seemed to be four years of silliness and being coy. As usual, I pass up no opportunities for dissing the sillier parts of fandom. The Battle for Rowling The real battle of Harry Potter isn't what takes place in the books, and we most of us know this, but a battle for defensible, intelligent critical approaches to Rowling's work. Squeeing over "scar" no longer being the last word, for example, has nothing to do with anything at all besides, well, the knowing of this fact - it is an entirely self-referential rubric, knowledge of it is brandished like a flag, it is not news and it is no more important than knowing the last word was "scar", when it was. That is to say, it is insignificant. It is sports. However, in most public forums, fandom and its ships are exactly, and I mean exactly, like fandoms for sports teams. Fun, no doubt, but entirely meaningless. In other words, no critical understanding of Rowling wil come from that particular part of HP fandom. Another example is the insignificance of Rowling's statement, some months ago, that she'd revised the 7 book such that one character got a reprieve but two die she hadn't intended. If we knew who lived and died originally, this would be a meaningful revelation to us now. We don't, however, know, and so this revelation was entirely meaningless, and yet much of the fandom went coo coo crazy over this, until the statement, as Rowling notes in her recent interview, takes on an entirely fandom based take of its own. Mugglenet and Leaky and many other sites, and even the more "serious" sites, all fall prey, more and more as time has gone on, to hordes of the silliest readers imaginable, who all seem to post frequently, unsurprisingly. The editors in their heads, it seems, are drowned out by the squeals. Rowling's note about changing a couple deaths and a life did, at the time, however, raise one alarm. It was around the time of the public reading with Irving and King, who both seemed to be suggesting Rowling had to let Harry live. We, some of us, at any rate, watched this event with a growing horror - these men, these experts, were, in spite of statements to the effect that Rowling was top billing and they merely warm-up acts, presuming to influence her anyway, not out of what could be percieved as deep love of the character Harry, but for some larger purpose - they thought he should live, and thought Rowling should be persuaded. Well, fuck right off, you presumptuous men. This was a deep and pervasive chauvanism that all of fandom, with rare exceptions, completely missed. Went over their heads. I don't care if they've defended Rowling as a writer for years, they might have said " we trust you to write the best last novel you can, whether or not Harry lives or dies." But they didn't. So, fuck them. I hate Stephen King anyway, and Garp was more cute than compelling. The battle for Rowling, as I'll call it, is not a propaganda war as such, however, King and Irving and Byatt notwithstanding, a battle for "ownership" of Harry Potter - to speak of it as such is to give up, before starting, all sense of reality. And Rowling's own questionable decisions, the full import of which we don't yet know, and I mean here most importantly, and most recently, the "theme park", contribute to the carnival atmosphere surrounding HP. Her strange, and to be honest, somewhat ridiculously saccarine relationship with a couple online fansites, I take as a growing sort of weakness to the adulation, which I hope is ultimately only a ploy, part of the advertising, part of the will to get as many people to go the HP journey as she can get, just to twist it in at the end. I don't doubt her ultimate message, but I do doubt that her choices of late have been as astute as previous ones. It's, I presume, a combination of fame and wealth, after a few years of it. The recent interview on BBC captures for me the Rowling I've always identified - and which has been rather hidden these past few years. The interview gives me hope that all the silly trinkets and what have you are just carrots, offered to the masses, for the end goal of subverting the greatest number of people possible. The Battle for Rowling is a battle for her themes - which are not trite, but subtle, subversive, in their own right, without injecting slash or whatever into them. (In fact, this slash is banality itself, frequently, with merely a surface, a patina, of what is called subversive, but it is in fact simply posturing, in the worst possible sense. Those crazy people who claim ownership of HP over Rowling seem to come from slash as often as they come from Harry/Hermione, I'd say.) It is a battle against the banal and the mundane, which, I think Rowling knows, must wade through the banal to reach transcendance. I have nothing against the midnight booklines - obviously, I go myself. What I do have something against is confusing fandom with appreciation - after all, sports aren't about anything - they imply nationalism, or regionalism or whatever, but they are meaningless. Books, on the other hand, are build on meaning through and through. Nevertheless, dressing up and being fanatical don't preclude critical appreciatons, they do, however, help maintain a massive block of readers who all seem to get in front of the cameras and talk utter nonsense about HP - avoiding anything political, when the books are so obviously political, and avoiding anything that suggests they are overt attacks on anything in the real world, which they so obviously are. From the new age to organized religion to the nation state, Rowling is questioning all these things, their utility, their validity. But all we see are people talking about actors and actresses, arguing about who should sleep with who, and a million other boring things, that serve to eliminate the meaningful in Rowling. Part of me hopes that the folks who want to build that theme park are utterly appalled by Deathly Hallows. posted also at http://darkthirty.livejournal.com/95554.html From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 9 01:01:35 2007 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:01:35 -0000 Subject: 'chained these 12 years' / Order-on-Order death / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catlady: > I don't want Remus to be ESE, but even more I don't want Sirius's last thought in life to have been that Remus unexpectedly killed him. If Sirius expected it, or Sirius didn't notice that it was Remus, or it wasn't Remus, those are better outcomes. Pippin: Why though? Given that he died in shock and fear, is it not more flattering to Sirius if his shock was that a friend had turned traitor and his fear was that his other friends were at risk, rather than that his shock was that he hadn't actually expected he might die, and his fear was of dying? > > Pippin wrote in > : > > << If JKR has somehow managed to inspire in me the plot of a full > blown spy novel which she didn't write, I shall be far too busyfiling> off the serial numbers and writing it myself. :) >> > > I think 'filing off the serial numbers' would be plenty difficult. The cauldron-full of Wolfsbane Potion is kind of recognizable, and the > Fidelius Charm... > Pippin: The recognizable parts are window-dressing. The wolfsbane potion could be any other medication or device which could secretly enable a supposed invalid to commit a crime. IIRC, both Chandler and Christie plotted mysteries where a wheelchair-bound villain turned out to be a little more ambulatory than anyone thought. Fidelius could be any way of supposedly confining information to a select few. The weak link was not magical even in canon as we have it. ESE!Lupin as I see it is about a kind, clever, wonderful man who allows himself to be caught up in a terrorist takeover. He becomes a murderer in his own right less to further the aims of the terrorists than to avoid confronting what he's become. The plot doesn't even require a fantasy setting, much less the WW, though fantasy does have advantages when you want to write about evil. Pippin From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 9 06:49:59 2007 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:49:59 -0000 Subject: 'chained these 12 years' / Order-on-Order death / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Talisman wrote in > : > << I totally agree that the DE's--even Lucius-- knew Pettigrew was >the SK/traitor/spy, that's exactly why they believed he had a >role in Lv's downfall. As in the cite I offered, they all >believed he was the "double-crossing double-crosser." >> > CL: > I don't think Herself is going to sort this out in DH: HOW and WHAT > did all the Death Eaters know? Talisman: I, personally, don't need any further explanation. We know, via Sirius, that the DE's *did* know Pettigrew/Wormtail was the Potter's SK / LV's spy. Similarly, we know that members of the Order knew Snape was a double agent--as did at least a number of DEs. We don't need to know the details of conversations that conferred this knowledge. These matters are superfluous; padding the story with this information would do violence to the pacing and add nothing to either plot or subtext. >From a practical perspective, it would only take one DE with ideas about Wormtail's role in the Godric's Hollow affair to spread the word to others. Just as it only took Harry to tell the Order what he saw on the Tower. And, if both groups came to erroneous conclusions--based on the interpretations of their respective informants--quelle surprise? Hope that gives you peace. > << CL: > > It's not the same as theories in which DDM!Snape obediently killed > DD, because Sirius didn't agree to it. > > T: > How do you know that Sirius didn't agree? > Then again, maybe Sirius jumped up [on the dias] for a reason. > > I still think the Order on Order deaths relate to that comment Lupin > makes to Harry, in the kitchen of GP > CL: > You may well be right. > But OoP says Sirius's eyes 'widened in shock' and 'Harry saw the >look of mingled fear and surprise on his godfathers wasted, >once-handsome face'. >Shock and surprise are responses to something being unexpected. Talisman: I believe anyone on the receiving end of a stunning spell will register surprise. Sort of like getting a nasty electrical shock-- even if you see it coming. As to fear, well death does that to people. Even brave ones. Lily knew what to expect, and chose not to fight at all, but was screaming her head off, nonetheless. CL: > I don't want Remus to be ESE, but even more I don't want Sirius's >last thought in life to have been that Remus unexpectedly >killed him. Talisman: I don't think there was any need for Lupin to participate directly in Sirius's death. Sirius was already standing in front of the veil, Bella was firing stunning rays, all DD needed to do was what he did: bind Sirius with the invisible ropes he was already shooting about, and perhaps tug him through the veil for good measure. Nonetheless, the notion that this is an Order killing is enhanced by the fact that the only two people still fighting in the chamber were Sirius and Bella. Lupin, who disarmed the trio with one good Expelliarmus--back when they had Sirius in their sites at the SS--notably didn't act to impede Bellatrix's offensive, on this occasion. Nor did DD-of-the-many-flying-rope-spells, raise a so much as a magical finger to put Bella out of commission. Then there is the way Lupin was able to restrain Harry from mounting the dias, but allowed him to chase after Bella, all by himself. Of course, DD allowed Harry to run right past him, too. And somehow was unable to hit Bella with any spell, as she galloped up the steep stone stairs--though fortunately the old geezer regained his accuracy in time to toy with the Dark Lord as if he were a disgruntled toddler. Sure, Lupin knew what was on tap, but it was all DD's plan. >Talisman: < We have been told that we will see Sirius's communications mirrors > again. But, Rowling tells us, it's not so much the message, as the > *fact* of the mirrors that will make it meaningful. > > What would it mean, if someone else has the other one? Because > Sirius entrusted it to them (maybe Snape?), before Sirius went to >his own Order execution? >> > CL: > It'd be in character for Harry to think that Snape stole it from > Black, not to believe that Black gave it to him. Talisman: Well we'll have to trust Rowling to set up the circumstances necessary to convince Harry of Snape's true nature--something we know will happen, anyway. CL: >I suppose Harry > might believe Tonks if she told of Sirius giving her the mirror -- >altho' I still suspect that 'Tonks' in HBP was some bad guy >Polyjuiced. Talisman: I'm sure Tonks was a bubblegum-pink-herring throughout most of HBP. Being lovesick for Lupin *was* the explanation for her odd behavior. > Talisman wrote in > : > << just as Barty Crouch, Sr., Bertha Jorkins, and Quirrell, etc. >got, in a sense, their respective comeuppances. >> >CL: > Just because Bertha was stupid and nosy, and sometimes blabby, >doesn't mean she deserved to be abused so very painfully before >being killed. Talisman: Hey--I didn't write the books! Still one could see Bertha as a malicious trouble-causer rather than letting her off as merely blabby. DD knows a bit more than we do, and we may well get a better picture of Bertha in DH. Whether or not we reach agreement as to what was *deserved* there *is* a cognizable pattern wherein people often play a causative role in their own demise, by persisting in an obvious character fault. CL: > Stupid and nosy and blabby are commonplace minor failings, not like > helping a convicted murderer/enemy agent escape from prison and > hiding him for years, still less trying to resurrect Lord Voldemort > and murder Harry. Talisman: Now you're just picking on poor old Guilty!Dumbledore. From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 9 10:47:37 2007 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:47:37 -0000 Subject: 'chained these 12 years..' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> > Talisman: > > I think I'm remembering that the Order is an ultra-secret > > organization. The Ministry doesn't know it exists, and > >the Order is keeping it that way. > > > Pippin: > Even Sluggy knows it exists and refers to it by name. Matter of > fact, it was Fudge who first told us about Spymaster! > Dumbledore. Not only that, he tried to recruit Percy to infiltrate. Talisman: There is no justification for saying *even* Sluggy. Indeed, Sluggy is the *only* non-insider to use the Order name. Far from being an index of penetration, Sluggy is a character with some explaining to do. In mid-July of Year 6, ol' Sluggy tells Harry that he has been running and hiding for a year. Basically, he went to ground at the first whiff of Voldemort's return, in the summer of Year 5 (the end of GoF). Unlike the Ministry, Sluggy didn't question Voldemort's reappearance. Moreover, though many people fear Voldemort's return, Sluggy demonstrates a personal, immediate expectation of Voldemort's attentions. We need hardly wonder why. From Voldemort's perspective, Sluggy is the only person--or more conservatively--the only non-DE, who knows Voldemort has been slapping out Hxes. If Sluggy isn't actively on LV's side, LV has good reason to insure the old duffer's silence. Shoot, if I were the DL, I'd waste the nuisance even if he took the DE oath. Loose lips, etc. So, what do you suppose Sluggo did last time around? Surely LV would have had the same *interest* in his old professor, pre-GH. Is Slughorn lying? Did he join the DEs in the past? Or was he under Order protection? Either answer would give him the knowledge he evinces. No, we're not done with Slughorn yet. He's got a nice chunk of crystalized Karma coming. DD didn't need the un-tampered memory, but that doesn't change the fact that Slughorn preferred gilding his own foolish lily to giving DD information the he possessed relevant to LV's Hx program. Sluggy will be diced and fried in DH, but not before we learn more about our pudgy potions pal. As for Fudge. Ha. Fudge is a parnoid idiot who thinks DD wants his job. He prefers to think DD is telling tales of LV's return, just to make trouble for him (OoP Chpt. 4, p 71) and harbours shadowy fears that DD may be assembling a mutinous band to effect a coup d'etat. Late in the year, when DD claims the DA as his personal organization, Fudge is all to happy to identify the student group as DD's agents of revolution. "`Then you *have* been plotting against me!' he yelled"(Chpt.27, p. 618). Fudge doesn't know the Order from a Gobstones Club. > Pippin: > You don't think it's an *accident* that Moody was forced into > retirement, Tonks got posted to Hogsmeade and Shacklebolt > to the Muggle PM's office? They aren't going to be spying on > the Ministry from there, you know. > Talisman: Moody had already retired of his own volition, prior to Year 4; his retirement was totally unrelated to events occurring in Year 5. As for the others: "I'm stationed in Hogsmeade now, to give the school extra protection," said Tonks. "Is it just you who's stationed up here, or ? ?" "No, Proudfoot, Savage, and Dawlish are here too." (OoP Chpt.8, p. 158) Tonks, and three other Aurors, including Dawlish who took fire for Fudge the year prior, are guarding the children of Hogwarts. This includes children from every level of wizarding society and can hardly be called a politically unimportant mission. Shacklebolt is guarding the Muggle Prime Minister. Not only is the Minister himself in danger, but Voldemort's forces are causing havoc among the Muggles. Sensitive matters involving the International Code of Wizarding Secrecy are arising in record numbers. The International Code of Wizarding Secrecy is a primary raison d'etre for the existence of the Ministry of Magic. The Code, itself, was established for the benefit of Muggles, and it is the Ministry's duty to insure that it is upheld (See e.g. FBWTFT xvi). There is even a special office of Misinformation, which is deployed to *liaise directly with the Muggle prime minister* in the case of especially serious breaches of the Code: *the very worst magical- Muggle collisions* (FBWTFT xx). Similarly, being deployed in these precarious times, as special security for the Muggle prime minister, is hardly a punishment job. It is a senstive position of trust and honor. Neither Tonks's nor Shackelbolt's job can be confused with a junket to the Centaur Office (FBWTFT xiii). The assertion simply does not obtain. Additionally, in the hypothetical you assert, i.e. that Tonks and Shacklebolt revealed their Order realtionship with Sirius, the problem would not have been that they were *spying on the Ministry,* but that they were misinforming it, subverting its interests, and assisting outlawed individuals. They could certainly continue to do such things in their new, high- responsibility positions. > Talisman: > > "By the way Minister, we knew where Sirius was all year, but we > > didn't tell you because our first loyalty is to DD." > > Pippin: > "By the way Minister, we knew where Sirius was all year, but > we weren't able to tell you. You're familiar with the secret > keeper spell, we believe?" > Talisman: The matter of the Fidelius is not germane. While it would have prevented disclosure of Sirius's specific location, it would not have prevented disclosure of the fact that they knew where he was. Shacklebolt, Tonks, and the others (including the soon to be promoted Arthur Weasley), could easily have told Fudge that DD was concealing Sirius, allowing Fudge to deal with it as he may. Instead, they both covered for Sirius and actively misdirected law enforcement to far flung points on the globe. There is no way they could later explain that he was actually with them, and continue to be employed by the Ministry. The imposition of a Fidelius Charm doesn't change the Aurors patent disloyalty to Fudge or their work to subvert the efforts of the Ministry at every instance, according to DD's preferences. While *I* am perfectly happy with their behavior, confessing it to the Ministry could result in nothing less than dismissal. > > > Pippin: > > > The evidence is that Ginny was attacked and taken into the >chamber while Hagrid was safely in Azkaban. > > > > Talisman: > > All the Ministry really had, as evidence of anything, was a >>daubed note and Ginny temporarily AWOL from her dorm. There wasn't >>even a petrified body, this time. > > > > That's no more evidence than there would be if some kids cooked up a stunt to get their pal Hagrid off the hook. > > Pippin: > And Ginny just evaporated, did she? Talisman: Surely you can't be suggesting that there are only two possible explanations for an AWOL student: Heir of Slytherin Abduction or Evaporation. This line of inquiry appears to be swirling around the great porcelain bowl... > Talisman: > > Hagrid has been presumed guilty. You'd think that overcoming > >this presumption would require some sort of explanation. > > Pippin: > No, he was placed in Azkaban merely as a precaution. With the > wind blowing against Lucius Malfoy, Fudge had no reason not to > interfere with Dumbledore's order, (presumably as Head of the > Wizengamot) to let Hagrid go. Talisman: Hagrid was placed in Azkaban because events at Hogwarts had the Wizarding World in hysterics and Fudge felt pressured to provide a scapegoat--the Ministry needed to be seen doing *something.* There was no *wind blowing against Malfoy.* To what do you refer? There was no accusation of Malfoy, public or private, outside the words exchanged between Harry, Lucius, and DD, in DD's office. Fudge and Malfoy remained thick pals throughout CoS, right up until Malfoy's arrest in OoP. Fudge had every reason to interfere with DD's *order*--your word not Rowling's. Fudge had no basis for believing the crisis was over. Indeed there is no evidence DD explained anything to Fudge, at all. If the person Fudge arrested is freed, and any more attacks take place, Fudge will reap the political fallout. Nonetheless, I'll quite agree that when DD wants someone out of Azkaban, he can manage it. That's what I've been arguing, all along. Pippin: > Remember, most people would rather believe the chamber > does not exist, so nobody is going to be demanding a lot > of explanations provided the attacks stop. Talisman: There is no canon to support the idea that people were denying the existence of the Chamber. Quite the contrary. Binns is the only...er...entity who scoffs. There is no basis for asserting that families didn't need both explanations and assurances regarding their children's safety. Certainly those whose loved ones had been petrified would want answers and accountability. Moreover, framing Hagrid solved any need to explore the actual events of the Chamber. Instead, the WW is left without any explanation, at all. > > > > > > > Pippin: > > > It was his fault for giving Lupin a third chance. > > > > Talisman: > > I can count considerably more than 3 chances--none of which > > involved DD standing over him. > > Guess ESE!Lupin is just a bit slow... > > ...but he's dang lucky, because he'll be able to stay under deep > > cover...all the way through the last book. > > Even the Author won`t know what he's been up to. ; ) > > Pippin: > Oh, no. He confesses, a full villain tells all speech, or ESE! >Lupin sinks > gently to the bottom of the bay. I won't bore you with any such > behind the scenes nonsense. If JKR has somehow managed to > inspire in me the plot of a full blown spy novel which she didn't > write, I shall be far too busy filing off the serial numbers and > writing it myself. :) > Talisman: Why delay? Whether ESE or no, it's fair game. > > Talisman: > > > > Rowling has called Sirius the most dangerous of the Marauders-- > >more dangerous than Wormtail. > > > > Certainly he was very reckless, often thoughtless, somewhat > > hypocritical, and prone to over-rating his own cleverness. > > Pippin: > But those are the characteristics JKR forgives in youth, at least, > her hero Harry exhibits all of them. Sirius's only tragedy is that > he never got a chance to grow out of them. Talisman: Again, it's Rowling who calls Sirius *most dangerous.* And, as I've said, I expect to learn more unflattering factoids about Messr. Black. Hubris, which Sirus had in spades, has always been plenty to fuel a tragedy. As for Harry, you haven't heard me warbling about his wonderous purity or superlative personal attributes. He's got some painful life lessons--coming up fast. From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 10 13:54:12 2007 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:54:12 -0000 Subject: 'chained these 12 years..' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Talisman: > There is no justification for saying *even* Sluggy. Indeed, Sluggy > is the *only* non-insider to use the Order name. Pippin: Snape uses it in conversation with Bella and Narcissa. It can't be much of a secret if Voldemort's people know about it, and after all the Ministry is, er, riddled with them. Surely Slughorn was approached re horcrux related memories when Dumbledore discovered the existence of the diary, if not sooner. But if Voldemort really believes that no one knows about his horcruxes, then Sluggy is not in danger because of that conversation, which Voldemort has probably forgotten about. It didn't yield any information he didn't have already. The danger will only arise if Dumbledore makes use of the memory, and starts hunting for horcruxes, at which time Voldemort will start wondering what put Dumbledore on his track. Sluggy's attempt to make it look as if he'd been abducted by DE's would obviously not fool real DE's, so it's clear he was hiding from Dumbledore, not them. Talisman: > As for Fudge. Ha. > > Fudge is a parnoid idiot who thinks DD wants his job. He prefers to > think DD is telling tales of LV's return, just to make trouble for > him (OoP Chpt. 4, p 71) and harbours shadowy fears that DD may be > assembling a mutinous band to effect a coup d'etat. Pippin: Idiot, yes. Paranoid, no. His fear that he would lose his job if Voldemort had returned was quite rational. Fudge is the sort of incompetent who succeeds to high office when some great crisis is deemed to have passed and the world is back to normal, ie safe for mediocrity. The demands of genius are wearisome. Why do you think Dumbledore hides behind his barmy old codger persona? It was actually quite clever of Fudge to turn it against him. It was of course very clever of Jo to have Harry assume at the end of OOP the same sort of delusory thinking that Fudge got shaken out of, blaming someone else for his troubles instead of facing up to the fact that he'd been wrong and stupid. Talisman: > Late in the year, when DD claims the DA as his personal organization, > Fudge is all to happy to identify the student group as DD's agents of > revolution. > > "`Then you *have* been plotting against me!' he yelled"(Chpt.27, p. > 618). Pippin: Fudge was referring to proof that Dumbledore was training a group in offensive magic. Even Dumbledore could not take over the WW with nothing but a handful of spies. But Fudge definitely knew about *them.* Or are you claiming that "the number of useful spies" Fudge referred to in PoA were just figments of Fudge's imagination and had no connection with the actual network run by Dumbledore? ::boggles:: Talisman: > Moody had already retired of his own volition, prior to Year 4; his > retirement was totally unrelated to events occurring in Year 5. > Pippin: IIRC there was an incident involving a carriage clock which Moody thought was a suspicious parcel. Now who would arrange something like that? As for the others, Fudge could hardly sack two aurors for assisting in the rescue of six students and the capture of several Death Eaters, just because they'd refused to turn in an innocent man. No, there's only one thing to do about such insubordination: pin a medal on it and kick it upstairs. But Scrimgeour was brilliant: he found them plum posts which Dumbledore can't possibly complain about, how can he not want students and Muggles to be protected? But they are as far away from the Ministry water coolers as they can be. And Scrimgeour will know they aren't subverting ministry interests, because when it comes to protecting Hogwarts and Muggles from Voldemort, Dumbledore's interests and the Ministry's are the same. > > Pippin: > > And Ginny just evaporated, did she? > > > Talisman: > Surely you can't be suggesting that there are only two possible > explanations for an AWOL student: Heir of Slytherin Abduction or > Evaporation. This line of inquiry appears to be swirling around the > great porcelain bowl... Pippin: I'm suggesting that there is a spell, such as that which powers the Weasley clock, which can be used to determine whether someone is in mortal danger or not. > Talisman: > There was no *wind blowing against Malfoy.* To what do you refer? Pippin: To the 'hailstorm of owls' from the Hogwarts board of governors, asking Dumbledore to return, accusing Malfoy of threatening their families, and to Malfoy's ouster from said board. > Pippin: > > Remember, most people would rather believe the chamber > > does not exist, so nobody is going to be demanding a lot > > of explanations provided the attacks stop. > > Talisman: > There is no canon to support the idea that people were denying the > existence of the Chamber. Quite the contrary. Binns is the > only...er...entity who scoffs. > > There is no basis for asserting that families didn't need both > explanations and assurances regarding their children's safety. > > Certainly those whose loved ones had been petrified would want > answers and accountability. Pippin: They were Muggles, and not in a position to demand anything. Draco mentions that the troubles in the school have not been publicized in the DP either. Pippin From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 11 10:25:25 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:25:25 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow Message-ID: There is something about the Unbreakable Vow chapter in HBP that irks me. Obviously there is the whole Snape take, why did he agree to the dratted thing in the first place, indeed why did he allow himself to be led in that direction at all? Which resolves itself into the circular argument of he had to take the vow in order to `justify' killing DD on the tower and why did he kill DD because he had to take the UV! Whatever In addition to that interesting and no doubt soon to be resolved dilemma I have a further problem. Cissy knows about the UV, Fred and George know about the UV (at a precociously early age by the sound of it), Ron, Hermione and Harry know about the UV, so how come Uncle Voldy doesn't? You would think it would come with the basic `Create Your Own Cult' starter pack. Contents: Evil genius (one) Grovelling supplicants (as required, recommended minimum 3) Cult name, membership titles and rank nomenclature Disguises, costumes, uniforms (assorted) Membership signifier (badge, dodgy handshake, coded password/s, tattoo as appropriate) Initiation ceremony including: The Cult Pledge (e.g. I promise to bludgeon myself to death before betraying my master, cult members, the cult code of (dis)honour etc.) Ok so we know that one doesn't simply opt out of being a Death Eater because we'd like to spend more time with our family, we have been told Voldy won't stand for it, but you'd think it would be a simple case of make a UV, no exit clause, instant spontaneous combustion otherwise. Yet Karkaroff was on the run, at least for a while, and he'd already blabbed at his trial, some wizards falsely claimed to be under the imperius curse. RAB whoever they may be was happily buggering up those best laid plans. Surely this shouldn't be possible? Now I'm aware that on the whole Voldy would certainly qualify for the Evil Genius Generated Cock Up Award (EGGCUP), perhaps too arrogant to believe he needed such a thing, but can JKR have missed this? Or did the Death Eaters take some kind of vow that will subsequently be important. Has JK planted this concept like she planted the snake in PS so we'd know Harry was a parceltongue before CoS, or like she planted polyjuice potion in CoS so we'd get GoF, or the prophecy in PoA in advance of OotP? Is this UV why Snape hasn't taken a pot shot at Voldy? Is it why all the DEs call Voldy the Dark Lord? If you were an evil genius what vow would you make your followers take? Regards Jo From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 11 15:53:04 2007 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:53:04 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > The Cult Pledge (e.g. I promise to bludgeon myself to death before > betraying my master, cult members, the cult code of (dis)honour etc.) > > Ok so we know that one doesn't simply opt out of being a Death Eater > because we'd like to spend more time with our family, we have been > told Voldy won't stand for it, but you'd think it would be a simple > case of make a UV, no exit clause, instant spontaneous combustion > otherwise. Pippin: There *is* a cult pledge. They swore "eternal loyalty" to their master, according to the Graveyard Speech. Why not a UV? I can't see Voldie letting anyone stand over him with a wand. He also wouldn't like depending on the vow to decide when it had been broken any more than he would like depending on the elixir of life. Also, if the vow kicks in there may be no opportunity to find out exactly what it is the traitor's done, especially if it's possible to conceal one's intentions from the vow with occlumency until the treachery is actually committed. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 11 18:56:24 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:56:24 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > In addition to that interesting and no doubt soon to be resolved > dilemma I have a further problem. Cissy knows about the UV, Fred and > George know about the UV (at a precociously early age by the sound > of it), Ron, Hermione and Harry know about the UV, so how come Uncle > Voldy doesn't? > Course he knows. But rather than have an automatic spell thingy as a watch-dog, and being as he's a reputation as an unmitigated sadistic murdering bastard to protect, he'd prefer to deal with any back-sliding on a personal basis. A spell boomeranging out of nowhere the minute you put your toe over the line is one thing, being face-to-face with a foaming at the mouth manic bent on using your guts for a washing-line is something else again. It's the difference between between an electric fence and a slavering 200lb rabid rotweiler. I think it's called 'man-management'. Kneasy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 13 15:59:58 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:59:58 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> > Pippin: > There *is* a cult pledge. They swore "eternal loyalty" to their > master, according to the Graveyard Speech. Why not a UV? Ah yes, so there is. As we only have one example of the UV it's hard to say how they work but it is evident in Snape's example that it applies to actions rather than intentions. Swearing loyalty wouldn't really work this way. > > I can't see Voldie letting anyone stand over him with a wand. Oh I don't know what about Bonding Bella?! He > also wouldn't like depending on the vow to decide when it had > been broken any more than he would like depending on the > elixir of life. Also, if the vow kicks in there may be no opportunity > to find out exactly what it is the traitor's done, especially if > it's possible to conceal one's intentions from the vow with > occlumency until the treachery is actually committed. > > Pippin > Yes you and Kneasy seem to agree on this, perhaps I simply don't have the right mind set! I suspect you are both correct still I'm curious to see if the UV does make a reappearance in the final book. My only reason, well hunch really, is that it seems a little unwieldy within HBP and previously this has indicated future significance. I can always put it down to prepublication excitement Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 13 16:04:22 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:04:22 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > > > In addition to that interesting and no doubt soon to be resolved > > dilemma I have a further problem. Cissy knows about the UV, Fred and > > George know about the UV (at a precociously early age by the sound > > of it), Ron, Hermione and Harry know about the UV, so how come Uncle > > Voldy doesn't? > > > > Course he knows. > But rather than have an automatic spell thingy as a watch-dog, and > being as he's a reputation as an unmitigated sadistic murdering bastard > to protect, he'd prefer to deal with any back-sliding on a personal basis. > > A spell boomeranging out of nowhere the minute you put your toe > over the line is one thing, being face-to-face with a foaming at the mouth > manic bent on using your guts for a washing-line is something else again. > It's the difference between between an electric fence and a slavering 200lb > rabid rotweiler. > > I think it's called 'man-management'. > > Kneasy > Ye Goddes man who do you work for??? and, perish the thought, who works for you....... As I said in my reply to Pippin I simply don't appear to be cut out for psychopathy resonance, sheltered life I guess... Regards Jo From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 14 03:16:37 2007 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 03:16:37 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_Snape=92s_Way?= Message-ID: Snape's Way To the tune of My Way, by Frank Sinatra You-Tube performance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1tGdoA6mCc Dedicated to CV THE SCENE: On the evening of his final appearance upon the Canonic stage, SEVERUS SNAPE reflects upon his illustrious literary career. SNAPE: And now, the end is near, As we approach the final climax Although, sometime next year, I'll live again, on-screen at IMAX. I've lived a life so foul And ev'ry foe, dearly did they pay And poor Al Dumbledore I hit with AK. Death threats and many feuds, I took them to brand-new dimensions I had my malicious moods And countless kids put in detention. I taught my Potion course And student hair, I turned it to gray And spread my fearsome name Across the UK. Yes, there were times, if I'm correct, When you wished you could have wrung my neck. Yet through it all, I fascinate, For I'm the man you love to hate. I did my snark, embraced the Dark, Like the KKK. I've sneered; I've made you wince, When at the Shack, you saw me barge in; And as the Half-Blood Prince I wrote it all in the margins Some think I'm Dumble's man Or maybe I'm in the Dark Lord's pay You've read the pro and con In many essays So I tell my fans, I won't be nice. I'd rather be the plot device Allowing Jo to mess with heads And make our books read and re-read. Have you found out what I'm about? I'd say there's no way!...... Wait `til Saturday! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 14 13:48:00 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:48:00 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > > > A spell boomeranging out of nowhere the minute you put your toe > > over the line is one thing, being face-to-face with a foaming at > the mouth > > manic bent on using your guts for a washing-line is something else > again. > > It's the difference between between an electric fence and a > slavering 200lb > > rabid rotweiler. > > > > I think it's called 'man-management'. > > > > Kneasy > > > > Ye Goddes man who do you work for??? and, perish the thought, who > works for you....... > > As I said in my reply to Pippin I simply don't appear to be cut out > for psychopathy resonance, sheltered life I guess... > > Regards > Jo > Carolyn: Well, we are back to Spying Game I and II are we not? Just how stupid is Voldie, or is he really a master of deep bluff and counter bluff?? Could well believe he has a highly unpleasant range of controls operating over his DEs, but both his 'slippery friend' and Wormtail still seem to imagine they can negotiate or evade him in some respects. And how successful could a completely paranoid killer be in understanding the way DD's mind works? It would be fascinating if she really was investigating such subtleties of terrorism, surveillance and control, though hope is currently at a low ebb. I fear that she is as surprised at reader cynicism about DD as she is shocked at Snape worship. Carolyn, definitely in favour of all the old forms of man-management. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 14 18:45:36 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:45:36 -0000 Subject: The Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > > Carolyn: > Well, we are back to Spying Game I and II are we not? Just how > stupid is Voldie, or is he really a master of deep bluff and counter > bluff?? Could well believe he has a highly unpleasant range of > controls operating over his DEs, but both his 'slippery friend' and > Wormtail still seem to imagine they can negotiate or evade him in > some respects. > Spying Game... yerrs... mind you, it's not his fault he's a numpty, it's more the limitations of the genre. Coming up with a truly Supreme Evil Being that will lose (hopefully believably) is not exactly a common-place in fantasy. And it's not claimed that he's all that smart anyway (not many of 'em seem to be, maybe excepting Hermy and perhaps Lurkio) just that he's good at magic. Back in PS/SS it was pointed out that logic isn't a strong point with wizards, so perhaps it applies to intelligence too. In the real world, half the characters in the books would probably be in remedial classes doing paper-cutouts and learning "Socks first, shoes *after*. > And how successful could a completely paranoid killer be in > understanding the way DD's mind works? Depends how much original thinking is/was actually going on 4" above that hairy chin. If it turns out that he was just following a preordained script as some believe...... > > It would be fascinating if she really was investigating such > subtleties of terrorism, surveillance and control, though hope is > currently at a low ebb. I fear that she is as surprised at reader > cynicism about DD as she is shocked at Snape worship. > Probably. Also bound to be a bit puzzled there's a fair percentage of the thinking readership that aren't particulary worried if young Potter cops it in the neck, or are fervently hoping for a Weasley cull, or... well, fill in your own unfluffy, unPC but potentially more entertaining event as substitute for what many fear may be a cloying slush-fest. Ugh. > Carolyn, definitely in favour of all the old forms of man-management. > Oh yes. If they cause problems, nuke the bastards. So satisfying. And permanent. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 10:12:50 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:12:50 +0100 Subject: Coffee and the newspaper Message-ID: <4F88061F-FB08-49E7-B08A-05F305149D3B@...> Been browsing in the Sunday Telegraph, always good for a bit of Potternews and with the build-up to next weekend today is no exception. A couple of interesting snippets in a piece on maintaining secrecy/security before Sat midnight release: Did you know that there are professional Potterologists? Apparently their job is to ensure continuity throughout the books, though whether they're employed by Jo or by Bloomsbury isn't specified, though I'd assume that it's the latter - probably as adjuncts to the editorial whatsits. Um. Never heard of such folk associated with a book series before. Makes one wonder. Most popular theory for the betting brigade - Harry kills himself. Bookmakers William Hill have stopped accepting bets on this one as odds fell from 33 - 1 down to 11 - 10 on. Anyway, link: http://tinyurl.com/ysseul And from that page you can also link to a series of articles in their Sunday magazine - 'How J K created a monster' is about fanfic, and mentions a certain Logical Raven (anyone familiar with him?) who is writing his version of book 7, is up to chap 27, and is characterised as 'a dazzling contribution'. (Hm. Have to check it out.) There's a link to their own Potter home page, too. They're really going to town, unusual for a broadsheet, lots of fairly standard stuff on there, including the series of short pieces by readers providing their own endings to the series. Some aren't bad. Kneasy From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 12:46:17 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:46:17 -0000 Subject: Coffee and the newspaper In-Reply-To: <4F88061F-FB08-49E7-B08A-05F305149D3B@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Been browsing in the Sunday Telegraph, always good for a bit of > Potternews and with the build-up to next weekend today is no > exception. 'How J K created a monster' is about fanfic, and > mentions a certain Logical Raven (anyone familiar with him?) who is > writing his version of book 7, is up to chap 27, and is characterised > as 'a dazzling contribution'. (Hm. Have to check it out.) > Kneasy > I think this is the fanfic by Logical Raven that was mentioned in the article. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but the prospect of having an alternative Book 7 is an interesting one, especially if (as I fear) Jo doesn't tie up all of the dangling loose ends: http://www.harrypotterfanfiction.com/viewstory.php?psid=139099 :: Entropy :: From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 12:55:28 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:55:28 -0000 Subject: Alchemy Yet Again Message-ID: Just wanted to throw this out quickly, before the book actually comes out. After seeing an interesting program on alchemy the other night, I thought back to John Granger's fascinating essay regarding alchemy and the Potter world. Specifically (and, to be brief), he says "The first stage of the alchemical work is dissolution, usually called the nigredo or the black stage...The second stage is purification, usually called the albedo or white work...The third and last stage of the chemical work is recongealing or the perfection, usually called the rubedo or the red stage..." and links each of these stages to, of course, Sirius Black (black=black), Albus Dumbledore (albus=white), and Rubeus Hagrid (rubeus=red). As we know, Sirius was the first of Harry's nearest and dearest to be killed; Dumbledore the second. So, does it follow that Hagrid, the last of the colorful trio, will be the last of Harry's beloved to be killed, thereby paving the way for him to "turn to gold" or be redeemed or whatever? I guess we can only wait and see, but it is an interesting diversion for the final week of anticipation! :: Entropy :: From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 14:13:49 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:13:49 -0000 Subject: Alchemy Yet Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > As we know, Sirius was the first of Harry's nearest and dearest to be > killed; Dumbledore the second. So, does it follow that Hagrid, the > last of the colorful trio, will be the last of Harry's beloved to be > killed, thereby paving the way for him to "turn to gold" or be > redeemed or whatever? > > I guess we can only wait and see, but it is an interesting diversion > for the final week of anticipation! > > :: Entropy :: > Carolyn: Almost a cert I should think, recalling DD's remark that he would 'trust Hagrid with my life' in book 1. The gold perhaps being represented by Fawkes, who Hagrid needless to say is probably caring for after DD's death. How about Hagrid gets the chop trying to ensure the phoenix reaches Harry at some crucial moment, and then both Harry and Fawkes snuff it together in some final scene where they vanquish Voldie? Then Fawkes of course is reborn, and soars away bearing purified soul of Harry, finally cleansed of Voldie bits and bobs? Aah. Heartwarming ain't it.... From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 14:38:31 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:38:31 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Alchemy Yet Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707150738k386cd275n7ef89728de4b16db@...> On 7/16/07, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > How about Hagrid gets the chop trying to ensure the phoenix reaches > Harry at some crucial moment, and then both Harry and Fawkes snuff it > together in some final scene where they vanquish Voldie? Then Fawkes > of course is reborn, and soars away bearing purified soul of Harry, > finally cleansed of Voldie bits and bobs? > > Aah. Heartwarming ain't it.... > Perhaps Harry gets carried off to that mystical wonderful land where Fawkes originates and can never return to the wizard world but we'll think of him fondly ie the Frodo ending; not quite dead but out of reach. Godric and Salazar appear in a puff of smoke; Salazar grudgingly pays Godric the bet they had on Harry and Godric waves his wand and puts everything jolly well back to the way they should be. Next week we'll tell you how Muggles and Wizards can live in peace and harmony... -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 16:16:16 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:16:16 -0000 Subject: Alchemy Yet Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > How about Hagrid gets the chop trying to ensure the phoenix reaches > Harry at some crucial moment, and then both Harry and Fawkes snuff it > together in some final scene where they vanquish Voldie? Then Fawkes > of course is reborn, and soars away bearing purified soul of Harry, > finally cleansed of Voldie bits and bobs? > > Aah. Heartwarming ain't it.... > Mmmmm...a refreshing breeze of cynicism. But, nah. Rowling isn't that sort of infantile alchemist any more than she's a Christian evangelist, I'm sure. And, well... the surface story might very well *be* heartwarming -- but she's practically promised us a subversive subtext. We can but hope that her idea of what that might be is worth seven books and some seventeen(?) years in the telling. I do agree that Hagrid's toast though. I'm going to bet it has something to do with being Keeper of the Keys. Anne From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 18:47:09 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:47:09 -0000 Subject: Coffee and the newspaper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > I think this is the fanfic by Logical Raven that was mentioned in the > article. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but the prospect of > having an alternative Book 7 is an interesting one, especially if (as > I fear) Jo doesn't tie up all of the dangling loose ends: > > http://www.harrypotterfanfiction.com/viewstory.php?psid=139099 > Ta. Been reading it all afternoon and it's pretty damn good. Slap Jo's name on the front and a lot of folk wouldn't realise it wasn't the genuine article. Problem is - he hasn't finished it yet. Arrgh! Kneasy From heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 15 19:07:07 2007 From: heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:07:07 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Coffee and the newspaper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1184526431.156445EE@...> > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" > wrote: >> >> I think this is the fanfic by Logical Raven that was mentioned in the >> article. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but the prospect of >> having an alternative Book 7 is an interesting one, especially if (as >> I fear) Jo doesn't tie up all of the dangling loose ends: >> People have been writing - and finishing - alternates to books 5, 6 and 7 for years, and I'm not sure what the article author found so intriguing about this one. Not that it's poorly written but it's not particularly unique from what I've seen in the first chapters. From joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 14:56:53 2007 From: joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_z_curmudgeon) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:56:53 -0000 Subject: My Predictions for the last book Message-ID: This is what I predict will happen in HP& the Deathly Hallows: Snape will die the horrible, painful death he so deserves, but he will turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore and do something to assist Harry before he dies. Harry will kill Voldemort, assisted by the same 5 as were at the MOM with him in OOP Or, possibly, Neville Longbottom will strike the final blow that kills Voldie. Either way, Neville's toast. He'll die heroically and bravely, though. Percy Weasley, Remus Lupin, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Dudley Dursley and Hagrid are also toast, and maybe some other Weasleys. Trelawney will predict something important that no one will pay any attention to, until too late. Draco Malfoy will do something cowardly. Bellatrix LeStrange will do something dastardly. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Ginny, McGonagal, and Madam Marsh will all survive. Petunia, who knows more than she's letting on, will finally do something useful, probably to avenge the death of her son. Stan Shunpike will be released from Azkaban and do something to assist the good guys. Peter Pettigrew will do something to help Harry, although perhaps not totally willingly. Dobby will also do something helpful. Aside from the diary, and the ring, Harry will find the four horcruxes as follows: -- the locket which was stolen from the lake by Regulus Black who hid it in Grimmauld Place. Kreacher squirreled it away somewhere and Harry will find it accidently. -- Nagini, who Harry will order around because he speaks parseltongue. -- The Hogwart's Head Boy badge (first seen on Percy in POA). It will be given to Head Boy Harry, who will not realize at first that it's a horcrux. (I'm not sure how Harry is going to be persuaded to return to Hogwarts, but this may have something to do with it. He'll hear a rumor that there's a horcrux hidden at Hogwarts or something.) -- Something we haven't seen yet. Hufflepuff's cup from Hepzibah Smith's house will turn out to be a red herring. So, it will turn out that we've been introduced to one horcrux per book, if you include Voldie himself. And, my theory that these books are actually non-fiction and JKR is under a spell to write them in order to prepare the Muggle world to be taken over by Voldemort will turn out to be true. In fact, we're already living under Voldemort, who in 1998 took some Polyjuice Potion and some of Dick Cheney's nose hairs and, well, it's no use explaining the rest...BECAUSE NO ONE EVER BELIEVES ME! But you'll see.... From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 15:35:05 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:35:05 -0000 Subject: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? Message-ID: Just curious if anyone is reading the BitTorrented book that's been going around. I considered it, but decided I'd rather wait for the yummy smell of real paper. :: Entropy :: From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 20:28:01 2007 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:28:01 -0000 Subject: Dark Mirror Part 2: Who's Your DADA? Message-ID: Chained to the wall in Azkaban, Talisman turns a nervous eye to the dwindling hourglass. Suddenly, a harassed-looking (HPfGU) elf runs in and gives it a shake, sending half the remaining contents to the bottom. Egad! *Hey. Hey, Lucius, snap out of it. Could you hold this napkin still for me--with your free foot there? Thanks.* Talisman dips her preternaturally long toenail in a puddle of unidentified dark liquid, and begins to scribble. *What's that? Yes dear, you look magnificent in leather. Now, shhhhh. I have to get this out.* In part one, I revealed how Harry follows a pattern of emulating the deepest secrets of the initial DADA professors in the pattern: 1/5, 2/6, 3/7. The scrying mirror has long since spoken, and it's time for me to answer the question for Dark Mirror Part II: Who's Your DADA? Here the mirror reveals the pattern's effect on the DADA professors, themselves. Once again, the pattern folds around the center, causing those in the *jinxed seat* to reflect each other, this time correlating the books thusly: 3/5, 2/6, 1/7. First up for consideration is the 3/5 combination of Lupin and Umbridge. This is the matter of the Humane Beast, and the Beastly Human. List the salient qualities of one, and you will find the complimentary quality in the other. Lupine looks entirely human, but harbors a potential wild beast within. Umbridge looks like a toad, but is, contrary to much speculation, entirely human. The werewolf is, obviously, affiliated with the wolf, feral primogenitor of all canines. Via her office d?cor, Umbridge is identified with cloyingly sweet kittens, a most domesticated iteration of the feline family (OoP Chpt. 28, p 628, et seq.) Lupin's attire is patched and shabby. Umbridge is priggishly neat. Lupin was an animal-loving, hands-on professor who commences his first lesson with: "Would you please put all your books back in your bags. Today's will be a practical lesson. You will need only your wands" (PoA 130). Umbridge, as we know, was all "Wands away and quills out"(OoP239); whereafter she proceeds to tell an indignant class that "as long as you have studied theory hard enough" there is no need for practical applications (OoP 244). Indeed, her absolute refusal to give hands- on experience leads to the establishment of the D.A. As a werewolf, Lupin is considered a *half-breed* (OoP 243). He is an outcast, suffering the prejudice of the greater wizarding community. We are specifically made to understand how difficult it has been for him to find employment. "I have been shunned all my life, unable to find paid work because of what I am" (PoA 356). Umbridge is the exact other half of the equation: "Does Lupin know her?" asked Harry quickly, remembering Umbridge's comments about dangerous half-breeds during her first lesson. "No," said Sirius, "but she drafted a bit of anti-werewolf legislation two years ago that makes it almost impossible for him to get a job" (OoP 302). And yes, now we must face what will be, for some, a bitter pill. Whereas werewolves are supposed to be "murderous beast[s]" (FBAWTFT 42), during the year of his professorship, through and including the episode of his revelation, Lupin was a totally, consummately, impeccably safe werewolf. On the other hand, at the moment of Umbridge's complete revelation we learn that she is a worse-than-murderous human being, having sweetly arranged to have young Harry's soul sucked during his summer vacation (OoP 747). Now, now, don't fuss about Ever-So-Tame!Lupin. The evidence--which is laid on with a trowel and absolutely bulwarked by the patterning-- has been before us all along. We can dredge all that up again at our leisure, long after Book 7 has settled into history. The focus of the moment is predictive, not remedial. So, we'll return to noticing how Snape's repeated, voluntary preparation of the complex potion for Lupin's benefit is reversed in his non-cooperation with Umbridge: giving her pseudo-Veritaserum--and later claiming to have made no more--though evidence suggests that he keeps the real stuff, in stock. As a werewolf, Lupin is also considered a *half-breed;* Umbridge, of course, is a notorious half-breed hater. "Does Lupin know her?" asked Harry quickly, remembering Umbridge's comments about dangerous half-breeds during her first lesson. "No," said Sirius, "but she drafted a bit of anti-werewolf legislation two years ago that makes it almost impossible for him to get a job." Harry remembered how much shabbier Lupin looked these days and his dislike of Umbridge deepened even further. "What's she got against werewolves?" Said Hermione angrily. "Scared of them, I expect," said Sirius, smiling at her indignation. "Apparently she loathes part-humans; she campaigned to have merepeople rounded up and tagged last year, too. "So, what are Umbridge's lessons like?" Sirius interrupted. "Is she training you all to kill half-breeds?" (OoP Chpt. 14, p. 302-303) For Lupin, the Forbidden Forest is a refuge, while for Umbridge it is the most dangerous place, of all. Half-breed Lupin reports that he didn't attack anything in the forest, the night of the Shrieking Shack episode; whereas on the critical night in Book 5,Umbridge is attacked by an entire herd of half-breeds. It's petty clear, that Umbridge is Lupin's opposite, reversing him in both his salient characteristics, and his revealed secret. It is important to note, however, that in regard to the central secret and primary characteristic of each professor, the two images are not only reversals, they are reversals that complete each other in such a way as to form the two halves of a whole. Persecuted werewolf/werewolf persecutor. Other supportive details are merely opposites: harmless/murderous; dog/cat; practical/theoretical, etc. The special nature of the prime reflection is again demonstrated in the 2/6 imagery of Professors Lockhart and Snape. As expected, when it comes to Lockhart's primary revelation, Snape balances the equation with the mirror-opposite secret. Talent-less rip-off artist/ripped-off genius. Lockhart is a great phony--publishing books in which he claims the talents of others as his own. Faced with the prospect of pursuing the creature in the Chamber, he confesses himself a poseur of the worst sort. Snape, conversely, is the genius who penned innovative ideas in his own personal book, for his own private use. This recorded brilliance was ripped-off throughout year 6 (by Harry, who was emulating Lockhart), with Snape only revealing himself (to those who didn't already know) as the puissant, savant, HBP, in his final scene. Then we have the list of opposites: Lockhart primps and fusses with his blonde curls, keeping them immaculately styled. With his oft-mentioned greasy curtains of black, Snape clearly pays little attention to his coiffure. Lockhart boasts a dazzlingly perfect, *award-winning* smile. Snape's fangs, we are told, are yellow and uneven. Lockhart is an incompetent boob, constantly jockeying for undeserved praise. Snape is a wizard of extraordinary power and genius, who not only foregoes rightful credit, but routinely allows himself to look bad, *for the cause.* Lockhart seeks attention, Snape keeps a low profile. Lockhart favors costumes of lavender or baby blue; Snape goes all in black. Lockhart is a coward; Snape is the epitome of courage. Molly Weasley relies on Lockhart's *expertise* to solve her quotidian problems. Molly's opposite, Narcissa Malfoy, relies on Snape for much graver concerns. Molly has a fatuous, superficial *crush* on Lockhart. Narcissa has deeper, more authentic, feelings for Snape, as I mentioned back in message #83546, posted October 25, 2003--well before HBP was released. In CoS, Lockhart offers himself as a soi-disant duel master, only to demonstrate that he is a worthless twit. He cannot teach Harry anything. In HBP, Snape duels effortlessly with Harry, demonstrating his facility with a wand, not to mention the exponential value of a combined prowess in both nonverbal spells and Legilimency. As so often noted, he continues to teach Harry, even as he parry's the lad's offense. In CoS, Lockhart tries to attack Harry (and Ron). In HBP, Snape repeatedly protects Harry, while defending himself from Harry's attacks. The last we see of Lockhart in CoS, he is headed for the hospital wing. After the climatic action, Snape does not go to the hospital wing-- this non-event is made significant--for artistic purposes--in that the rest of the *Hogwarts* team is summoned to Madam Pomfrey's domain, by McGonagall. In sum, Snape clearly reverses Lockhart, just as Umbridge reverses Lupin. Here, I shall pause to mention, that I discovered this pattern back in the summer of 2003 when, upon completing Book 5, I noticed how perfectly Sirius's plot arced in *mirrored symmetry* between books 3 and 5. (From that nub, I have since teased out a subtler, more complicated, plotting system.) Many of the implications were clear to me at that time. Significantly, Snape is so obviously Lockhart's opposite that, after reading OoP, and seeing the post-GoF pattern emerging, I was able to predict that Snape would be DADA in Books 6 & 7 (~circa July of 2003). I first hinted at it in Post # 73715, posted July 28, 2003 and then explained further in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/81961? threaded=1&l=1 "Crying Wolf," posted September 30, 2003, in (partially superfluous) part: >Talisman then: I'm hanging tight with the position that Lupin was very >well informed. >You don't think it was a coincidence that he showed up to teach DADA >this particular year, do you? No, he was a planned part of the >Sirius comeback tour. >Lupin is old Order, and never has a paying job unless DD gives it to >him. He has always been available for DADA Prof. DD brings him in >NOW because of his special connection to Sirius. He has a definite >role to play, and he is fully aware of the program. >(DD didn't have to settle for Quirrell or Lockhart, he chose them >for reasons having to do with his plan, as well. >He knows the effect of his DADA seat, he's the one who enchanted the >position. >Actually he could have any of the Order any year, if he wanted >them. He uses the old warrior Moody for LV bait/alarm in Gof, and >he'll use Snape in 6& 7, because it specifically suits his purposes >to do so.) >If you just relax and accept it, you'll find it all fits so easy. ***************end old post************** We can discuss DD's clever little jinx later. ; ) For the record, I also predicted Snape as the HBP, in various places, including this site's pre-HBP poll: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1294134 . What then shall we expect in Deathly Hallows? Why, that the DADA professor will reverse Quirrell, naturally. That much is sure. How will it play out? Here's my prediction: The *completing* symmetry establish by the first two pairs has serious implications, here. Where Quirrell was LV`s servant, our DADA professor will be seen to be *someone`s* master. Where Quirrell was subjugated by LV's dominating insertion of himself, our DADA Professor will be seen to empower *someone* by inserting a critical part of his essence into his very willing host. ::Talisman pauses to regain a grip on herself and dip her toe in more goo:: ::sigh:: Where Quirrell infiltrated DD's stronghold, Hogwarts, for the purpose of bringing LV back to power, our DADA professor will be seen to have infiltrated LV`s stronghold, for the purpose of *defeating* the Dark Lord. Or should I say our DA professor? Because, as I predict in Part I, Hogwarts will fall to Voldemort, soon, if it hasn't already. In such a case, the professor in question will likely not teach Defense Against Dark Arts, but the Dark Arts, proper. This, as we close the narrative circle, sorts well as a sequential reversal of Harry's unrealized Book 1 fear that if Voldemort is able to come back, he will take Hogwarts and *turn it into a school for the Dark Arts* (PS/SS Chpt. 16, Scholastic paperback p 270). Therefore our forthcoming DA qua DADA professor has infiltrated Voldemort's ranks, working against the DL, covertly, from the heart of Darkwarts. Flowing from that, the reversals continue: where Quirrell was a person of weak resolve and character, our DA professor will be a person of singular personal strength. Where Quirrell was a nervous stammering wreck, our DA professor will be cool, capable, and smooth. Where Quirrell was *fine while he was studying' outta books* but came back from his hands-on sabatical *scared of his own subject* (PS/SS Chpt. 5, p.70-71.), our anticipated DA professor will be seen to revel in application. Where Quirrell's lessons *turned out to be a bit of a joke* (PS/SS Chpt.8, p. 134), the DA professor's instructions will be critical. Where Quirrell found the Potter boy too *nosy* (PS/SS Chpt. 17, p. 288), the DA professor will lead the fledgling on to deeper discoveries. Where Quirrell tries to kill Harry, the DA Professor will protect him. Why be coy? Where Quirrell sports a certain wrap-around chappeau, our DA professor would never *put on a turban.* (J.K. Rowling, America Online chat transcript, AOL.com, 19 October 2000, http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm ) Oh, yes, it's Snape all the way. Back to my prediction of 2003. We are told that merciless Voldemort abandons Quirrell, leaving him to die (PS/SS Chpt.17, P. 298). I know there are some gentle souls who believe Quirrell is still out there, waiting to be kissed until he is good, but Rowling was really quite explicit in the Edinburgh Book Festival interview: "Someone said that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell died, in Philosopher's Stone. He did not know until he came around that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body." (JKR Official Site: News Section, 15 August 2004 http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 ) This, in my opinion, has delightful ramifications for Snape. For in reversing the scenario, with Snape playing anti-Quirrell, I expect DD to reverse Voldemort. Therefore, I predict a Book 7 revelation of Snape's *special bond* with DD. Unlike the bond between Quirrell and Voldemort, this will be no bond of weakness, punishment, and domination. Based on the nature of the anticipated reversal, it will have been a voluntary offering, an act of generosity and love. Snape will be seen to have willingly extended this bond--for it will be he who has *entered* DD--in an act of manifest selflessness, which I extrapolate, will have sustained an otherwise dead Dumbledore-- likely for the past fifteen plus years. The posters who suspected that, on the night of the Tower, Snape was merely removing life-support, at the patient's request, will be validated. DD, therefore, has been supremely vulnerable--indeed, living at Snape's pleasure--during the entire adventure, until the events on the Tower. Little wonder Dumbledore trusts Snape. It's also why DD says, in GoF, that Snape is no more a DE than he is. They have a very close relationship. ; ) As to the nature of this bond, I imagine we will learn the new magical word Rowling warned us, in her September 29, 2006 Diary entry, that she was conjuring for this final book: "Sitting at my desk trying to invent a word yesterday brought back memories of the last time I did so." http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-diary.html#8 Though I'm moving into areas of less certainty, I will speculate about some of the details. The Q!Mort connection was via the head. I think a fitting Snapledore connection to occur in the heart. Indeed, I rather like the prediction that Snape gave DD his heart. Sing it Celestina: "Oh, my poor heart where has it gone? / It's left me for a spell " (HBP Chpt. 16, p.332). Of course Snape didn't wear his heart on his sleeve, heh, he deposited it in an excentric old wizard. But now he has it back. Just in time for us to find out who he loves. ::Talisman really shivers:: Where was I? ::blink:: Oh, yes. Voldemort mercilessly abandoned Quirrell, but DD insited that Snape release him to the next great adventure. This was all part of DD's plan for year 6. Snape undertook the UV because he was supposed to. It worked toward solidifying his cover for Book 7. But he never liked it. Hence the flinch. He had no doubt promised DD that he would release DD at DD's request-- but as the argument in the forest demonstrates, Snape found it a loathsome proposition and wanted to demur. Yes, yes, yes, as others have felt. Snape's look of deepest loathing on the tower was not a demonstation of his malice toward DD, it was the look of someone doing what they hate to do. And yes, when DD said "Severus please " (HBP Chpt. 27., p. 595) he *did* mean sever us, please. A list member named drcarole71 suggested, in message #161669, that that the green goo DD drank was a Hx, from which he desired severance. That was a good guess; at least warm to the idea of Rowling's wordplay and that there was some special connection that DD wanted to unbind. But it's neither the green goo nor a Voldemortian Hx at issue, rather it is Snape's long-extended yet-to-be-revealed *life support* tether from which DD sought release. And yes, as others have variously speculated, the Avada Kedavra was ineffective, a mere cover for the actual nonverbal spell which *unplugged the machine.* Best of all, Quirrell's death gives more reason to hope that Snape survives. And with his heart restored. Huzzah. You know, at this point I hear DD's echoing words: Neither can live while the other survives. This brings me back to a post I wrote circa October 3, 2003 in the thread called "Snape is Number One," Message #82229. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82229 Well, it's no secret that Snape has always been the Chosen One in my book. ; ) And for those who argue that the books are all about Harry, let me remind you that they are all about growing up. A big step in growing up--specifically from adolescence to adulthood, is the epiphany that it is *not* all about you. Adolescence--a time which nicely includes the span of years from 11 to 17--is a time when one is supposed to develop the ability for what Piaget called *formal operations.* Drawing on Piaget's work, Developmental Psychologist David Elkinds asserted a theory that the new abstract cognitive abilities of the formal operations phase --which include the thinker's ability to reflect upon his or herself--feed a great deal of practice in this very enterprise--resulting in a distinct phase of adolescent egocentrism. Arising from this be-pimpled ego-fest are such phenomena as *the personal fable* wherein the teen fantasizes that his or her life is unique and heroic (I am the Chosen One!); the *imaginary audience* in which our pubescent hero believes that everyone is staring at his scar and whispering about him, and a sense of invincibility, which leads to jumping down dark holes without any plan for getting back out. Part of the wisdom (which, sadly, some people never gain) of emerging adulthood, is a matured theory of mind that allows the individual to realize that others have differing views and priorities, that every headache or opinion one has is actually not newsworthy, and that one may, alas, not be the center of the magical universe. Indeed, we all know that the center of the magical universe is Severus Snape. ; ) Get over it Harry. Back to Dark Mirror Part Deux, the 7 hurdles en route to the stone likely do line up with the 7 Hxes. Quirrell was unable to solve the riddle of the Mirror of Erised, but Snape will know exactly how to employ any mirror that pops up in Deathly Hallows. Do you suppose, in DH, it will be the two-way mirror? Instead of his *heart's desire,* will it help reveal to him the thing for which Rowling has been preparing him: " it will take 7 books to get Harry to the point where he has to face, um I can't say. But in Book 7, you know, there's a big climax coming here and it will take that many books to get him there. (J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999, http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm ) When Harry looks in the mirror, just which Hx do you suppose he'll see? So Harry grows up and learns that it isn't really all about Harry, and that the evil from which he is destined to protect the world, resides within himself. Well, that's a good day's work. I hate to trucate this exploration unnecessarily, but there are more posts to bang out and that elf may be back. But, by all means, a you await the midnight hour, take the time to consider the Quirrellish implications for Snape in Deathly Hallows. I'll be back with the Dark Mirror, part the third. I hope. (*Do you see another napkin around here, Lucius? Dang. Do you wear boxers? No, a thong won`t do. No. Just put it away.*) Talisman, noting that a circle-in-a-triangle is the symbol for a magick mirror, from whence a Sorcerer conjured his deamons. Makes a nice metaphor for an author, conjuring er producing her creative work. Especially a work involving magic. Not to mention mirroring. Rowling has added an additional line, which seems nothing so much as a line of symmetry. And did I mention? The circle-in-the-triangle mirror was also used for scrying. P.S. I did promise to tell you about that pesky DADA jinx. Sure, LV put the whammy on the position. Pure spite--maybe with the added benefit that he might have an easier time upon reapplication. Thin out the competition for the job. But do you think LV's jinx is still running the program? Jinxes are the weakest from of negative magic. If you didn't pick that up from Rowling's site then you probably missed another WOMBAT III question. Not only that, but you should have noticed that you've been hit in the head with a sack of clue bricks. Come off it. What, Bill can lift ancient Egyptian curses but DD can't sponge out a dirty little jinx? It was handled long ago. So why the revolving door in the DADA office? Simple. DD wanted LV to believe his jinx was still in effect. Why? Because DD has had his plan mapped out for a very long time. At least as far back as Tom Riddle's childhood. (Which reminds me, I still owe Scarah a post.) As I have explained here and elsewhere, over the years, most recently in The Plan, Message #159930: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159930, DD wanted LV to believe his jinx was still effective for the same reason DD purchased Riddle Manor, all those years ago. Both of these preparations play out in year 4. With respect to the jinx, DD wanted LV to count on the need for a new incoming DADA professor in year 4--which he did--and to have no suspicion whatsoever when this in fact transpired, let alone when the person whom LV's servant would have to capture and impersonate was DD's old pal, Moody. If the jinx has been disposing of DADA professors for decades, it's no wonder DD is down to retired ex-Aurors with more loyalty to DD than ambition for a new career. And it worked, LV took the bait and, from the moment the first dustbin clanked, DD was all over Fake!Moody. I won't try to lay out the lengthy GoF evidence here, but suffice it to say that LV is not the author of the reigning jinx. The jinx, as we know it, isn't indifferent as to *how* a DADA professor is ousted. It isn't like any of them declined a second year because they had more lucrative offers or were marrying Romanian Counts. No, the jinx *always* nixes a second term by revealing the darkest secret of the person who holds the seat. LV would never have sent Fake!Moody into such a situation. It was his profound desire to achieve Harry's blood without anyone being the wiser--that's why he bothered set up an *accidental* death attributable to the historically dangerous TWT (which DD arranged for just this year--he`s so accommodating). If LV had ever made such a jinx, he would have removed it himself, prior to sending Fake!Moody in. He didn't plan for Fake!Moody to remain more than one year, so his own old jinx was no issue, but he would never have risked a jinx that would disclose Fake!Moody's secret. It wasn't his jinx. I doubt that there is any jinx at all. Voldemorts was removed years ago. It seems more likely to me that DD merely achieves the revelation of his DADA profs by his own devices. But, if we must have one, at least it is one of DD own design, suited to his purposes. Oh, and that's why Snape outed Lupin (as if Lupin wasn't already a known WW). Snape was supposed to. The jinx must be seen to be in effect. Lupin was there to accomplish a mission, no more. DD was always planning on LV's mole, for year 4. PSS I'll add another prediction: That little rant Harry has near the end of HBP. The one, speaking of Snape, where he says: "Yeah, that fits He'd play up the pure-blood side so he could get in with Lucius Malfoy and the rest of them He's just like Voldemort ashamed of his parentage, trying to make himself feared using the Dark Arts, gave himself an impressive new name--*Lord* Voldemort--the Half-Blood *Prince*--- This will all be demonstrated to be totally opposite. So soon, so soon From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 22:27:38 2007 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:27:38 -0000 Subject: My Predictions for the last book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_z_curmudgeon" wrote: > > This is what I predict will happen in HP& the Deathly Hallows: > > Snape will die the horrible, painful death he so deserves, but he will > turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore and do something to assist Harry > before he dies. Fran: agreed!! > > Harry will kill Voldemort, assisted by the same 5 as were at the MOM > with him in OOP Fran: I like this idea, but think it will just the trio or Harry > > Or, possibly, Neville Longbottom will strike the final blow that kills > Voldie. Either way, Neville's toast. He'll die heroically and > bravely, though. Fran: Neville kills Bella, does not die > > Percy Weasley, Remus Lupin, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Dudley Dursley and > Hagrid are also toast, and maybe some other Weasleys. Fran: Hagrid, yes. Weasleys, yes. Who not which one. > > Trelawney will predict something important that no one will pay any > attention to, until too late. Fran: yes, as usual > > Draco Malfoy will do something cowardly. Fran:What happens with Draco will be interesting. I think he grew a heart, like the Grinch, when he couldnot kill DD > > Bellatrix LeStrange will do something dastardly. Fran: I hope so but of course hopes it backfires > > Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Ginny, McGonagal, and Madam Marsh will all > survive. Fran: Maybe Madam Marsh will inadvently foil some DE's plot by voimiting in a place where a DE, while attempting to runaway from the scene of a crime, slips, falls and is apprehended the good guys. Maybe said DE is Draco. Wouldn't Lucious be proud! > > Petunia, who knows more than she's letting on, will finally do > something useful, probably to avenge the death of her son. Fran: What if Horseface suddenly has the Dark Mark......hmmm > Stan Shunpike will be released from Azkaban and do something to assist > the good guys. > > Peter Pettigrew will do something to help Harry, although perhaps not > totally willingly. Fran: He does owe Harry.....It would however be cool beans, if Peter showed a little backbone. > > Dobby will also do something helpful. Fran: Dobby is going to die assisting Harry, and be damn happy about it! He would do anything for Harry. > > Aside from the diary, and the ring, Harry will find the four horcruxes > as follows: > -- the locket which was stolen from the lake by Regulus Black who hid > it in Grimmauld Place. Kreacher squirreled it away somewhere and > Harry will find it accidently. Fran: Maybe that funky music box??? Or Mundungus pilfered it and Harry has to track him down to get it. This leads the trio to Knockturn Alley. Ok, ok, sounds good anyway..... > -- Nagini, who Harry will order around because he speaks parseltongue. > -- The Hogwart's Head Boy badge (first seen on Percy in POA). fran: I like this!! > > So, it will turn out that we've been introduced to one horcrux per > book, if you include Voldie himself. > > And, my theory that these books are actually non-fiction and JKR is > under a spell to write them in order to prepare the Muggle world to be > taken over by Voldemort will turn out to be true. In fact, we're > already living under Voldemort, who in 1998 took some Polyjuice Potion > and some of Dick Cheney's nose hairs and, well, it's no use explaining > the rest...BECAUSE NO ONE EVER BELIEVES ME! But you'll see.... Fran: too funny, but then again.....hmmmmmmm. HAPPY BOOK SEVEN EVERYONE!!! Fran From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 22:27:39 2007 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:27:39 -0000 Subject: My Predictions for the last book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_z_curmudgeon" wrote: > > This is what I predict will happen in HP& the Deathly Hallows: > > Snape will die the horrible, painful death he so deserves, but he will > turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore and do something to assist Harry > before he dies. Fran: agreed!! > > Harry will kill Voldemort, assisted by the same 5 as were at the MOM > with him in OOP Fran: I like this idea, but think it will just the trio or Harry > > Or, possibly, Neville Longbottom will strike the final blow that kills > Voldie. Either way, Neville's toast. He'll die heroically and > bravely, though. Fran: Neville kills Bella, does not die > > Percy Weasley, Remus Lupin, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Dudley Dursley and > Hagrid are also toast, and maybe some other Weasleys. Fran: Hagrid, yes. Weasleys, yes. Who not which one. > > Trelawney will predict something important that no one will pay any > attention to, until too late. Fran: yes, as usual > > Draco Malfoy will do something cowardly. Fran:What happens with Draco will be interesting. I think he grew a heart, like the Grinch, when he couldnot kill DD > > Bellatrix LeStrange will do something dastardly. Fran: I hope so but of course hopes it backfires > > Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Ginny, McGonagal, and Madam Marsh will all > survive. Fran: Maybe Madam Marsh will inadvently foil some DE's plot by voimiting in a place where a DE, while attempting to runaway from the scene of a crime, slips, falls and is apprehended the good guys. Maybe said DE is Draco. Wouldn't Lucious be proud! > > Petunia, who knows more than she's letting on, will finally do > something useful, probably to avenge the death of her son. Fran: What if Horseface suddenly has the Dark Mark......hmmm > Stan Shunpike will be released from Azkaban and do something to assist > the good guys. > > Peter Pettigrew will do something to help Harry, although perhaps not > totally willingly. Fran: He does owe Harry.....It would however be cool beans, if Peter showed a little backbone. > > Dobby will also do something helpful. Fran: Dobby is going to die assisting Harry, and be damn happy about it! He would do anything for Harry. > > Aside from the diary, and the ring, Harry will find the four horcruxes > as follows: > -- the locket which was stolen from the lake by Regulus Black who hid > it in Grimmauld Place. Kreacher squirreled it away somewhere and > Harry will find it accidently. Fran: Maybe that funky music box??? Or Mundungus pilfered it and Harry has to track him down to get it. This leads the trio to Knockturn Alley. Ok, ok, sounds good anyway..... > -- Nagini, who Harry will order around because he speaks parseltongue. > -- The Hogwart's Head Boy badge (first seen on Percy in POA). fran: I like this!! > > So, it will turn out that we've been introduced to one horcrux per > book, if you include Voldie himself. > > And, my theory that these books are actually non-fiction and JKR is > under a spell to write them in order to prepare the Muggle world to be > taken over by Voldemort will turn out to be true. In fact, we're > already living under Voldemort, who in 1998 took some Polyjuice Potion > and some of Dick Cheney's nose hairs and, well, it's no use explaining > the rest...BECAUSE NO ONE EVER BELIEVES ME! But you'll see.... Fran: too funny, but then again.....hmmmmmmm. HAPPY BOOK SEVEN EVERYONE!!! Fran From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 22:32:06 2007 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:32:06 -0000 Subject: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > Just curious if anyone is reading the BitTorrented book that's been > going around. I considered it, but decided I'd rather wait for the > yummy smell of real paper. > > :: Entropy :: > Nope, holding out. Even going so far as wearing earplugs to pick up my book in case someone shouts out He Lives! or He Dies! Let the suspense build, let my heart go into wild arrythmias..... Fran From jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 22:29:24 2007 From: jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid (serenadust) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:29:24 -0000 Subject: New York Times Message-ID: All I can say is that I pity the next poor schmuck who calls me trying to sell a subscription to the NYT. Boy will he/she get an earful. Seriously, I've always respected that paper but it's been a long, sad, slide from the courageous publishing of the Pentagon Papers to the craven, greedy spoiling of the last Potter book. What an utter lack of integrity. For shame, NYT. Jo S., avoiding all non-HPFGU websites but fully aware of all the deatheaters out there, trying to ruin the fun From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 19 22:59:26 2007 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:59:26 -0000 Subject: Dark Mirror Part 3: The Dumbledorian Denouement Message-ID: ...or How Twinkles Always Gets It In the End. A fretful House Elf sidles into the cell where Talisman and Lucius are still chained to the wall. It eyes the tiny portion of sand left in the hourglass, as if tempted to give the glass another shake. There is a sudden movement--a snap--and the neked elf runs squeeling from the room. A dingy dish towel dangles from Talisman's toes. *Here Luscious, grab the other side with your toes and help me spread it out, would ya? There's no time to lose.* Talisman dips her pointy toenail in the dirty puddle, once again, and begins: We'll keep this to the bare bones, because that elf is going to come back--with reinforcements--and this has to be tied to an owl in less than a half hour, now. The Dark Mirror has shown how Harry emulates the original DADAprofessors, by emulating their deepest secrets, in the pattern: 1/5, 2/6, 3/7. Thus Harry will emulate Lupin in book 7. It has also shown how the DADA professors reverse themselves in the pattern: 3/5, 2/6, 1/7. Leading to my prediction that Snape will reverse Quirrell in 7, as DD's mole at Darkwarts. To cut to the chase, the Dark Mirror has implications for DD, as well. One of the ways it controls his plot line is by causing him to reverse the original professor's denouements, in the pattern 3/5, 2/6, 1/7. Where Lupin was revealed as a werewolf in Book 3, DD confesses to being *too human* in Book 5 (and earlier people are said to want to prove he`s *only human*). Where Lupin returns to being an unemployed outcast and hunted criminal at the end of Book 3, DD--who over the course of the has become and outcast, unemployed and a hunted criminal--returns to full social, legal, and employment status at the end of Book 5. Where Lockhart is Obliviated in Book 2, DD is forced to drink extra memory goo in Book 6. Where Lockhart survives his ordeal, DD does not. This leads to my prediction that, in Book 7, he will reverse Quirrell's denouement in book 1. This may be basically the revelation of the other side of my prediction for Snape: i.e. that DD had been kept alive by Snape's life support bond, in order to complete his plan involving LV and Harry, and that he insisted the bond be severed , and chose---rather than being abandoned to--death. But still--Gandalf or no--there *may* be some sort of further reversal. Which, in contrast to Q's death, at least points to life-- even if not in a usual way. Phoenixy and all that. I'm not at all sure here. But it *is* fruitful to keep in mind--and look for DD's reversal of Q. We've already seen that he, like Quirrell, was burnt, not by love and goodness, but the hateful evil of LV's curse on the ring Hx. (Hmmm does that mean Lily is the opposite of a Hx? Are all order members? They re certainly people who would sacrifice their own lives prevent LV from becoming immortal. And not just as necessary casualties of battle. ) It was a little premature, but perhaps that is part of JK's sense that 6 and 7 are two halves of one book. Or, maybe it belongs to a different pattern thread. For DD also has a Dark Mirror thread that shadows Harry's DADA emulations: 1/5, 2/6, 3/7. The 2/6 connection is involved in patterns running both ways, a sort of double-whammy, so it can be more difficult to separate them too finely in that book. In 5, like Harry, DD can be seen to be in LV's head. As I've pointed out, he seems to be using Legilimens in the Atrium, on LV. Knowing when LV is about to possess Harry, knowing exactly when and why LV stops. In HBP, DD sports the plum suit --among other outfits--invoking memory of Lockhart's purple robes--yet with more whimsy than vanity. DD, like Lockhart, secretly collects other people's memories--but as important covert ops tools, rather than for personal aggrandizement. Lockhart amasses/ and cares about his honors and awards; DD loses honors --doesn't care--except for those chocolates frog cards. J So, we should expect some past or present Dumbledorian transformation to be revealed in Book 7, as well. Okay, I see I'm going to have to leave it here until after the list reopens. BTW, this is where Dark Phoenix went South-- I already knew that the DADA's reversed--I'd been making correct predictions since 2003 based on it. But, I didn't yet see that it broke out to include DD, too So I gave the whole crap-shoot to Snape--including the memory goo and the failure to survive. But, thanks to Rowling's clarification in that Evening with Harry, Carrie, and Garp, I took another look at the matter. I knew the pattern I had was correct to an extent, and when I applied Rolwing's correction: magically it became quite clear that DD gets the primary reversal--in the end. A pattern even more Byzantine then I had expected. Actually there are all sorts of other plot patterns, which in no way impinge on the one's I've offered. As just one more--and not really related to the Dark Mirror (which confines itself to reflections of the DADA profs.) is the Sirius/Snape imagery. Expect Sirius and Snape to be true opposing Rivals. That image of them in the kitchen at 12 GP is perfect--facing each other with wands drawn. Harry loves Sirius/hates Snape; DD keeps a tight reign on Sirius/trusts Snape; etc. When the true reasons for their enmity are revealed--Snape will come out better. They remind me of Edmund and Edgar in King Lear. I'm with you, Catlady, one of them may literally be a Bastard. Burnt right off that Black Family Tree. (I posted this on another site--back around the time the tree was released--and Catlady, who is also there, pointed me to her own pre- existent theory.) Only this time, the Bastard is the good guy. *Okay, Lucius, it's been fun, but I'm outta here. If that elf comes back, it`s all yours .* Talisman, Apparating to Darkwarts for as much Bastard time as she can get. See you on the other side . ; ) Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Goblet Theory will just have to be for afters..... (Even if the wild and Wooly TOC isn't shutting down--I done with the long pre-release postings!) From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 20 01:15:39 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:15:39 -0000 Subject: Dark Mirror, and Anne's Final Wagers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is this window still open? I want to place a bet. Yeah. 42 Galleons, 7 Sickles, and 3 Knuts on Dark Mirror, to win. While I'm at, some side bets... 1) Stoned!Harry. I still like him -- see my published works: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/51832 Not so much with the Christian imagery and what goes with that, but I do hope to see my dearest supposition come true: that, the night of Godric's Hollow, when a bit of LV's soul entered Harry, Harry became LV's personal Philosopher's Stone. 2) Harry has the power of Posession. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119783 OoP gave me the material for a substantial analysis of the idea. The revelation of Hxes in HBP didn't hurt at all. 'Course, I know I'm far from the first to mention the possibility of Harry having this ability, as it appeared way back in the history of HPfGU, but as far as I know, I was the first to post more than a sentence or two. 3) Whatever Harry has to do to/with LV in the end, it will somehow echo, mirror, or otherwise reprise Lily's sacrifice at GH. Not at all unique to me, of course, but I'm fond of the idea as one of the first "theories" I ever had. Yeah, that's it for now, thanks. And boy, am I glad you're still open. I tried to place these same wagers at the HPfGU window -- got in there 10 minutes before closing -- but I guess in the mad crush at the end, they didn't get my bet. Anne From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 20 02:24:00 2007 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:24:00 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and The ... End Message-ID: "I solemly swear that I am up to no good" but not to the extent of reading spoilers! I have had almost zero time to read and even less time to write and as it turns out, this was a good thing. After all the years of waiting and wanting a sneak peak at the end, I find myself flabbergasted at the persons allowing me to do just that. After thirteen years of writing and seventeen years of waiting I would like to savor the last few thousands of words to the ultimate conclusion myself thank you. It feels quite strange to enter the final frontier of the last "Harry Potter and the ..." with all our many theories waiting on their separate vessals to either sink or swim. (I will remain steadfast that several of us have fit the pieces nearly into place, especially since HBP, since there have been very few clues during the past two years on her website) I don't know how the rest of you may feel but for me the ending has more to do with how close I came to figuring her out rather than whether or not Harry lives or dies. I mean if I were to guess the moral to the story it would be that Love is magic at its strongest but that's not why I got hooked on the books; it was always about guessing the `who done it' aspect and how they did it. The last book, no matter who does what to whom, or who lives or dies, will be the final resting place to all our theories. As you are reading, and you nod your head to yourself (and talk outloud to no one) that you were right, that you knew that would happen, stop and think that the rest of us are nodding our heads too. I know I will be screaming Pippin said he was ESE or Kneasy said that Slytherin was possessing him. In fact, maybe I should videotape myself reading the final book! Could be funny (or scary), kind of like watching the faces people make when they play Nintendo! Before signing off and wishing everyone the best of luck in their predictions, I would like to finalize a few of my own: Snape is neither good nor bad but has the same agenda as Dumbledore, vanquish Voldemort Harry is a Non-crux ... he was never blessed with the spell to encase him as a Horcrux but remains to have " a bit of" Voldemort in him. Going out on a small limb here but I very much doubt that RAB is Regulus. Lily worked for the Dept. of Mysteries alongside Neville's mom and Luna's mom Fred and George are not Molly's biological children, they are her brothers children And Sirius and Tonks did switch places before the Ministry showdown in OOP And, And Dumbledore never really was alive during Harry's lifetime therefore he couldn't have died Snow- signing off with a little ditty by the Beatles... All You Need Is Love...do do do da do From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 20 08:54:42 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:54:42 -0000 Subject: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > Just curious if anyone is reading the BitTorrented book that's been > going around. > Nope. When news of this first started to circulate I did wonder if it was a bit of pre-publication fakery intended to wind up the readship. We've seen similar things in the past and the last volume would be an obvious target for jokers. Not so, it seems. Word has it that it's the true quill. Bugger. IMO it's not really important but it is intensely irritating. And the chances of inadvertently stumbling across massive spoilers has increased exponentially as the leak propagates across the web. So, this calls for a change to the usual release-day rituals at Schloss Kneasy. "Igor! Prepare the Solitarium! Your Master is entering his retreat 24 hours early. Replenish the stocks of chocolate digestives, grind more coffee beans and refurbish the inflatable commode. "Pass the word to Mesdames Slack Alice and Knickerless Nickleby that I won't be coming out to play this evening, screen all in-coming calls and disable that internet thingy - though not permanently, so you can just put that flame-thrower down. "Tomorrow you shall take my place in negotiating the purchase of said tome; take the shopping trolley with scythe blades on the wheel-hubs. If, during your progression through the scrum at the book emporium, any ignorant loud-mouth starts wittering on about Potter leaks, you have my permission to slice them off at the ankles. Mark my words, there'll be at least one shitferbrains knowitall eager to spoil it for everyone else. Show no mercy. "Upon your return you will pass the book to me through the security hatch *without saying one word*. That is all." Kneasy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 20 10:16:12 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:16:12 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707200316u29423e99sac9dd7dc62777c4f@...> On 7/20/07, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Nope. > When news of this first started to circulate I did wonder if it was a bit > of pre-publication fakery intended to wind up the readship. We've > seen similar things in the past and the last volume would be an > obvious target for jokers. > Not so, it seems. > Word has it that it's the true quill. > Bugger. > IMO it's not really important but it is intensely irritating. And the > chances of inadvertently stumbling across massive spoilers has > increased exponentially as the leak propagates across the web. > Wise course. The local news even had pictures of it, to my horror. I suspect this is media's revenge. Word is that the perpertrator has left enough inadvertent evidence to be traced from the serial number in every picture. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From jeralyns at the_voicelady.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 20 14:30:41 2007 From: jeralyns at the_voicelady.yahoo.invalid (Jeralyn) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? Message-ID: <65554.76406.qm@...> I've been hibernating with ear plugs since word of the leak first came. I'm bound and determined to read the book with absolutely no advance knowledge of what's going to happen. Nothing is spoiled for me! Happy reading, all! ----- Original Message ---- From: ewe2 To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:16:12 AM Subject: Re: [the_old_crowd] Re: Anyone Going For The Leaked Book? On 7/20/07, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Nope. > When news of this first started to circulate I did wonder if it was a bit > of pre-publication fakery intended to wind up the readship. We've > seen similar things in the past and the last volume would be an > obvious target for jokers. > Not so, it seems. > Word has it that it's the true quill. > Bugger. > IMO it's not really important but it is intensely irritating. And the > chances of inadvertently stumbling across massive spoilers has > increased exponentially as the leak propagates across the web. > Wise course. The local news even had pictures of it, to my horror. I suspect this is media's revenge. Word is that the perpertrator has left enough inadvertent evidence to be traced from the serial number in every picture. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 21 15:20:17 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:20:17 -0000 Subject: Done with the book Message-ID: I don't know we have spoiler space or anything like that going on here. To be honest, I have been so darn busy that I haven't been around anywhere, having abandoned the main list 2 months ago. To be on the safe side, I won't spoil anything. I'll just say this: I'm mourning those who were lost, but besides that, it went EXACTLY as I would have had it go. Especially the last chapter. With regared to he who was killed by Nagini.......I KNEW IT! Oh, I knew it! I believed and it was so. Hope you all enjoyed your reading as much as I did. Peace, Love, and Happiness, Ginger From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 21 17:06:04 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:06:04 -0000 Subject: The Lastest - with spoilers Message-ID: NO DOUBT SPOILERS REQUIRE A BIT OF SPACE AT THE TOP OTHERWISE FFA WILL RIP YOUR LUNGS OUT. Well, now - what did you think of that? What you expected, or not? Started very promisingly I thought, some serious evil for a change. And that followed by plenty of action sequences, yet for all that it seemed to lose a bit of tempo and bite in the middle. And.... didn't like the ending much, all that palaver about who was the true master of the wand - a bit too much like a commentary on a game of pass the parcel. From about p450 on, I could well imagine the shade of old Aggie Christie whispering hints on tricksy endings into Jo's lughole. Not enough main characters die - and that '19 years later' Ugh! Grisly. More considered comments when I've thunk a bit more. But overall, first impressions rate it at 6/10. Which was a bit better than my score on my three main bets: Possession Theory - nope Blackwidower/Snape!Son - nothing for sure, though one indirect hint that goes against Puppetmaster!DD - 90% yes Did better on minor stuff - after the last one: Sevvy killed DD at his (DD's) request (those that got that one will be feeling a touch superior to the Snape-ophobes) and further back, pushed this one about 3-4 years ago: DD and Sevvy are the best double act in the business and it was Sevvy's job to keep an eye on Harry. Gives me an overall of about 4/10, I reckon. Ah well, can't win 'em all. Kneasy From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 21 20:01:11 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike Gray) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:01:11 -0000 Subject: Bother no spoilers) Message-ID: I finished the bok this morning after 8 hours of intensive reading. Wrote up a bunch of observations here on site hit the wrong button and lost them all. I'll have another try tomorrow. But Yahoo is definitely the final horcrux. From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 21 22:55:28 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:55:28 -0000 Subject: Finished No spoilers Message-ID: Delurking after a long silence: just finished after about 9 hours of reading. It was fun, and I'd rate it higher than Kneasy's 6/10. Certainly moments of 'this is too scary, I don't want to read on', which is pretty good writing. On the whole, reading it felt like being on a rollercoaster, complete with those awful bits where you're just rolling along but KNOW the next terrifying bit is coming real soon now. I note that there are still questions to answer... Pip!Squeak From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 21 23:15:37 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:15:37 -0000 Subject: The Lastest - with spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > NO > DOUBT > SPOILERS > REQUIRE > A > BIT > OF > SPACE > AT > THE > TOP > OTHERWISE > FFA > WILL > RIP > YOUR > LUNGS > OUT. > > Well, now - what did you think of that? > What you expected, or not? > Cor! It was a right page-turner. Thought the first 4/5 excellent, the last 5 chapters or so went a bit funny. Didn't there seem to be a lot of characters missing from the Epilogue? What happened to Umbridge? The Dursleys? However, I declare minor victories on two counts: 1. A very thoroughly DDM!Snape (Particularly: Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him *before* Snape took the UV, and Snape absolutely knew what Draco's task was when he took it). 2. Harrycrux. I bow most humbly to the Puppetmaster!DDers who never wavered. Disappointments: Snape, mainly. Harry didn't even get to confront him. What happened to the glorious martyrdom? What the bloody hell happened to that good- for-nothing bloody Fawkes, eh? Snape had only one really good line in the whole book. (Though it was a *damn* good one, wasn't it?) And his reason for turning? Bleugh... I'm also rather disappointed that we didn't get *anything* of Harry's reaction to Snape's memories, no guilt at having misjudged the poor bastard, no regret at having hated him for so long, no squeamishness at the thought of Snape fancying his mum, nothing. And no fury from Voldy at the betrayal. I'd been looking forward to that. I'm ever so glad Harry didn't kill Voldy with love, or anything. What happened to the founders who were supposed to be so important? The missing 24 hours? Possession? All the snake lore? The DADA curse? The Trio's careers? Who sent the Lestranges to the Longbottoms? (Was it simply masterminded by Bella because she knew that Voldy was still out there somewhere?) Snape's twitch in the Hospital Wing in GoF when Harry mentions Malfoy? The character who performs magic late in life thing... or did Filch get up to something when I wasn't looking? In fact, which ends actually got tied up? `Cause I don't remember too many. Kneasy: Sevvy killed DD at his (DD's) request (those that got that one will be feeling a touch superior to the Snape-ophobes) Dung: I knew for certain he was DDM when I read that he sent Ginny et al off for detention with Hagrid, and will admit to having cheered under my breath. I guessed the blue eyes in the mirror were Aberforth too, but I s'pose everyone did. I'm gonna read it again! From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 03:26:05 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:26:05 -0000 Subject: random musings (spoilers) Message-ID: SPOILER SPACE JUST IN CASE IT IS NEEDED OK, where to begin. Well, let's do it randomly. Sprout, Neville and the mandrakes: hilarious. Loved Kreacher at the end. Had no idea it was Aberforth's eyes. Good job, Dung! Rose and Hugo? Where did those names come from? Glad Percy and Fred made up. Thought Hagrid was a gonner with the spiders. Go Molly! Kill the bitch! Did anyone guess the American cover was the Great Hall? Will Teddy be the next HP when a new Dark Lord arises? So Harry and LV were related after all. Horcrux Harry- I bow to those who nailed it. Funny how the tree-frog catch of the snitch came in handy. Finally: Severus Snape, wherever you are, I love you. Ginger, overall satisfied with the book. From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 04:55:43 2007 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:55:43 -0500 Subject: I've read it. Spoiler. : ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C1C563B76DF408CB5FE2A91EE73291A@AmandaPC> La La La La La La La La La La La La La For Spoiler Space *ahem* In a word. HAH. >From my third post to HPforGrownups, post #1642, September 18, 2000: --------------------------------------------- On a related line, I've also thought that one reason for the dedicated potency of Snape's dislike for Harry may have been that Snape loved Lily, too. And James, whom he already didn't like, got her. Even if someone like Snape were let down easy, rather than dumped or snubbed, he's gonna carry a grudge. Every time he looks at Harry, he not only sees James (whom Harry really resembles), but Lily's eyes, which would remind him of humiliation. That could help explain the complexity and durability of his intense dislike. And could help explain why Snape stays with the good guys, even though. Any thoughts? --Amanda ---------------------------------------------- So. That is all. ~Amanda, premier Snapologist, who called it before there were LOLLIPOPS or a bay for the ships [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 07:36:11 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:36:11 -0000 Subject: Read it Message-ID: Incoherent 5am ramblings here: http://sageofgodalming.livejournal.com/65954.html David From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 08:35:05 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:35:05 +0200 Subject: Standing in line - no spoilers yet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c7cc3b$347a1020$0a00a8c0@hwin> So. After writing a nice long post, then losing it, then writing a completely incoherent mumble, I've switched back to individual emails - time for a second try! First off, I'm sad that the series is over - if nothing else because there won't be any more midnight book-buyings. Last night was great. I shared my bit of line with the following personages: - Two 17-year-old Swiss girls (one speaking superb English - I don't usually let Swiss people speak English to me, but she insisted, and she was doing great, so I let her.) They were the least chummy of the bunch, however - though they were impressed when I pointed out that I know people from TLC, Lexicon and the like. - Mom (molecular biologist), Dad (genetic engineer), daughter (about nine, dressed up in homemade robes with an iron-odd Hogwarts emblem Mom got from the internet and printed onto special paper). Mom's a big fan and has actually been reading the books since the first one came out - and giving them to her nephews (who have never yet read a single one!) until her kids got old enough to read. Dad's out of work because of Swiss skepticism about genetic engineering. He hasn't read the books yet; but now that they're all out and he's out of a job, he might give it a rip. - Their friends (with two children) who don't speak English and hence weren't actually going to buy the book but had just come for moral support. They won't get to read until the German edition comes out in October. They plan to stand in line at midnight for the German edition. - Two ladies in their mid 50s to early 60s. Dressed very nicely, quite formally - no Potter gear. They may possibly been with a well-known high-brow newspaper, but they didn't actually say so. They had been to the film before coming to the book shop. Seemed very excited - red cheeks and bright eyes. The elder had a slight Slavic accent. Did extremely well on the quiz questions about incantations - though I think it was more because they know Latin than because they knew the books. Fun to stand in line with. Nice discussion of archetypal fairy-tale patterns. - Mom (non-fan) with just-turned-13-year-old son, who happen to be from my church. They were right in front of me. He's in the perfect age, I would say, and he's a HUGE fan. He'd been to the film the day before and was so excited I thought he might float off. He thinks writing a doctoral thesis about HP (what I'm doing) is the world's most noble and amazing calling. I'll say it again: I'm gonna miss having that to look forward to. I've done it four times in all and every time it's been unique. Second off: I'm really getting too old for all-nighters. I got the book at 1am and was done a bit before 9am. (Had to stop reading between the train station and our apartment block since the street lights were off, but once I got to the stairwell I could read again.) At 10:30am a newspaper called for an interview, for which I was not particularly coherent. After that I felt like a total wreck. Too wired to sleep and too sleepy to do anything else. Yuk. Eventually I fell asleep and spent the rest of the day taking naps and wandering around in a daze. But it was a nice sort of daze. And by evening I felt normal again. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 10:12:29 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:12:29 -0000 Subject: Finished No spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > Delurking after a long silence: just finished after about 9 hours of > reading. > > It was fun, and I'd rate it higher than Kneasy's 6/10. Certainly > moments of 'this is too scary, I don't want to read on', which is > pretty good writing. On the whole, reading it felt like being on a > rollercoaster, complete with those awful bits where you're just rolling > along but KNOW the next terrifying bit is coming real soon now. > Yes, there were sections where it fairly romped along and the reader was mesmerically pulled along with it. Best start to a book so far IMO. It was the other bits, the number of times "...'ere, hang on a minute..." type thoughts intruded, when that fine line between believability in the internal logic of a fantasy tale and the "WTF!!!" expostulations on bits that couldn't be swallowed whole broke through the rosy glow and left this reader with feelings of dissatisfaction. No doubt on the sites curmudgeonly grumps will be very much in the minority, but I can't help but feel more than a little disappointed. > I note that there are still questions to answer... Very definitely. Lots of 'em. Which doesn't exactly help in engendering a feeling of completion. But that's not all, by any means.... Hopefully a longer post sometime in the next few days will explain (and perhaps to the fans more tolerant of dissent, justify) my reservations. Kneasy From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 10:43:09 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:43:09 -0000 Subject: Finished - no spoilers... Message-ID: Caveats: - have not read anyone else's responses as yet - but have had a rant with Kneasy Overall rating ? frankly, a struggle to make even 6/10 Accepting absolute authorial right to do as she pleases, the plot is now revealed in essence to be as follows: - Original four founders of Hogwarts fall out over issues of racial supremecy and ethnic cleansing. - These issues form continual backdrop down the ages not only at the school but in all Muggle/wizard relations. - Source of magic power is major subject for research by all sorts of eminent wizards and every now and again someone thinks they've cracked it and plot to take over the world; Grindie, DD and Voldie are the 20th century's contenders. - A stone, a cloak and One Wand to Rule Them All are the must- have accoutrements for all would-be Supremacists, but even understanding that you need all three is one of the tests. Indulging in foolish wand waving when you are wearing the wrong jewellery and the wrong clothes is fatal. - DD and Grindie being sharp dressers by nature spot all this early on, but the thought of being the world's coolest wizard goes to Grindie's head and DD reluctantly has to zap him and have him locked up somewhere where he can't get hold of Witch Weekly's reviews of the spring and autumn collections. - Voldie pursues his own independent lines of enquiry as to how to become a Supreme Being, resulting in his jam-jar approach to soul- management. Through an unfortunate coincidence he chooses Salazar's ring as a jam-jar when it is already being utilised in a different Plot. This is simply to piss off the fan base and make sure they don't get it however clever they think they are. - DD realises the danger of Plot Overlap and plans accordingly. He uses his knowledge of staff, pupils and ministry officials to play a deep psychological game of bluff, counterbluff, betrayal and blackmail to ensure Voldie's soul-splitting gamble appears to be the only game in town, when in fact it is irrelevant to what he has agreed with Herself should be the final resolution. - During the final Act, a selection of not very important characters are marmaladed; Snape is posthumously designated a Global Hero and a large number of babies are produced. HP is fooled into canonising DD. Unnoticed in the general rejoicing business continues absolutely as normal. Kids are still sorted into four houses; Slytherin is still detested. House-elves continue abasing themselves for no pay and no pensions. There is no integration with Muggles. And no evidence that the bit of Voldie lodged in Harry's brain was ever removed. The ring remains somewhere to be picked up, the Elder wand has not been snapped, the Cloak remains a prized possession. My verdict is that she has simply lost the plot big time as the story has rambled on. If there ever was an over-arching connecting theme, then somehow she has allowed her characters to screw it up at various points and simply has had no idea how to tie it all back together again except by introducing a new and preposterous plot device (the Deathly Hallows) at the very last minute. Carolyn ..who did enjoy the Ravenclaw password system From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 11:02:50 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:02:50 -0000 Subject: Finished - sorry spoilers in previous so beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: ..idly replied to a post without changing header, sorry From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 11:28:43 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:28:43 -0000 Subject: When all's read and done - spoilerish Message-ID: S P O I L E R S P A C E Oh Carolyn how I laughed, thank you for that! I have to admit I seriously lowered my expectations after HBP, that book really pissed me off. So I was actually quite pleased with DH. Not at all surprised by the sudden appearance of the unflagged Hallows plot line, I'd been expecting something totally out of the blue a la Christie. It was a fast paced big bang ending which I found emotionally engaging (far more so than OOP or HBP). I was frustrated by all that camping , I kept thinking *get on with it there's so much more and you're wasting time here*, upshot being I thought the last quarter was rushed. In spite of my pessimistic stance JK still managed to disappoint me with the epilogue, I wanted to know more about everyone and everything in the WW. Felt she left plenty of space for a revisit if the mood takes her, all those juniors plus them damned hallows still knocking about. The founders' story still wide open. Hated the deathstick, simply a WTF moment for me. The whole wand/owner/defeater thing became somewhat farcical, I couldn't help but recall Danny Kaye and *the pellet with the poison is in the flagon with the dragon.* My sister-in-law (aged 34 and a graduate, not a HP fanatic) rang me up so I could explain the whose wand thing which she found confusing! Ye gods what were all those hints about, the late flowering magic, Lily and James' jobs, the married teacher and the US cover art just what was that supposed to be showing us? It had to be Lollipops (we all knew it really) though not many guessed as early as Amanda (well done that woman). Also well done the Puppetmaster!DDers (Talisman's Dark Mirror holds up well). Still unsure about the blood brother thingy, if the charm wore off when Harry turned 17 and he had to leave Privet Drive how come it worked later? Most of my predictions were completely wrong, no mimbulus action, no Neville as the other, no 12 uses of Dragon's Blood involved in HRX, no Phoenix song (although Harry did call out sounding like a trumpet). But then JK wove a tale that was much bigger than it needed to be, I don't care that Lupin isn't evil or Snape a vampire, she made a world for us to play in and play we did! Regards Jo From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 13:23:05 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:23:05 -0000 Subject: Finished - no spoilers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: S P O I L E R S P A C E S P O I L E R And the wretched Yahoomort is making the above into one big line, so some more spoiler space for those who get the first two lines shown on message view. > My verdict is that she has simply lost the plot big time as the story > has rambled on. If there ever was an over-arching connecting theme, > then somehow she has allowed her characters to screw it up at various > points and simply has had no idea how to tie it all back together > again except by introducing a new and preposterous plot device (the > Deathly Hallows) at the very last minute. > > Carolyn > ..who did enjoy the Ravenclaw password system > Pip!Squeak Yeah, I enjoyed the Ravenclaw password as well. I liked your breakdown of the plot. Start the day giggling, that's what I say. But I don't think she ever lost the over-arch. From memory, Book 1 is the Philosopher's *stone* giving eternal life plus a mirror that means Harry can see the dead - and the DH ring contains a stone, bringing back the dead. It also has DH 2 inherited by Harry. Book 2 contains a horcrux as its major plot. Book 3 makes much play of the invisibility cloak (DH2). Book 4 is titled *goblet* of fire - another ref to the horcrux's, and also makes much play of wands (another DH). Book 5 contains another horcrux, which no one recognises. In Book 6, while we don't realise this, DD's doom is brought about by his reaching for a DH, AND the horcrux, and Draco finds himself official owner of another DH. In fact, aren't all three together on the Tower? Book 7 brings both plot arcs together. The ring thing, is , I think, a play on Tolkien. There is One Ring - and the Dark Lord is not only *not* trying to find it, he doesn't even recognise the bloomin' thing when he's got it in his hand. But there's a broader point as well: Voldy doesn't want to bring back people he's killled, he doesn't want a cloak that can hide other people besides him - all he wants of the three DH's is the Wand that can give one person, and one person only, power. And there's another, more subtle point. Voldemort doesn't know the WW's fairy stories, never bothered to find out about them and because he has no knowledge of them , he fails. In other words, this is a guy who would *never* have read a children's book once he was officially too old for them. ;-) The bit that made me laugh out loud, though, was when JKR pointed out firmly via Mad-Eye's exit that if someone is hit by the killing curse and then falls from a great height without a wand, they're dead, OK? Pip!Squeak From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 13:24:06 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:24:06 -0000 Subject: Oops, sorry, spoilers in my previous (NT) Message-ID: From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 13:51:15 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:51:15 -0000 Subject: When all's read and done - spoilerish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > > Oh Carolyn how I laughed, thank you for that! > Anne: Yes, me too! Jo: > In spite of my pessimistic stance JK still managed to disappoint me > with the epilogue, I wanted to know more about everyone and > everything in the WW. Anne: Definitely. And I certainly hope Albus Severus is a Slytherin. Jo: > Hated the deathstick, simply a WTF moment for me. The whole > wand/owner/defeater thing became somewhat farcical, I couldn't help > but recall Danny Kaye and *the pellet with the poison is in the > flagon with the dragon.* > Anne: Heh. Really. And after all those books where it's so rare for a wand to be lost by any means, here they are playing hot potato with them! And I'm sorry, but if DD could BEAT a talented guy who'd duelling with and UNBEATABLE WAND, I need to know how that came about. Maybe it's just those Hallows aren't supposed to be perfect - the wand's not unbeatable, the cloak can slip, the dead that return aren't 100% there...but the concept was introduced so late, there was no time to nail it down properly. Jo: > Ye gods what were all those hints about, the late flowering magic, > Lily and James' jobs, the married teacher and the US cover art just > what was that supposed to be showing us? Anne: I expect all those questions will be submitted for the online chat coming up on the 30th. As for the cover, I'm sure that's meant to be the confrontation in the Great Hall at the end, though I'm not sure what Harry's doing with his hand (can't look it up, as both daughters have both copies of the book). Jo: > > It had to be Lollipops (we all knew it really) though not many > guessed as early as Amanda (well done that woman). Also well done > the Puppetmaster!DDers (Talisman's Dark Mirror holds up well). Still > unsure about the blood brother thingy, if the charm wore off when > Harry turned 17 and he had to leave Privet Drive how come it worked > later? > Anne: Did it have to be Lollipops, exactly? I was hoping for more of a friendship thing. And, my estimation of Lily has gone down a bit -- why did she end up with James? Is she just another one of the Beautiful People? And why was JKR so cagey about their careers? Jo: > Most of my predictions were completely wrong, no mimbulus action, no > Neville as the other, no 12 uses of Dragon's Blood involved in HRX, > no Phoenix song (although Harry did call out sounding like a > trumpet). But then JK wove a tale that was much bigger than it > needed to be, I don't care that Lupin isn't evil or Snape a vampire, > she made a world for us to play in and play we did! > > Regards > Jo > Anne: My only one was that what Harry ended up doing would echo Lily's sacrifice. I didn't think it would be so nearly a literal copy! The only thing different is that he didn't *actually* die (I guess that was a Near Death Experience, huh?). Definitely, I think Snape echoed Quirrell as he would in Dark Mirror II: Snape *was* the DADA -- in literal defense of the students against the Carrows, and he *was* left to die by his master (DD). Both kept their masters' bodies alive temporarily (Quirrell, LV's body-du-jour - his own - with the unicorn blood, Snape by confining the ring curse to DD's hand). I suppose the mirror image involved would be in whom they were working for: Quirrell pretending to work for DD but really for LV, and Snape just the opposite. Beyond hating that Snape died, and *why*, I was not pleased he got bit in the neck. Is this supposed to be a vampire joke? On the other hand, Harry generally felt like "my" idea of Harry of old -- through GoF. And Ron was cool. I liked Kreacher and Percy. I know, they're sappy; I still like 'em. I don't mind that Kreacher made Sirius look even worse, either. I liked Regulus - and I don't take credit for knowing he was RAB; it was just too obvious. I really like the names Pius Thicknesse and Xenophilius Lovegood. I liked the dragon flying away. I hope Neville kept the sword. In my world, Snape lived (Hermione knew a spell to save his life long enough for him to be properly healed later. Come on, you know it's true.) Nowdays, he's Potionsmaster or DADA teacher, whatever he likes, and shoots the breeze with Professor Longbottom in the staffroom. Anne From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 16:24:09 2007 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:24:09 -0000 Subject: Read it (SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS "davewitley" wrote: > Incoherent 5am ramblings here: > > http://sageofgodalming.livejournal.com/65954.html More later, when I have time (my kids are insisting I spend time with them today since I ignored them yesterday to read ? go figure!), but I wanted to comment on a few things: David: <> I totally agree ? I felt the loss of both Hedwig and Dobby much more than Mad-Eye or some of the other deaths. I think it's because of how much Harry cared for them. It was also really unexpected ? we've all been speculating about who will die, but I don't think any of us thought it would be the non-humans. I also thought it was lousy that Harry lost his only gift from Sirius (the Firebolt). David: <> I was having trouble with that, too ? I could see how it worked for Draco, since he took the elder wand from Dumbledore with a disarming charm, but I was struggling with how it worked for Harry, since he didn't actually take the elder wand from Draco ? he took Draco's own hawthorn wand. David: <> I thought it was meant to signify the horrible creature Voldemort will become when he dies. When Harry is trying to talk Voldemort into showing remorse so he can be spared, Harry tells him "I've seen what you'll be otherwise." David: <> I loved that (especially Molly calling Bellatrix a "bitch" ? are these really books for children?!?), but thought it would have been more fitting for Neville to have killed her since she was the one who tortured his parents into insanity. But Rowling doesn't seem to want to have any of the kids do an AK. David: <> Agree ? that bugged me too, particularly as I was hoping for Ginny to do something brilliant to support my theory of her having extraordinary powers by being the seventh Weasley child for my Prophecy presentation :) David: <> I liked that, too ? before the release, I was wondering how Harry was supposed to finish Voldemort off, because I couldn't see how Rowling would let him cast an AK when she's made it clear that murder is the act of supreme evil. But then we see Harry casting the other two Unforgiveable Curses, so I thought that might be getting us ready for an AK at the end. But I'm really glad she didn't have him cast an AK. Kneasy: <> Agree ? if Harry wasn't to be a goner, I thought we'd lose someone really important (like Ron or Hagrid). But perhaps Rowing thinks killing Dumbledore and Snape was enough. Kneasy: << and that '19 years later.' Ugh! Grisly.>> Agree ? I could have done without the epilogue. I think Rowling probably felt a need to include that to avoid being pestered for a sequel to explain what Harry does with the rest of his life. Mike, the Goat: <> Completely agree, here ? I got my book at midnight, fully intending to stay up all night so I could read it without interruption. By 4:30 a.m., I could no longer keep my eyes open! Which meant I had to finish it next day, only to have my daughter demand that I make lunch for her when I was right on the brink of finding out what in the bloody hell the deathly hallows were. Question for Mike ? were you pleased at the role Aberforth played, after all of these years of calling yourself Aberforth's Goat? Cheers, Phyllis From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 16:53:40 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:53:40 -0000 Subject: Finished - lots of spoilers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R Jo: >Oh Carolyn how I laughed, thank you for that! >Anne: >Yes, me too! Pip!Squeak >I liked your breakdown of the plot. Start the day giggling, that's what I say. Carolyn: Ladies, I'm flattered, but alas it's one of those cases of if you don't laugh, you'd have to cry! (Speaking of which, erm, has anyone seen Pippin? We all have to be VERY understanding, right? Up until the point where Harry sent Lupin packing back to his nymphomaniac, I really thought ESE!Lupin might come off after all.. he was definitely very shifty.) Pip!Squeak: But I don't think she ever lost the over-arch. From memory, Book 1 is the Philosopher's *stone* giving eternal life plus a mirror that means Harry can see the dead - and the DH ring contains a stone, bringing back the dead. It also has DH 2 inherited by Harry. Book 2 contains a horcrux as its major plot. Book 3 makes much play of the invisibility cloak (DH2). Book 4 is titled *goblet* of fire - another ref to the horcrux's, and also makes much play of wands (another DH). Book 5 contains another horcrux, which no one recognises. In Book 6, while we don't realise this, DD's doom is brought about by his reaching for a DH, AND the horcrux, and Draco finds himself official owner of another DH. In fact, aren't all three together on the Tower? Book 7 brings both plot arcs together. Jo: Hated the deathstick, simply a WTF moment for me. The whole wand/owner/defeater thing became somewhat farcical, I couldn't help but recall Danny Kaye and *the pellet with the poison is in the flagon with the dragon.* Carolyn: Certainly the whole series has been about whether or not you can, or should want to escape death. I read the quotes at the front of DH with relish and found the first half of the book very promising ? I really thought she would give us a grown up outcome, but sadly it didn't transpire. She's said that the end has been written since she started, by which I suppose she means that awful epilogue. I think that turned into a real hostage to fortune, because it prevented her killing off any of the trio. I was reminded of that time Harry had to do a stupid twiddle in mid-air to avoid being hit by a bludger; I felt JKR had to do the same ? first with Hagrid, who should have been deaded no question (what on earth stopped Voldie?), and then Harry. Agree with Pip!Squeak's identification of hoxboxes by chapter, but still think she cheated by not indicating anywhere that there was another legend (the DH) which some but not all of them played into. The only hints I can think of were DD's interest in alchemy (never satisfactorily explained), his insistence on Harry always getting the cloak back and Ollivander's fascination with what could really be done with a wand by the right wizard, whether for good or evil. Although we got a lot of retrospective hints about places where Voldie could have stashed bits of his soul, I really don't think anyone could have predicted the DH dimension. So, can't see how she can bring together a plot arc for us that only she knows about. Jo: Ye gods what were all those hints about, the late flowering magic, Lily and James' jobs, the married teacher Carolyn: OK, who is going to start the Official List of queries and inconsistencies? Here's some more in no particular order as they occur to me: - She cannot be SERIOUS that Snape's patronus is a DOE?? ::boggle:: - Who was kissing Florence behind the greenhouses? - Why on earth would Rowena Ravenclaw's tiara be hidden in a tree in Albania? Talk about desperate plotting, more reminiscent of a chapter from Gadding with Ghouls - How did Voldie get his wand back in GOF? Still not explained. - Why did Peter hide in Hagrid's hut? What was he waiting for? - Why didn't DD get Sirius out of Azkaban? - Harry's glasses/Lily's eyes? What was all that about? - Who showed magic late in life? - When did Bellatrix acquire Helga's cup? How come Voldie couldn't read her mind that she'd nicked it? - Why didn't Voldie feel it when his soul-bits were destroyed one by one? And how come it took him so long to get there and back to the cave? He can Apparate can't he? And his own enchantments wouldn't prevent him.. - Who owns Gryffindor's sword if the Hat keeps producing it for those that show loyalty? Do Founder's Hats trump Goblin rights? [NB many artists feel that buyers of artworks only have them on loan and that they have a right to have them back and change them if they want to; does JKR feel this about her books..?] - Who was the Half-blood Prince then? Definitely Snape? And it was Lily's writing in his book? - Do we believe that Lily and Petunia grew up in the same neighbourhood as Snape? (acknowledgement Kneasy). So, what did happen to the girls' parents, and for that matter the Potter parents? - Snape was supposed to come to school an expert in the Dark arts ? didn't look like it from the pensieve memories - What happened to the withered hand that lights the way for thieves? - Prof Trelawny used magic with enthusiasm in the final battle, so she is not a squib. So why did she wander the corridors looking for places to hide sherry bottles and not just vanish them? Why does ANY wizard try to hide things in the Room of Requirement, and surely each time anyone goes in there to do that, by definition they see a whole lot of things that other people would prefer not to be seen.. - What was DD doing waiting for Harry in limbo? He's been dead a while now and Nick told us that wizards need to make a pretty prompt decision to move on when they die. - So, what was all that about the courtroom, the Veil and the locked room at the MoM? Is no one ever going to tell us what they were researching? Surely Voldie investigated all that the moment he got in there???? - And what message was Neville's mother trying to give him? AND WHAT ABOUT TREVOR? We need to be told .. Carolyn From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 17:04:42 2007 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:04:42 -0000 Subject: Finished! (Spoilers) Message-ID: "It is a great comfort not to be mistaken on all points" - Gandalf The Grey All in all, I feel like Wart after his night among the falcons -- "What a horrible grand crew!" I can't help but think the Muggles are well shut of wizardkind, good and bad. I can't quite figure out what happened with the wands either, but that's probably the point -- DD and Voldie both got it wrong. I suppose Snape could have dropped a few hints, and lived on, but chose to die when there was a chance of giving his memories to Harry. Very like Krum catching the snitch. I think he'd be pleased that Lily's grandson bears his name but sheesh! I don't think life is going to be easy for young Albus Severus no matter which House he gets sorted into. They might as well have named him Sue! (oh dear, I feel a filk coming on.) I have to thank Jo for making Lupin a credible red herring. I wonder if it was Tonks and Lupin who got pulled from the epilogue and sent off to the NGA just to make it clear which side they were on? You know, there's very little of ESE!Lupin which is actually refuted by canon. If I hadn't sworn otherwise, I'd be tempted to theorize that he got away with it. Pippin who cheered out loud when the suits of armor clanked off to defend the castle From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 17:30:56 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:30:56 -0000 Subject: Finished! (Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE Pippin: > I can't quite figure out what happened with the wands either, but > that's probably the point -- DD and Voldie both got it wrong. Yup. The Elder Wand is like some Wizarding Equivalent of a World Championship in Boxing. You keep the thing until the next Wizard defeats you - either by killing you, or disarming you, or by making you surrender. And that defeat counts even if you aren't using the EW at the time. I *think* Voldy got fooled by the legend and assumed the Wand did pass by either murder or direct defeat in a duel. And DD got it wrong because he didn't realise that, weakened himself, a much weaker wizard could defeat him. Pride goeth before a fall (in this case, literally). So DD had it until Draco defeated him by disarming him. That meant when Snape killed DD, he wasn't the holder of the EW (or maybe the EWWW! judging by some reactions here {g}). Then Draco had it (without knowing he was the EW holder) until Harry defeated him by disarming him. Harry is currently the holder. If he dies a natural death without anyone ever taking his wand off him by force, the Wand can never take a new master - it's his for eternity. Sort of a Wizarding Lonsdale Belt - win often enough, and it's yours forever. > I have to thank Jo for making Lupin a credible red herring. I > wonder if it was Tonks and Lupin who got pulled from the epilogue > and sent off to the NGA just to make it clear which side they were > on? You know, there's very little of ESE!Lupin which is actually > refuted by canon. If I hadn't sworn otherwise, I'd be tempted to > theorize thathe got away with it. Lupin was such a credible red herring that there was a point in the book (when he was suggesting he go with Harry) where I was utterly convinced you'd got it right. He couldn't have been more shifty if he tried. No, I think Tonks and Lupin dying was JKR's commentary on looking after your kid. Some circumstances are so deadly dangerous that parents have to risk and maybe lose their lives, so that their child will have a chance to grow up. And this includes mothers risking their lives as well as fathers. Pip!Squeak From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 18:06:11 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:06:11 -0000 Subject: Finished - lots of spoilers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > > wrote: > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > Jo: > >Oh Carolyn how I laughed, thank you for that! > >Anne: > >Yes, me too! > Pip!Squeak > >I liked your breakdown of the plot. Start the day giggling, that's > what I say. > > Carolyn: > Ladies, I'm flattered, but alas it's one of those cases of if you > don't laugh, you'd have to cry! Anne: There's some of that -- though, I'll reserve my full and final opinion until we've all done some analysis. > Carolyn: > OK, who is going to start the Official List of queries and > inconsistencies? Anne: Oh, I forgot to write one! That thing where the death of the Secret Keeper means that everyone who was in on the secret is now a Secret Keeper (which is why the Order had to leave 12GP) -- that is absolutely not what JKR wrote in the FAQ poll answer on her site! Sheesh. Some of the following, I have guesses or comments for: Carolyn: > - When did Bellatrix acquire Helga's cup? How come Voldie > couldn't read her mind that she'd nicked it? > Anne: As I understand it, LV entrusted it to her to put in her vault -- see HBP Spinners End: "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious -- " Then, near the end of DH, LV says something about how he shouldn't have trusted Lucius and Bellatrix with Hxes (can't get at the book to check right now). Carolyn: > - Why didn't Voldie feel it when his soul-bits were destroyed > one by one? Anne: I don't know. I used to accept, happily, that he couldn't, since they were separated from him -- but in that case, you wouldn't think there would be a mind link via Harry's soul-bit either. It does seem inconsistent. Carolyn: > - Who was the Half-blood Prince then? Definitely Snape? And it > was Lily's writing in his book? Anne: I'd say, definitely Snape, yeah, and it's his writing. All the knowledge in that book was burned up by that oaf Crabbe -- and nobody gave a thought to it. Damn. Carolyn: > Why does > ANY wizard try to hide things in the Room of Requirement, and surely > each time anyone goes in there to do that, by definition they see a > whole lot of things that other people would prefer not to be seen.. Anne: Definitely another problem. LV apparently thought he was the only one who'd ever found the RoR, which is why he hid the TiaraCrux there, so apparently *he* didn't see great piles of stuff in a cathedral-sized room -- yet Harry did? Why the difference, and whose experience was the usual one? I think people mostly used the RoR to hide stuff they wanted to come back for, but never did. No idea about the sherry bottles, though. Carolyn: > - What was DD doing waiting for Harry in limbo? He's been dead > a while now and Nick told us that wizards need to make a pretty > prompt decision to move on when they die. Anne: I assumed that was supposed to be a Near Death Experience-type thing. I believe people sometimes report seeing people who have died, and choosing to come back (*no* opinion from me about whether such things are real or a phenomenon of an oxygen-deprived brain). Anne From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 18:22:53 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:22:53 -0000 Subject: Finished - lots of spoilers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOILER SPACE LOTS OF SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE LOTS OF SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACESPOILER SPACE LOTS OF SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE LOTS OF SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE EVEN MORE SPOILER SPACE > Carolyn: > Certainly the whole series has been about whether or not you can, or > should want to escape death. I read the quotes at the front of DH > with relish and found the first half of the book very promising ? > I really thought she would give us a grown up outcome, but sadly it > didn't transpire. She's said that the end has been written since > she started, by which I suppose she means that awful epilogue. I > think that turned into a real hostage to fortune, because it > prevented her killing off any of the trio. I was reminded of that > time Harry had to do a stupid twiddle in mid-air to avoid being hit > by a bludger; I felt JKR had to do the same ? first with Hagrid, > who should have been deaded no question (what on earth stopped > Voldie?), and then Harry. Pip!Squeak: I would disagree that a 'grown-up' outcome means a major character *must* die; I think JKR took her readers very neatly through Harry's decision to do something that he was convinced would result in his death. Emotionally, she took Harry up to the point of death and beyond it. He thought he'd died. When you look at those quotes again, the first ends with 'Bless the children, give them triumph now', which I think hints strongly that the Trio will triumph. And besides, of the three Trio, Ron has lost one brother and had two other brothers permanently disfigured. Hermione has been tortured. Both saw their families having to flee into hiding. Harry has lost his parents, his pet, his godfather, his headmaster, all his parent's closest friends (including one person he didn't realise was his mother's closest friend). And you still want one of them dead? Didn't they lose enough for realism? Carolyn: > Agree with Pip!Squeak's identification of hoxboxes by chapter, but > still think she cheated by not indicating anywhere that there was A > another legend (the DH) which some but not all of them played into. > The only hints I can think of were DD's interest in alchemy (never > satisfactorily explained), his insistence on Harry always getting > the cloak back and Ollivander's fascination with what could really > be done with a wand by the right wizard, whether for good or evil. > Although we got a lot of retrospective hints about places where > Voldie could have stashed bits of his soul, I really don't think > anyone could have predicted the DH dimension. So, can't see how she > can bring together a plot arc for us that only she knows about. > > No, I've seen such plot arcs in both Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and the latest Doctor Who series. They're retrospective; you can't predict all of them, aren't supposed to predict all of them. What happens is that there's enough given the audience they can tell there is an arc (and predict some bits). Then it all comes together at the finale, and then you realise how seemingly inconsequential or disparate elements were contributing to the arc. We now know about the plot arc. So now, we can look *back* and see how she stuffed the arc into the earlier books (fun). Basically, we've seen the Hallows (and Horcrux) arcs from Harry's POV, not from an omnipotent POV. We're in the same situation Harry is at the end of the story. Now we've gone through it, we can see the whole thing clearly. But not while we were in the middle of the action. Pip!Squeak From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 18:50:53 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:50:53 -0000 Subject: Finished! (Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > YET > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > SPOILER > SPACE > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > > A few random thoughts after a marathon reading. 1. I'm relieved to find the series ended in a way that leaves me still interested in the series. I was worried as toowhether this would be the case. 2. It is abundantly clear that Jo has left herself room to revisit the series as often as she might like. Frankly, I'll be surprised if she resists. 3. The epilog was just such too sickly sweet for my tastes--calories without nutrition. Part of the reason why I believe #2 above is so likely, is that she did nothing in the epilog to give a hint about how Harry deals with his celebrity as an adult (something she has to deal with herself). 4. How can Harry possibly think he will live out a natural life with the continued existance of the wand? 5. A small point among many inconsistencies, but I'm troubled by the blantant inconsistency in versions of what happened with James at GH. Earlier we are told that James dueled bravely, now we are informed he didn't even have a wand in his hand. 6. I'm pleased (though I now others will not be on this point), that Harry returns to be an appealing character. 7. How extremely cheated I feel about the Harry's essentially passive reaction to Snape's memories. This was a person he loathed for nearly half of his life, and this all dissapates in a few moments. Maybe more later, but for now, I am left quite dissatisfied. I didn't expect every plot point to be fully resolved, but I did at least expect her deal with the points that she had indicated were important and/or that she had already informed us she would address. I just don't see how she will be content to have them all deal with in fan fic. Lyn From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 19:12:29 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:12:29 +0200 Subject: Disjointed thoughts about the new book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c7cc94$400a6e40$0a00a8c0@hwin> H e r e b e S p o i l e r s - 6/10? Gee whiz, Kneasy. It's a book, not a gymnastics competition. (Just kidding. But I've always wanted to say that to someone and the occasion has finally presented itself. And I think you're too negative. But difference of opinion makes a horse.) (Not that HP's a horse race either, of course.) - Stretches of this book were depressing and threatened - though they didn't deliver - boredom. Particularly the camping part. I like camping, actually, but not with Hermione's magic purse. - Latest development: View the Potterverse in Moral 3D!! It's been coming for a while, but Rowling has really nailed it down this time. I like it. I like Ron, who leaves but comes back. I like Draco, who isn't exactly redeemed but isn't exactly isn't, either. I like Dudley - Draco's very this-worldly alter-ego - who's about as bad at being good as he was good at being bad. I like Luna's harmless, eccentric father who spends years suffering for the truth and goes to weddings with a swastika on his shirt and tries to betray the people his daughter loves - out of love for his daughter. I like Peter Pettigrew, whose long-awaited great act of redemptive heroism boils down to hesitating about strangling Harry for just long enough to let his bionic hand strangle him instead - conclusively proving that Gryffindor is perfectly capable of turning out a moral failure. - And Snape, of course. In a panel at Accio 2005 I declared that Snape conclusively proved that he's a good guy by killing Dumbledore. Toward the end of the book, I honestly started to think I was wrong. Whew. Lucked out. - All of that more than made up for - or rather *balanced out* - Percy doing the hero thing. That was cool. If everybody and their dog had been pulling hero stunts (Pete and Draco, that's you I'm thinking about), Percy would have laced the whole thing with just a little too much moral saccharine. As it was, hey - *somebody* should get to do a big turn around and Percy was the perfect guy for the job. - One thing I'm not quite 100% happy about is the revelation of the true Big D. First in Aberforth's, then - with great clarity - in Snape's memories, he really does seem to show a disturbing devotion to the "greater good." It seems, clearly, a *greater* good for an innocent boy to die than for an evil wizard to live. I found this D believable - troubling but true to life and forgivable too, if you take his whole life in the balance. However, when we finally meet D in King's Cross, while the beatific D does admit to various moral failings, a tendency to be a cold-hearted, manipulative greater-good-apath is NOT one of them. It turns out that he knew since "the look" in GoF that Harry would survive another killing. He wasn't sending Harry to the butcher after all. Darn. I'd have preferred it if his flaws had gone a little deeper and his contrition a little farther. Still - it's not bad stuff. - Hey, did any else notice the look Dumbledore gave Harry at the end of GoF?? Was anyone else deeply satisfied to finally know what was going on? - Drum roll ... The Wand Thing. Every book so far, Rowling comes up with this monster magical plot device that sort of takes over and grows like bunny rabbits, and it's always cool and it's always annoying to the degree that it doesn't really tally with a lot of the stuff going on before. This time, it was wands. Being a wand must be nearly as complicated as running an office for sports statistics. Never mind. I thought it was kind of cool anyway. (Even if all Harry did to get Malfoys wand was grab it from his hand - there wasn't even any magic involved.) - I think humor is important. In fact, I've always thought it is one of the things that mark the HP series out for true greatness. I missed it this time. In fact, I almost had the feeling that JKR was quite hitting 'em like she used to. Maybe that just because I was reading like a maniac. - But finally: the ending. That, was really, really, really good. Harry has become a hero. The final chapters show us a young man who truly has the heart, the head and the coj?nes to stand next to Dumbledore and up to Voldemort. I love it. Enough babbling. Great book. Great series. Grand finale. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 19:20:48 2007 From: Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:20:48 -0400 Subject: Thank God someone else is done with the book (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C99AAC8B806143-45C-8B24@...> SPOILER SPACE!!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I finished the book at 515am on Saturday, and none of my friends are done yet (which made for an awkward night last night!). Deaths Severus -- I wish Severus didn't have to die...I'm not as upset as I thought I'd be over his death, but ya know. Fred -- I knew one of the twins was going to have to die, but it was still shocking and sad. Mad Eye -- I wish we could've seen his death.? I feel like it would've? been a brilliantly written piece.? He probably went down fighting as hard as he could, and I would've lived to have seen it. Dobby -- I sobbed.? I had to stop reading for a while in order to get over it. Remus -- Did JKR just want to kill off the whole generation?? No one from that time survived (Lucius was a bit older than them). Tonks -- We didn't see either of them die, and while I understand it was a war, I wish we could've. Colin Creevey -- I really wanted to see him fighting.? He was underage and snuck back in to help the fight.? I think Colin deserves a little bit more attention. Theories YES!!? SEVERUS IS DDM!!! I hatehatehatehatehatehatehate LOLLIPOPS.? I'm sorry to those of you who love it, but I think it's lame. Random I'm glad Percy came back. What was going on with Dudley?? He seemed completely out of character.? And I wish we could've seen a little more about them. WTF was that epilogue?? I was hoping to hear about what happened to the characters who lived.? Instead, we get a confusing chapter with too many different names and it has nothing to do with the book.? Thanks JKR, but no thanks -- I don't want to hear about you next series yet. Overall Thoughts I was disappointed with it.? I felt that she took the easiest way out of every situation.? She couldn't think of anything better than LOLLIPOPS for the reason Severus turned to the good side?? Horcrux!Harry?? Lame.? The Deathy Hallows?? If that isn't a last ditch effort to add something to the plot (and a reason to kill Severus randomly), I don't know what is. Anyone know who the character who did magic late in life is?? I didn't happen to catch anyone doing that, and now I'm confused. What about the veil?? I really thought that it would show up especially after the Resurrection Stone was discussed (she was behind a veil). I was talking to a friend who occasionally reads the books (he's read one to three I believe), and he said something today that made me think.? He is of the opinion that while JKR writes fantastic and intriguing characters, her plot is lacking.? And I think I agree with him now. So this is what it's like on the other side... Oryomai ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 19:50:28 2007 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:50:28 -0500 Subject: Spoilers. Finding some of my old Snapethoughts. In-Reply-To: <7C1C563B76DF408CB5FE2A91EE73291A@AmandaPC> References: <7C1C563B76DF408CB5FE2A91EE73291A@AmandaPC> Message-ID: Oh, this is fun. I've been going back and finding old posts for my theories on Snape. La La La La La La La La La La La La La For Spoiler Space *ahem* In a word. HAH. >From September 20, 2000, HPforGrownups post 1812: Dumbledore seems, without a stated reason and apparently foolishly, completely certain that Snape will never revert to being a Death Eater. It might be that's because Voldemort would kill Snape as soon as he could, for Snape's perfidy. But that's an external threat, and Snape seems to operate on internals, those strong emotions. It's my considered opinion that, whatever the original reason Snape became a spy in Voldemort's camp, Voldemort damned himself in Snape's eyes when he killed Lily. No matter who she chose, no matter if Snape had been humiliated, he had loved her and Voldemort made her dead. In this light, Dumbledore's certainty, and his refusal to elaborate on that certainty to Harry, both make sense. I am *loving this.* ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 20:38:41 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility (with spoilers) Message-ID: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... A short rant that some may think is unfair. OK, let's define our terms - Roughly speaking: Conflicts - the appearance in canon of information suddenly dumped on the reader that's not congruent with what we already accept; new, unexpected and possibly unwarranted properties of magical objects that we are familiar with from previous books. Cheats: authorial special pleading; uncharacteristic behaviour or a change of character of individuals for no good reason; introduction of a magical deus ex machina solely as a means of getting a character out of a hole or providing a minor or major resolution; key information, perhaps with-held deliberately, which in hindsight one would reasonably have expected some hint of previously (AKA the Aggie Christie gambit). (Basically, these two make up what was previously referred to as the "... 'ere, hang on a minute..." and the WTF!!! episodes.) Credibility: what the previous two damage. OK, off the top of my head:- Kreacher - a few kind words can turn a psychopathic runt into a fawning sycophant? Really? And according to Hermione, the new canon is that Elves are loyal to anyone who's nice to them. Yeah, sure. Forget about masters or households (why didn't Kreacher nail Dung with a bit of Elvish magic when he raided the joint?) it's "let's be nice to little Big-Ears week", it'll solve all our problems. So simple. Might be just about believable that the threesome could sneak into the MoM - but to pull off a Schindler's List while they're in there - sorry, that's too much. Snitches have flesh memory? Don't remember seeing that in QTTA, and if Ron and Harry the Quidditch fanatics don't know about it either.... Sevvy - a doe for a Patronus!?! What? This is a true reflection of his character? In that case he should have been teaching Flower Arranging. And he puts the sword in an ice-covered pond. Sevvy as the Lady of the Lake. Cool. Old Bagshot, dead for weeks - you'd think that a well known old trout like her, having just spilled the beans to the yellow press, would have been inundated with owls, calls, visitors. Er, no. Believable? Er, no. Goblins on the run? With wizards? Given what we've been told about how fiercely independent and war-like they are, how likely is that? And guess what? One of 'em knows all about GG's sword and how to break into Gringott's. What a useful coincidence. But they wander off. Yet after zipping around the countryside for some weeks and having all sorts of fun in GH and the Lovegood pad, our threesome get caught - by the same gang that has just picked up the oh-so-useful Goblin. I tell you, Harry should buy Lottery tickets - he's so lucky he'd never lose. Dobby. Gatecrashing Malfoy Towers. To rescue Harry. And he can Side-Apparate a whole bunch of wizards out of there. With a knife stuck in him. Of course. Obvious when you think about it. Does his blood spilt on the floor of Malfoy Manor count as splinching? Just asking. Peter 'Dr Strangelove' Pettigrew. Say no more. DD. I'm no DD cheerleader, but I can't get my head around him and Grindelwald planning a New World Order in the intellectual hot-house of Much Mouldering in the West Country. Does not compute. Maybe, just maybe, if they'd been in a college somewhere, it could have happened. It's not unknown in such places for the most level- headed of students to succumb to the group enthusiasm for simple political solutions to the world's problems. It's only later when they get battered by the real world that they (usually) come to the conclusion that their answers weren't simple but simplistic. And then they grow up. But DD had to wake up every morning to the real world and to his responsibilities in it. I just cannot believe the back-story Jo has dumped on him. Sorry. Oh - and Ariana. Where was the in-built protection that automatically shields wiz-kids from Muggle malice - or harm of almost any kind? So they do the Huff cup with surplus Basilisk dentition - but wait, the half is not yet told! There's a diadem. Diadem? Tiara? Who cares? What the hell is a witch doing with a diadem anyway? They wear pointy hats, not diadems, as ane fule kno. Unlike the relics of the other founders it doesn't seem to have any distinguishing marks, either. No matter, any relic will do when you're galloping towards the finishing line. As to how Voldy got it in his sweaty mitts, that's a minor detail, apparently. Let's no waste time on that. But Harry finds it! (Hooray!) But he doesn't have the Hx-stabbing sword! (Boo!) Nor any of the ophidian fangoid Hx-fixers! (Boo!) But all is not lost! (Hooray!) That idiot Goyle tries to kill him with Fiendfyre, one of the very few things that Hermy has learned can snuff a Hx! (Hooray!) And with one bound our hero is free and the be-jewelled nasty is neutralised! (Hooray!) Pull the other one, Jo. It's got bells on. Wands. It's all very simple really, whether it's the self-activating wand in chap 3 or the Elder whatsit later... Huh. No it's not. 'Get out of Jail Free' plot cards more like. More may well become apparent on second reading. Suggestions for additions to the list are welcome. > Carolyn > > My verdict is that she has simply lost the plot big time as the story > has rambled on. If there ever was an over-arching connecting theme, > then somehow she has allowed her characters to screw it up at various > points and simply has had no idea how to tie it all back together > again except by introducing a new and preposterous plot device (the > Deathly Hallows) at the very last minute. > If one wanted to be cruel, one could go further. Lost it? Was it ever really there? Consider - ever since HP hove into sight all those years ago, we've been kept warm and cosy by the thought that Jo had already written The End, the Final Chapter, the Final Words. Many of us, naive and gullible that we are, foolishly believed that this Final Chapter had something to do with the denouement, the 'what it's all about' thingy. Yet what is the final chapter? 19 years later, a fluffy, happy-ever-after, feel-good slush-fest. Is it possible to argue that the tale has been a book-by-book series of ad-hoc manipulations of plot devices to squeeze a bunch of square pegs into round holes, thus ensuring that the main characters survive to breed like rabbits? I bloody hope not. Supporting evidence - why else would there be a need to employ multiple Potterologists to keep the continuity honest? If there was a clear, defined, continuing plot thread, would they be needed? By the way - what was the 'what it's all about'? Answers on a postcard. As for Carolyn's list of questions still unanswered, here's a few more. Who was with Voldy at GH? The Mirror in PS/SS - had DD nobbled it? Did DD know that Peter was Scabbers? Did DD know the fix was in at the name-drawing in GoF? Did he know Crouch!Moody was a fake? What about Bagman? C'mon, I want to know. How did Sirius get Sevvy to go down the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack? Voldy made Kreacher drink the potion in the cave, placed the locket and then refilled with potion. RAB drank the potion, switched lockets and went to Davy Jones' Inferii. Who replenished the potion for DD to drink? Kneasy venting steam From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 21:03:09 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:03:09 +0200 Subject: Is there a Station Master in King's Cross? Harry Potter and Post-metaphysical Fantasy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004701c7cca3$b5b21170$0a00a8c0@hwin> Some musings of a more abstruse variety - copied in from my LJ. Spoilers nonethless. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Here's an issue that probably won't be coming up immediately in our debates about the epilogue, the wand-thing and the final doom of H/Hers: There's some stuff about this series, as it has now been completed, that's rather atypical of fantasy - or rather, there's some non-stuff. In particular, we are never given a narrative to explain the metaphysics of the Potterverse, nor are we offered a vision of any basic, ultimate changes in its nature. Where did magic come from? Why does it work the way it works? What makes wizards different from muggles? Will they ever be united (or re-united)? What makes love so powerful? Is there some higher power - God, for instance - behind the scenes or even pervading the story? These are all interesting questions. They are also questions of a sort that fantasy stories quite often like to grapple with - and answering them is often essential to the plot's resolution. They are things you could call (and I have called) fantasy metanarratives - or to use the terminology of Christian theology, the salvation history of the fantasy narrative, stretching creation (the beginning of all things) to eschatotology (the end of all things), through hamartiology (evil) to soteriology (salvation) all centered around theology proper (the understanding of God, or the ultimate, or whatever). These are common themes in fantasy fiction - including fantasy fiction that is decidedly non-Christian (say, His Dark Materials or The Dark is Rising) - but Rowling simply doesn't go there. We learn that love is powerful, that death is final (though not the end) - but that's about it. We spend a pleasant time with Dumbledore in a place Harry (but not Dumbledore) sees as King's Cross - but we don't find out where the trains go, let alone whether there's a station master upstairs. We learn about the Old Hallow boys, but even Beatific!Dumbledore doesn't seem to think there was anything more profound going on than three clever wizards getting lucky (or unlucky, as the case may be). Voldemort is defeated - but Draco (who is not exactly evil but hardly a saint) packs a son named Scorpio into the Hogwarts express. All we have to gone in the end is love and death. These are not particularly profound concepts - but if love and death (or might I even borrow those old Heideggerian standbys "care" and "being toward death"?) aren't the most profound aspects of human experience, I don't know what is. The little Heidegger riff was intentional, since Heidegger is linked with a kind of philosophy that's often termed "post-metaphysical." There are many ways of doing post-metaphysical philosophy - and I don't claim to understand any of them properly - but what they share is that they want to talk about the important things of human life without presenting a grand narrative about the essence of being. It's less realist, more pragmatic; people are more important than stuff. "What shall I do and what kind of person shall I be?" tends to be more important than "Where do I come from and where am I going?" - which itself tends to be more important than "where does the universe come from and where is it going?" I guess that makes Harry your standard issue, post-metaphysical hero. I have to say I like him, a lot. Though I still would have liked to go hunting for that station master. From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 22 22:23:25 2007 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:23:25 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Finished! (Spoilers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0707221523h5ad5a4e1uba89069011b46149@...> Pippin: > I have to thank Jo for making Lupin a credible red herring. I > wonder if it was Tonks and Lupin who got pulled from the epilogue > and sent off to the NGA just to make it clear which side they were > on? You know, there's very little of ESE!Lupin which is actually > refuted by canon. If I hadn't sworn otherwise, I'd be tempted to > theorize thathe got away with it. Pip!Squeak: Lupin was such a credible red herring that there was a point in the book (when he was suggesting he go with Harry) where I was utterly convinced you'd got it right. He couldn't have been more shifty if he tried. Debbie: Were it not for the very obvious (red, herring-shaped) ESE! arrows pointing at Lupin's head in that scene, I would have bought ESE! Lupin hook, line and sinker and started hunting some crow for dinner. Had it been just a shade less obvious, had the clues remained subtle, as his hasty departure from the Burrow when the Ministry (?) showed up and mournful expressions when he should have been happy with his bride, I think it would have played better. I actually gave some thought to whether JKR was aware of ESE!Lupin when she wrote that part. Especially since I'm convinced that she spared Hagrid death by spider in exchange for dispatching Lupin and Tonks to that better place where there are no werewolves. Hey, maybe Lupin offed his wife to save some Death Eater and then killed himself in a sensational murder-suicide, which will be the subject of Rita Skeeter's next expose. Debbie who loved the book, but cannot reread it because greedy family members will not relinquish it long enough [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 00:28:02 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:28:02 -0000 Subject: Finished! (Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > SPOILER SPACE MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > MORE SPOILER SPACE YET MORE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > YET > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > SPOILER > SPACE > MORE > SPOILER > SPACE > > > Pippin: > > I can't quite figure out what happened with the wands either, but > > that's probably the point -- DD and Voldie both got it wrong. > Pip: > Yup. The Elder Wand is like some Wizarding Equivalent of a World > Championship in Boxing. You keep the thing until the next Wizard > defeats you - either by killing you, or disarming you, or by making > you surrender. And that defeat counts even if you aren't using the EW > at the time. Ginger says: Great analogy, Pip. I had not understood it as I was thinking of Elder as a type of wood like elderberry bush or boxelder tree. Once Harry started in about how he had taken the wand from Draco, who had disarmed DD, rather than Snape being the holder of the Elder wand since DD was unarmed when Snape killed him, then it clicked. On a different topic, let's talk Trelawney. We've seen her hiding her sherry bottles in the RoR. "Why not vanish them?" we asked. Is she a squib? Hmm, but she uses magic in the final battle. So......... Is she the one who uses magic later in life? Or has she always been able to use it, but chooses not to use it when she is hiding her bottles, preferring to hide them nonmagically? Kind of like calling a cab rather than driving when drunk. To Amanda, and other Snape-lovers out there: Isn't it lovely? We no longer have to be so appologetic for loving our Potionmaster. Ah, sweet redemption. Ginger, planting flowers at the Snape shrine in her head. From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 01:08:52 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:08:52 -0000 Subject: When all's read and done - spoilerish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Anne: As for the cover, I'm sure that's meant to be > the confrontation in the Great Hall at the end, though I'm not sure > what Harry's doing with his hand (can't look it up, as both daughters > have both copies of the book). Ginger: I'm guessing that's at the part where he is catching LV's wand. LV seems to be reaching for something with both hands, so I would assume it's his wand. Or maybe I'm the one reaching... Ginger, off to a reread From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 01:20:10 2007 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:20:10 -0000 Subject: More Thoughts on DH (SPOILERS!) Message-ID: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS I thought Harry being protected by Lily's sacrifice because it lives on in Voldemort's blood would mean that, when Harry finally killed the Horcrux-less Voldemort, Harry would die as well. Dumbledore tells Harry (in "King's Cross"): "He tethered you to life while he lives," so shouldn't that mean that Harry dies when Voldemort dies? Perhaps I was just overly prepared for Harry to die :) I've never been a big "Harry as a Horcrux" fan - I've always thought that Harry couldn't be as pure as he is if he had a bit of Voldemort inside him. Doesn't Dumbledore tell him in Book 6 that Voldemort underestimates the power of a soul that is complete and pure? And how could Harry look into the Mirror of Erised and see nothing but himself getting the Stone to protect it from Voldemort if a piece of Voldemort was inside him? We've seen how powerful these pieces of Voldemort can be, but perhaps it's different if the Horcrux isn't made intentionally? Despite this, I thought the self-sacrifice that was required of Harry, and the way he dealt with it, was wonderful. On the "rightful owner" of the wand concept ? It seems as if it would have worked better if Draco had actually taken possession of Dumbledore's wand and fled with it the night Dumbledore died, and then when Voldemort needed a different wand, Draco could have given him the elder wand. But I suppose then we would have lost the whole thread about Voldemort searching for the wand, and Harry choosing Horcruxes over Hallows, and the excuse for Voldemort to kill Snape (the latter was an excellent way of showing how truly merciless Voldemort was). Grindlewald went to Durmstrang - as accurately predicted by Susan/Constance Vigilance at Phoenix Rising! I fully expected to be vindicated in my conviction that Snape has always been evil, particularly given how he did nothing to spare the Muggle studies teacher from death, told Voldemort about Harry's correct departure date, took part in the chase to kill Harry after he left Privet Drive and Sectumsempra-d George's ear off. The Pensieve scene at the end explained most, but the Pensieve memories didn't, however, explain why Snape fled Hogwarts when the final battle began. Did Snape think it would be too hard to keep his cover if he remained? I, too, felt it was odd that Harry didn't spend any time musing about his misguided mistrust of Snape after the viewing the Pensieve scene, but I suppose his more immediate concern was about the fact that he was going to have to let Voldy kill him. Can we blame him? I felt the rest of the Pensieve scene was really meant for us, the readers. I thought the unknown Gryffindor or Ravenclaw Horcrux would be from Gryffindor, and that they would find it in Godric's Hollow. But I suppose having the unknown Horcrux be one of Ravenclaw's makes sense, since Gryffindor's sword needed to be used to destroy them, and therefore they needed one item from all four founders to completely destroy Voldemort's protection. As soon as they discovered the Horcrux was a diadem, I felt sure it was the one Harry had used to mark where he had hidden the HBP's Potions book. And the diadem does actually have a distingushing mark ("Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure" - one of Luna's first pronouncements when Harry meets her). So Harry and Voldemort were actually related after all! The book doesn't explicitly state this, but it must be, if both the Potters and the Gaunts are descendants of the Peverells. That surprised me, given how much emphasis was placed on Harry being a true Gryffindor and not being Slytherin's heir in Book 2. But I suppose Rowling would chalk that up to all of the pure-blood families being related at some point in their family trees. I loved how Neville killed Nagini with Gryffindor's sword, although I had thought Harry was going to need to use Parseltongue to finish off the snake. If the only Horcrux Harry wound up destroying was the diary, why couldn't he have had more help in tracking down and destroying them? Was that because DD didn't know who could be trusted? Like everyone else, I thought RAB was Sirius' brother, and that Kreacher had spared the locket from the bin, but while most thought the locket was still at Grimmauld Place, I had guessed that the locket had been stolen from Grimmauld Place by Mundungus, so I was glad to have been right on that small point (especially when I was so wrong on so many other guesses!). Having Kreacher be the one to have drunk the potion and have been left on the island to die was completely unexpected. I didn't think it worked to have Ron open the Chamber of Secrets to obtain the basilik fangs - either you know Parseltongue or you don't - how could he fake it? If that were the case, presumably Dumbledore could have made his way into the Chamber in Book 2. In all, I loved it - I loved how fast-moving it was, how Rowling didn't waste time (and create boredom) by explaining the previous 6 books - you really had to have read the rest of the series for Book 7 to make sense. I also loved having one-seventh of the dedication devoted to the fans :) I think it's my favourite of the series, and I never thought I'd like another HP book more than PoA. ~Phyllis From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 03:52:59 2007 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:52:59 -0500 Subject: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More Thoughts on DH (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E4C9B03A8A4245A429DC63DABD3B63@AmandaPC> Phyllis: The Pensieve scene at the end explained most, but the Pensieve memories didn't, however, explain why Snape fled Hogwarts when the final battle began. Did Snape think it would be too hard to keep his cover if he remained? Amanda, wondering why her email doesn't put carets in consistently, answers: The other teachers were not fighting to contain him; they were trying to kill or seriously injure him. His choices if he'd stayed were to be killed or injured, or to have to kill or injure them. Given his promise to Dumbledore to protect the students of Hogwarts, taking out any teachers right before Voldemort comes visiting is hardly going to protect the students. The prudent path was to flee. ~Amanda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 05:38:58 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:38:58 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Conflicts, cheats and credibility (with spoilers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707222238m18fdfe9fka1633eca228689b0@...> On 7/23/07, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > SPOILER......................................... > SPACE............................................. > THE................................................... > BOUNDARY.................................... > BETWEEN....................................... > INNOCENCE.................................. > AND.................................................. > DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > A short rant that some may think is unfair. > On the whole I think 6/10 is being quite kind. In my experience, laughing out loud should be reserved for genuinely funny writing, not an absurd plot. When I caught myself wondering about the exact age of the Trilogy's children, I realized I was still hankering after the Christie Effect and that had been well and truly debunked by the ramshackle edifice preceding. Dear God please prevent her from writing any more Harry Potter, no more "clues" to the Happily Ever After! Found myself singing songs from Monty Python and the Holy Grail during the apparently vital wandering-witless-in-a-forest sections. Why? Harry needs more frustration? So he and Ron can have a Horcrux-induced argument about the bleeding obvious? Not enough time for whatever-the-hell had to go on elsewhere? No, because the Horcruxes ended up being ridiculously easy to find thanks to our old friend Deux Ex Machina. One book to sum up a seven book series and we still resort to page-filling because we'd already written the shortcuts. Coconuts indeed. It has been partly due to these great lists that nothing in the book seriously surprised me at all. It was effectively a point summary of TBAY acronyms. I would not have minded this had there been a better plot, because I was already resigned to the ersatz characters but jeez Resurrected!Harry finally understands Pensieve!Snape? If I wasn't laughing I was groaning, viz. the Bellatrix-Molly Aliens2 moment, the wtf-Neville-has-the-sword moment, the kill-Ginny-not-one-of-the-twins moment. 5/10. Could do better. ewe2, ironing hands for a reread. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 06:03:20 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:03:20 -0000 Subject: It's all spoilers ... some is replies Message-ID: I found it very difficult to avoid seeing the chapter titles as I leafed over the ToC for the -- I've been told it's called an epitaph -- Oh, the torment bred into the race, the grinding scream of death and the stroke that hits the vein, the hemorrhage none can staunch, the grief, the curse no man can bear. But there is a cure in the house, and not outside it, no, not from others but from *them*, their bloody strife. We sing to you, dark gods beneath the earth. Now, hear, you blissful powers underground -- answer the call, send help. Bless the children, give them triumph, now. Do any of you educated people know what Aeschylus meant by that? 'Torment bred into the race' sounds like Oedipus, but that was Sophocles... (checks Wikipedia) Oh, the Atreides. IIRC that starts with two brothers who both wanted to be king ... by the time one of them won, it seems to me that they had forgotten their original goal and just wanted to kill each other ... and then decided they wanted to break each others' hearts before killing them ... and both were willing to "use any means to achieve their ends". Somehow Tantalus killing, dismembering and cooking his own son, Pelops, to serve as a stew to visiting Olympian gods (who recognized human flesh and refused to touch it, except Demeter was distracted by her grief over Persephone and put a bit in her mouth before recognizing it) is involved with that, as is one brother proposing to the other brother to make peace and reconcile by marrying his 50 daughters to the other's 50 sons, but he commanded his daughters to kill their new husbands on the wedding night, and all except one obeyed ... IIRC The daughters were the Danaeads, so he must have been Danaeus... Apparently Aeschylus's idea of ending the taint in the blood was by Orestes killing poor Clytemnestra as revenge for her killing the evil Agamemnon. No, I don't call him evil because of that movie of TROY that starred Brad Pitt as Achilles, as if the real Achilles wasn't just as evil. It's because my mother told me that Agamemnon married Clytemnestra by killing her husband and smashing her baby's brain out on a stone floor and taking her by force. And then, all are agreed, he tricked her into sending him their daughter Iphigeneia to be sacrificed to Artemis to bring a fair wind for the Greek fleet to sail to Troy. A mother avenging the deaths of two of her children. Ending up with a big trial, before a jury of gods, as to whether the *duty* to avenge one's father's death was sufficient excuse for the *crime* of killing one's mother, in which Athena cast the deciding vote for acquittal in a speech in which she said that her birth from her father Zeus's head without a mother (her mother Metis had been swallowed by Zeus while pregnant with her) proved that mothers are unnecessary and unrelated to the child, at most an incubator for the father's seed, and "I am for the male in all things." Loathsome. How's that for spoiler space? Please, dear listies, don't let your feelings be hurt that I can't stand to format this as replies to specific quotes. DUMBLEDORE. Everyone who predicted that there wouldn't be a Dumbledore Explains It All scene at the end, just because DD is dead, were wrong. DD's brief infatuation with Grindelwald, despite leading to the accidental death of his sister and increased estrangement from his brother, strikes me as insufficiently criminal, an insufficiently shocking revelation. That act causing that level of guilt about his parents and sister and brother, to me he should have felt just as guilty about quite a number of other things. Even if he wasn't Puppetmaster!DD. I found no clue that Puppetmaster!DD starting plotting before he heard the Prophecy, and the *only* clue I found that he started plotting before the Godric's Hollow explosion was one cool double entendre: Snape: "I thought ... you were going ... to keep her ... safe ..." "She and James put their faith in the wrong person', said Dumbledore. "Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?" I immediately read "She and James put their trust in the wrong person [: Puppetmaster!DD]" altho' it wasn't until I finished the book that I noticed that 'Rather like you, Severus' also referred to DD. A DD who told James and Lily that he would protect their lives, and told Sevvie that he would protect Lily's life, while he was really planning to let LV kill them, then talked Sevvie into protecting the life of Lily's child, while he was really planning to let LV kill the child. (I pick up this thread again, below.) Of course, the very clear surface meaning is Pettigrew and LV, respectively. SNAPE. An interesting thing about the Pensieve memories is that even tho' their surface meaning is plainly DDM!Snape (the words that Rowling put into Harry's mouth, 'he was the bravest man I ever knew', seemed to me to be a direct quote from some posts on The Other List), there is nothing that DISPROVES some kind of ESE!Snape ('some kind of ESE' is any kind that serves LV, whether OFH or LID or LVM) -- he could have been stringing DD along in all those recorded conversations, partly as LV's spy, partly to try to save Lily's life, partly as his keep-out- of-Azkaban card, partly because of needing to get rid of his life-debt ... wants-to-be-baddest!Snape would be quite sincere about wanting to destroy LV, altho' I still saw no clue of Snape wanting to be the baddest wizard ... In the very first chapter, when Snape reported to LV, information from 'the source I mentioned', I started wondering who was the traitor in the Order this time. Of course, it turned out to be Portrait!DD with good intentions. But Snape could have told LV all about getting info from DD'S portrait by pretending to still be loyal to him ... he could have told him even if the loyalty to DD were no pretense, but I mean it could have truly been a pretense. It could be that ESE!Snape, serving the triumphant LV as Headmaster of Hogwarts, had no intention of carrying out the last step in DD's plan, but when LV unexpectedly killed such a useful follower, he seized the opportunity to revenge himself on LV by telling Harry. Pretty quick thinking, especially for a dying man, and similar to Neri's Faith's prediction. I like to believe in DDM!Snape even tho' his displays of loyalty to DD were not necessarily convincing. His displays of emotion about Lily did seem quite convincing to me. I was disappointed but not surprised that LOLLIPOPS came true -- I admitted to Amanda years ago that it tied all the strings together neatly even tho' I hate it. The quizzees who said 'Lily's man, through and through' were pretty close. But the Pensieve memories don't look like Love to me -- more like Obsession. He looked at her 'greedily' and had very little interest in her happiness. 'Loving' a Mudblood didn't make him reconsider his bloodist and anti-Muggle views. I was *shocked*; I'd believed that Snape never was really a bloodist, because it's so stupid and illogical and in contradiction to empirical evidence, and one thing he is is intelligent! 'Loving' her didn't make him reconsider his cruel sense of humor (about whatever it was that Mulciber did to Macdonald). Now I believe Snape joined the Death Eaters because they were his kind of people, not just in an anti-Gryffindor snit or having been seduced into it by persuasive brainy evil friends. Elkins was right. In the Pensieve conversation I quoted above, DD explicitly played Sevvie by using Lily as his motivation: "If you truly loved Lily Evans ... help me protect her son." Snape, later: "Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter". A DDM!Snape would obey anyway. An LVM!Snape would not obey. Lily's Man!Snape might try to protect her child from DD as well as from LV, and thus disobey. (I can't believe Snape is so intellectual about his own emotions that Lily's Man!Snape would try to achieve her goal because death had prevented her from achieving it, in which case DD might have talked him into believing that dead LV via dead HP was achieving her goal, so he would obey.) But my feeling is that Lily's Man!Snape, obsessed with her but never understanding her, is likely to be more motivated by Revenge on Voldemort rather than by anything about Lily's child. In that case, he would happily sacrifice the child (even if it weren't Harry!) to destroy Voldemort. I can't imagine Kneasy has read this far, so could someone tell him about this paragraph? Revenge for Lily!Snape put me forcibly in mind of Revenge for Florence & Sprog!Snape, A Very Good Hater!Snape, so I felt that Kneasy's Snapetheory was largely right. Up there where I was listing possible reasons for ESE!Snape stringing DD along in those conversations, I didn't mention Revenge!Snape because Revenge!Snape is stringing LV along, not stringing DD along. Revenge!Snape is not DDM but DD is right to completely trust him versus LV anyway (even if he ever learned that DD set Lily up, he would still use DD to kill LV before taking his revenge on DD). However, Snape has no need for revenge before Lily's death (then he was trying to save her life), and no *opportunity* for revenge until LV and Peter return to life (then he was just staying out of Azkaban). I never doubted that Snape was suffering inside all of life (well, a few moments excepted) but now I fear he suffers all his death, too. It SEEMS that wizarding folk keep their identity in the Next Great Adventure, and the only way he can be with Lily again is if he puts up with being with James and Sirius again ... I wish he could be healed (of his wound too deep for healing), if only by swimming in the river Lethe. Btw, James&Sirius and Severus hating each other on first sight is not a particularly adequate explanation of their hatred. ROWLING She put so much effect into emphasizing up the evilness of the Unforgivable Curses, and in this book she has the Good Guys, Trio and Neville, using Imperius every other chapter, and IIRC both Harry and Neville use Cruciatus. Without being punished for it or repenting or anything. Dungrollin: << What happened to the founders who were supposed to be so important? The missing 24 hours? Possession? All the snake lore? The DADA curse? The Trio's careers? Who sent the Lestranges to the Longbottoms? (Was it simply masterminded by Bella because she knew that Voldy was still out there somewhere?) Snape's twitch in the Hospital Wing in GoF when Harry mentions Malfoy? The character who performs magic late in life thing... or did Filch get up to something when I wasn't looking? In fact, which ends actually got tied up? `Cause I don't remember too many. >> Damn right. I guess the people who said that the character who does magic late in life was Merope were right, even tho' I still say she did magic from the normal age even if she was clumsy with it from fear of her horrible father and brother. Or maybe Rowling deleted the scene where Filch or Figg did magic -- same as I feel that she wrote Harry's reaction to Snape's revelations, and then deleted all that when she editted for length. Ginger: << Go Molly! Kill the bitch! >> Avenging her murdered child, like Clytemnestra (above). << Did anyone guess the American cover was the Great Hall? >> Hell, no! When I read that duel and recognized it (due to previous TOL cover analysis) as the US cover, but it was in the Great Hall, I turned back instantly to look at the cover again, and it just ISN'T the Great Hall. No way. Gut feeling plus the Great Hall is not round. Even if that's the ceiling that looks like the sky instead of the real sky. Maybe it's the Quidditch pitch, or someplace at the Ministry. Or the Graveyard in GoF had a Roman-style wall that no one bothered to mention. I like to think it's the other side of The Veil, with numerous Veiled arches because each this-side manifestation of The Veil is in a different place. I forget who suggested that on TOL, but it's not original to me. Carolyn: << Unnoticed in the general rejoicing business continues absolutely as normal. Kids are still sorted into four houses; Slytherin is still detested. >> I wouldn't say it was unnoticed: I think Herself went out of her way to call attention to it. << House-elves continue abasing themselves for no pay and no pensions. >> Was there something in the epilogue about House Elves? Mooseming: << Ye gods what were all those hints about, the late flowering magic, Lily and James' jobs, the married teacher >> Damn right! Phyllis: << I also thought it was lousy that Harry lost his only gift from Sirius (the Firebolt). >> He still has the piece of mirror. And Kreacher, unless he got killed without me noticing. And the house. << Agree ? if Harry wasn't to be a goner, I thought we'd lose someone really important (like Ron or Hagrid). But perhaps Rowing thinks killing Dumbledore and Snape was enough. >> I think Hagrid might have been the character who got a reprieve. I think maybe he was scheduled to die in the Battle of Hogwarts because of the alchemical symbolism, but by then Harry was already in the necessary emotional state without losing him, and she couldn't stand to kill him (she likes him), and she got a visual of him carrying Harry's 'dead' body back... Also, I thought maybe Umbridge was the character who got a reprieve, that Rowling meant to punish her as she deserved, but found that, it being quite illogical for Umbridge to just happen to be at the Battle of Hogwarts, she just couldn't squeeze Umbridge's demise into the book. When did Umbridge start wearing the Locket!Crux? Not until she took it from Mundungus, which was not until after the house-cleaning chapter, so she had already set the Dementors on Harry before that. In OoP, she hated non-humans and part-humans but showed no particularly objection to Muggle-borns, so maybe her blood purity court resulted from the Locket!Crux taking her over. Maybe she was the one who snuggled up to the Imperius'ed Pius Thicknesse (love that name!) and volunteered to kill Scrimgeour so he could be promoted. If so, was it revenge for her dear Cornelius being fired, or on purpose to help the blood purity dictatorship? Anne: << All the knowledge in that book was burned up by that oaf Crabbe -- and nobody gave a thought to it. Damn. >> I thought of that, but comforted myself that he's passed at least all the Potions knowledge on to students, some to advanced students only. At least some of the spells have been learned by other people. By the way, Sectumsempra. Snape cast it on George's ear. Lupin said: "Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's." So non-Snapes knew about it, and probably some knew how to do it. But Molly was able to staunch George's ear with no mention that she had chanted over him like Phoenix song. I think the song was a spell for healing very deep cuts, or possibly for curse removal so that the missing bits could be replaced, rather than a specific for Sectumsempra. I think ordinary magical healing, and maybe even ordinary Muggle healing, keeps Sectumsempra from bleeding forever like Arthur's snakebite. Didn't Nagini bite someone early in this book who had no problem stopping the bleeding? << Definitely another problem. LV apparently thought he was the only one who'd ever found the RoR, which is why he hid the TiaraCrux there, so apparently *he* didn't see great piles of stuff in a cathedral-sized room -- yet Harry did? Why the difference, and whose experience was the usual one? >> I thought Riddle found it full of stuff and decided that the stuff was just part of the room, rather than that people had been hiding things there over the centuries. Foolish of him, but if he found it after he had found the Chamber of Secrets, I can see him possibly thinking that, maybe. After all, no one has suggested that the snake decor and the statue of Salazar and the basilisk were put into the Chamber gradually over the centuries. What I can't see is that no one but the House Elves knows about The Room of Requirement when so many people found have it over the centuries -- surely some of them must have told their friends, until it passed into student lore. I seem to recall Trelawney saying something about the staff knows about the Room of Requirement, in which case, Dumbledore knew about it long before GoF. Maybe his tale about stumbling 'just the other night' into a room full of chamberpots really happened during his student days. Ashley: << I'm relieved to find the series ended in a way that leaves me still interested in the series. I was worried as to whether this would be the case. >> Me, too. Mike the Goat: << I like Draco, who isn't exactly redeemed but isn't exactly isn't, either. >> I liked Draco trying to rescue Goyle and calling out for Crabbe, even after Crabbe insulted him. But I didn't like Draco still being LVM until LV died. Phineas Nigellus called out for everyone to notice that Slytherin House had done its part. Other than Snape, what did he mean? Slughorn returning with reinforcements? Narcissa lying that Harry was dead? Crabbe setting FiendFyre for quite a different reason? I don't recall even one over-age Slytherin student staying to help fight. Kneasy: << Kreacher - a few kind words can turn a psychopathic runt into a fawning sycophant? Really? >> If a few kind words could do it, he would have stopped calling Hermione 'mudblood filth' long ago. I figure the opportunity to fulfill Master Reggie's last command made him sane again -- maybe not obeying a command drives House Elves insane -- and part of House Elf sanity is to love Master. I also think there was some magical effect of giving him Regulus's decoy locket -- not that it was the famous Locket of Loving Loyalty (which Agamemnon would have been wise to sew onto Clytemnestra), but that it had Regulus vibes on it that filled a hole in his heart. << And according to Hermione, the new canon is that Elves are loyal to anyone who's nice to them. Yeah, sure. Forget about masters or households >> I think she meant, only members of their owning family or household who are nice to them. I still don't get Walburga and Regulus being nice to Kreacher when Narcissa, raised in the same household as Walburga, was so un-nice to Dobby. And, according to Dobby, under the Dark Lord's previous reign, all the House Elves were treated like vermin. Also, that family tradition of beheading the elderly House Elves seems cruel. Unless I misunderstood it, and really they wait for them to die naturally before beheading them. Or they like being euthanized as much as DD did. << (why didn't Kreacher nail Dung with a bit of Elvish magic when he raided the joint?) >> Sirius, his owner at the time, who must be obeyed, had ordered him not to harm any of Sirius's guests. Doesn't canon say so somewhere? << Diadem? Tiara? Who cares? What the hell is a witch doing with a diadem anyway? They wear pointy hats, not diadems, as ane fule kno. Unlike the relics of the other founders it doesn't seem to have any distinguishing marks, either. No matter, any relic will do when you're galloping towards the finishing line. >> Yes, but Herself made it obvious enough that a ton of people on The Other List predicted it was Ravenclaw's tiara and a Horcrux. Mike the Goat: << We spend a pleasant time with Dumbledore in a place Harry (but not Dumbledore) sees as King's Cross >> I think she may have chosen King's Cross for its name. Phyllis: << the excuse for Voldemort to kill Snape (the latter was an excellent way of showing how truly merciless Voldemort was). >> That scene where LV is told that the Hufflepuff cup has been stolen, and he kills not only the messenger who brought the bad news, but "the watching wizards scattered before him, terrified; Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy threw others behind him in their race for the door, and again, and again, and again his wand fell, and those who were left were slain, all of them." made me wonder if even crazy Bellatrix is sorry she took that job (Death Eater). Whatever an evil wizard might want from serving a Dark Lord, lots of opportunities to torture and kill Muggles and 'disloyal' wizarding folk and 'loyal' wizarding folk who get inconvenient, wealth, people under Imperius to obey his/her every whim, blood purity, the hope of being loved by the baddest Dark Lord in history ... none of it is worth much after one's been killed at random by one's Dark Master. Not a desirable job. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 07:21:58 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:21:58 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] It's all spoilers ... some is replies References: Message-ID: <010e01c7ccfa$28da8b90$6401a8c0@Main> S P O I L E R S spoil spoil spoil Catlady: > But the Pensieve memories don't look like Love to me -- more like > Obsession. SSSusan: Indeed. I was reminded quickly of Slughorn's comments in HBP about the power of obsessive love. Carolyn: << Unnoticed in the general rejoicing business continues absolutely as normal. Kids are still sorted into four houses; Slytherin is still detested. >> Catlady: > I wouldn't say it was unnoticed: I think Herself went out of her way > to call attention to it. > Phineas Nigellus called out for everyone to notice that > Slytherin House had done its part. Other than Snape, what did he mean? SSSusan: Exactly. This is a puzzle to me. We finally get our 'good Slytherin' in a wacky sort of way in Snape... at the same time that she re-lumps all the Slytherin students together and has them act en masse, all of a kind. And I'm not sure the little talk between Harry & son #2 at the end does *quite* enough to convince that if he ends up in Slytherin, it's truly okay. Very strange, all of the Slytherin House bit. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who enjoyed a lot of the ride, but who can't believe there was no return to the locked room in the DoM From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 10:17:15 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:17:15 -0000 Subject: What annoyed me most (SPOILERS!!!) In-Reply-To: <010e01c7ccfa$28da8b90$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers The finale. The final duel. Quite apart from confidently expecting Snape to turn up with Fawkes in a blaze of vengeful glory (bloody useless bird), Avada Kedavra is supposed to be UNBLOCKABLE! From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 10:29:56 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:29:56 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: What annoyed me most (SPOILERS!!!) In-Reply-To: References: <010e01c7ccfa$28da8b90$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: <91d14f320707230329o42d860b4wc5d4204d36d0905a@...> On 7/23/07, dungrollin wrote: > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > spoilers > > > The finale. The final duel. Quite apart from confidently expecting > Snape to turn up with Fawkes in a blaze of vengeful glory (bloody > useless bird), Avada Kedavra is supposed to be UNBLOCKABLE! Harry had the Special I Win Wand remember? -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 10:32:07 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:32:07 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility (with spoilers) In-Reply-To: <91d14f320707222238m18fdfe9fka1633eca228689b0@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > > On 7/23/07, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > SPOILER......................................... > > SPACE............................................. > > THE................................................... > > BOUNDARY.................................... > > BETWEEN....................................... > > INNOCENCE.................................. > > AND.................................................. > > DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > > > A short rant that some may think is unfair. > > > > On the whole I think 6/10 is being quite kind. In my experience, > laughing out loud should be reserved for genuinely funny writing, not > an absurd plot. > snip > Found myself singing songs from Monty Python and the Holy Grail during > the apparently vital wandering-witless-in-a-forest sections. Why? > Harry needs more frustration? So he and Ron can have a > Horcrux-induced argument about the bleeding obvious? Not enough time > for whatever-the-hell had to go on elsewhere? No, because the > Horcruxes ended up being ridiculously easy to find thanks to our old > friend Deux Ex Machina. One book to sum up a seven book series and we > still resort to page-filling because we'd already written the > shortcuts. Coconuts indeed. > > It has been partly due to these great lists that nothing in the book > seriously surprised me at all. It was effectively a point summary of > TBAY acronyms. I would not have minded this had there been a better > plot, because I was already resigned to the ersatz characters but jeez > Resurrected!Harry finally understands Pensieve!Snape? If I wasn't > laughing I was groaning, viz. the Bellatrix-Molly Aliens2 moment, the > wtf-Neville-has-the-sword moment, the kill-Ginny-not-one-of-the-twins > moment. > > 5/10. Could do better. > On Saturday afternoon, after I'd finished the book, I browsed through that days newspaper. Naturally the book had taken priority over the dead tree press - but also a banner emblazoned across the top of the Telegraph's front page advertised 'Reviews of Latest Harry Potter' and I wasn't about to risk encountering the smallest, most insignificant spoiler until the book had been devoured. As it turned out, I needn't have worried, they were suitably circumspect. However, the reviews included one from an 11 year old (how the hell he'd managed to read the book and dictate a review in time to meet the print deadline defeats me) but he made a telling comment: "It'll look great on film." No doubt it will. The set-piece fights, the English countryside complete with quaint villages, the slick (dare one say superficial) resolution of plot puzzles, teenage angst complete with cod philosophising, a modicum of tasteful romantic stuff, the flash-backs, and so on, including the final fade out scene of the next generation toddling off to Hogwarts in a cloud of locomotive steam. A director's delight. And I bet that those facets of the book that some of us have been grumping about would be totally un-noticeable if the book - as is - were transferred without change, to film. What we perceive as failings might be seen as positive benefits to a film script writer. There were occasional mutterings of the previous two books being 'filmic', this one is the most filmic of the lot IMO. Never forget that Harry Potter is a business, a franchise, the bottom line matters, and so far as the money is concerned the books are not the most important aspect. Now I don't believe that Jo is a cats-paw for WB, that'd be silly, but the fact remains that the books are big films and Jo has advised and still is advising - or so I believe. In this continuing situation it would be difficult if not downright impossible for a writer not to wonder how such-and-such a scene would look on the big screen and set it up in those terms in her minds eye, even as it was being drafted in manuscript. On the sites we dismiss theories based on 'film contamination'. Is it possible for a book to suffer from a species of film contamination or influence as it's being written? Maybe I'm way off beam, but that quote from that 11 year old did make me wonder. Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 10:36:25 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:36:25 -0000 Subject: What annoyed me most (SPOILERS!!!) In-Reply-To: <91d14f320707230329o42d860b4wc5d4204d36d0905a@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > > On 7/23/07, dungrollin wrote: spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers > > > > > > The finale. The final duel. Quite apart from confidently expecting > > Snape to turn up with Fawkes in a blaze of vengeful glory (bloody > > useless bird), Avada Kedavra is supposed to be UNBLOCKABLE! > Ewe2: > Harry had the Special I Win Wand remember? Dung: Not quite; Voldy had it, but it liked Harry better than him and so produced a crap AK that he could deflect back at Voldy with a simple expelliarmus, something we were assured in book 4 was impossible. That's what annoyed me. I thought she had something better up her sleeve. From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 11:40:46 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:40:46 +0100 Subject: Old JKR quote (Spoilers? not sure) Message-ID: <018801c7cd1e$508ab8d0$f1a02a70$@...> (Cross posted to HPFGU-OTChatter) Hi All, Obviously finding an old quote isn't a spoiler, though I'm a bit worried that the fact I'm looking for it might, in and of itself, be problematic. Just to be safe, here's some spoiler space, complete with a spoiler space poem taken from "The Best Man That Ever Was" by Annie Freud (that I bought while in the HP7 queue on Friday night). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The Inventor of the Individual Fruit Pie | | The sort of thing he thought made life worth living was the knowledge | that Mae West was real, that she lived, and that she made the Big | Time. He wondered whether Schopenhauer would have got the point of her | or not. | Then he said, 'There is a man; he's on his own; there's something in | the air about to expand, something out there ... | he's smoking a cigarette, but I could replace it with a pie that | catches the mood of the moment, and I will meet that mood, that | opportunity for careless satisfaction. | And on the other side of town, | a girl in a white dress walks along, | brushing the fence with the tips of her fingers; she could be eating | the very same pie. | And my pies will grow and multiply. | Apple, Blackcurrant, Peach and Gooseberry will be mine. | I visualise pleasures that do not pin you down, a nation of consumers | of my soft-cornered square hand-held to their open mouths on | cliff-tops and village greens, in pavilions and on promenades, at | steering wheels on the Great West Road, and at home on tables laid for | four with plates and spoons and cream and I will make the Big Time.' | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I remember a JKR interview from way way back where she says something like "anyone who has read the bible will know what happens in the end". I'm not sure if she uses the word "bible" or says "understands Christianity". But I am having no luck at all finding the original quote. Here are my two attempts on Quick Quotes: - search for "bible" http://tinyurl.com/3ado44 (10 results, none what I'm looking for); and - search for "christian" http://tinyurl.com/2n67c8 (23 results, none what I'm looking for). This quote has been used in discussions on the main list before, e.g. - Jim Ferer on Thu May 6, 2004: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/97800 - Pip!Squeak on Sat Nov 9, 2002: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/46387 - Ravenclaw Ba on Fri Aug 2, 2002: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42001 But since it isn't on Quick Quotes I am beginning to wonder whether JKR really said it or whether it is a fandom legend. Cheers, Dumbledad. ___________________________________________________________ All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:10:46 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:10:46 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Old JKR quote (Spoilers? not sure) References: <018801c7cd1e$508ab8d0$f1a02a70$@...> Message-ID: <013701c7cd22$811026d0$6401a8c0@Main> S P O I L E R? S P A C E Tim: > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > > I remember a JKR interview from way way back where she says something like > "anyone who has read the bible will know what happens in the end". I'm not > sure if she uses the word "bible" or says "understands Christianity". But > I > am having no luck at all finding the original quote. Here are my two > attempts on Quick Quotes: > - search for "bible" http://tinyurl.com/3ado44 (10 results, none what I'm > looking for); and > - search for "christian" http://tinyurl.com/2n67c8 (23 results, none what > I'm looking for). > > This quote has been used in discussions on the main list before, e.g. > - Jim Ferer on Thu May 6, 2004: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/97800 > - Pip!Squeak on Sat Nov 9, 2002: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/46387 > - Ravenclaw Ba on Fri Aug 2, 2002: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42001 > > But since it isn't on Quick Quotes I am beginning to wonder whether JKR > really said it or whether it is a fandom legend. > > Cheers, > > Dumbledad. > SSSusan: Not sure why that didn't come up w/ the word 'Christian' used as a search word. But it was from the Vancouver Sun, Oct. 26, 2000: >>> Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural >>> forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn't >>> personally believe in that kind of magic -- ''not at all.'' Is she a >>> Christian? ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' <<< Siriusly Snapey Susan From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:22:16 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:22:16 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Old JKR quote (Spoilers? not sure) In-Reply-To: <013701c7cd22$811026d0$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: <007c01c7cd24$1be0e9f0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Arrgh. S p r i g h t l y s p o i l e r s s p i l t s p l e e n SSSusan quoted: ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' <<< Nice one. I just claimed on another group that the quote was lost. So: would she still agree with that quote? I find it difficult to identify any direct reference to God in the series - unless we take the rather obvious biblical assertion: God is love. In which case, the whole series is crawling with them. [Insert post-metaphysical riff here.] But what precisely could we have predicted on the basis of what understanding of God? Baaaaaa! Mike Gray (a.k.a. Aberforth's Goat, who is, in the other news, rather pleased to disclose that he is actually a patronus.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:28:05 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:28:05 -0000 Subject: Old JKR quote (Spoilers!) In-Reply-To: <013701c7cd22$811026d0$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Dungrollin: The more I think, the more I'm getting pissed off. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm ES: It's the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been gearing up for us to ask. JKR: Uh huh. ES: Clearly - JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? ES: Yeah, is he dead? JKR: Yeah, he is. Dungrollin: Dead, eh? So not in prison then. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:39:09 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:39:09 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Old JKR quote (Spoilers!) In-Reply-To: References: <013701c7cd22$811026d0$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: <91d14f320707230539r7d5df7d4s6a6a230058b2cd4c@...> On 7/23/07, dungrollin wrote: > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > > Dungrollin: > The more I think, the more I'm getting pissed off. > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- > 3.htm > > ES: It's the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been > gearing up for us to ask. > > JKR: Uh huh. > > ES: Clearly - > > JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? > > ES: Yeah, is he dead? > > JKR: Yeah, he is. > > > Dungrollin: > Dead, eh? So not in prison then. I thought Voldemort kills him?! While i think of it, did it occur to noone in the WW to explain the real reason why you shouldn't mention Voldemort's name to Harry or do we think this was a new addition after his return? -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:50:26 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:50:26 -0000 Subject: Old JKR quote (Spoilers!) In-Reply-To: <91d14f320707230539r7d5df7d4s6a6a230058b2cd4c@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > > On 7/23/07, dungrollin wrote: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler > > Dungrollin: > > The more I think, the more I'm getting pissed off. > > > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli- > > 3.htm > > > > ES: It's the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been > > gearing up for us to ask. > > > > JKR: Uh huh. > > > > ES: Clearly - > > > > JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? > > > > ES: Yeah, is he dead? > > > > JKR: Yeah, he is. > > > > > > Dungrollin: > > Dead, eh? So not in prison then. Ewe2: > I thought Voldemort kills him?! Dung: Yes, but in the Mugglenet/Leaky interview after HBP she says he's dead. The next bit confirms it: JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM ]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. Dung: She really honestly said he was dead, agreed he died in 1945 and then did a U-turn. Hmpf. Ewe2: > While i think of it, did it occur to noone in the WW to explain the > real reason why you shouldn't mention Voldemort's name to Harry or do we think this was a new addition after his return? Dung: It was after his return that he put the "taboo" on his name to trace people who used it. p360 (UK): "The name's Taboo!" Ron bellowed, leaping to his feet as a loud *crack* sounded outside the tent. "I told you, Harry, I told you, we can't say it any more - we've got to put the protection back around us - quickly - it's how they find -" From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:54:26 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:54:26 -0000 Subject: Old JKR quote (Spoilers!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > Spoiler > > Dungrollin: > The more I think, the more I'm getting pissed off. > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- > 3.htm > > ES: It's the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been > gearing up for us to ask. > > JKR: Uh huh. > > ES: Clearly - > > JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? > > ES: Yeah, is he dead? > > JKR: Yeah, he is. > > > Dungrollin: > Dead, eh? So not in prison then. > Oh dear. It's all the fault of the continuity Potterologists. One just can't get quality staff these days. On the other hand, perhaps ad hoc plot manipulation had something to do with it. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 13:01:46 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:01:46 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) Message-ID: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... The other list opens tomorrow evening, right? Been a long time since I've read more than the occasional post over there, but I think I may break that habit tomorrow. It's my sadist tendencies getting the better of me, you see. I'm expecting a bit of anguish from a vocal faction of the membership as they have to get to grips with the fact that - DD requested Sevvy to kill him Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry the goodies fling Unforgivables hither and yon DD flirted with Dark Magic practitioners the universal manumission of House-Elves didn't happen Slytherin House isn't abolished Puppetmaster!DD Sirius really was a plonker and, the unkindest cut of all, Harry names one of his sprogs after Sevvy Oh my. As dear old Oscar commented when he heard of the death of Little Nell, one would need a heart of stone not to laugh. Kneasy From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 12:58:55 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:58:55 +0200 Subject: On the epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008a01c7cd29$3a6d18d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Gacked from another list. I'm not quite so positive about it, but she makes a very good case for the book as a whole and the epilogue in particular: http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/ Baaaaaa! Mike Gray (a.k.a. Aberforth's Goat, who will now shut up. Honest.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 13:24:40 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:24:40 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707230624k1a2787e6t309e01cae258b3b9@...> On 7/23/07, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > SPOILER......................................... > SPACE............................................. > THE................................................... > BOUNDARY.................................... > BETWEEN....................................... > INNOCENCE.................................. > AND.................................................. > DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > snip > DD requested Sevvy to kill him > Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry > the goodies fling Unforgivables hither and yon > DD flirted with Dark Magic practitioners > the universal manumission of House-Elves didn't happen > Slytherin House isn't abolished > Puppetmaster!DD > Sirius really was a plonker > and, the unkindest cut of all, Harry names one of his sprogs after Sevvy > > Oh my. > As dear old Oscar commented when he heard of the death of Little > Nell, one would need a heart of stone not to laugh. > > Kneasy Other highlights: - retro-ship action over Ron's Horcrux-fueled suspicions (even though it makes no sense whatever) - Lupinlovers shall bleat. - Mollydefenders shall crow - Snapedefenders shall be confused - Someone will make something up about Slughorn. - Someone will explain goblins, house-elves, and dragons. - Too many posters will wonder what the crying child is in Harry's "purgatory", yet have no trouble with a hallucinatory DD explaining things. ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 13:35:17 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:35:17 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore questions... Message-ID: <018201c7cd2e$4fbc5200$6401a8c0@Main> S p o i l e r S p a c e Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Blah blah blah Yadda yadda yadda Hmmmmm Does this buy me enough Spoiler space To do the trick? Okay. One general remark. When I watched the 5th movie, I enjoyed it quite a lot. AFTER, I left and began contemplating things, I became annoyed by what was left out, bizarre omissions or inclusions that didn't quite make sense given other items which were left in, the dropping of some Very Important Things. I'm feeling a little the same way right now about DH. While reading it, I enjoyed a lot of it very, very much (and also got just a wee bit tired of tents, like everyone else), but at the end, I began thinking of all the things you all have started to list as unresolved or flip-flops (staff spouses? 24 hours? no locked room? no magic late in life?). I think I need to kind of get through all the Not Tied Ups and Flip-flops before I can have a whole sense of how I feel.... IIRC, I did this after HBP, too. We have all tossed around LOLLIPOPS for so long now -- whether love it, hate it, or feel indifferent towards it -- that I am actually doing better assimilating the Snape storyline than I might have, simply because the possibility of something along those lines has been contemplated many times before. With Dumbledore, however, I could use some help from others. I know that many adult fans wanted a DD who was more puppetmasterish, more directing-weapon!Harryish, more culpable, more flawed, less 'epitome of goodness' than what we'd seen on the surface through 6.... And, well, obviously, we got that. We got a DD who kept many secrets, who, according to Snape, *used* him (and others), who dabbled in things and espoused things we might never have expected. This probably pleases many. What I'm not sure works for me is how he ended up the man that we saw in books 1-6, and the man we saw at the end when Harry spoke with him after dying/*not* dying/letting Voldy kill him... um, you know where I am in the story. Was enough shown to us for us to understand how teenaged & early-adult DD *changed*? He obviously held onto some of his self-concerns (witness his remark about understanding he should not become MfM because he shouldn't grasp too much power). But he clearly changed from some of those earlier positions re: wizards first and all he shared with Grindelwald and what *mattered* in this life. So how did that happen? Are we to assume that his sister's death was IT? was the turning point? (perhaps as Dobby's death was for Harry in his process?) Was that *sufficient* for him to begin questioning Grindelwald and all that they, together, had said really mattered and was worth pursuing? I suppose that's it. I suppose we're supposed to see that? But was that enough? Was that enough to have turned DD from that person he was at 18 or 20 into the man who could speak with apparently deep & true conviction about the treatment of others (centaurs, house elves, muggle-borns, etc.)? I suppose his having lived through it *does* add a measure of weight to his statements regarding CHOICES, regarding choosing what is right over what is easy, as well as his belief in second chances (having needed a mighty one himself). Just thinking.... Siriusly Snapey Susan Susan Albrecht susiequsie23 at ... ************************************************************************************ "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Neil Peart ************************************************************************************ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:00:59 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:00:59 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: <91d14f320707230624k1a2787e6t309e01cae258b3b9@...> Message-ID: Hi All, Another spoiler-space poem (this time by Nina Cassian) ... | | | | | | Remote Control | | Why should you control something remote? | Let distance dominate | the space between shore and boat, | between love and hate. | Too much control leads to tyranny. | Too much closeness leads to sex. | To be remote is sometimes to be complex. | Don't simplify lampshades from Tiffany. | | | | | --- Ewe2 added to Kneasy's list-that-may-cause-anguish-when-main- reopens: >>> Too many posters will wonder what the crying child is in Harry's "purgatory", yet have no trouble with a hallucinatory DD explaining things. <<< They will? Surely that's Voldemort's soul, rendered helpless by too many remorse free horcruxes? Is that not obvious? Oh dear. I too have trouble with the hallucinatory Dumbledore explaining things - do you think the mnessage was to not worry about weather it was in Harry's mind or in the after-life? Oh dear, another Chapter to re-read. Cheers, Dumbledad. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:05:52 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:05:52 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] On the epilogue In-Reply-To: <008a01c7cd29$3a6d18d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> References: <008a01c7cd29$3a6d18d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: <91d14f320707230705n100cdd02s45ab73663938a417@...> YOU CAN HAVE A SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE YOU CAN HAVE A SPOILER HERE NOW KINDLY BUTTERBEER OFF On 7/23/07, Mike & Susan Gray wrote: > Gacked from another list. I'm not quite so positive about it, but she makes > a very good case for the book as a whole and the epilogue in particular: > > http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/ > > Baaaaaa! > > Mike Gray (a.k.a. Aberforth's Goat, who will now shut up. Honest.) I'm not positive either. Harry doesn't know the Hallows are a test, and Voldemort has no idea they exist, so what possible contrast is useful? Why keep a dangerous powerful wand when you can have a normal one? Notice he didn't make that choice until he was sure his old wand was repaired. I call that prudence, not selfless abstention. As for the epilogue...gack I say. ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:09:04 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:09:04 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: References: <91d14f320707230624k1a2787e6t309e01cae258b3b9@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320707230709v29652d1cp55df24641e5e4b1b@...> On 7/24/07, Tim Regan wrote: > Hi All, > > Another spoiler-space poem (this time by Nina Cassian) ... > | > | > | > | > | > | Remote Control > | > | Why should you control something remote? > | Let distance dominate > | the space between shore and boat, > | between love and hate. > | Too much control leads to tyranny. > | Too much closeness leads to sex. > | To be remote is sometimes to be complex. > | Don't simplify lampshades from Tiffany. > | > | > | > | > | > > --- Ewe2 added to Kneasy's list-that-may-cause-anguish-when-main- > reopens: > > >>> Too many posters will wonder what the crying child is in > Harry's "purgatory", yet have no trouble with a hallucinatory DD > explaining things. <<< > > They will? Surely that's Voldemort's soul, rendered helpless by too > many remorse free horcruxes? Is that not obvious? Oh dear. I too have > trouble with the hallucinatory Dumbledore explaining things - do you > think the mnessage was to not worry about weather it was in Harry's > mind or in the after-life? Oh dear, another Chapter to re-read. They will because it will take 200 messages for it to sink in for everyone. Then we'll have 1000 messages questioning whether heaven is a state of mind or not. Not the sort of debate I find profitable. ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:21:45 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:21:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore questions... In-Reply-To: <018201c7cd2e$4fbc5200$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: S p o i l e r S p a c e Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Blah blah blah Yadda yadda yadda Hmmmmm Does this buy me enough Spoiler space To do the trick? > With Dumbledore, however, I could use some help from others. > > What I'm not sure works for me is how he ended up the man that we saw in books 1-6, and the man we saw at the end when Harry spoke with him after dying/*not* dying/letting Voldy kill him... um, you know where I am in the story. Was enough shown to us for us to understand how teenaged & early-adult DD *changed*? He obviously held onto some of his self-concerns (witness his remark about understanding he should not become MfM because he shouldn't grasp too much power). But he clearly changed from some of those earlier positions re: wizards first and all he shared with Grindelwald and what *mattered* in this life. > > So how did that happen? Are we to assume that his sister's death was IT? was the turning point? (perhaps as Dobby's death was for Harry in his process?) Was that *sufficient* for him to begin questioning Grindelwald and all that they, together, had said really mattered and was worth pursuing? > > I suppose that's it. I suppose we're supposed to see that? But was that enough? Was that enough to have turned DD from that person he was at 18 or 20 into the man who could speak with apparently deep & true conviction about the treatment of others (centaurs, house elves, muggle-borns, etc.)? I suppose his having lived through it *does* add a measure of weight to his statements regarding CHOICES, regarding choosing what is right over what is easy, as well as his belief in second chances (having needed a mighty one himself). > Anne: At first, I didn't *want* Puppetmaster!DD -- I was conscripted onto that vessel. But the clues were in the text, and the DD that Snape and Harry came to know in the end seemed very true to form. I think his sister's death would be enough of a catalyst to *begin* the change, in a man who is at all honest with himself -- her death, and what Aberforth had to say to him before and afterward about what was important. Obviously, he wouldn't immediately go from "For the Greater Good" and muggle-domination plans to the openness to Muggles and other Beings of books 1-7, just because his co-conspirator sparked the disaster that killed his sister. But don't forget, about 130 years had elapsed between that day and the day we met him on Privet Drive. Older and wiser though he may have been, though, he *still* put on the death-stone ring because it was one of the Hallows. Did he think he would call Ariana back? Did he succeed? Either way, this act showed that he was still the same man he always was, no matter how well he learned to moderate himself, and, perhaps, how well he learned what "the greater good" was -- and wasn't. Like that 17-year-old long ago, he still acted for the greater good; he'd only modified his belief in what the greater good consisted of. He still weilded power over others; he only modified the extent, and reasons for which, he was willing to use it. That's how I see it, anyway. I'll even say that the gentle and kind old man he looked to be at first glance is the man he may have liked to have been, if he didn't consider himself compelled to deal with Voldemort. Anne From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:35:04 2007 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:35:04 -0000 Subject: It's all spoilers ... some is replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: How I hate to cut the spoiler space discussing the Choephori I wish I'd read it in the original Back when I was in college But we did the Antigone instead And that's easier Greek Leaving aside the choruses, which always hurt I knew for sure we were in for a bloodbath When I saw that quote And JKR didn't fail to provide Although it would be totally wrong To give any spoilers in the spoiler space The interpretation of the piece is pretty complicated And hinges on some ideas about divinity that we don't share In fact, it's very possible to argue That Athena's assertion isn't meant to be taken as doctrine And there's something synthetic going on I'm rather rusty in that area, though There's too much else out there to read And I don't even want to think About how many texts were lost in transmission We're lucky to have Harry Potter so intact I think this is probably enough space, Am I right? I hope so, and if not And I have spoiled something for you Then you can make me iron my hands. > Snape: "I thought ... you were going ... to keep her ... safe ..." > > "She and James put their faith in the wrong person', said > Dumbledore. "Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord > Voldemort would spare her?" I have to be smug here and say that I didn't call this one 100%, but I got pretty damn close: this is almost (almost!) the wonderful old TEWWW EWWW TO BE TREWWW theory, which was not of my origin but seemed to be, post-HBP, to be a definite possibility: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132993 is the resurrection. Certainly more thematically on than any sappy take on it. :) > But the Pensieve memories don't look like Love to me -- more like > Obsession. He looked at her 'greedily' and had very little interest > in her happiness. 'Loving' a Mudblood didn't make him reconsider his > bloodist and anti-Muggle views. I was *shocked*; I'd believed that > Snape never was really a bloodist, because it's so stupid and > illogical and in contradiction to empirical evidence, and one thing > he is is intelligent! 'Loving' her didn't make him reconsider his > cruel sense of humor (about whatever it was that Mulciber did to > Macdonald). Now I believe Snape joined the Death Eaters because > they were his kind of people, not just in an anti-Gryffindor snit or > having been seduced into it by persuasive brainy evil friends. > Elkins was right. I leave this unsnipped because...yeah. I'll admit that I was hoping for an overt ESE/OFH!Snape because it would have necessarily gone along with something we *didn't* get, which was a full-blown deconstruction of Dumbledore as authority. I mean, despite all his flaws and manipulations, he basically knows what needs to be done and Harry's role is to realize that; it's not that Dumbledore doesn't know what to do, it's that he's flawed and marked and unable to do it himself. That's the plotline, and I don't see any way to fundamentally read it differently. I was hoping for the trope of "younger generation figures out a different way from the older generation and thus asserts independence," which is not an uncommon idea, but JKR went for "Dumbledore's man" instead. I never doubted that could happen, but I guess I wanted the other. -Nora gets back to non-Aeschylean takes on the Iphigenie story From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 14:56:24 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:56:24 -0000 Subject: Old JKR quote (Spoilers? DEFINITELY) In-Reply-To: <007c01c7cd24$1be0e9f0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: Arrgh. S p r i g h t l y s p o i l e r s s p i l t s p l e e n << So: would she still agree with that quote? I find it difficult to identify any direct reference to God in the series - unless we take the rather obvious biblical assertion: God is love. In which case, the whole series is crawling with them. [Insert post-metaphysical riff here.] But what precisely could we have predicted on the basis of what understanding of God? >> As I read the chapter, 'King's Cross', I immediately thought of this quote, thinking she thought her Christian belief was obviously the reason Harry died to save others and then came back to life. That may be the reason she wrote it that way, rather than the logic of the story required Harry to die but her soft heart gave mercy to her Harry loving fans (other than Eggplant, I guess). But it is not obvious that deep and sincere Christian belief will automatically cause an author to bring a dead protagonist back to life -- in many stories, it has not. And non-Christians have written stories about dead people coming back to life. If she'd kept him dead for three days ... From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:06:37 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:06:37 -0000 Subject: Why Draco?? Message-ID: I've read and re-read all the Elder Wand lore but I still don't understand why the wand chose Draco? We are told over and over again a wand chooses the wizard. And in the case of the Elder Wand LV finds out, along with us, that killing the wand's former master does not automatically make you the wand's new master. You have to earn its allegiance. So just how did Draco earn the Elder Wand's allegiance from DD? By failing to put his whole heart in trying to kill DD back in year 6? By almost but failing to kill two innocents in attempting to kill DD? By failing to strike at DD on the top of the tower and having a true moment of remorse or regret? Throughout its history the Elder Wand gave its allegiance to its new Master when its old Master was defeated. Right? Or did I miss something? Confused and confunded. Mandy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:11:52 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:11:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore questions... In-Reply-To: <018201c7cd2e$4fbc5200$6401a8c0@Main> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > > > With Dumbledore, however, I could use some help from others. > > I know that many adult fans wanted a DD who was more puppetmasterish, more directing-weapon!Harryish, more culpable, more flawed, less 'epitome of goodness' than what we'd seen on the surface through 6.... And, well, obviously, we got that. We got a DD who kept many secrets, who, according to Snape, *used* him (and others), who dabbled in things and espoused things we might never have expected. > > This probably pleases many. > Can't speak for others, obviously. But I think the fans pleasure isn't because DD was flawed, but because they correctly sensed that you only become as DD became by living through bitter and probably hurtful experiences. To believe, as some did, that DD must have been a fount of sweetness and light ever since he first grasped a wand doesn't seem credible given the way he behaved. He's a man who realised that choices were difficult, had consequences that may not be pleasant, and you had to live with those consequences afterwards. He's a bloke who's been there, done that and got the T-shirt. And having lived through all that, he knows that others will probably also have to suffer before the goodies can win. But it has to be done and it's down to him to make certain it's done. IMO that's much more admirable than a saintly do-gooder bleating about doing good. There's a painting, once ascribed to Rembrandt, though the authenticity is now disputed. It's entitled 'The Man in the Gilt Helmet' It's a head and shoulders of an old warrior, and you can see deaths, defeats and all the sorrows of the world in his eyes. Even so, he's still a warrior, and he will do what is necessary. His experiences made him what he is. That's the image I've always had of DD. As to what Jo intended us to think - dunno. Seemed a bit woolly to me. And the back-story she dumped on him looks as if it was designed to shock fans into a re-assessment of him and his motives rather than to enlighten. Not that I think it's a *good* back-story, anyway. Kneasy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:06:23 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:06:23 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Old JKR quote (Spoilers? DEFINITELY) In-Reply-To: References: <007c01c7cd24$1be0e9f0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: <91d14f320707230806g28a64c87p8a15d659a6b5388@...> On 7/24/07, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" > wrote: > > Arrgh. > > S > p > r > i > g > h > t > l > y > > s > p > o > i > l > e > r > s > > s > p > i > l > t > > s > p > l > e > e > n > > > << So: would she still agree with that quote? I find it difficult to > identify any direct reference to God in the series - unless we take > the rather obvious biblical assertion: God is love. In which case, the > whole series is crawling with them. [Insert post-metaphysical riff here.] > > But what precisely could we have predicted on the basis of what > understanding of God? >> > > As I read the chapter, 'King's Cross', I immediately thought of this > quote, thinking she thought her Christian belief was obviously the > reason Harry died to save others and then came back to life. That may > be the reason she wrote it that way, rather than the logic of the > story required Harry to die but her soft heart gave mercy to her Harry > loving fans (other than Eggplant, I guess). But it is not obvious that > deep and sincere Christian belief will automatically cause an author > to bring a dead protagonist back to life -- in many stories, it has > not. And non-Christians have written stories about dead people coming > back to life. If she'd kept him dead for three days ... > My problem with it is that she felt it necessary to make him die and then let him live, not simply to illustrate sacrifice (DD et. al. not enough?), but because she couldn't escape her own logic once she'd started down the Horcrux path. To me its not a question of religious belief but a technical problem of making the necessary turnabout believable. Being a Christian may make the idea more understandable but it doesn't really explain anything. If DD had *not* appeared to explain to him, it might have been more interesting, in fact I find the whole "explaination after death" motif a poor excuse for deliberately using death as a cliffhanger. ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:20:32 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:20:32 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... The other list opens tomorrow evening, right? Been a long time since I've read more than the occasional post over there, but I think I may break that habit tomorrow. > > It's my sadist tendencies getting the better of me, you see. I'm > expecting a bit of anguish from a vocal faction of the membership > as they have to get to grips with the fact that - > > DD requested Sevvy to kill him > Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry As I said, not necessarily. The straightest surface reading is that your theory of Revenge!Snape, A Very Good Hater!Snape, is correct, except the detail that it was someone other than Florence & Sprog he was revenging. Revenge!Snape protected Harry for the sake of his revenge, not out of loyalty to DD, and probably was pleased when he learned that killing HP was part of the plan. However, granted that Pensieve memories are an objective report, there is nothing in Snape's Pensieve memories that PROVES he wasn't lying to DD in all those conversations about almost everything except his attachment to Lily. Snape is savvy enough that he could have used his feeling for Lily, a real desire and a fake intention to save her life, to get in good with DD for the sake of spying on DD to serve LV. And when LV dissolved, he kept using it to stay out of Azkaban. And when LV returned, he sincerely returned to LV's service. Convenient for him that the first place that LV's commands and DD's commands to him differed is DD's last command, to push HP to die to kill LV. And he never intended to obey DD's last command, but he never expected LV to kill him while he was still useful and a loyal servant. In that surprised moment, he instantly needed to avenge *himself* on LV, and thought of how to do it -- by telling HP how to destroy LV. Pretty quick thinking, especially for a dying man. > the goodies fling Unforgivables hither and yon That bothered *me*. > DD flirted with Dark Magic practitioners But I was disappointed that he had barely touched the surface, never even used Dark Arts himself. I was expecting a bigger crime. I mean, his behavior as a good guy (in the name of the Greater Good!) gave him plenty of better reasons to feel guilty. > the universal manumission of House-Elves didn't happen > Slytherin House isn't abolished Yes, whatever happened to House Unity? > Puppetmaster!DD As I said, not necessarily. There's no new evidence that he planned even one little thing in this plot before he heard the Prophecy, and very few new hints that he planned it before James & Lily died. No new canon that he arranged for James & Lily to die. MAGIC DISHWASHER, yes. (Pip, I apologize for disbelieving it all these years.) Puppetmaster, no. > Sirius really was a plonker While I was surprised that Regulus drank the poison himself, I saw no new evidence that Sirius was a plonker. I still love him (and Remus, and DDM!Snape), and I was surprised and deeply touched that his love of Muggle motorcycles was sincere, not just one flying motorcycle to impress people with. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:31:34 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:31:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: FYI. They've changed the title. Depends on how you translate old Dutch, I suppose. It's now 'The Man in the Golden Helmet'. For an only so-so repro try http://tinyurl.com/ywe2mj And they now think it's ole Remmy's again. Wish they'd make up their minds. Oh, and to get DD you have to add a beard. Kneasy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:45:11 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:45:11 -0000 Subject: Why Draco?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > I've read and re-read all the Elder Wand lore but I still don't > understand why the wand chose Draco? > > We are told over and over again a wand chooses the wizard. And in the > case of the Elder Wand LV finds out, along with us, that killing the > wand's former master does not automatically make you the wand's new > master. You have to earn its allegiance. > > So just how did Draco earn the Elder Wand's allegiance from DD? By > failing to put his whole heart in trying to kill DD back in year 6? > By almost but failing to kill two innocents in attempting to kill DD? > By failing to strike at DD on the top of the tower and having a true > moment of remorse or regret? > > Throughout its history the Elder Wand gave its allegiance to its new > Master when its old Master was defeated. Right? Or did I miss > something? > > Confused and confunded. > > Mandy > Well the obvious answer is because Draco disarmed DD therefore becoming its rightful owner. In a way he defeated DD. The Deathstick doesn't appear to be too choosy about how it gets a new owner. In the folk tale its original owner has his throat cut and then the wand is taken afterwards. This is your usual crafty Death stuff in that the owner can't be defeated in a dual but that doesn't rule out hitting him over the head with a well aimed brick! Or in Draco's case disarming DD whilst he was petrifying Harry. Indeed Grindelwald simply stole the damn thing and cast a stunning spell. So defeat definitely doesn't mean death. The whole thing is really shaky though. DD claims to have defeated Grindelwald in a dual which simply should not have been possible, unless for some reason Grindy wasn't using the Deathstick. By the time we get to Harry's supposed defeating Draco by disarming him of another wand altogether, the Deathstick in absentia or whatever, I really get hacked off. How could Harry have thought that might work out...of course it doesn't really matter because due to the sacrifice everyone is Voldy proof anyway, its all a bit of a laugh really. Regards Jo From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 15:59:28 2007 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:59:28 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Thank God someone else is done with the book (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: <8C99AAC8B806143-45C-8B24@...> References: <8C99AAC8B806143-45C-8B24@...> Message-ID: <56f2b65c0707230859o3cb2855dodfaf372b467cfda8@...> On 7/22/07, Oryomai at ... wrote: > SPOILER SPACE!!! > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > I finished the book at 515am on Saturday, and none of my friends are done yet (which made for an awkward night last night!). > > Deaths Problem is, main characters have an all free pass and that renders the whole body count unrealistic to me, the bit of resurrected Harry doesn't help. One of the trio or Ginny should have fallen. I think the character who wasn't supossed to survive is Hermione, and Dobby's burial scene was set for her. > Theories > YES!!? SEVERUS IS DDM!!! > I hatehatehatehatehatehatehate LOLLIPOPS.? I'm sorry to those of you who love it, but I think it's lame. It's archetipical, like the 'I am your father' thingy. As it also happens in RL, is an easy resource to use. I think Blackwidower!Snape would've been quite interesting, but then, it wouldn't be everything about Harry, and Snape wouldn't be half the grey he has remained. Because, that love is obsession and not of the best type - this part doesn't bother me. He didn't mind what could happen to the husband and the child - this part does. Why do I find obssesion and stalking is a romantic thing, well, ask Hollywood. Female stalkers are usually depicted as disturbed, but we have lots of romantic films where the lead male character keeps insisting on unrequited love till the female lead sees the light and gets in love - even when she's engaged she'll see the light and drop the bf, so I think the Snape/Lily is something like that but with another end. On the other hand, I think it is delivered smoothly. Could have been a lot worse, seeing rowling isn't a master of romance *cough*. It is the lack of emotional reaction in Harry as he learns the story or after that, I find so bad writting. He just turns Snape into Saint Snape, eww. And how did lily end with james? No idea, that remains a mistery to me. > Random > WTF was that epilogue?? I was hoping to hear about what happened to the characters who lived.? Instead, we get a confusing chapter with too many different names and it has nothing to do with the book.? Thanks JKR, but no thanks -- I don't want to hear about you next series yet. Such a deception, the epilogue. So fluffly and baby boom, so devoid of information. > > Overall Thoughts > I was disappointed with it.? I felt that she took the easiest way out of every situation.? She couldn't think of anything better than LOLLIPOPS for the reason Severus turned to the good side?? Horcrux!Harry?? Lame.? More than lame, I'd say unsurprising doing to overuse. I don't know if it has reached the point of being called clich?. >The Deathy Hallows?? If that isn't a last ditch effort to add something to the plot (and a reason to kill Severus randomly), I don't know what is. Uff. I don't even know why she had to do that. She had plenty of material to work with without having to add more plot coupons, it certainly would have helped giving closure to things like Fawkes. Phyllis: It appears not a question of knowing parseltongue but of being able to repeat the correct password. If DD didn't know the exact wording, he couldn't produce it at will. It's a stretch having Ron remember the sounds Harry produced five years ago to open the chamber, but it can happen, and understanding the words depends on the IA of the door chamber. Silmariel From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 16:02:33 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:02:33 -0000 Subject: What annoyed me most (SPOILERS!!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > The finale. The final duel. Quite apart from confidently expecting > Snape to turn up with Fawkes in a blaze of vengeful glory (bloody > useless bird), Avada Kedavra is supposed to be UNBLOCKABLE! > Stupid bird, I had money on that bird I did! Yeah unblockable, but thats before we knew about super wands. Honestly its like playing paper/scissors/stone with someone who can call 'Cruise missile you're out'. As I replied to Amanda it didn't matter because it wasn't a dual, Voldy couldn't hurt Harry 'cos of the whole sacrifice thing, the Crucio didn't work and nor would AK. Anyway what's all this about a wand having super powers, where did we get a heads up on that. Haven't we been repeatedly shown that wands work differently for different people, that they suit individuals rather than some inherited property. Haven't we been shown that a bad match can hamper a good wizard but that a good match can't make them a better wizard...Give a squib or a muggle a wand and not much happens because the magic is in the person. Not once, IIRC, have we been led to believe, suspect, contemplate that a wand can be special in itself. In the end I think JK only introduced it as a way of avoiding having Harry actually offski the bad man. Snape and Fawkes would have been much better... Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 16:52:04 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:52:04 -0000 Subject: A 'normal' person's thoughts Message-ID: Just received this from a non potterhead friend of mine....always good to have the less obsessive take I think... then we got those two dreadful chapters: the prince's story, that just went on and on forever, and was so dull. needed a lot of pruning, that one. and i wasn't convinced that harry would spring from hating snape to thinking him one of the bravest wizards ever on the strength of knowing he got a hard on ever time he saw his mother. bit odd, that. and dumbledore's explanation of the wands and horcruxes and whatever. long, boring, lost me, and had a certain air of pointlessness; not subtle i think, just very very convoluted, i made it through the blood bit, which made sense, but the wands? out with the red editing pen. reminded me of studying logarithms (which i can't even spell, let alone do). she could have had more fun with this. fewer horrible kids with names that obviously mean they have to spend their entire childhood living up to dead people. hermione should have been hoggy headmaster by then From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 17:28:30 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:28:30 -0000 Subject: Why Draco?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: has the req uire ment of spoi ler spa ce exp ire d? --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: << The whole thing is really shaky though. DD claims to have defeated Grindelwald in a dual which simply should not have been possible, unless for some reason Grindy wasn't using the Deathstick. >> Unless Dumbledore cheated. He's supposed to be really clever, as well as having, at age 18, 'done things with a wand' that his NEWT examiner 'had never seen before'. Is it possible that the Deathstick doesn't auto-block a spell that isn't supposed to be dangerous, and Dumbledore figured out how to use a non-dangerous spell to disarm GeeGee (or would it be GayGay in German?) From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 18:50:07 2007 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:50:07 -0000 Subject: More Thoughts on DH (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS (CV: do we still need spoiler space?) Grindlewald went to Durmstrang - as accurately predicted by Susan/Constance Vigilance at Phoenix Rising! CV: Actually, I predicted that Grindelwald was a Nazi wizard who took over a school and renamed it Durmstrang. Thanks for the credit, but I think it was misplaced. Sigh. Phyllis: I fully expected to be vindicated in my conviction that Snape has always been evil, particularly given how he did nothing to spare the Muggle studies teacher from death, told Voldemort about Harry's correct departure date, took part in the chase to kill Harry after he left Privet Drive and Sectumsempra-d George's ear off. CV: Good point on Muggle Studies teacher. Spilling the beans on Harry's departure date was on orders from Dumbledore - but what was that bit about "Source?" "The same as we discussed previously." My guess is that was laziness on the part of JKR. Didn't want to bother giving Snape a real story for his source for information to give Voldy. Boooo. George's ear? Bad aim, as I recall. But he should have been able to mend it on the wing, as it were. He is capable of fixing Sectumsempra'd injuries as we recall from Draco. Of course, Draco wasn't severed, just sliced. (If Jo were determined to off a Weasley to inspire Fanged!Molly, why couldn't it have been Charlie?) Phyllis: I thought the unknown Gryffindor or Ravenclaw Horcrux would be from Gryffindor, and that they would find it in Godric's Hollow. CV: I've always thought that the house itself was supposed to be the Gryffindor horcrux object. Voldy did his boogatyboogawhatever that sets up the container object that only needed the murder to start it up, but when the murder backfired, the incomplete horcrux (house) collapsed. As it turned out, there was no Gryffindor horcrux, so I sort of think I was right about that. Phyllis: I didn't think it worked to have Ron open the Chamber of Secrets to obtain the basilik fangs - either you know Parseltongue or you don't - how could he fake it? If that were the case, presumably Dumbledore could have made his way into the Chamber in Book 2. CV: I agree. And at the time I read it, I was thinking - how did they get back *out* of the chamber? Last time, it was Fawkes flying them out. Do you crawl up a slide? Or did they remember to take broomsticks with them? More unsolved questions: What did Dudley see under the Dementors? How did the Death Eaters get the forest space away from the acromantulas? What the heck does "Death Eater" mean anyway? The only eater of death we ever saw was Fawkes. And that doesn't make any sense at all. Is Ted Lupin a werewolf, and why didn't Harry raise him? I thought Harry was going to get another pet? ~Constance Vigilance From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 19:06:40 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:06:40 -0000 Subject: More Thoughts on DH (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS > SPOILERS (Snipped to get strait to the question.) > Is Ted Lupin a werewolf, and why didn't Harry raise him? > ~Constance Vigilance We don't know that Teddy Lupin didn't live with the Potters. He'd be 19 in the Epilogue so already a grad from Hogwarts. My guess he's also living away from home for the first time and probably alone so he's visiting the Potters for dinner four times a week so he doesn't starve. Teddy could have been brought up by Harry and Ginny and still not be considered a true member of the family until he marries into it. Or perhaps Andromeda raised him. It would fit as they are each others closest relation. Is he werewolf? Who knows. He's probable like Bill. Likes his meat raw and bloody. Mandy From kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 20:34:54 2007 From: kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid (Kirstini) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:34:54 -0000 Subject: Collateral Damage, Gryffindor Horcrux, sunken ships and logical ravens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled, and I must not tell lies, either. Hello. I've been dragged out of the woodwork. > Phyllis: I fully expected to be vindicated in my conviction that Snape > has always been evil, particularly given how he did nothing to spare > the Muggle studies teacher from death > CV: Good point on Muggle Studies teacher. Spilling the beans on > Harry's departure date was on orders from Dumbledore - but what was > that bit about "Source?" "The same as we discussed previously." Actually, Prof Burbage's murder, along with Emmeline Vance's in HBP (which I believe Snape claimed responsibility for leaking) were two big bits of collateral damage which made me feel uneasy with the DDM revelation. Oh, the greater good, the greater good. > Phyllis: I thought the unknown Gryffindor or Ravenclaw Horcrux would > be from Gryffindor, and that they would find it in Godric's Hollow. > > CV: I've always thought that the house itself was supposed to be the > Gryffindor horcrux object. Voldy did his boogatyboogawhatever that > sets up the container object that only needed the murder to start it > up, but when the murder backfired, the incomplete horcrux (house) > collapsed. As it turned out, there was no Gryffindor horcrux, so I > sort of think I was right about that. I need to do some maths here. The diary, the ring, the locket, the cup, that bloody diadem, the snake, Voldemort. Right, so Harry was an unknown *seventh* Horcrux and V had an eight-part soul. RIGHT. I suppose, technically, he did get something of Gryffindor's, though. On the topic of the old list; I had a theory there, once, in that Bay. The rather dodgy suffix was HUMBLE (How Umbridge Modernises Badness/Light Enquiries, could be appended to any range of products, particularly Percy Is Evil). The ship was called Shades of Grey. The arsenal featured Sirius' statement re. Umbridge: "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters" prominently. The premise was something to do with increasing moral shades of grey in the Pottersverse. I'm going to try and dig it out and mourn its passing. Really, was there that much need to drag ol' Toadface back into it again? Do you know the main problem I had with the book? It was that link Kneasy sent us last week to the Logical Raven fanfic (yes, I've been lurking creepily about for a while). I thought it was pretty poorly written, to be honest. Lost patience after a few chapters of constant location jumping, with nothing much being done. I realised last night I've actually been confusing events in the fanfic with the actual book. Kirstini, a bit dejected. From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 20:45:27 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:45:27 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re:Collateral Damage, Gryffindor Horcrux, sunken ships and logical ravens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707231345g3a64cebdr48513324ceb99dc7@...> On 7/24/07, Kirstini wrote: > I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil > he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils > they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled > we will all be spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be > spoiled I spoil you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled I spoil > you spoil he/she/it spoils they have spoiled we will all be spoiled, and I must not tell lies, > either. > Do you know the main problem I had with the book? It was that link Kneasy sent us last > week to the Logical Raven fanfic (yes, I've been lurking creepily about for a while). I > thought it was pretty poorly written, to be honest. Lost patience after a few chapters of > constant location jumping, with nothing much being done. > I realised last night I've actually been confusing events in the fanfic with the actual book. > > Kirstini, a bit dejected. > It wasn't just you. I was ticking off the successful predictions as I went along, remarking upon the spooky harmony of canon and imitation. A question for the ages: What now to make of the missing hours on the day the Boy Who Lived, lived? Is it worth revisiting in the light of Final Canon, or it is now just useless pottering about (ow, i didn't mean that pun, stop hitting me)? ewe2 -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 21:02:13 2007 From: kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid (Kirstini) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:02:13 -0000 Subject: Made for the movies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport spoilsport ' ' ' ' ' Kneasy on reviews: > As it turned out, I needn't have worried, they were suitably circumspect. > However, the reviews included one from an 11 year old (how the hell > he'd managed to read the book and dictate a review in time to meet > the print deadline defeats me) but he made a telling comment: > "It'll look great on film." > > No doubt it will. > The set-piece fights, the English countryside complete with quaint > villages, the slick (dare one say superficial) resolution of plot puzzles, > teenage angst complete with cod philosophising, a modicum of tasteful > romantic stuff, the flash-backs, and so on, including the final fade out > scene of the next generation toddling off to Hogwarts in a cloud of > locomotive steam. > A director's delight. > > There were occasional mutterings of the previous two books being > 'filmic', this one is the most filmic of the lot IMO. Never forget that > Harry Potter is a business, a franchise, the bottom line matters, and > so far as the money is concerned the books are not the most > important aspect. In this continuing situation it would > be difficult if not downright impossible for a writer not to wonder > how such-and-such a scene would look on the big screen and set > it up in those terms in her minds eye, even as it was being drafted > in manuscript. Kirstini: Really? Do you know, I came away from my first reading dizzy, panicky at the huge amount of galloping about that had happened, and thinking 'how on earth are they going to make a coherant cinematic narrative out of that sprawling mass?' I actually wondered whether it was her final revenge on the filmmakers - presumably her part of the contract is already gold-plated. Some of the scenes will *look* lovely, for sure: Fiennes flying through the night sky with the CGI robes swirling about him, Snape's Patronus by the lake and the sword in it. But really? How on earth do you make a film narrative with most of the important information picked up from Pensieves or read in books (please not Emma Watson and her all-knowing forehead, please not Emma Watson and her all-knowing forehead), with long periods of static, with so many huge battle scenes all over the place that no-one's sure where they are? I particularly can't see how all that Elder Wand back and forth stuff will make for a satisfying movie climax. I was amused to note that certain things she's obviously told them to leave in - well, Grawp - didn't turn out to be significant at all. Ooh, does anyone know what killed Fred, by the way? Could do with a bit of enlightening, and I've read that twice now. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 21:13:17 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:13:17 -0000 Subject: Collateral Damage, Gryffindor Horcrux, sunken ships and logical ravens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kirstini" wrote: snip > > Do you know the main problem I had with the book? It was that link Kneasy sent us last > week to the Logical Raven fanfic (yes, I've been lurking creepily about for a while). I > thought it was pretty poorly written, to be honest. Lost patience after a few chapters of > constant location jumping, with nothing much being done. > I realised last night I've actually been confusing events in the fanfic with the actual book. > > Kirstini, a bit dejected. > This constant location jumping with nothing much happening. Remind me - which book was this? Fanfic or DH? Dejected, eh? Was this because I gave you a bum steer, through your confusion of plots, or because of the contents of yer actual DH? Kneasy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 21:07:15 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:07:15 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Finished! (Spoilers) References: Message-ID: <00c701c7cd6d$749946c0$6401a8c0@Main> Pippin: > "It is > a great > comfort not > to be > mistaken on > all points" - > Gandalf The Grey SSSusan: A very gracious crow-eater you are, Pippin! And I **really** want to now say something that I have long waited to say... > I have to thank Jo for making Lupin a credible red herring. I > wonder if it was Tonks and Lupin who got pulled from the epilogue > and sent off to the NGA just to make it clear which side they were on? > You know, there's very little of ESE!Lupin which is actually refuted by > canon. If I hadn't sworn otherwise, I'd be tempted to theorize that > he got away with it. SSSusan: I never bought the ESE!Lupin theory, as you know, but man do you ever deserve props for it! You built it up, ever so solidly, and convinced any NUMBER of people that it was truly possible, even likely. I was always amazed by what you could do with arguments & counter-positions, the way you found canon-based responses for each naysayer and canon-based support for every advance in your hypothesis. I wouldn't be surprised, if you were to run into Herself one day, if she wouldn't give you a clap on the back for this effort. >;-) > Pippin > who cheered out loud when the suits of armor clanked off to > defend the castle Siriusly Snapey Susan who cheered out loud when McGonagall led her transfigured desks into battle with a "Charge!" From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 23 21:46:15 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:46:15 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Are......................... We........................... Still........................ On........................... Spoiler...................... Space?....................... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kneasy: > > DD requested Sevvy to kill him > > Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry > Catlady: > As I said, not necessarily. The straightest surface reading is that > your theory of Revenge!Snape, A Very Good Hater!Snape, is correct, > except the detail that it was someone other than Florence & Sprog he > was revenging. Revenge!Snape protected Harry for the sake of his > revenge, not out of loyalty to DD, and probably was pleased when he > learned that killing HP was part of the plan. > Uh, no. Sorry. It's certainly a possible reading, because Canon!Snape could probably garner more BAFTA's than Alan Rickman if he'd only gone into acting instead of silly wand waving. But the Pensieve memory has Snape *looking* horrified and behaving as if he's horrified at finding HP's death is plan A. So the straightest surface reading is that he is horrified, not pleased. ;-) > However, granted that Pensieve memories are an objective report, > there is nothing in Snape's Pensieve memories that PROVES he wasn't > lying to DD in all those conversations about almost everything > except his attachment to Lily. Snape is savvy enough that he could > have used his feeling for Lily, a real desire and a fake intention > to save her life, to get in good with DD for the sake of spying on > DD to serve LV. And when LV dissolved, he kept using it to stay out > of Azkaban. And when LV returned, he sincerely returned to LV's > service. Convenient for him that the first place that LV's commands > and DD's commands to him differed is DD's last command, to push HP > to die to kill LV. > And he never intended to obey DD's last command, but he never > expected LV to kill him while he was still useful and a loyal > servant. In that surprised moment, he instantly needed to avenge > *himself* on LV, and thought of how to do it -- by telling HP how > to destroy LV. Pretty quick thinking, especially for a dying man. You could argue that, yes. That's the thing about creating a character who's a great double agent and spy; you can't ever prove his real, real motives. But if you do go for ESE!Snape, you're going for a one-dimensional Snape - when we've just been given the most gloriously ambiguous and conflicted character ever to grace the pages of a book supposedly for children. ESE!Snape isn't half as much fun as the Snape of the surface reading (did I just say that?). I think the clue to JKR's view of Snape's character came in HBP; in Spinner's end she has a bit of description that goes 'the two women were running between patches of light and deep darkness'. And in The Prince's Tale, that's what we see. From Snape's expression on first looking at Lily, 'undisguised greed' to Snape calling her a mudblood and then camping outside Gryffindor to apologise; he's someone with good and bad impulses mixed. Lily brings out both the best and the worst in him. She brings out the worst in his jealousy of James, and his willingness to let her husband and child die if only that means he can have her. She brings out the best because he's willing to protect a child he doesn't even like - for her sake. Snape's love is both destroying and saving. LOLLIPOPS turns out to be resolutely non- sappy. The Prince's Tale chapter is one which is going to repay reading, I think. It's very well written; for one thing there's seventeen years of Snape's moral and emotional development shown in a series of brief scenes (a sign that JKR studied more than Christie's plots - Christie was a mistress of the one-sentence character description that implied reams). And there is a justification for it which is more than 'the reader wants to know'. Both Snape and Harry complain about Dumbledore's habit of keeping secrets; when Snape finally has the opportunity, he does *not* give Harry just what he 'needs to know'. He gives him the truth about his connection with Lily and Harry. And he gives him the good and the bad about himself. Kneasy: > > Slytherin House isn't abolished > Catlady: > Yes, whatever happened to House Unity? Given that the British still intensely disliked the Germans during my childhood, which was 20+ years after WW2, I reckon JKR decided people actually liking Slytherins was going to take a bit longer than 'nineteen years later' {g}. Even today, you'll hear the occasional comment. > > Puppetmaster!DD > > As I said, not necessarily. There's no new evidence that he planned > even one little thing in this plot before he heard the Prophecy, and > very few new hints that he planned it before James & Lily died. No > new canon that he arranged for James & Lily to die. MAGIC > DISHWASHER, yes.(Pip, I apologize for disbelieving it all these > years.) Puppetmaster, no. ::Bows:: Yes, the old DISHWASHER managed to survive, what, four Hurricane Jo's with remarkable aplomb and only some smashed crockery. And DD really *was* a manipulative old plotter, wasn't he? But I agree, there's no canon in DH that he arranged for James & Lily to die. I do note that DD never mentions the name of the new Secret Keeper, just that James & Lily trusted 'the wrong person'. Is this ambiguity deliberate, I ask myself? > > Sirius really was a plonker > > While I was surprised that Regulus drank the poison himself, I saw > no new evidence that Sirius was a plonker. I still love him (and > Remus, and DDM!Snape), and I was surprised and deeply touched that > his love of Muggle motorcycles was sincere, not just one flying > motorcycle to impress people with. > I was impressed with Ron taking and passing (even if he cheated) a Muggle driving test. That is possibly a small sign that the WW is becoming more integrated into the Muggle world; some at least are following Muggle laws and using Muggle methods. Pip!Squeak From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 02:07:43 2007 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:07:43 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] On the epilogue In-Reply-To: <008a01c7cd29$3a6d18d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> References: <008a01c7cd29$3a6d18d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0707231907j626edabhdd7b79f77516e308@...> On 7/23/07, Mike & Susan Gray wrote: > > Gacked from another list. I'm not quite so positive about it, but she > makes > a very good case for the book as a whole and the epilogue in particular: > > http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/ > > . > > > I think she makes some good points. The function of the epilogue is clearly not to convey the surface information. It sets a mood, and beneath its banal shippiness it tells us a lot, and not just Cheryl's point that it illustrates Harry's normal family life, something he never had growing up. In some corners there is disappointment because the defeat of Voldemort was not accompanied by changes in the WW. The Statute of Secrecy is still there, the House system remains at Hogwarts, and there is no indication of a new, less corrupt regime in power at the Ministry. JKR must have realized, though, that this was too much to expect three young wizards to accomplish within the boundaries of her story. Their task was to defeat a wizard whose existence pushed any debate of such reforms off the agenda entirely. Voldemort's contribution to change was to expose the evil inherent in common wizarding ideology to the general public. Harry's defeat of Voldemort has set the stage for changes in the WW, but it will be for the next generation (or perhaps even the one after) to implement. Underneath the surface silliness of the Epilogue, it tells us that this process is happening: (1) Harry is comfortable with the possibility that his son will be sorted into Slytherin, (2) wizards seem to be less isolated from the Muggle world, or else Ron would have magicked a car to Kings Cross and not bothered with getting a muggle driver's license, and (3) barriers will break down further in the next generation of wizards (Ron, in his own way, all but foretold his daughter's marriage to Scorpius Malfoy). So while I don't love the epilogue, it's much more valuable as written than a would a catalogue of what the significant surviving characters are doing for a living these days. Debbie who wrote this up this morning in response to something someplace else on the net, but can't find the original posting anymore [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 02:08:54 2007 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:08:54 -0000 Subject: Rose and Hugo Message-ID: Someone asked where the names Rose and Hugo came from. Puzzled me too at first, so early in the morning. Just read over "Nineteen Years Later," again and it hit me. Very obvious really. Ron named their daughter and Hermione named their son. Ron told Hermione he was naming her after dear old Auntie Rose, but he really named her for Rosmerta. Hermione said she was namimg their son for her favorite Muggle author, but didn't mention to Ron what Mr. Hugo's first name is. Her own little joke. Kathy From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 02:43:12 2007 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:43:12 -0000 Subject: The US Cover (WAS: Re: When all's read and done - spoilerish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yesterday All these spoilers seemed so far away Now it looks as though they're here to stay Oh, I believe In yesterday ::end of spoiler space:: <> I reached the end of the US edition of DH (I am still waiting for Amazon.uk to deliver the real - also known as the Bloomsbury - edition) and realized that I still had no idea what the US cover art meant. Ginger's idea of Harry reaching out to catch Voldy's wand makes sense, but in the picture, Harry is still wearing the locket horcrux, and doesn't have a wand in his other hand. Moreover, while the sky is kinda red-gold (it's more a sickly shade of orange to me, actually), the rest of the backdrop doesn't look anything like the Great Hall - it's more Roman Colosseum. And what's up with the curtains on either side and the jagged pieces of wood underfoot? Phyllis who wishes JKR could have had the artwork she so dearly deserved From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 07:15:56 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:15:56 -0000 Subject: Rose and Hugo (and now CV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat wrote: > Someone asked where the names Rose and Hugo came from. Puzzled me too > at first, so early in the morning. Just read over "Nineteen Years > Later," again and it hit me. Very obvious really. Ron named their > daughter and Hermione named their son. > > Ron told Hermione he was naming her after dear old Auntie Rose, but he > really named her for Rosmerta. > > Hermione said she was namimg their son for her favorite Muggle author, > but didn't mention to Ron what Mr. Hugo's first name is. Her own little > joke. > Ginger, who posed the question in the first place responds: Bloody 'ell, woman, you GOT it! You are a genius! OK, now for another question: Vernon says in chapter 3, "If we'd seen CV's..." Harry cuts him off there, but I can't help wondering what the heck would reassure Vernon, and I'm not sure it's not a witty, talented, Filk-writer (or several of her, or something belonging to her, since the use of the apostrophe is ambiguous in this case). But then, again, Ron is refered to as "ginger" enough in this book that I was starting to feel a bit self-concious. Maybe She does read filks. Oooooh. Ginger, wondering if CV is a British thing, and if so, could someone enlighten her? From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 07:28:45 2007 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:28:45 -0000 Subject: Rose and Hugo (and now CV) - CV enlightenment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Ginger, wondering if CV is a British thing, and if so, could someone > enlighten her? > CV is a British thing. It's short for Curriculum Vitae, 'course of life' and is what them over the other side of the pond call a resume. It's a one or two page document detailing education, jobs, accomplishments, possibly age or marital status - though those often get left off nowadays. Pip!Squeak From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 07:28:08 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:28:08 -0000 Subject: Rose and Hugo (and now CV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Potioncat wrote: > > Someone asked where the names Rose and Hugo came from. Puzzled me too > > at first, so early in the morning. Just read over "Nineteen Years > > Later," again and it hit me. Very obvious really. Ron named their > > daughter and Hermione named their son. > > > > Ron told Hermione he was naming her after dear old Auntie Rose, but > he > > really named her for Rosmerta. > > > > Hermione said she was namimg their son for her favorite Muggle > author, > > but didn't mention to Ron what Mr. Hugo's first name is. Her own > little > > joke. > > > Ginger, who posed the question in the first place responds: > Bloody 'ell, woman, you GOT it! > > You are a genius! > > OK, now for another question: Vernon says in chapter 3, "If we'd seen > CV's..." Harry cuts him off there, but I can't help wondering what the > heck would reassure Vernon, and I'm not sure it's not a witty, > talented, Filk-writer (or several of her, or something belonging to > her, since the use of the apostrophe is ambiguous in this case). > > But then, again, Ron is refered to as "ginger" enough in this book that > I was starting to feel a bit self-concious. Maybe She does read > filks. Oooooh. > > Ginger, wondering if CV is a British thing, and if so, could someone > enlighten her? > Sadly it's very dull....curriculum vitae (CV) is British for a resume, a description of career, qualifications and such. Unless, of course, there's more to Vernon than we think, perhaps he's the character who gets a sense of humour late in life. Jo From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 10:00:58 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:00:58 +0100 Subject: Refilling potion and defeating Grindelwald (was RE: Conflicts, cheats and credibility & Re: Why Draco??) Message-ID: <002401c7cdd9$899e2ab0$9cda8010$@...> Hi All, Spoiler poem, "To a Friend who wished to give me half her sleep" by Sara Coleridge. (N.B. When are we doing away with spoiler space?) | | | | | | No, gentle Friend, thou canst not give me sleep - | Yon velvet mead, that smiles beneath the steep, | Gives not its verdure to the soil-less rock - | Or when shall those bright clouds, Heav'n's countless flock, | With golden tissue line the chill sea-sand? | Or tempest-shattered trees, that pining stand | Receive rich robes, their nakedness to cover, | From leafy neighbours, blossom-starred all over? | If thou art Croesus-rich in balmy slumbers, | As are thy waking hours in tuneful numbers, | Rich in Morphean poppies, richer still | In thoughts like roses, offspring of good will, | Thou shouldst be Dives with a wealthier heart, | Whilst I must wholly bear sad Lazarus' part, | Unless thy influence with the stars above | Should cause them on my head such dews to weep, | And pour such beams of their refreshing love | That, thus consoled, I scarce should pray for sleep. | | | | | Kneasy asked: >>> Voldy made Kreacher drink the potion in the cave, placed the locket and then refilled with potion. RAB drank the potion, switched lockets and went to Davy Jones' Inferii. Who replenished the potion for DD to drink? <<< Regulus replaced it before he died, forewarned by Kreacher which potion to expect. Or the goblet refills itself magically: it might have been a dark artefact he sought out or he enchanted it to refill after his test. Jo mentioned: >>> The whole thing is really shaky though. DD claims to have defeated Grindelwald in a dual which simply should not have been possible, unless for some reason Grindy wasn't using the Deathstick. <<< The fairy tale exaggerated the Elder Wand's superiority. Or Dumbledore knew the issue and didn't use magic to defeat Grindelwald, but instead used some more muggle-like technique. Do those explanations work? Rather bizarrely there is already an entry on the Wikipedia about the Elder Wand. This is part of what it says: >>> The current consensus among fans seems to be that, since the Elder Wand was sought as a means to defeat death, an opponent who is purposely seeking not to kill the wand's master could defeat him, and thus take possession of the wand. This is inferred by the fact that Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindelwald without killing him, and why Draco Malfoy, who did not have the nerve to kill Dumbledore, was able to defeat him using Expelliarmus. <<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Wand#Elder_Wand So there you go, we have consensus, it's official ;-) Cheers, Dumbledad. ___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 10:32:29 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:32:29 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" > wrote: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > > > DD requested Sevvy to kill him > > Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry > > As I said, not necessarily. The straightest surface reading is that > your theory of Revenge!Snape, A Very Good Hater!Snape, is correct, > except the detail that it was someone other than Florence & Sprog he > was revenging. Revenge!Snape protected Harry for the sake of his > revenge, not out of loyalty to DD, and probably was pleased when he > learned that killing HP was part of the plan. > Generous of you to say so, but I'd feel a bit of a fraud if I tried to claim credit for that. It's more or less a given right from the word go that ole Sevvy is mightily disgruntled about something, so a theory based on revenge as a motive is a pretty obvious step. But revenge/retribution is the result of injury or insult, real or perceived. The really difficult bit is coming up with the root cause - what was the insult or injury that drove him so relentlessly? Some plumped for LOLLIPOPS, others that he nursed a species of envy or it was a response to the contempt with which the Marauders regarded him. I picked Blackwidower/Snape!Son. And I got it wrong. Pity. Still think it was a pretty neat idea, though. > However, granted that Pensieve memories are an objective report, there > is nothing in Snape's Pensieve memories that PROVES he wasn't lying to > DD in all those conversations about almost everything except his > attachment to Lily. Snape is savvy enough that he could have used his > feeling for Lily, a real desire and a fake intention to save her life, > to get in good with DD for the sake of spying on DD to serve LV. And > when LV dissolved, he kept using it to stay out of Azkaban. And when > LV returned, he sincerely returned to LV's service. Convenient for him > that the first place that LV's commands and DD's commands to him > differed is DD's last command, to push HP to die to kill LV. > True, he could have faked it all. But... if he had, would he go to the lengths of lying to justify his actions post mortem by offering his memories to Harry? (BTW, I thought that bit was overly contrived - memories coming out of a dying man's mouth? When previously Pensieve-readable memories have only been accessible by wand extraction? Don't like it.) Anyway, if Sevvy had been fooling DD I'd have expected him to brag about it - "Fooled you all! Enjoyed killing that old fart Dumbledore! And my Master will kill you Potter, and I die knowing I helped him!" He'd want everybody to know how smart he'd been, how he'd been under-estimated by those he despised. Pride would demand it, and after all, what does he have to lose? > And he never intended to obey DD's last command, but he never expected > LV to kill him while he was still useful and a loyal servant. In that > surprised moment, he instantly needed to avenge *himself* on LV, and > thought of how to do it -- by telling HP how to destroy LV. Pretty > quick thinking, especially for a dying man. > Um. Voldy zaps him with an AK and after the event Sevvy decides to fix/censor his memories? That's pushing it a bit, I think. > > the goodies fling Unforgivables hither and yon > > That bothered *me*. > Really? When old canon tells us that Aurors had used them in the previous Voldy unpleasantness? I took that as a piece of prime forshadowing, and once the MoM was shackled by Fudge, succumbed to bureaucratic inertia under Scrimmy, eventually falling so that the Auror Office was no longer even marginally effectively anti-Voldy, their use by others became a racing certainty. > > DD flirted with Dark Magic practitioners > > But I was disappointed that he had barely touched the surface, never > even used Dark Arts himself. I was expecting a bigger crime. I mean, > his behavior as a good guy (in the name of the Greater Good!) gave him > plenty of better reasons to feel guilty. > Have to admit, I wasn't expecting crimes (as such) at all. Mistakes, yes. Grievous ones resulting in unwarranted deaths and sacrifices perhaps. Hence my suggestion that he realised that to produce The Chosen One, James and Lily had to die and he went along with it (wrong again - sort of). Instead, we have DD presented with The Temptation trope when I expected it to be Harry. (Dear, oh dear. Kneasy theories falling like nine-pins.) > > Slytherin House isn't abolished > > Yes, whatever happened to House Unity? > E pluribus unum. Internal competition (channeled through Quidditch, House Cup, etc.) is fine, so long as all oppose external threats. > > Puppetmaster!DD > > As I said, not necessarily. There's no new evidence that he planned > even one little thing in this plot before he heard the Prophecy, and > very few new hints that he planned it before James & Lily died. No new > canon that he arranged for James & Lily to die. MAGIC DISHWASHER, yes. > (Pip, I apologize for disbelieving it all these years.) Puppetmaster, no. > Even if he didn't start on his fixing activities until after GH, he's still the Puppetmaster. It's just for a shorter time-span, that's all. > > Sirius really was a plonker > > While I was surprised that Regulus drank the poison himself, I saw no > new evidence that Sirius was a plonker. I still love him (and Remus, > and DDM!Snape), and I was surprised and deeply touched that his love > of Muggle motorcycles was sincere, not just one flying motorcycle to > impress people with. > Mmmm... well, we'll have to disagree about Sirius. Kneasy From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 10:42:42 2007 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:42:42 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0707240342i294d1268wd951479247b3620b@...> Sing a song of sickles A pocketful of rye Four and twenty black crows Baked in a pie When the pie was opened The crows began to sing Wasn't that a tasty dish To eat before the king? Was that enough spoiler space? I'll be eating some of that pie by the end of the post. * * * More random thoughts; I rather liked Kneasy's list -- Kneasy: > It's my sadist tendencies getting the better of me, you see. We enjoy your sadist tendencies, here and elsewhere. ;-) > I'm expecting a bit of anguish from a vocal faction of the membership as they have to get to grips with the fact that - > DD requested Sevvy to kill him Yea, this is one thing I got right, including Sevvy's reaction. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142005 But in turn I must grovel and eat crow for the L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. crowd. Could never warm to that one. > Nasty!Snape was actually Snape!DM, helping to protect Harry But was he really Dumbledore's man? It's not like he was protecting Harry for the greater good. Those black spots he was scrubbing away were on his own soul. TEWW EWW is much more OFH! than DDM!, which I suspect is one reason why many Snapefans are more distraught at the outcome than those who were sure he was ESE! > the goodies fling Unforgivables hither and yon Actually, this is a bit of a problem. But it is a problem because JKR made it so, by making the Unforgivables, well, unforgivable and then painting Barty Crouch Sr. as evil to the core for authorising the Aurors to use them. On the other hand, the body count would have been even more lopsided if Dumbledore's Army had considered Expelliarmus their most lethal weapon. > DD flirted with Dark Magic practitioners Wasn't it a good thing to exorcise his unbearable goodness of being? I like him the better for it. The best saints always start out their careers with some good old-fashioned sinning. > the universal manumission of House-Elves didn't happen > Slytherin House isn't abolished I've addressed the state of the WW in another post, but do want to add that the person who wanted to abolish the House system was old Voldy himself, virtually compelling the system to be kept. It promotes diversity anyway, right? > Puppetmaster!DD Must eat a bit of of crow pie here. Snape turned out to be far more vulnerable to the old man than I had thought possible. But I must say DD's Legilimency skills give him an unfair advantage in this department; he could pull strings to much greater effect than the usual clod. And he didn't have to pull Harry's strings at all. > Sirius really was a plonker Yes! I'll be happy to serve up some pie on this one. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 12:16:21 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:16:21 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: <002401c7cdd9$899e2ab0$9cda8010$@...> Message-ID: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler > Jo mentioned: > >>> The whole thing is really shaky though. DD claims to have defeated Grindelwald in a dual which simply should not have been possible, unless for some reason Grindy wasn't using the Deathstick. <<< > Tim: > The fairy tale exaggerated the Elder Wand's superiority. Or Dumbledore knew the issue and didn't use magic to defeat Grindelwald, but instead used some more muggle-like technique. > > Do those explanations work? > > Rather bizarrely there is already an entry on the Wikipedia about the Elder Wand. This is part of what it says: > >>> The current consensus among fans seems to be that, since the Elder Wand was sought as a means to defeat death, an opponent who is purposely seeking not to kill the wand's master could defeat him, and thus take possession of the wand. This is inferred by the fact that Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindelwald without killing him, and why Draco Malfoy, who did not have the nerve to kill Dumbledore, was able to defeat him using Expelliarmus. <<< > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Wand#Elder_Wand > So there you go, we have consensus, it's official ;-) Dung: But this is appalling!!! If that's the truth, then she didn't have it planned out at all, she was making it up as she went along, because she said (right after HBP was published) that Grindy *died* in 1945. The Deathly Hallows and associated plot points and character arcs were therefore *made up after she wrote HBP*. They were never planned all along. I *believed* her, damn it. I feel conned. Oh, and here's another inconsistency: There's a bit in Quidditch Through the Ages (which I don't own so can't quote) which says that the only wizards who can fly without a broom are those whose animagus forms can fly. Cut to DH where it turns out that both Voldemort and Snape can fly with no broom. And here's a job for a holesmith: If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side- along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. Grumble grumble grumble. From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 13:09:27 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:09:27 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Forgot the spoiler space, though in my first attempt at sending this, no spoiler showed up in the summary, thank goodness . . . . *irons hands and awaits lifting of the blackout* . . . > > Dung: > > > > But this is appalling!!! If that's the truth, then she didn't have it > > planned out at all, she was making it up as she went along, because > > she said (right after HBP was published) that Grindy *died* in 1945. > > > > > For the past 24 hours or so, I've had the sneaking feeling that she did > change significant things from the original plan for this book. > Perhaps she can claim she stuck to her plan, because Harry was always > going to allow LV to AK him, but... > > What I really need is a reread, with a notebook to hand. Not sure when > that will happen, though. And, though I do care about what happened, I > care so much more about whether it makes sense. > > Anne > From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 13:20:36 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:20:36 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0707240342i294d1268wd951479247b3620b@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > But in turn I must grovel and eat crow for the L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. crowd. > Could never warm to that one. > Tell yourself they were only almost right. Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus (IIRC). I understood that this postulates Sevvy hates Harry because Lily spurned him. Well, she did spurn him but he didn't hate her (or by extension Harry) because of rejection. He still carried the candle of burning desire, lust, platonic prurience, erotomania, yearning or whatever you want to call it. We're now led to believe this overwhelming passion led directly to him swearing to protect Harry. The opposite of what the originator theorised (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). They got the love bit right, but not the consequences. I suppose it ought to have been: Sevvy Lust Unrequited Still Hankers, Promises Under Pressure Protect Inamorata Evans Son. SLUSHPUPPIES But it's a bit late to come up with it now. Kneasy From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 13:22:11 2007 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:22:11 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] RE: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: References: <002401c7cdd9$899e2ab0$9cda8010$@...> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0707240622y34d4453cpdf430e49f6376382@...> Dung: But this is appalling!!! If that's the truth, then she didn't have it planned out at all, she was making it up as she went along, because she said (right after HBP was published) that Grindy *died* in 1945. The Deathly Hallows and associated plot points and character arcs were therefore *made up after she wrote HBP*. They were never planned all along. I *believed* her, damn it. I feel conned. Debbie: You should feel conned. The only reason I wasn't was because I didn't ever put much stock in anything she wrote in an interview. I even suspected she would change her mind: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/55957 Face it, she toyed with our affections. But, for what it's worth, I think Grindelwald's survival was a net positive to the book. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 13:57:36 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:57:36 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > And here's a job for a holesmith: > If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to > Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side- > along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the > tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. > > Grumble grumble grumble. Ah. This one's covered. Theoretically. See the last FAQ on Jo's site. When the SK dies the secret is frozen, restricted to those that already know it. And they can't divulge it to anyone new, so Snape shouldn't be able to ferry DEs into the joint willy-nilly. Which sort of contradicts DH which went wittering on about everybody who knows the secret on the death of the SK becomes in effect a new Secret Keeper who can pass it on to whoever they wish, or even by misadventure, which is what happened with Hermione and Yaxley - "Since DD died we're all Secret Keepers." Oops! Now which version did I misunderstand? Kneasy From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 13:59:08 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:59:08 +0100 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility Message-ID: <002401c7cdfa$cf98e390$6ecaaab0$@...> Hi All, Spoiler poem (I think it's Anon but I may be wrong). | | | | | | | | | | | There was a man and he was mad | And he ran up the steeple | And there he cut his nose off | And flung it at the people | | | | | | | | | | | Dung pointed out: >>> If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side-along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. <<< Very good point! I'm not sure whether I'm alarmed or excited. How sure are we that one doesn't have to say where one is going when apparating? Perhaps the hex prevents him doing that. In HBP chapter 18 they don't seem to be speaking: >>> 'Step one: fix your mind firmly upon the desired destination,' said Twycross. [...] 'Step two,' said Twycross, 'focus your determination to occupy the visualised space! Let your yearning to enter it flood from your mind to every particle of your body!' [...] 'Step three,' called Twycross, 'and only when I give the command ... turn on the spot, feeling your way into nothingness, moving with deliberation. <<< But perhaps part of fixing one's mind is to speak the destination? A bit lame, sorry. One of the bits that bothered me was Tom's chosen hiding place for the diadem (I'd never heard that word before btw). I haven't got the book on me (I'm at work, I should be debugging an informal videoconference terminal idea we're building) but doesn't Tom choose the room because he thinks others will not find it. Why? In HBP chapter 24 Harry sees it as: >>> a room the size of a large cathedral, whose high windows were sending shafts of light down upon what looked like a city with towering walls, built of what Harry knew must be objects hidden by generations of Hogwarts inhabitants <<< Surely that's ample proof for Tom that the room is very frequently found. Who did he think put the other stuff in there? Cheers, Dumbledad. ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 14:49:24 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:49:24 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: <002401c7cdfa$cf98e390$6ecaaab0$@...> Message-ID: Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Dung: > > And here's a job for a holesmith: > > If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side- > > along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. > > > > Grumble grumble grumble. Kneasy: > Ah. > This one's covered. > Theoretically. > See the last FAQ on Jo's site. > When the SK dies the secret is frozen, restricted to those that already > know it. And they can't divulge it to anyone new, so Snape shouldn't > be able to ferry DEs into the joint willy-nilly. Dung: JKR's site: "When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." Kneasy: > Which sort of contradicts DH which went wittering on about everybody > who knows the secret on the death of the SK becomes in effect a new > Secret Keeper who can pass it on to whoever they wish, or even by > misadventure, which is what happened with Hermione and Yaxley - > "Since DD died we're all Secret Keepers." > Oops! > Now which version did I misunderstand? Dung: It's not a contradiction as such, (I'm being generous), on her site she didn't add in the final clause, that all of those people can now talk about the secret freely to whomever they like. That's why the order put the tongue-tying hex on GP, so that if Snape turned up and got hit by it he still wouldn't be able to reveal the secret to the DEs. Wouldn't have stopped him telling them before going there, though. And even once his tongue was tied he should have been able to apparate the DEs in. Tim: How sure are we that one doesn't have to say where one is going when apparating? Perhaps the hex prevents him doing that. In HBP chapter 18 they don't seem to be speaking: But perhaps part of fixing one's mind is to speak the destination? A bit lame, sorry. Dung: Not convinced, I'm afraid. Perhaps you're thinking of floo powder, where you have to state your destination clearly. There's never been any mention of having to speak when apparating, and I don't believe anyone ever has. Anne: > For the past 24 hours or so, I've had the sneaking feeling that she did change significant things from the original plan for this book. > Perhaps she can claim she stuck to her plan, because Harry was always going to allow LV to AK him, but... > > What I really need is a reread, with a notebook to hand. Not sure when that will happen, though. And, though I do care about what happened, I care so much more about whether it makes sense. > Dung: Yes, absolutely. I really hope some hard-core fans are granted an interview and give her a damn good grilling. From dorband at dorbandb.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 15:31:32 2007 From: dorband at dorbandb.yahoo.invalid (dorbandb) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:31:32 -0000 Subject: wandwork Message-ID: Rating: 7/10 I think HP was never destined to achieve fame as a "Literary Masterpiece". I'm sure much to Penny's dismay (tho she may or may not agree) - the story never matured to "adult" status - regardless of the number of us adults who enjoyed the romp. While not a "children's story" either, it seems the best it can be is a - THE? - Young Adult tale for all ages. Not bad for an unlettered, unpublished, untested novice, I think. Yes, it will be critiqued and analyzed by scholars - they can't just ignore it, can they? - but, IMO, it will never be accorded the status of Literary Masterpiece. Just too many plot holes, inconsistencies and, er, WTF!!! moments. I'm ok with all that. It was an absolutely marvelous experience for we readers - wasn't it? We can *all* agree on that, I think. Otherwise, why were we even here? Why does The Old Crowd even exist, if not for the glory of HP?!?! The Old Crowd recognized early on that the story had the *potential* to be something really, *really* special. Now, while some are feeling a underwhelmed (ok, a bit ripped off, even), it seems to me that Jo would *never* have been able to put one over on this too-clever-by-half crowd, no matter what she wrote. You guys are just too darn smart. It's a little intimidating, really, to be included amongst you lot. But while, in the end, IMO, it didn't fulfill our grandest hopes nor expectations, it certainly did provide hours of fun and merriment for us all. Regardless of its flaws, holes, unexplained single socks and flat-out Flint's - it was a gas! But that has nothing whatever to do with the subject line, does it? No, of course not. The subject line refers to the funniest scene in the book, IMO: As Ron presents Harry with a copy of Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches, he extoles its virtues thusly - "This isn't your average book...it's pure gold...explains everything you need to know about girls...you'd be surprised, it's not all about wandwork either." Cracked me up. Ah, Ron - he is so not worthy of Hermione. May they bicker in eternal bliss. For that quote, and so many more over the course of 10 years and 2000+ pages, I think I'll take a moment on Harry's B-day to offer a Standing 'O' for Jo. A stunning achievement for Herself, no question. I may stand alone, but that's ok. To each their own. I better get back to reading the posts - I don't want to miss any more of the shredding.... Thanks All!!! Brian From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 15:38:10 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:38:10 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > > > SPOILER......................................... > SPACE............................................. > THE................................................... > BOUNDARY.................................... > BETWEEN....................................... > INNOCENCE.................................. > AND.................................................. > DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > > > > But in turn I must grovel and eat crow for the L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. crowd. > > Could never warm to that one. > > > > Tell yourself they were only almost right. > > Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus (IIRC). > > I understood that this postulates Sevvy hates Harry because Lily spurned > him. > Well, she did spurn him but he didn't hate her (or by extension Harry) > because of rejection. He still carried the candle of burning desire, lust, > platonic prurience, erotomania, yearning or whatever you want to call it. > We're now led to believe this overwhelming passion led directly to him > swearing to protect Harry. The opposite of what the originator theorised > (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). > > They got the love bit right, but not the consequences. > > I suppose it ought to have been: > Sevvy Lust Unrequited Still Hankers, Promises Under Pressure > Protect Inamorata Evans Son. > SLUSHPUPPIES > > But it's a bit late to come up with it now. > > Kneasy > spoil spoil spoil spoil spoil sss pppppp oooooo iiiiiiii llllllll Anyone out ther still need spoilers, let us know. I was wrong when I said earlier it *had* to be lollipops, as someone pointed out its much closer to teww eww to be treww, look at this from fantastic posts: "I'm now supposed to picture Snape shivering in his cold dungeon, with Lily's yellowing yearbook pictures tacked to the walls, the floor littered with crumpled photos of Lily that Snape secretly snapped with a telephoto lens, Lily's wedding photo on the bedside table with Snape's head pasted on James' body, a stack of scribbled and undelivered love letters in the desk drawer, and the ring he never screwed up the courage to give her? Ewwwww!" coo and that from 2002.... The obsessive love thing is mirrored by Kreacher who also gets redemption post Regulus recognition, only instead of a locket Snape gets a baby Harry to watch over and dies looking into his eyes... Too late to come up with Slushpuppies? No. Time to float all the boats and bombard the ones we hate! It'll be therapeutic! Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 15:51:39 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:51:39 -0000 Subject: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers > > > What I really need is a reread, with a notebook to hand. Not sure > when that will happen, though. And, though I do care about what > happened, I care so much more about whether it makes sense. > > > > Dung: > Yes, absolutely. I really hope some hard-core fans are granted an > interview and give her a damn good grilling. > An accident happened to my brother Jim, when somebody threw a tomato at him, tomatoes are juicy and don't hurt the skin, but this one was specially packed in a tin. Makes sense, sure it makes sense. She cheated. Plot lines not telegraphed ahead, magical objects breaking her own rules, people breaking her rules: Wands don't make magic people do, er except in DH. People don't come back from the dead, ditto. Nothing blocks an AK, ditto. Only way to cheat death is HRX, ditto. The person holding the wand controls it, ditto. Its a wonder anyone guessed anything at all really. Jo From absinthe at milztoday.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 17:25:45 2007 From: absinthe at milztoday.yahoo.invalid (Milz) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:25:45 -0000 Subject: Sorta random thought on DH (SPOILERS!!!!) Message-ID: Of course this will contain SPOILERS! So you've been warned! 1. Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled. 2. 3. Turn back now if you don't want to be spoiled. 4. 5. Okay, you've been warned! 1. The three Muggle deaths reported by Potterwatch. I have a sneaking suspicion they were the Dursleys. I don't know why Potterwatch wouldn't name the Muggles, but why would DEs/Voldie go after Muggles unless they thought the Muggles had some kind of information. And I think Vernon would eventually reject the notion of impending danger and would reject any protection from the OP. 2. Fred and Dobby! I think the last time I actually yelled aloud "NO!!!!!" when reading any book was never. I had to read the passages a couple of times to make sure I was reading them correctly. It came as a total surprise to me. When Dobby bought the farm, I almost threw the book down in disgust. When Fred shuffled off the mortal coil, I had to close the book for a few minutes. 3. The epilogue I've read and heard some criticisms about it. But I don't think it was bad. Rowling gave the end result of the war for the 3 main characters: Ron and Hermione are married and parents of two children. Harry and Ginny are married and parents of 3 children---two named in honor of Harry's parents and one named in honor of Dumbledore and Snape. We know that Teddy Lupin is alive and well and in love with Victoire Weasley (who's most likely Bill and Fleur's daughter.) We know that Neville is the herbology prof at Hogswarts. We heard mention a mention of Percy. And we know that Draco Malfoy is married and has a son the same age as Albus Potter. I'm sure the folks who were unsatisfied with the epilogue wanted to know about _everyone_ a la "American Graffitti" or "Animal House", but for me, it's just better to imagine that the lives Harry and the Weasley's (and the Malfoys) had 19 years later were similar to the lives Seamus, Dean, Ernie, Oliver, Angela, Alicia, etc. have. 4. Neville and his Gran I'm glad Neville lived up to his potential and then some. It was refreshing to see that Boy That Could Have Been The Boy Who Lived triumphed in the end by showing his bravery and by succeeding in his adult life. As for Gran...it goes to show that you NEVER underestimate a "little old witch living alone". Gran ROCKS! 5. Snape After Snape's psychological profile in the last book. None of this really surprises me at all. What was touching was dying Snape asking Harry to look at him---so he could see Lily's eyes one last time. 6. My Favorite Line McGonagall's explanation of what happened to Snape: "Professor Snape has-- to use the common term---done a bunk." (sorry if I mangled that) 8. The overall tone of the book. While Death did prowl the pages, I think Rowling did an admirable job at injecting levity throughout the book so I did get a laugh here and there. For example, Fleur and Lupin's ice breaking dialogue during the Percy and family reunion, Ron repeating Hermione's explanation about food and magic to the inmates of the Room of Requirement, Luna's distraction strategy that enabled Harry to slip out of the Great Hall and into bed. Good job on this book, imo. Now I have to re-read it to pick up all the fine details I missed the first time round! :-) Milz From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 17:45:03 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:45:03 -0000 Subject: Parseltongue (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0707230859o3cb2855dodfaf372b467cfda8@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > > > > SPOILER SPACE!!! > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > > It appears not a question of knowing parseltongue but of being able to > repeat the correct password. If DD didn't know the exact wording, he > couldn't produce it at will. It's a stretch having Ron remember the > sounds Harry produced five years ago to open the chamber, but it can > happen, and understanding the words depends on the IA of the door > chamber. Small point here. I don't find this very satisfactory from the point of view of internal logic (Parseltongue is *magic*, surely?), but Ron didn't have to remember all that long, since Harry used the same word to open the locket a few months earlier. David From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 18:05:54 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:05:54 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > > Too late to come up with Slushpuppies? No. Time to float all the > boats and bombard the ones we hate! It'll be therapeutic! > A confession. SLUSHPUPPIES is the polite version. There is another.... which true to the spirit of Kneasy's warped mind, some might find just a leeddle bit too disgusting for genteel company (he said - rather proudly). From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 18:42:29 2007 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:42:29 -0000 Subject: The Naming of Things (was: Rose and Hugo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Re: The Naming of Things (was: Rose and Hugo Hard to believe we are doing spoiler space... but, if we must.... So, I'll Go No More With Rowling (With apologies to Lord Byron) So, I'll go no more with Rowling So late into the night, Though the lists may still be polling, And the moon may be as bright. For ease defeated reason, and the holes don't make a plot, so my heart's as full of treason as her story's lacking thought. Though the night was made for howling, and the day returns too soon, Yet I'll go no more with Rowling By the light of the moon. (Nuh-uh: howling and Rowling are *eye rhymes,* and the aural dischord is intentional.) --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Ron told Hermione he was naming her after dear old Auntie Rose, but >he really named her for Rosmerta. > > Hermione said she was namimg their son for her favorite Muggle author, > but didn't mention to Ron what Mr. Hugo's first name is. Her own >little joke. Quite brilliant, potioncat. Who was it that said the Potters should have named their whelp Severus Albus (or did I read that somewhere else?). No indeedy. Much as I would give Snape preference, the reversal would leave the lad with the initials S.A.P., a moniker reserved for those of us who rode the Rowling train to its farcical end. No, with Papa Potter's blessing, our Lily-eyed nod to Snape is perfectly suited for Slytherin--being such a little A.S.P. Talisman From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 19:02:49 2007 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:02:49 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Parseltongue (SPOILERS!) In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b65c0707230859o3cb2855dodfaf372b467cfda8@...> Message-ID: <56f2b65c0707241202w139f6c1ep30bd547ede8d49a4@...> On 7/24/07, davewitley wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > > > > > > SPOILER SPACE!!! > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > * > > > S first: > > It appears not a question of knowing parseltongue but of being able > to > > repeat the correct password. If DD didn't know the exact wording, he > > couldn't produce it at will. It's a stretch having Ron remember the > > sounds Harry produced five years ago to open the chamber, but it can > > happen, and understanding the words depends on the IA of the door > > chamber. David: > Small point here. I don't find this very satisfactory from the point > of view of internal logic (Parseltongue is *magic*, surely?), but Ron > didn't have to remember all that long, since Harry used the same word > to open the locket a few months earlier. > > David > Thanks for the detail. I also need a reread and a notebook. But this time it won't be a pain, even with all the wtf moments, I enjoyed a lot. But it is also a language, and it seems it also works with some non magical rules. Only Harry was able to hear the basilisk, but Ron could hear Harry speaking it. I suppose what Ron can't do is to understand snakes talking in parsel. When I read what Ron had done I thought 'how roleplaying is this', because it's the kind of things I'm used to see players try to do. If it's not logical, well, I'd say it's kind of standard. Silmariel Yahoomort is not sending me my posts, I had to check the web to see they had reached the group. From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 21:07:41 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:07:41 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > > > > > Too late to come up with Slushpuppies? No. Time to float all the > > boats and bombard the ones we hate! It'll be therapeutic! > > > > A confession. > SLUSHPUPPIES is the polite version. > > There is another.... which true to the spirit of Kneasy's warped mind, > some might find just a leeddle bit too disgusting for genteel company > (he said - rather proudly). > No fair! I have to think if I *want* to ask...yup I want to ask! Tracking the activity on TOL we're at Epilogue, you what! Who died! and loved/hated/not sure yet! How long before the what's with the wand switch, plot hole phase do you think? Jo From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 21:27:02 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:27:02 +0100 Subject: Side apparating to Grimmauld Place (was Re: Conflicts, cheats and credibility Message-ID: <012001c7ce39$6947f650$3bd7e2f0$@...> Hi All, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Dung pointed out: >>> If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side-along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. <<< I tried out: >>> How sure are we that one doesn't have to say where one is going when apparating? [...] perhaps part of fixing one's mind is to speak the destination? <<< Dung rightly rubbished that: >>> Not convinced, I'm afraid. [...] There's never been any mention of having to speak when apparating, and I don't believe anyone ever has. <<< Kneasy brought in discussion around contradictions between this and other cannon, but I want to hang in with this internal-to-Deathly-Hallows inconsistency. A bit of a stream of consciousness post this, sorry ... First off, would Snape have wanted to side-along apparate any Death Eaters to Grimmauld Place? The obvious answer is "no, he's a goodie" but the immediate reply is that the Death Eaters would ask him to side-apparate them to the Order's head-quarters and he'd have to oblige or blow his cover. But suppose that Voldemort and the Death Eaters do not know that Snape knows where it is? Do we have any cannon that says they do? They may have expected him to know, but given the gate keeper disaster that the Order experienced with Lily and James everyone would expect them to be ultra cautious. So there it is plausible that Snape would be under no pressure to side-apparate Death Eaters to Grimmauld Place. But that hasn't helped us, since the Order put the tongue-tying hex on Snape to protect the secret. Why? They must have thought that the Snape would side-apparate Death Eaters there, but what protection did they imagine the tongue-tying hex brought them. Perhaps it's a belt-and-braces approach, i.e. there are other jinxes to stop him apparating there. But there's no evidence for that, quite the contrary - Snape has entered Grimmauld Place to collect letters etc. So after this ramble I'm still with Dung on this one. It does look like a contradiction :-( Cheers, Dumbledad. ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 21:34:55 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:34:55 -0000 Subject: Being naughty (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > > No fair! > > I have to think if I *want* to ask...yup I want to ask! > No, I don't think you do. > Tracking the activity on TOL we're at Epilogue, you what! Who died! > and loved/hated/not sure yet! How long before the what's with the > wand switch, plot hole phase do you think? > Yeah, I've been lurking over there too. Quite a few reservations amongst the girlish glee, I thought. An expert in herd psychology might suggest that dumping on an easy target like the Epilogue is a cautious testing of the waters. If they don't get their heads bitten off for the heresy of critising Jo, then they may get a little more adventurous by stages. It will progress further... Eventually of course, the herd will go critical and stampede. Sweating, wild-eyed HP fans will rampage across the web rubbishing the book at every opportunity. Small children and frail pensioners will cower before enraged Dobby lovers, guerillas from the Hedwig Appreciation Society will swamp U-Tube with footage of Snowy Owls and Tonks' visage will be seen in lumps of Playdoh. Tsk, tsk.. Seemed such nice people, too. Sadly, the committed Snape-ophobes haven't come out to play yet. Dunno if they're sulking, girding their loins or banging their heads against a brick wall. Maybe tomorrow. Kneasy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 24 21:41:27 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:41:27 -0000 Subject: Side apparating to Grimmauld Place (was Re: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: <012001c7ce39$6947f650$3bd7e2f0$@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > > Hi All, > > | > | > | > | > | > > So after this ramble I'm still with Dung on this one. It does look like a > contradiction :-( > > Cheers, > > Dumbledad. > > To take a topical metaphor for those in the UK - just pass me another sandbag would you the water is still rising.... Snape is toungue tied so someone says 'just take me there' and Snape shakes his head, no nead for explanations just assume its another booby trap and Algie is your uncle. Jo who notes TOL have now moved to 'who did magic late in life' and 'just explain about the wand thing again'. From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 02:52:37 2007 From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:52:37 -0000 Subject: no spoiler space needed due to substantial bewilderment from book 7 Message-ID: Alone in the bay, Fran sits in her dinghy the S.S. WTF..... Seriously, I read and finished the book saturday, and had WTF moments right off the bat. Seiously,I was really thinking wtf!! Had to get after myself for using too many f-bombs. I am waffling a bit between liking book 7 and disappointment in it. Seems like the book was rather hastily thrown together. I have been reading all the posts, and agreeing for with most. Kinda been enjoying the posts more than the book. I guess everyone's heard she is writing another HP book that is some kind of dictionary or history tome that is supposed to give background info on the alot of the characters plus other things. She gave an example of Dean Thomas background being rather interesting. I think I'm getting a wtf headache. Goodnight and God Bless! Fran From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 03:01:58 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:01:58 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] no spoiler space needed due to substantial bewilderment from book 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707242001v2f435042g5a592544437056c1@...> On 7/25/07, fhmaneely wrote: > Alone in the bay, Fran sits in her dinghy the S.S. WTF..... > > Seriously, I read and finished the book saturday, and had WTF moments > right off the bat. Seiously,I was really thinking wtf!! Had to get > after myself for using too many f-bombs. > I am waffling a bit between liking book 7 and disappointment in it. > Seems like the book was rather hastily thrown together. I have been > reading all the posts, and agreeing for with most. Kinda been enjoying > the posts more than the book. I have the same response I had with OotP, of suppressed rage, but in the middle of a reread now. > I guess everyone's heard she is writing another HP book that is some > kind of dictionary or history tome that is supposed to give background > info on the alot of the characters plus other things. She gave an > example of Dean Thomas background being rather interesting. I think I'm > getting a wtf headache. That's news to me, sounds like the Tolkien Appendix Syndrome, which is predicted to add more, not less confusion, errors etc. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 08:56:30 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:56:30 -0000 Subject: Link worth reading Message-ID: Check out the link on TOL on message #172550. It is a writers view of the plot regarding Snape but also answers many questions about how much JKR really *knew* about her own story. Very enlightening. Regards Jo From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 09:15:29 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:15:29 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Link worth reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003201c7ce9c$587a0440$0a00a8c0@hwin> Jo wrote, Check out the link on TOL on message #172550. It is a writers view of the plot regarding Snape but also answers many questions about how much JKR really *knew* about her own story. What's TOL? Or would yo have a direct link? Mike From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 09:43:28 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:43:28 -0000 Subject: Link worth reading In-Reply-To: <003201c7ce9c$587a0440$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > Jo wrote, > > Check out the link on TOL on message #172550. It is a writers view > of > the plot regarding Snape but also answers many questions about how > much JKR really *knew* about her own story. > > What's TOL? Or would yo have a direct link? > > Mike > Sorry, I take it to mean 'the other lot' ie hpfgu main. Obviously I meant 'writer's' but I'm having an apostrophe bad day! Jo From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 11:56:22 2007 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:56:22 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Link worth reading In-Reply-To: References: <003201c7ce9c$587a0440$0a00a8c0@hwin> Message-ID: <56f2b65c0707250456v71262167k58ff3d39179ba2d4@...> This is the link - http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=issue&vol=i5&article=_card-essay Anyone else finds quite cruel to kill Snape, of all possible places, in the Shriecking Shack? Silmariel From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 12:00:10 2007 From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:00:10 +0200 Subject: Last message containing spoilers Message-ID: <56f2b65c0707250500h6f433e3bw8a0021604770a8ca@...> Sorry, I sent it without spoiler space. Do we need it? S From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 13:08:46 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:08:46 -0000 Subject: Link worth reading In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0707250456v71262167k58ff3d39179ba2d4@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > > This is the link - > > http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi? do=issue&vol=i5&article=_card-essay > > Anyone else finds quite cruel to kill Snape, of all possible places, > in the Shriecking Shack? > > Silmariel > ssssssssssssss pppppppppppppp oooooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiii llllllllllllll The link rather confirms a suspicion I've had for a while. Kneasy asked what's it all about? To which I would reply - Harry, at least for JK. Dumbledore and Snape are products of her less conscious creativity and that is, in my mind, why they are more interesting. Snape appears to have got away from her and I think that his end was deliberately written so that he didn't upstage Harry. Not the blaze of glory I would have liked. Hey ho! Jo From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 13:41:56 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:41:56 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts Message-ID: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... So Harry!Hx became so by default, it wasn't intended at all. A stray bit of Voldy's soul makes a bee-line for the nearest warm body. Right. So why didn't it bugger off to Kings Cross? Or alternatively when Harry got zapped in the clearing, why didn't it home in on its original nesting place i.e. Voldy? On the whole, I think I prefer PT as more logically coherent - but I would, wouldn't I? Mind you, Harry may have been a Voldy Hx, but effectively Voldy was in return a Hx for Harry, and without all that pissing about with antique silverware and souls. Hm. Are we then assume that it isn't the Hx that's evil per se, it's the actual production and motivation for producing them that matters? Hang on a minute - Voldy's intention was to split his soul into seven. We have Diary, Locket, Ring, Diadem, Cup, Nagini, Harry and Voldy himself. That makes eight. Um. Since all the Hxs except Harry were formed during Voldy's first rampage, and since Harry!Hx was an accident and Voldy never intended to make more than the seven already in existence, why did his soul split again? What if that fragment had been the entire soul complement of a vanquished Voldy? (Then we could have had seven books of a sort of Damien!Harry on a quest to fit all the bits together again, preparatory to ruling the world. Wouldn't that have been fun?) But the text never counts up to eight IIRC. Does that mean that we had a totally soulless Voldy after GH? Must do. I know Jo's maths are pretty duff, but surely even she can count up to seven... or eight. Am I imagining things, or do the revelations about DD make him a fit and proper candidate for Slytherin House? Sneaky, cunning, tempted by power (even when he was old enough to know better), dabbling with Dark Magic and the supremacy of wizarding folk? Probably. Just been reading the final chapters again and he really would have made a splendid House Master for Slytherin. To balance this out, DD tells Sevvy that he (Sevvy) is the bravest man he's ever met, and that he thinks the sorting should be later in the students career. The implication being that Sevvy could/ should/might be a Gryff. But Sevvy doesn't look too happy at this hint. I wonder why? Probably thinks the House colours would clash with his complexion. If the Invisibility Cloak is the real deal "giving constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it" how come it doesn't fool Moody or DD? Dobby copped it. Yes!! A result! Creevey copped it. Yes!! Another result! Luna didn't. Buggerit. No Weasley cull. Damn. A suspicion, no more - but I wonder about Snapey (doesn't everyone?) I seem to recall a time when Jo was stunned at his popularity and recoiled at the suggestion that he would be redeemed. Then later there was a hint that he might be - fan power at work? Maybe, just maybe. More later - perhaps. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 16:27:53 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:27:53 -0000 Subject: Link worth reading In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0707250456v71262167k58ff3d39179ba2d4@...> Message-ID: Spoiler Space * * * * * * * * * * > This is the link - > http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi? do=issue&vol=i5&article=_card-essay > Anyone else finds quite cruel to kill Snape, of all possible places, > in the Shriecking Shack? > Silmariel Yes it's terribly cruel and lonely way to die, but that was how Snape lived; a cruel and lonely life. I believe the saying `live by the sword; die by the sword' applies well. I would have loved him to have a big heroic moment too, but his death was more tragic this way. As tragic as his life really. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 16:35:37 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:35:37 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > SPOILER......................................... > SPACE............................................. > THE................................................... > BOUNDARY.................................... > BETWEEN....................................... > INNOCENCE.................................. > AND.................................................. > DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > So Harry!Hx became so by default, it wasn't intended at all. A stray > bit of Voldy's soul makes a bee-line for the nearest warm body. > Right. So why didn't it bugger off to Kings Cross? Or alternatively > when Harry got zapped in the clearing, why didn't it home in on its > original nesting place i.e. Voldy? On the whole, I think I prefer > PT as more logically coherent - but I would, wouldn't I? Snipped... my appologies but I only have time to deal with the first bit right now. ;-) > Kneasy Or why didn't the tiny and very lonely soul fragment that was left in Voldy when he faced off against Harry in the Great Hall jump into the nearest warm body when his own spell backed fired and killed him just like it did 16 years earlier? There were plenty of warm body's watching that final showdown. Ech!! So frustrated! Mandy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 16:45:32 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:32 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > ssssssssssssssss pppppppppppppppp oooooooooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii llllllllllllllllll ttttttttttttttttttttt > So Harry!Hx became so by default, it wasn't intended at all. A stray > bit of Voldy's soul makes a bee-line for the nearest warm body. > Right. > So why didn't it bugger off to Kings Cross? Or alternatively when > Harry got zapped in the clearing, why didn't it home in on its original > nesting place i.e. Voldy? On the whole, I think I prefer PT as more > logically coherent - but I would, wouldn't I? Yup PT has more continuity (then again could it have had less????). When thinking about accidental HarryCrux I came to the conclusion that in order to AK someone it was necessary to shut them down from the inside. Imperius and Crucio I thought must work the same way, they are absolute invasions, a kind of mind rape. So in AK-ing Harry part of Voldy's mind force (or whatever) was in Harry, then at the moment the AK was repelled the shutters came down and trapped part of Voldy in there. I never really posted this idea because I could see a number of problems with it, HA! When Harry was killed in the clearing both bits of soul got the signal to move on to the great shunting house in the sky. Like all the other HRX pieces this one didn't return to papa. > > Mind you, Harry may have been a Voldy Hx, but effectively Voldy > was in return a Hx for Harry, and without all that pissing about with > antique silverware and souls. Hm. > Are we then assume that it isn't the Hx that's evil per se, it's the > actual production and motivation for producing them that matters? > This is another idea I rejected as flawed (aarrghh), thinking about the blood brother deal it occurred to me that Voldy would really only ever see the connection as one way, but I *could not believe* that JK`s solution would be so feeble. Whilst partaking of British Rail's hospitality DD launched into an explanation that no two wizards had ever been so convolutedly joined, I can't even begin to describe the images that generated! > Hang on a minute - Voldy's intention was to split his soul into seven. > We have Diary, Locket, Ring, Diadem, Cup, Nagini, Harry and Voldy > himself. That makes eight. Um. Since all the Hxs except Harry were > formed during Voldy's first rampage, and since Harry!Hx was an > accident and Voldy never intended to make more than the seven > already in existence, why did his soul split again? What if that > fragment had been the entire soul complement of a vanquished > Voldy? (Then we could have had seven books of a sort of > Damien!Harry on a quest to fit all the bits together again, > preparatory to ruling the world. Wouldn't that have been fun?) > But the text never counts up to eight IIRC. Does that mean that > we had a totally soulless Voldy after GH? Must do. I know Jo's > maths are pretty duff, but surely even she can count up to seven... > or eight. > Well I rather thought Voldy made Nagini after he heard about the destruction of his diary, so he'd have his six back. That still means that he was unaware that Harry was an accidental HRX. At no point did I see Voldy deducing that strange connection meant very much. Is he stupid or what? > Am I imagining things, or do the revelations about DD make him > a fit and proper candidate for Slytherin House? Sneaky, cunning, > tempted by power (even when he was old enough to know better), > dabbling with Dark Magic and the supremacy of wizarding folk? > Probably. Just been reading the final chapters again and he really > would have made a splendid House Master for Slytherin. Yup, DD would have been in Slytherin no question. snip > A suspicion, no more - but I wonder about Snapey (doesn't everyone?) > I seem to recall a time when Jo was stunned at his popularity and > recoiled at the suggestion that he would be redeemed. Then later > there was a hint that he might be - fan power at work? > Maybe, just maybe. > > As I said in my previous post I think JK toned down Snape's final scene. It would have been Robin Hood Prince of Thieves all over again. Cancel Christmas. Jo From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 18:12:17 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:12:17 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= Message-ID: Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Question? What's point of the Deathly Hallows? Truly? The point of a whole subplot thrust upon us in the final book when we have so much to deal with already? Here's my answer. Long winded I know but I beg you to indulge me. I'm obsessing over what really happened in the Forest between Voldy and Harry. And I've been flip flopping between two possibly answers. One answer has been proved wrong but I'll get to that in a moment. It was the struggle that gave me this theory, one I call Alternate Plan B. Ok, so we know Harry Potter was able to survive Voldy's killing curse, yet again. We're told it's the blood protection from his mother, Lily, the so called ancient magic that gave him this ability, and it was because Voldy used Harry blood to regenerate. Voldy took on Lily's protection over Harry when he took his blood and reinforced the blood magic that tied Harry to him forever, making it such that Harry can't die unless Voldy is already dead. OK, got that, even though that blood protection is supposed to have expired when Harry turned 17. Oh well. Perhaps the sell by date only applies to extended family blood. It expired in Petunia but not in Voldy as Voldy has Harry's actual blood not his extended DNA. That's how I'm going to deal with it anyhow. So, if this is true I ask again my original question, what's the point of the Deathly Hallows? I get we needed a subplot to explain the Elder Wand and Voldy's need to possess a wand stronger than his own to defeat Harry with. I understand we needed an explanation of the cloak and why it was extra special. The stone was just a devise to enable Harry to see his dead family, again. But couldn't all that have been explained without coming up with this huge new Deathly Hallows plot that took up half the book and gave us too much information on DD's family strife and friendship with some dark wizard I couldn't care less about? Well yes. Then I came up with this: Alternate Plan B. What if the Deathly Hallows was DD's Alternate Plan B? Before I get to that in greater detail on that I want to tell you what I mistakenly thought happened in the Forest between Harry and LV. I thought's Harry actually died. Truly died, dead, gone, no more. I read the whole of the King's Cross Station as if Harry was in Purgatory, (a quite brilliant Purgatory actually as the gateway between the muggle and wizarding worlds is the same as the gateway between life and death for Harry Potter), anyway Harry was in Purgatory chatting to DD and realizes he has the choice to return to life because (I later reasoned) Harry was the Master of all three pieces of the Deathly Hallows; The Cloak, the Wand and the Stone. Thus he was the Master of Death and got the Get Out of Purgatory Free Card. He came back, sans Voldy's soul fragment and ready to vanquish the Dark Lord. This would be brilliant if only it were true. It gives us a solid reason for the Deathly Hallows, a solid reason for DD to have gone to so much trouble with it all and a solid and terrifying reason for the trio to have figure out the puzzle in time to save the world! But we know this all to be wrong because a, DD tells us it's all down to the Blood Sacrifice/infusion and b, as Harry is the true Master of the Elder Wand, the wand wont work properly for Voldy (as demonstrated later when he uses the Cruciartus to abuse the Harry's `body' and Harry feels no pain) and so Voldy couldn't cast a true working AK. So Harry didn't actually die. Damn. He only passed out, took advantage of the down time to hash out a theory with DD in his head before returning. So again what's the reason for the Deathly Hallows if all it took was the blood sacrifice to save Harry Potter? My only conclusion is it's got to be Alternate Plan B, DD's back-up plan incase he was wrong on the blood sacrifice and Harry did actually die. DD needed a way to bring Harry back from the dead so he could finish the job the prophecy demanded and the WW needed. So DD needed the Deathly Hallows. He needed Harry to master the three pieces. He laid clues for the trio so they would find out in time but not be tempted on the way. But if this is so, why oh, why, didn't JKR have DD explain this to us? It would have only taken a couple of sentence in the last chapter. (Not the Epilogue, the real last chapter.) It would have been such a fulfilling ending to have Harry be true Master of Death, immortal, the Boy Who Lived Forever but choose to give it up because he wanted to live a normal life. Talk about temptation! So what do you all think? Does this work? Please critique because it's driving me crazy. It raises interesting questions I think. Questions about whether DD meant or not for Draco to become Master of the Elder Wand. Was that a mistake, the true `flaw in the plan'? Was DD desperately trying to convince Draco to change sides not to protect him, but to prevent the Elder Wand from slipping over to the Dark Side in a hand that was not trusted Snapes? Did DD want Snape to kill him so the Wand would become Snapes and Snape could thus give it to Harry are the right time? Ahhh . there are many more but more later, maybe. Cheers, Mandy From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 18:27:35 2007 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape's Death - Tragic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <474764.29210.qm@...> --- Amanda wrote: > Yes it's terribly cruel and lonely way to die, but that was how > Snape lived; a cruel and lonely life. > > I believe the saying `live by the sword; die by the sword' applies > well. > > I would have loved him to have a big heroic moment too, but his > death was more tragic this way. As tragic as his life really. No way! Snape's death was not tragic - he was triumphant! Think of it. He's summoned to Voldemort's side and gets fatally snaked. He's lying there alone in the Shrieking Shack. No one knows where he is. The great effort to defeat Voldemort is going down in flames. Imagine the turmoil as he tries to staunch the rip in his throat. Then - Potter arrives! In a matter of only a second or two, Snape sees how he can let Potter know what has to be done - and explain himself too. And he does it. Harry has all the pieces of the puzzle to put it together himself. There's nothing more Snape can do. Talk about pulling victory from the jaws of defeat! That was a great death. Magda ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 18:42:36 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:42:36 -0000 Subject: So, is Harry a great wizard or not? Message-ID: If you haven't gotten the idea by now that this list is discussing the last book then no amount of spoiler space is going to help you. One of the many things that Rowling has frustrated me with, has been what I consider to be her own ambivalence with whether or not she wished to portray Harry as a wizard of great (or at least potentially great) magical power as well as a wizard who was to act out (badly or not) a great role bestowed on him. [Take Neville, for example, who never shows any exceptional magical power, but comes to embrace the roles provided him with great courage and commitment} It seems that much of the first two books, and moments in the next two {such as his abilty to form a Patronus}, sought to convey that HP had great magical power, that in retrospect, can be seen as existing independent from his Voldy component. To make it abundantly explicit, JKR has Hermione state in PS that HP is a "great wizard." But in the later books, most expecially in HBP, we are given more to believe that nothing is all that special about Harry's magical powers, at least nothing that didn't derive from his Voldy component. We have JKR make the pronouncement, this time through Snape, about just how "mediocre" Harry is as a wizard. There is much that could flesh this all out, but I'm sure most readers of this list can do that more efficiently in their minds than I can in print. Yet at the end of DH we have two events, sans the Voldy component, which lead one in the direction of exceptional wizarding powers. The first is obvious in that Harry manages to block and even redirect Voldy's AK. I just don't think this can be all explained away by the wands in use. The second, for me is more telling. This is Harry repairing his Holly wand. Hermione had failed, Ollivander said it couldn't be done, Harry hadn't tried previously, but using the Elder Wand (which is noted for its abilities for dueling, but nothing else), he immediately is successful. Of course the disapointment for me is that I have no confidence remaining that canon is sufficiently consistent at any level to derive a "truth" about the HP wizarding world, or any of her characters. Alas, that awareness has built over the last three books, with DH driving a stake through any lingering belief I may have nurtured. Which is why I have had so little to say this last year. Lyn (using my wife's Yahoo acount, which is why it comes up as Ashley) From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 18:47:15 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:47:15 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > Spoiler Space No poetry from me, but I gots some doggerel --- Ah, yes, I wrote the "Purple Cow" -- I'm sorry, now, I wrote it! But I can tell you, anyhow, I'll kill you if you quote it. --- Gelett Burgess > Spoiler Space > > It raises interesting questions I think. Questions about whether DD > meant or not for Draco to become Master of the Elder Wand. Was that a > mistake, the true `flaw in the plan'? Was DD desperately trying to > convince Draco to change sides not to protect him, but to prevent the > Elder Wand from slipping over to the Dark Side in a hand that was not > trusted Snapes? Did DD want Snape to kill him so the Wand would > become Snapes and Snape could thus give it to Harry are the right > time? Ahhh . there are many more but more later, maybe. > > Cheers, Mandy > I can't answer the rest of your post; as I said before, I really need a careful reread to approach a real understanding of what JKR intended (or, maybe a reasonable approximation! :P ). But I'm pretty sure I can answer this part. DD did not expect Draco to gain mastery of the Elder wand by disarming him. He expected to die as the master himself -- therefore he could never be defeated by anyone, and the wand would lose its special power. Snape would not have become its new master, because he was not defeating DD by AKing him, he was *cooperating* with DD. Of course, LV, once he knew DD had been the master of the wand, would *think* Snape was the current master -- and kill him in order to succeed him. Annemehr From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 18:47:01 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:47:01 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: SPOILER......................................... SPACE............................................. THE................................................... BOUNDARY.................................... BETWEEN....................................... INNOCENCE.................................. AND.................................................. DISILLUSIONMENT...................... > > Or why didn't the tiny and very lonely soul fragment that was left in > Voldy when he faced off against Harry in the Great Hall jump into the > nearest warm body when his own spell backed fired and killed him just > like it did 16 years earlier? There were plenty of warm body's > watching that final showdown. > > Ech!! So frustrated! > Yes.... the showdown. I've got thoughts about that. First though, there may be a few readers who are a bit puzzled 'cos DD clarifies some of the stuff I muttered about in the post starting this thread a bit further down the page. Yes, I saw it; no, I don't necessarily believe it. After 6 outings with DD's explications, habit makes me squint at them sideways, 'cos mostly they don't explain so much as gloss over - DD is very selective in phrasing and contents. And sometimes it feels more like a snow-job than a crystal-clear alpine view. So unless there's some independent confirmation of what he's burbling on about, I tend to ship in salt by the bucketful. 'Cos I'll need it. Same this time. Now then, please check the reasonings of this old, tired, gin-sodden wreck. Way back at the climax of GoF, Voldy did the Kauldron Kid bit. Not only did he get an outfit any Evil Overlord could be proud of, he also negated Lily's protection. Made a big thing of it he did - "Look lads, I can touch him! The protection's gone!" Fair enough, says I, I believe you. But according to the last explication, the protection wasn't negated, it was shared, the infusion of Harry's blood transferring it to his Nastiness. "Precisely!" said DD. "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you!" [*] This is to enable Harry to elude the vile machinations of the Dirty Lord yet again at the back end of book 7. But hang on a minute.... that protection was *specifically* anti-Voldy, it wasn't triggered by spells or contact from anyone else. So if Voldy's now got it too - then Voldy-constructed-from-and-consisting-of-Harry is protected against Voldy. If he wasn't then the Harry-bits-with-protection would have rotted the rest of his body from the inside. Hey! Imagine that on film! Thus a Voldy spell rebounding back at him shouldn't knock him out of his natty gents hosiery, should it? 'Cos he's got protection against against his own malevolent magic. Therefore by the internal logic of the story, the climax shouldn't work. QED. Mutter, mutter, mutter... Too many plot holes and internal contradictions already, Jo. This could be another - unless someone can show me where I've gone wrong. [*] By the same token, Voldy could/should/might be a pseudo-Hx to Peter. After all, he contributed much more to the soup than Harry did. Did he revive? A sequel! "Down in the depths of Malfoy Manor, a purple-faced, three-legged rat with a snug-fitting silver necktie is making plans...." There's a novelty. You don't see many of those in books these days. Kneasy From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 19:09:58 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:09:58 -0000 Subject: So, is Harry a great wizard or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn wrote: > If you haven't gotten the idea by now that this list is discussing the last book then no > amount of spoiler space is going to help you. > > One of the many things that Rowling has frustrated me with, has been what I consider to > be her own ambivalence with whether or not she wished to portray Harry as a wizard of > great (or at least potentially great) magical power as well as a wizard who was to act out > (badly or not) a great role bestowed on him. > Yet at the end of DH we have two events, sans the Voldy component, which lead one in the > direction of exceptional wizarding powers. > The second, for me is more telling. This is Harry repairing his Holly wand. > Hermione had failed, Ollivander said it couldn't be done, Harry hadn't tried previously, but > using the Elder Wand (which is noted for its abilities for dueling, but nothing else), he > immediately is successful. Anne: I'm sure I recall that he did try to repair it, after he woke up safe, back in the tent after Godric's Hollow... No, you're right, it was Hermione who tried Reparo (ch. 17), and it didn't work, and then, yes, as you say, Ollivander said it couldn't be done. As far as the Elder wand being able to do it...well, I suppose it's better than the idea that the Put-Outer (Deluminator, is it?) also has the special ability of being able to lead Ron back to Harry and Hermione. I do feel a bit like I'm in a James Bond movie... In any case, I do think the repair was due to the wand, and not to a talent of Harry's. Oh, yeah, and BY the way -- many years ago, and more than once, I offered an explanation for the perrenial question "How does Hagrid's wand still work if it was snapped?" I posited that it was Dumbledore who repaired it, and saw to it that it was hidden in the umbrella so no one would see. Well, *he* was master of the Elder wand at the time, so there you go. Lyn: > > Of course the disapointment for me is that I have no confidence remaining that canon is > sufficiently consistent at any level to derive a "truth" about the HP wizarding world, or any > of her characters. I'm having that feeling, too. *sigh* Anne From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 19:29:07 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:29:07 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > Spoiler Space > > > Question? What's point of the Deathly Hallows? Truly? The point of a > whole subplot thrust upon us in the final book when we have so much > to deal with already? > > Lyn here: I look at the whole purpose of the DH a bit differently. I still see JKR writing an extended morality play and one of the more important "morality" questions will be what kind of person will Harry become if he does defeat Voldy. That Harry's chooses to complete his Hx mission rather than remain absorbed in the DH quest, goes a long way toward making clear that he won't become "the new boss" only a little changed from "the old boss." The epilog reinforces this understanding, but the DH objects manifest it, never more clearly than in Harry's decision about keeping his old wand and wanting to remain the person he innately is, rather than the extraordinarily powerful wizard that his renewed celebrity and the posession of these external objects would allow him to become. The DH ring, also is a major, and again manifest, component in revealing that Harry has finally come to a more healthy resolution of his obsession with the deaths of those he loves and who loved him. How symbolic that he leaves it [them] on [in] the ground. What first became manifest in the Mirror of Erised becomes manifestly released by his letting go of the DH ring. I think one could even make the argument that the invisibility cloak plays a useful symbolic role here as well. Harry keeping this one item, to which he is the natural heir, shows him not to reject what he innately and rightfully is, but only not to reach for powers that are not inherent to/in him. All a little deep for me, but that's my take. > > as Harry is the true Master of > the Elder Wand, the wand wont work properly for Voldy (as > demonstrated later when he uses the Cruciartus to abuse the > Harry's `body' and Harry feels no pain) and so Voldy couldn't cast a > true working AK. I again read this a little differently. I do believe the Harry very much felt pain from the Cruciatus curses, but was able to master that pain. One, Harry has always been shown to be somewhat resistant to that curse, even when coming from Voldy. Two, I believe that it illustrates that HP could indeed master himself when he understood it was in the best interests of others, in stark contrast to his inability to master himself with regards to Occulemancy. Three, I belive that it was meant to have a greater symbolic meaning with regards to his growing mastery of other forms of [emotional] pain in his past (and potentially future) life. Again, I think it was means to show him maturing as an adult. With regards to the AK, I would suggest that Voldy already had perfomed numerous AK's with that wand. Voldy was able to perform exceedingly powerfully with that wand, as was evidenced by the near final scene where he was able to duel with three very accomplished and powerful wizards at the same time, and then blow them all over in his wrath. To the extent many of his curses were disrupted, often their are other explanations that can be found in Harry's actions and intended sacrifice. I tend not to look for Harry's success in terms so much of Voldy's weakness, nor in what I consider to be contrived explanations of the actions/functions of the Elder Wand, but in the strength of a HP maturely working for the good of others. Of course this may all be an overly sentimental perspective on my part. Lyn From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 19:24:36 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:24:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space > > > It raises interesting questions I think. Questions about whether > DD > > meant or not for Draco to become Master of the Elder Wand. Was that > a > > mistake, the true `flaw in the plan'? Was DD desperately trying to > > convince Draco to change sides not to protect him, but to prevent > the > > Elder Wand from slipping over to the Dark Side in a hand that was > not > > trusted Snapes? Did DD want Snape to kill him so the Wand would > > become Snapes and Snape could thus give it to Harry are the right > > time? Ahhh . there are many more but more later, maybe. > > > > Cheers, Mandy > I can't answer the rest of your post; as I said before, I really need > a careful reread to approach a real understanding of what JKR > intended (or, maybe a reasonable approximation! :P ). But I'm pretty > sure I can answer this part. > > DD did not expect Draco to gain mastery of the Elder wand by > disarming him. He expected to die as the master himself -- therefore > he could never be defeated by anyone, and the wand would lose its > special power. > Snape would not have become its new master, because he was not > defeating DD by AKing him, he was *cooperating* with DD. > Of course, LV, once he knew DD had been the master of the wand, would > *think* Snape was the current master -- and kill him in order to > succeed him. > Annemehr Yes, I thought that too but if DD meant to destroy the Elder wand by dieing and rendering the Elder Wand powerless I'm back to my original question what is the point of the Quest for the Deathly Hallows? Why give the clues to the trio? Why bother to have the trio track down the three pieces if the very reason for their existence: immortality is negated by the 'killing' the Elder Wand? This is what puzzles me. I see no logical reason for the sub plot of the Quest for the DH. Mandy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 19:50:55 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:50:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's Death - Tragic? In-Reply-To: <474764.29210.qm@...> Message-ID: > No way! Snape's death was not tragic - he was triumphant! > Think of it. He's summoned to Voldemort's side and gets fatally > snaked. He's lying there alone in the Shrieking Shack. No one knows > where he is. The great effort to defeat Voldemort is going down in > flames. Imagine the turmoil as he tries to staunch the rip in his > throat. > Then - Potter arrives! > In a matter of only a second or two, Snape sees how he can let Potter > know what has to be done - and explain himself too. > And he does it. Harry has all the pieces of the puzzle to put it > together himself. There's nothing more Snape can do. > Talk about pulling victory from the jaws of defeat! That was a great > death. > Magda Oh I didn't say it wasn't a great death. It was. It just wasn't the heroic leaping in front of a speeding AK to save Harry's life and telling him with his dieing breath just how much he loved Lily Evans. I think that is what many fan's wanted. This was much more suptle and shocking and personally, I thought it was superb. Tragic, deeply moving and beautiful. When Snape grabbed Harry's shirt and used his dieing breath to say "Look at me." I cried knowing full well he wanted to look into Lily's eyes one last time. Mandy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 21:02:51 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:02:51 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Ashley" wrote: > > > I tend not to look for Harry's success in terms so much of > Voldy's weakness, nor in what I consider to be contrived > explanations of the actions/functions of the Elder Wand, but in > the strength of a HP maturely working for the good of others. > > Of course this may all be an overly sentimental perspective on >my part. > > Lyn > Wotcher Lyn. How's it going? Potter working for the good of others.... I don't see that as his primary motivation, he's more emotionally involved than that - to him, everything is *personal* in the broadest possible sense. He sees things in terms of the individual rather than the more general picture. Himself, his friends, his enemies, the loyal and the disloyal - but the loyalties he treasures are also defined personally. Snape is a member of the Order and DD trusts him totally. Harry doesn't, he's obsessed with the idea that Snape is *his* enemy. The greater good can go hang, the personal is what counts. I doubt whether he gives much thought to the good of the greater mass with whom he is not acquainted. He goes galloping off to gather the Hallows not because it may save the WW, but because he thinks DD wants him to, and DD's wishes are good enough for him. What he could or should do with the Hallows if he finds them, he hasn't the faintest idea. The fact that no-one else seems to either, doesn't matter. It's what he thinks his guide and mentor wants from him - and that's enough for almost unquestioning effort. Yet it's time and effort wasted - he already has the cloak and, unknowingly, the ring - though whether it would actually work after being Horcruxed and bashed by Gryffindor's sword is a bit iffy. The wand? One of Jo's red herrings dragged across the plot (as are all the Hallows). Note that he spends comparatively little time wondering about the Stone - though since he knows that DD had it, it should be the easiest to locate. (Thinking about it, the Hallows could have been invited just to provide a snappy title - otherwise we might have been lumbered with "Harry Potter and the Excitement was In Tents." Couldn't resist that - sorry.) More understandably, the potential showdown with Voldy is also viewed in very personal terms - he killed Harry's parents and has been trying to kill Harry, and Harry knows he has to face him sooner or later - but the fact that the future of the entire world rests on the outcome, well that's a subordinate benefit so far as Harry's concerned - or at least, I can't ever remember him discussing the wider implications of his eventual success or failure. He thinks that DD's plan has been about keeping him alive when the reality is different - he's Weapon!Harry, forged for a purpose - and when he finds out that DD expects him to sacrifice himself for the good of others he thinks of it as a betrayal. Not a betrayal of the greater good but of him - Harry. OK, much of this is to be expected, he's a teenager. Most see the world in terms of themselves, I think. They can't help but do so. Thanks to Jo's dodgy plotting Harry won - but it was a very personal bit of business IMO. Kneasy From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 21:11:24 2007 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:11:24 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Random thoughts References: Message-ID: <008301c7cf00$72fa3ba0$482fdcd1@...> Jo wrote: >>>When Harry was killed in the clearing both bits of soul got the signal to move on to the great shunting house in the sky. Like all the other HRX pieces this one didn't return to papa. <<< Gatta: Was I right in supposing the two soul bits were separated when Voldemart "killed" Harry? That is, the Harry that arrived at King's Cross was the untainted Harry, and the soul bit from Voldemart was the flayed child? Purrs! Gatta Quantum me cogitis omnes! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 23:05:27 2007 From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:05:27 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Side apparating to Grimmauld Place (was Re: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: References: <012001c7ce39$6947f650$3bd7e2f0$@...> Message-ID: <01cb01c7cf10$4bc4bf00$e34e3d00$@...> Hi All. Jo replied to my rambling thoughts about the logical inconsistencies of Snape's tongue tied curse that Dung pointed out: >>> Snape is tongue tied so someone says 'just take me there' and Snape shakes his head, no need for explanations just assume it's another booby trap <<< Sorry Jo I don't understand. N.B. How often have I thought that sentence recently ;-) Are you saying that the tongue tie curse means that Snape needn't take the Death Eaters to Grimmauld Place since he can feign the inability to explain the extent of the curse? If so I agree, but only from Snape's perspective. As far as the Order know he is evil, and would have no desire to feign an inability to apparate there. They need a curse that prevents Snape apparating onto the front doorstep with Death Eaters in tow and I just cannot see what makes them think that the tongue tie curse does the job? Cheers, Dumbledad. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Wed Jul 25 23:54:40 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:54:40 -0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore the Puppetmaster I Never Suspected He Was? Message-ID: So, I've been slogging through the last hundred or so posts (and relishing every minute of it), but I haven't seen much written about what I perceive to be the stripping away of Dumbledore's saintly persona. Forgive me if I've missed it. It's been a harrowing few days! :P The backstory of his shady associations with Grindelwald... Aberforth's take on DD's secretive personality... and don't even get me started on the weakness of character which lead DD to try on that cursed ring! But the revelation of DD's true motives during Harry's viewing of Snape's memory-file takes the cake. If anything could ever back up the "Dumbledore as puppetmaster" theory for me, that was it. Snape finally realizes that he's simply kept Harry alive only long enough to be slaughtered by Voldie at the "proper time". Dumbledore's answer is a remorseless yes. YIKES! And, unless I read too much into it, Dumbledore's remark that he's "touched" by Severus' affection for Harry is simply dripping with sarcasm. Far and away, most characters throughout the series were not what they seemed. Always felt that Snape was a good guy in Death Eaters' clothing. But Dumbledore was the one character whose motives were (seemingly) crystal clear: to protect Harry and allow him to live long enough to defeat Voldemort. Close, but no cigar! Apparently, it was to protect Harry and allow him to live long enough to be the sacrificial lamb in the defeat of Voldemort. Big difference. What's next?? Hagrid only pretending to enjoy Harry's company so that he might fatten him up and feed him to the hippogriffs when the time is right? Do the Weasleys only feign a fondness for Harry so that they might one day glean the combination to his Gringott's vault? Sheesh. Any other takes on this? Can Dumbledore ever be redeemed in my eyes? Go ahead, give it a shot. :: Entropy :: From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 00:21:58 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:21:58 -0000 Subject: What annoyed me most (SPOILERS!!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yeah unblockable, but thats before we knew about super wands. > Honestly its like playing paper/scissors/stone with someone who can > call 'Cruise missile you're out'. > > Jo > Well, isn't that the whole horcrux thing all over again? Where exactly in Books 1 - 5 were horcruxes discreetly mentioned and then tucked away to be pulled out again in Book 6, so that we all could say "Oh! If only we had remembered the horcruxes!!" Oh, right. They weren't. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 00:22:29 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:22:29 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > > Spoiler Space > I tend not to look for Harry's success in terms so much of Voldy's weakness, nor in what I > consider to be contrived explanations of the actions/functions of the Elder Wand, but in > the strength of a HP maturely working for the good of others. > > Of course this may all be an overly sentimental perspective on my part. > > Lyn Interesting reply Lyn, thanks. I definitely need to re-read, and should be doing so instead of agonizing over explanations and theories. ;-) However, I do feel Harry does win because of LV weakness. It may not be the only reason but it's the primary reason. LV overlooked so much as all Evil Masterminds do. He underestimates just about everyone and arrogantly (and greedily) uses Harry blood which leads directly to his own downfall. Harry won because LV weakened himself. And how else could a relatively inexperience young man hope to beat such an greatly experienced and evil enemy? By counting on LV's weaknesses. But then perhaps I'm too cynical. :-) I have a dark sensibility akin to Kneasy's. Not nearly enough people died imo. Ah well, back to the book for a re-read... and I'll certainly keep your thoughts in mind. Mandy From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 00:36:11 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:36:11 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > > Wotcher Lyn. > How's it going? Hi Barry, Guess I always had fun trying to find the "truth" in the HP world, but when the "world" began to lawlessly transform to meet JKR's need of the moment, there hasn't seemed much point to the quest. > > Potter working for the good of others.... > I don't see that as his primary motivation, he's more emotionally > involved than that - to him, everything is *personal* in the broadest > possible sense. As is usually the case, your comments coincide with my take on things, and express them than I do. I think what you describe does fit HP through 98% of the series. It is in the last 2% that I think JKR had Harry change course. Indeed, I believe so many of the revelations about DD were to have HP's sacrifice occur for the good of others, rather than just to please DD. I think JKR's sense of maturity is a Christian informed, Amnesty International worker defined construct, and that is what she brought to HP at the end. Not my cup of tea, but that is my sense of things after a whirlwind reading. I'll be quite content to have it prove otherwise, as it is a bit saccharin for me. I had a fairly enjoyable ride in the quick reading of DH, but at the end, it leaves me quite cold. Such promise unrealized. Though I still think we have not seen the last Harry. Leaving that ring left on the ground to be found by someone at some future time, and having no small number of Wizard folk aware that the Elder Wand exists and they are just a dead HP away from obtaining its power, strikes me as a author very much leaving the door open for some future return. It's not something I particulary long for (though I once would have), but put me down for making the prediction. From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 01:55:11 2007 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:55:11 -0000 Subject: FILK: A Dumbledore Kedavra Message-ID: A Dumbledore Kedavra (DH, Chap. 33, 35) To the tune of A Little More Mascara from Jerry Herman's La Cage Aux Folles You-Tube performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSisCkkPSL4 THE SCENE: DUMBLEDORE'S office, as he confirms that SNAPE is truly DDM. DUMBLEDORE: Like a fool I was sorely tempted by the ring of old Marvolo Gaunt Bringing Ariana and my parents back was a thing I dearly did want With some dim deviation `twixt reckless enchantment and churlish complaint I find I'm attended by Severus after a mighty curse made me faint He reports that a jinx he has trapped in my hand must eventually spread But I tarried too long, and I can't buy more time, and in months I'll be dead So the Dark Lord, you see, is now at my mercy .. When hexed by a not-too-nice ring, so I've got only a year before I'm gone I'll do the self-sacrifice thing, and put a Dumbledore Kedavra on. SNAPE: We're soon to lose the Ministry, and Voldy will make himself the Hegemon. I'll put you out of your misery, and put a Dumbledore Kedavra on. BOTH: And it will be flash of green! Tower fall! Phoenix flight! And then a funeral with much ado 'Cause when I/you my/your maker meet, daisies push, bucket kick You'll/I'll be in good graces with good ol' You-Know Who! SNAPE: When Bellatrix comes to call with a witch or two And the Dark Lord picks Draco to be his pawn We'll pull off the old switcheroo And wham! We will bamboozle DE spawn! DUMBLEDORE: Sure as the Cannons finish last I'll end with a Canonic blast And put a Dumbledore Kedavra on. BOTH: And it will be portraiture! R.A.B.! Marble tomb! You/I won't have to break your/my Vow, you'll/I'll save Draco's soul 'Cause ev'ryone's thunderstruck, flabbergast, woebegone When Albus gets blown away, and Snape's on a roll! SNAPE: When all my fans have completed the Half-Blood Prince, They'll have to wait two years till the next book's read. DUMBLEDORE: We'll leave them with hardly any hints And literally we will knock them dead! By your AK, I'll not be hurt SNAPE: I give to you a nod that's curt You won't compose your epitaph DUMBLEDORE: But we will get the final laugh SNAPE: I may have loathing on my face. DUMBLEDORE: Your name will be in deep disgrace BOTH: But Potter must get the tiara, And so our Dumbledore Kedavra's on. Flash of green! Tower fall! Portraiture! R.A.B.!...On! Portraiture! R.A.B.!... Phoenix flight! Marble tomb! Thunderstruck, woebegone, on! Thunderstruck, woebegone, on! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 10:18:32 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:18:32 -0000 Subject: Side apparating to Grimmauld Place (was Re: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: <01cb01c7cf10$4bc4bf00$e34e3d00$@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > > Hi All. > > Jo replied to my rambling thoughts about the logical inconsistencies of > Snape's tongue tied curse that Dung pointed out: > > >>> Snape is tongue tied so someone says 'just take me there' and Snape > shakes his head, no need for explanations just assume it's another booby > trap <<< > > Sorry Jo I don't understand. > > N.B. How often have I thought that sentence recently ;-) > > Are you saying that the tongue tie curse means that Snape needn't take the > Death Eaters to Grimmauld Place since he can feign the inability to explain > the extent of the curse? If so I agree, but only from Snape's perspective. > As far as the Order know he is evil, and would have no desire to feign an > inability to apparate there. They need a curse that prevents Snape > apparating onto the front doorstep with Death Eaters in tow and I just > cannot see what makes them think that the tongue tie curse does the job? > > Cheers, > > Dumbledad. > ah 'twas I that did not understand! You understood me perfectly, that is what I meant. As to what the order did to protect themselves from this, well I guess we'll just have to make something up. Another activity we'll be undertaking often I suspect. I fear the DH would not be afloat on Theory Bay, far too leaky. We may have some fun thinking of increasingly convoluted ways of keeping her from sinking with all hands but I *think* she's fatally holed below the water line. Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 10:35:01 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:35:01 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts In-Reply-To: <008301c7cf00$72fa3ba0$482fdcd1@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Kat Macfarlane" wrote: > > Jo wrote: > > >>>When Harry was killed in the clearing both bits of soul got the > signal to move on to the great shunting house in the sky. Like all > the other HRX pieces this one didn't return to papa. <<< > > Gatta: > > Was I right in supposing the two soul bits were separated when Voldemart "killed" Harry? That is, the Harry that arrived at King's Cross was the untainted Harry, and the soul bit from Voldemart was the flayed child? > > Purrs! > > Gatta That's my take on it. The only way to de HRX an item is to destroy it with something magical so that's what happened here. The container (Harry in this case) is placed beyond magical repair, by an AK, and the HRX can no longer exist. Blimey! Apart from the 'how come the blood thingy still works in this case and not at Privet Drive?', and the 'but he does get fixed by magical means' aspects, this piece of plotting might actually hold together.... Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 10:40:10 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:40:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Death - Tragic? In-Reply-To: <474764.29210.qm@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: sssssssssssssssss ppppppppppppppppp ooooooooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lllllllllllllllll ttttttttttttttttt / / / / / / / / > No way! Snape's death was not tragic - he was triumphant! > > Think of it. He's summoned to Voldemort's side and gets fatally > snaked. He's lying there alone in the Shrieking Shack. No one knows > where he is. The great effort to defeat Voldemort is going down in > flames. Imagine the turmoil as he tries to staunch the rip in his > throat. > > Then - Potter arrives! > > In a matter of only a second or two, Snape sees how he can let Potter > know what has to be done - and explain himself too. > > And he does it. Harry has all the pieces of the puzzle to put it > together himself. There's nothing more Snape can do. > > Talk about pulling victory from the jaws of defeat! That was a great > death. > > Magda .....and just why do we assume he is dead? Didn't show up at the last stroll into the woods to meet my doom party did he? Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 10:48:58 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:48:58 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > Yes, I thought that too but if DD meant to destroy the Elder wand by > dieing and rendering the Elder Wand powerless I'm back to my original > question what is the point of the Quest for the Deathly Hallows? > > Why give the clues to the trio? Why bother to have the trio track > down the three pieces if the very reason for their existence: > immortality is negated by the 'killing' the Elder Wand? > > This is what puzzles me. I see no logical reason for the sub plot of > the Quest for the DH. > > Mandy > Yup, I think you're right. DD put together his little will gifts *before* he knew he had failed to defuse the wand. So he was sending them on a hunt for two items they already had and one that should have been *worthless*. As far as DD knew Voldy had no idea about the DH, and so no idea that Voldy would go chasing the wand, which should have been out of service anyway!!! The wand btw has a nasty habit of skipping out on its owner, probably because its master is Death. How happy would it be to be decommissioned by the peaceful passing of its current owner? Regards Jo From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 12:09:37 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:09:37 -0000 Subject: Doe a deer a female deer. Message-ID: `I was interested to see your new Patronus.'......`I think you were better off with the old one,' said Snape, the malice in his voice unmistakeable. `The new one looks weak.' `It'd do for Bambi's mother!' said Tonks wondering about the irony of it all. Regards Jo calming down and starting to have fun again! From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 12:55:52 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:55:52 -0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore the Puppetmaster I Never Suspected He Was? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > The backstory of his shady associations with Grindelwald... > Aberforth's take on DD's secretive personality... and don't even get > me started on the weakness of character which lead DD to try on that > cursed ring! But the revelation of DD's true motives during Harry's > viewing of Snape's memory-file takes the cake. If anything could ever > back up the "Dumbledore as puppetmaster" theory for me, that was it. > > Snape finally realizes that he's simply kept Harry alive only long > enough to be slaughtered by Voldie at the "proper time". Dumbledore's > answer is a remorseless yes. YIKES! And, unless I read too much into > it, Dumbledore's remark that he's "touched" by Severus' affection for > Harry is simply dripping with sarcasm. > > Far and away, most characters throughout the series were not what they > seemed. Always felt that Snape was a good guy in Death Eaters' > clothing. But Dumbledore was the one character whose motives were > (seemingly) crystal clear: to protect Harry and allow him to live long > enough to defeat Voldemort. Close, but no cigar! Apparently, it was to > protect Harry and allow him to live long enough to be the sacrificial > lamb in the defeat of Voldemort. Big difference. > I fear that you have too trusting a nature. Not a bad fault to have, but it's just asking to get a smack in the mazzard when confronted with a series swarming with ambiguous characters. The kids - well, they where more or less as described; apart from Marietta I can't remember one of 'em not being as depicted on debut. The adults though, were a very different kettle of fish. To be honest, that's what kept me glued to the series, the obvious and possibly not so obvious adult manoeuverings, deceptions, hidden agendas and motivations. Lots of other fans enjoyed it too. Dip into the archives - a high proportion of the fan input is concerned with who can be trusted, who can't and what the bloody hell is so-and-so up to? ESE started as a bit of light-hearted 'what if?', it ended as a full-blown industry. Now everybody can't be up-to-something, there just has to be at least a few scattered around that are immutable among the shifting sands. In HP these were the Weasley parents - sensible, slightly odd, but straight as a die; substitute parents for Harry with a home that offers security, comfort, unquestioning loyalty to, and having the best of intentions for, a growing lad in a very dangerous world. But DD? He's something else. Harry sees him as his saviour from a life of misery, but some fans suspected ulterior motives might be playing a part from very early on, mostly because he seemed too good to be true. We learn that DD has a plan (details never provided) to cast down Voldy and that Harry is integral and probably pivotal in bringing it to fruition. ( Ha! Suspicions confirmed!) And since this was a WW problem, any resolution would be cast in terms magical. But DD had made damn sure that Harry's early years were spent as far away from the realm of the WW as he could arrange. Harry has a lot of catching up to do; he also has to learn very quickly that the WW is a lot more than a respite from the petty punishments of the Dursleys. Given these premises, for a cynical old sod who's just panting for a tale that's darker than Disney (spit) it's but a short step to Puppetmaster!DD and Weapon!Harry. Admittedly, to start with it was more in hope than in expectation, but as the books progressed the expectation level rose. The adventures that Harry experienced could easily have been truncated or avoided all together if DD had wished. But he seemed to be subtly or not so subtly encouraging Harry and there were hints that he knew exactly what Harry was doing all along. Our hero was being trained - and tested. Snape was part of the training. He's Mr Nasty to DD's Mr Nice, a necessary input to Harry - it wouldn't do for Harry to be mollycoddled at Hogwarts and spend the holidays back at Privet Drive, or he'd learn nothing about himself or how to cope with the more inimical sections of the WW. My prediction that SS/DD were the best double-act in the business wasn't so far off. The crunch comes at the end of OoP when he tells Harry point blank - it's kill or be killed. Of course, being DD, that isn't quite accurate; it turns out it should have been "I believe you both need to die in the final showdown". Mind you, he had given Harry a clue - that Prophesy, but Harry's more into action than thought and while DD figured out the nitty-gritty, Harry didn't. Could have been worse - my bet was that the Prophesy was a DD fake intended to lure Voldy to GH were he would be destroyed by the Protective magic, but it enjoyed only partial success. Seems Jo wasn't prepared to make DD that devious. Pity. In hindsight and with the knowledge that it actually was an AK Voldy threw at Harry (mutter, mutter), what're the odds that it was then that DD realised that to survive the bounce Voldy must have invested in Hxs or something very similar? And how much thought had he given to the nature of that strange scar on Harry's head? Still, at this point DD has had about 16 years to brood on this Prophecy whereas Harry gets the immediate info-dump, with no time to assimilate its implications. It was intended to shock and it did. Harry was all wound up about Sirius, how it wasn't fair, it was somebody else's fault, nobody cares, etc, etc. So DD hits Harry between the eyes - and there's a sub-text. "This is your fight, boy, only you can do it, I can only help so much, I can't do it for you. So get a grip." The plot arc leads us ineluctably to the conclusion that Harry is it; he's Voldy's nemesis just as Voldy is his. Either or both can die - this has been accepted by most fans for a long time. The newish twist is that DD reckons it *must* be both, killing Voldy is not enough, Harry is Voldy's Hx and if he doesn't die too, Voldy will come back yet again and it will all have been for nothing. Given the situation, how else (in plot terms) could DD have acted? Tell Potter straight up "You're a deader, son."? Be a bit of a downer on Harry's part, I'd think (though I did predict - wrongly - that Harry would try to avoid his destiny, would try to opt out of the situation entirely, at least until an unspecified number of deaths forced him to realise it wouldn't work). But you don't prepare a fighter by telling him he's going to lose, and Harry does have to believe that with a bit of luck he can match Voldy, otherwise it'll be a massacre. Not an option then. Hide Harry away and hope Voldy trips over the cat? Not realistic. Nope. Train him as well as possible so he might have a chance and hope that you've read it wrong and that his death is not inevitable. But in the meantime, don't bank on hope, be prepared for, plan for, the worst - to save the world Harry's death may be necessary. IMO DD is more to be pitied than castigated. There's this kid he obviously feels affection for, yet he sees no option but to send him off to die. I don't really see what he needs to be redeemed for, not where Harry is concerned, anyway. The mistakes of his youth? I doubt he expects or wishes for redemption - nobody blames him more than he blames himself, and himself he will never forgive. Kneasy From Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 13:35:46 2007 From: Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:35:46 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Death - Tragic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C99DA10164A292-AE8-92B@...> -----Original Message----- From: mooseming To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 6:40 am Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape's Death - Tragic? --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: sssssssssssssssss ppppppppppppppppp ooooooooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lllllllllllllllll ttttttttttttttttt / / / / / / / / > No way! Snape's death was not tragic - he was triumphant! > > Think of it. He's summoned to Voldemort's side and gets fatally > snaked. He's lying there alone in the Shrieking Shack. No one knows > where he is. The great effort to defeat Voldemort is going down in > flames. Imagine the turmoil as he tries to staunch the rip in his > throat. > > Then - Potter arrives! > > In a matter of only a second or two, Snape sees how he can let Potter > know what has to be done - and explain himself too. > > And he does it. Harry has all the pieces of the puzzle to put it > together himself. There's nothing more Snape can do. > > Talk about pulling victory from the jaws of defeat! That was a great > death. > > Magda >.....and just why do we assume he is dead? Didn't show up at the >last stroll into the woods to meet my doom party did he? >Regards >Jo Harry *is* notorious for not noticing things -- he did believe that Severus killed DD out of loyalty for the Dark Lord.? I think it's suspicious that the memories flowed out of Severus -- I was fairly certain they could not do that. I suppose I only have one thing to say: SNAPE LIVES! Oryomai Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Goblet of fire Jk rowling Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Yahoo! HotJobs Career change time? Explore companies and new careers Yahoo! Groups HD The official Samsung Y! Group for HDTVs and devices. . ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:10:45 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape a 'hero'?? Message-ID: <369884.36737.qm@...> Woo hoo!!! Fodder against folks who're starting to argue for a(n imo) *Too*Good!Snape. >From the Today Show: "Was Snape always intended to be a hero?" "Is he a hero? I don't see Snape as a hero... he's very brave, but..." "Would he have protected Harry if he hadn't loved Lily?" "No, not at all." Honestly, I knew it would happen... folks who took the proof of Snape's working with DD as evidence that he himself was somehow our true 'epitome of goodness' and a full-fledged hero. I mean, yeah, I was confident in DDM!Snape all along, had posted ages ago (like many others) about events on the tower which were borne out in DH, but I'm seeing some portraits of Snape at TOL which are decidedly TooGood!Snape for my liking. So count this as one response from JKR that this fan is thrilled to hear. With apologies to any offended at my delight. >;) Siriusly Snapey Susan From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:29:51 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:29:51 -0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore the Puppetmaster I Never Suspected He Was? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > I fear that you have too trusting a nature. > Not a bad fault to have, but it's just asking to get a smack in the > mazzard when confronted with a series swarming with ambiguous > characters. the obvious and possibly not so > obvious adult manoeuverings, deceptions, hidden agendas and > motivations. No, not trusting at all; simply overestimated JKR's ability to pull the wool over our eyes. Thought DD's saintly persona was simply a twist on the twist. The twist being, we've been taught to expect the unexpected in nearly every adult wizarding character: Moody, Lupin, Lockhart, etc. So, naturally, Dumbledore, who is simply too good to be true, must be suspected of a puppetmaster underbelly. Ah, but the twist on the twist: if we are taught to expect that everyone has a hidden yin to the seen yang, and expect one from DD as well -- then, naturally, he is what he seems to be (no matter that he seems too good to be true.) Have I made that clear as mud? > I don't really see what he needs to be redeemed for, not where Harry is > concerned, anyway. > The mistakes of his youth? > I doubt he expects or wishes for redemption - nobody blames him > more than he blames himself, and himself he will never forgive. > No, DD is quite remorseful. But his tender feelings are limited to his own missteps. He is quite tormented by his neglectful manner in minding his sister, feels quite sorry for himself for his dealings with Grindelwald, and is feeling quite the naughty schoolboy for giving the ring a whirl when he should have known better. But as to Harry's sacrificial pig status? He seems resigned to that. Even comfortable. Perhaps it's because he's had sixteen years to get used to the idea of fattening Harry up for the inevitable double homicide. But I don't think so. Severus' surprise at what would be Dumbledore's final solution is taken too matter-of-factly by DD; as if he's shocked that clever old Sevvie hadn't figured it all out long ago. And amused that Sevvie is the least bit bothered by it. Poor Harry. Used as a doormat by his wizard-envying auntie. Used as a pawn by his beloved Dumbledore. Used as penance by his greasy Severus. *sigh* :: Entropy :: From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:35:15 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:35:15 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > Yup, I think you're right. DD put together his little will gifts > *before* he knew he had failed to defuse the wand. So he was sending > them on a hunt for two items they already had and one that should > have been *worthless*. As far as DD knew Voldy had no idea about the > DH, and so no idea that Voldy would go chasing the wand, which > should have been out of service anyway!!! > > The wand btw has a nasty habit of skipping out on its owner, > probably because its master is Death. How happy would it be to be > decommissioned by the peaceful passing of its current owner? > > Regards > Jo > Now I'm thinking it is all perhaps a morality tale designed to prepare Harry for what he has to do; except, willingly, his own demise. But is it a tale to warn Harry against the desire to cheat death and to just accept it, which he must do OR is it a tale to give Harry the idea to cheat death? Clearly the stone is there to help Harry on his way to show him death is painless and even desirable in his case as everyone he loves most dearly are already dead and waiting for him to join them. Sirius even assuages Harry's concern that death is painful. But the cloak? The cloak can only be used to cheat death if one also hides from life. It would be impossible to whip the cloak out just as death was bearing down on you. You have to wear it all the time. (Interestingly Harry does this though most of the battle, hiding from everything while friends and colleagues fight around him. If he didn't have a `higher' purpose it would be cowardly to the extreme.) The purpose of the cloak is to hide, but Harry can not stand before LV hidden under the cloak so the cloak is not there to save him from death. It is there to carry him safely to the assigned point death. So it looks like DD used the DH to get Harry to where he needed to be to die. But this suggests that DD was also relying completely on the blood protection to save Harry. That's a huge risk as DD wasn't even sure that would work. But I can't get past this idea that the immortal power of the Deathly Hallows had to be a part of DD plan at some point. DD has this huge problem does he not? He has a boy who is the only one who can vanquish the Dark Lord. But the boy holds inside himself a piece of LV soul and LV can not be killed while his soul fragments are intact. The boy must die for LV to become vulnerable yet the boy is the only one who can finish the job. DD need to somehow figure out a way for the boy to die, destroying the soul fragment AND then come back to finish off Voldy. Harry has to cheat death and DD has the way to do it in his hands; the Deathly Hallows. It must have occurred to DD to use them. It would be to tempting to unite all three Hallows as DD knows full well how dangerous that is so he plans on taking out of the equation one piece; the Elder Wand. Leaving behind two pieces the stone and the cloak. Was DD tempted, even a little bit to use the DH to protect Harry? I must do a re-read. This is driving me crazy. :-) Mandy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:41:00 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:41:00 -0000 Subject: Snape a 'hero'?? In-Reply-To: <369884.36737.qm@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Susan Albrecht wrote: > > Woo hoo!!! Fodder against folks who're starting to argue for a(n imo) *Too*Good!Snape. > > From the Today Show: > "Was Snape always intended to be a hero?" > "Is he a hero? I don't see Snape as a hero... he's very brave, but..." > "Would he have protected Harry if he hadn't loved Lily?" > "No, not at all." > > > Honestly, I knew it would happen... folks who took the proof of Snape's working with DD as evidence that he himself was somehow our true 'epitome of goodness' and a full-fledged hero. I mean, yeah, I was confident in DDM!Snape all along, had posted ages ago (like many others) about events on the tower which were borne out in DH, but I'm seeing some portraits of Snape at TOL which are decidedly TooGood! Snape for my liking. > > So count this as one response from JKR that this fan is thrilled to hear. > > With apologies to any offended at my delight. >;) > Siriusly Snapey Susan Apologies not needed. I'm right there with you. Snape was never a hero and could never become one even in the moment of his death. That would have been too much of a stretch and not at all realistic. Mandy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:51:15 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:51:15 -0000 Subject: Doe a deer a female deer. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > `I was interested to see your new Patronus.'......`I think you were > better off with the old one,' said Snape, the malice in his voice > unmistakeable. `The new one looks weak.' > > `It'd do for Bambi's mother!' said Tonks wondering about the irony of > it all. > > Regards > Jo > > calming down and starting to have fun again! ROLF! Wait are you suggesting Bambi's mother was weak? ;-) Mandy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 14:57:46 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:57:46 -0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore the Puppetmaster I Never Suspected He Was? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" wrote: > > No, not trusting at all; simply overestimated JKR's ability to pull > the wool over our eyes. Thought DD's saintly persona was simply a > twist on the twist. The twist being, we've been taught to expect the > unexpected in nearly every adult wizarding character: Moody, Lupin, > Lockhart, etc. So, naturally, Dumbledore, who is simply too good to be > true, must be suspected of a puppetmaster underbelly. Ah, but the > twist on the twist: if we are taught to expect that everyone has a > hidden yin to the seen yang, and expect one from DD as well -- then, > naturally, he is what he seems to be (no matter that he seems too good > to be true.) > > Have I made that clear as mud? > Perfectly. But though I can't speak for anyone else, I never considered Puppetmaster status as something reprehensible, merely an unfortunate necessity. > > But as to Harry's sacrificial pig status? He seems resigned to that. > Even comfortable. Perhaps it's because he's had sixteen years to get > used to the idea of fattening Harry up for the inevitable double > homicide. But I don't think so. Severus' surprise at what would be > Dumbledore's final solution is taken too matter-of-factly by DD; as if > he's shocked that clever old Sevvie hadn't figured it all out long > ago. And amused that Sevvie is the least bit bothered by it. > > Poor Harry. Used as a doormat by his wizard-envying auntie. Used as a > pawn by his beloved Dumbledore. Used as penance by his greasy Severus. > *sigh* > Yeah, some people are born to be victims. Still, if he'd snuffed it they would have put up a statue to him, had a half-day holiday at Hogwarts named in his honour and Weasley Wizarding Wheezes would market a 'Harry Potter Action Wizard' doll (He walks, he talks, he doesn't think), so it wouldn't have been a total loss, would it? Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 15:01:48 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:01:48 -0000 Subject: Doe a deer a female deer. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > `I was interested to see your new Patronus.'......`I think you were > > better off with the old one,' said Snape, the malice in his voice > > unmistakeable. `The new one looks weak.' > > > > `It'd do for Bambi's mother!' said Tonks wondering about the irony > of > > it all. > > > > Regards > > Jo > > > > calming down and starting to have fun again! > > > ROLF! Wait are you suggesting Bambi's mother was weak? > Not weak - disposable but tasty. Kneasy From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 15:14:21 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:14:21 +0200 Subject: Google Group for Fantasy Fiction and Religion Message-ID: <006f01c7cf97$a5f310d0$0a00a8c0@hwin> Hello! Since Deathly Hallows appeared there's been a significant amount of discusssion about religious aspects of Harry Potter - but Harry is hardly the only fantasy work worth discussion from a religious angle. For example, I'm working on a project comparing religious identity in Harry Potter, His Dark Materials and the Left Behind books - and I've run into several people with similar projects. So far, though, I've never had any luck at finding a good place to bring discussions of this sort together, so I've taken the liberty of starting a Google Group just for that: http://groups.google.com/group/fantasy-and-religion If you're interested, come by, have a look and add a thought or two. I've seeded the board with a couple questions. Please note: *There will be no HP-related spoiler spaces - so read up first and come on over later!* Mike Gray _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 15:37:27 2007 From: Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (Oryomai at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:37:27 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape a 'hero'?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C99DB2013F5BF5-B18-12A5@...> -----Original Message----- From: Amanda To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:41 am Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape a 'hero'?? --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Susan Albrecht wrote: > > Woo hoo!!! Fodder against folks who're starting to argue for a(n imo) *Too*Good!Snape. > > From the Today Show: > "Was Snape always intended to be a hero?" > "Is he a hero? I don't see Snape as a hero... he's very brave, but..." > "Would he have protected Harry if he hadn't loved Lily?" > "No, not at all." > > > Honestly, I knew it would happen... folks who took the proof of Snape's working with DD as evidence that he himself was somehow our true 'epitome of goodness' and a full-fledged hero. I mean, yeah, I was confident in DDM!Snape all along, had posted ages ago (like many others) about events on the tower which were borne out in DH, but I'm seeing some portraits of Snape at TOL which are decidedly TooGood! Snape for my liking. > > So count this as one response from JKR that this fan is thrilled to hear. > > With apologies to any offended at my delight. >;) > Siriusly Snapey Susan >Apologies not needed. I'm right there with you. Snape was never a >hero and could never become one even in the moment of his death. That >would have been too much of a stretch and not at all realistic. >Mandy Well, of course Severus couldn't be the hero.? Even *I* don't think he's a hero.? I was personally hoping for Severus to live a long miserable life as Potions Master (which I still think he does *eg*). He was Dumbledore's Man through and through, but that doesn't mean he was perfect.? We got the chance to see in this book that even DD himself wasn't as perfect as we had been led to believe. I hate even discussing this because the idea of LOLLIPOPS or anything even close to it makes me physically ill.? Sorry to all those of you who are right. Oryomai SNAPE LIVES! . ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 16:08:36 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:08:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE Jo: > > Yup, I think you're right. DD put together his little will gifts > > *before* he knew he had failed to defuse the wand. So he was > sending > > them on a hunt for two items they already had and one that should > > have been *worthless*. As far as DD knew Voldy had no idea about > the > > DH, and so no idea that Voldy would go chasing the wand, which > > should have been out of service anyway!!! > > > > The wand btw has a nasty habit of skipping out on its owner, > > probably because its master is Death. How happy would it be to be > > decommissioned by the peaceful passing of its current owner? > > Mandy: > Now I'm thinking it is all perhaps a morality tale designed to > prepare Harry for what he has to do; except, willingly, his own > demise. > > But is it a tale to warn Harry against the desire to cheat death and > to just accept it, which he must do OR is it a tale to give Harry the > idea to cheat death? > > Clearly the stone is there to help Harry on his way to show him death > is painless and even desirable in his case as everyone he loves most > dearly are already dead and waiting for him to join them. Sirius > even assuages Harry's concern that death is painful. > > But the cloak? The cloak can only be used to cheat death if one also > hides from life. It would be impossible to whip the cloak out just as > death was bearing down on you. You have to wear it all the time. > (Interestingly Harry does this though most of the battle, hiding from > everything while friends and colleagues fight around him. If he > didn't have a `higher' purpose it would be cowardly to the extreme.) > The purpose of the cloak is to hide, but Harry can not stand before > LV hidden under the cloak so the cloak is not there to save him from > death. It is there to carry him safely to the assigned point death. > > So it looks like DD used the DH to get Harry to where he needed to be > to die. But this suggests that DD was also relying completely on the > blood protection to save Harry. That's a huge risk as DD wasn't even > sure that would work. > Anne: Well, to start with the mundane: once LV had kidnapped Ollivander (back before the beginning of OoP), DD knew/suspected he would eventually have access to Ollivander's knowledge of the legend of the Deathstick. It must have been no later than this point that he began to formulate a plan to keep LV from mastering it. Skipping ahead to the end now, the final defeat of LV involved two phases: 1) Harry allows himself to be AKed in the forest. This fulfills the not unexpected reprise of Lily's sacrifice (though personally, I did not expect it to be the *exact same sacrifice* - how thick could LV get?). The fact that it was merely a Near Death Experience for Harry is somehow due to his blood running in LV's veins (I know what DD said in "Kings Cross," I just don't get it). 2) In the Great Hall, Harry and LV reprise the duel in the Graveyard of GoF, right down to the AK and Expelliarmus spells cast. This is the fulfillment of the wand thread that ran from Harry's visit to Ollivander's in PS/SS (the introduction of the "brother wands") through Priori Incantatem in GoF and on into all the wand lore of DH. Phase 1 seems to be about the higher magic of love -- which LV doesn't understand, even amongst his DES (e.g., Snape and Narcissa). And I think Lyn is right that Phase 2 is about the perils of seeking power -- it brings us full circle from the first book wherein Quirrell!Mort declares that there is only Power, and those too weak to seek it. Going back to the problem of DD's original intention that the Elder Wand be "worthless" (i.e., merely ordinary) at the time he willed Harry and Hermione the Resurrection Stone and the book: Rather than wanting Harry to collect the Hallows, DD intended Harry to know that the Elder Wand would not be the powerful weapon in LV's hands that LV thought it would be. That much turned out to be true, even though it transpired that the wand was loyal to Harry instead of to no-one as DD had planned. Harry himself came to that conclusion at Shell Cottage: "Am I meant to know, but not to seek? Did you know how hard I'd find that? Is that why you made it this difficult? So I'd have time to work that out?" [DH ch. 24, p. 483 US -- and reiterated in ch. 35 "Kings Cross"] And I think Harry was meant to, and did, reject assembling all three Hallows. As has been variously pointed out by Lyn and Mandy, the Cloak is rightfully Harry's and necessary to his task, and the Stone was helpful on his journey into the Forest. But he dropped the Stone -- and relinquished ownership -- before he ever laid hands on the Wand. Even though he was master of the Wand at that time, I believe he never truly possessed all three at once -- or, if he did, he broke up the set before facing LV. His victory did not come from the power of the Hallows; it came from the supposed vulnerability of love and the ironic weakness of the Elder Wand. Like Lyn, I feel the need to apologise for being saccharine here, but it seems to me this is what JKR intended to say -- I'm just the messenger. Of course, whatever happened with the Wand, DD pasted a big "sacrificial pig" sign on Snape's back since he knew the manner of his death would make Snape appear to be the master of the Wand. If anyone can tell me how things would have gone better for Snape had DD died with his wand in his hand, please, let me know. Anne From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 16:57:27 2007 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:57:27 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > Of course, whatever happened with the Wand, DD pasted a > big "sacrificial pig" sign on Snape's back since he knew the manner > of his death would make Snape appear to be the master of the Wand. > If anyone can tell me how things would have gone better for Snape had > DD died with his wand in his hand, please, let me know. Pippin: Um, I may have it all wrong once again, but Dumbledore said Snape was supposed to get the wand, right? And then, no doubt, stow it away so he could produce it at the right moment and dispose of the Dark Lord once Harry had died and rendered him killable. But Draco messed it up by getting the wand first. As Snape must have known or could have guessed. Since Harry figured out that Snape was supposed to get the wand, surely Snape could, even if DD never got around to telling him. And if Dumbledore hadn't been able to get the wand to Snape, then he was, ipso facto, not the master of it when he died. I think Snape knew that, and that's why he was so desperately looking anywhere but in Voldie's eyes in the few moments before he became snakefodder. I'll accept that Snape wasn't Jo's idea of a hero, he never had the courage of truly selfless love. But his death was chosen and redemptive, because you see, IMO, all he'd have had to do to save himself was once again set the Dark Lord on an innocent. All he had to do was blurt out that it wasn't him, someone else must have taken the wand from Dumbledore first. But he kept his mouth shut, died bravely, and his reward was that it turned out to be the right time. Oh, and if he got into GP, doesn't that prove that "I did not kill you, Albus" was the truth, and Snape bobbled the AK on the tower after all? Must have been why he was so anguished. I nominate me for the Sybil Trelawney award for best unintentionally accurate prediction. By spurious methods, and with an interpretation that was dead wrong, I predicted that the Book Seven ESE! would be revealed on page to be the confessed killer of Sirius Black. Bullseye. 'Course I never guessed that Dumbledore would turn out to be Grindelwald's ESE. Did anyone? Pippin From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:07:04 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:07:04 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? Message-ID: No, I don't think so, he doesn't qualify. If someone acts as a double agent for 16 years, reporting from the heart of the enemy camp, living a double life, keeping up a front in his public life, finally dying at the hands of the enemy just before victory is achieved, but none-the-less surviving long enough to pass important information to the leader of the struggle, he'd normally be hailed as a hero with no hesitation. If, that is, he did it from a sense of moral or ethical conviction. That's not ole Snapey. There was no such conviction. It was a sort of half- cocked combination of revenge for the death of the girl who threw him over plus emotional blackmail from one of the most practiced fixers in the business. Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning over some dead slapper? Nope, that's not how I've been reading Sevvy. A definitive un-romantic IMO. Yes, he was probably being brave, but I doubt that ever crossed his mind. But pride rules. Once he'd given his word he'd do his damndest to play his part to the hilt in an attempt to stab in the back those whose actions had reduced him to such a pitiful pass, if only to show that he was cleverer than they. And he pretty well succeeded. But he was still a miserable old git - and probably proud of that too. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:10:06 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:10:06 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > > Anne: Huge snip > Of course, whatever happened with the Wand, DD pasted a > big "sacrificial pig" sign on Snape's back since he knew the manner > of his death would make Snape appear to be the master of the Wand. > If anyone can tell me how things would have gone better for Snape had > DD died with his wand in his hand, please, let me know. > > Anne You know perhaps that's my problem. I'm having a hard time just accepting a saccharine ending. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to read things into the ending that just aren't there. JKR always impressed me with her willingness to keep it real and show us the darker side to humanity when it was required. This book looses that. Oh, certainly there is much darkness in book 7 but its expected Death Eater evil. There is no temptation or testing of the heros. Ron does run away, but he comes back, unsullied. Why couldn't he have been compromised and given up their position to the Snatchers? If he had to choose between his family or Harry he would have done it. And why could Harry not have been more tempted by the power of the Hallow? Just for one moment that immortal power that could have ensure the WW would be kept save forever. There is no doubt the book is very cleaver and downright brilliant in many,many ways but the whole resolution is too good to be true. And this is coming from someone who was just dieing for there to be a love connection between Snape and Lily and if that's not sweet, nothing is. :-) But somehow that love story works for me, probably because it's tragic, unrequited and very sad. *sigh* Maybe I just need to get my adult brain out the way and see it more simply. :-) Mandy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:16:41 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:16:41 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" > wrote: > > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > > Anne: > > Well, to start with the mundane: once LV had kidnapped Ollivander > (back before the beginning of OoP), DD knew/suspected he would > eventually have access to Ollivander's knowledge of the legend of the > Deathstick. It must have been no later than this point that he began > to formulate a plan to keep LV from mastering it. > > Skipping ahead to the end now, the final defeat of LV involved two > phases: > > 1) Harry allows himself to be AKed in the forest. This fulfills the > not unexpected reprise of Lily's sacrifice (though personally, I did > not expect it to be the *exact same sacrifice* - how thick could LV > get?). The fact that it was merely a Near Death Experience for Harry > is somehow due to his blood running in LV's veins (I know what DD > said in "Kings Cross," I just don't get it). > > 2) In the Great Hall, Harry and LV reprise the duel in the Graveyard > of GoF, right down to the AK and Expelliarmus spells cast. This is > the fulfillment of the wand thread that ran from Harry's visit to > Ollivander's in PS/SS (the introduction of the "brother wands") > through Priori Incantatem in GoF and on into all the wand lore of DH. > > Phase 1 seems to be about the higher magic of love -- which LV > doesn't understand, even amongst his DES (e.g., Snape and Narcissa). > And I think Lyn is right that Phase 2 is about the perils of seeking > power -- it brings us full circle from the first book wherein > Quirrell!Mort declares that there is only Power, and those too weak > to seek it. > > Going back to the problem of DD's original intention that the Elder > Wand be "worthless" (i.e., merely ordinary) at the time he willed > Harry and Hermione the Resurrection Stone and the book: > > Rather than wanting Harry to collect the Hallows, DD intended Harry > to know that the Elder Wand would not be the powerful weapon in LV's > hands that LV thought it would be. That much turned out to be true, > even though it transpired that the wand was loyal to Harry instead of > to no-one as DD had planned. > > Harry himself came to that conclusion at Shell Cottage: "Am I meant > to know, but not to seek? Did you know how hard I'd find that? Is > that why you made it this difficult? So I'd have time to work that > out?" [DH ch. 24, p. 483 US -- and reiterated in ch. 35 "Kings Cross"] > > And I think Harry was meant to, and did, reject assembling all three > Hallows. As has been variously pointed out by Lyn and Mandy, the > Cloak is rightfully Harry's and necessary to his task, and the Stone > was helpful on his journey into the Forest. But he dropped the > Stone -- and relinquished ownership -- before he ever laid hands on > the Wand. Even though he was master of the Wand at that time, I > believe he never truly possessed all three at once -- or, if he did, > he broke up the set before facing LV. His victory did not come from > the power of the Hallows; it came from the supposed vulnerability of > love and the ironic weakness of the Elder Wand. > > Like Lyn, I feel the need to apologise for being saccharine here, but > it seems to me this is what JKR intended to say -- I'm just the > messenger. > > Of course, whatever happened with the Wand, DD pasted a > big "sacrificial pig" sign on Snape's back since he knew the manner > of his death would make Snape appear to be the master of the Wand. > If anyone can tell me how things would have gone better for Snape had > DD died with his wand in his hand, please, let me know. > > Anne > sssssssssssssssss ppppppppppppppppp ooooooooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lllllllllllllllll ttttttttttttttttt Sometime very soon I'm going to stop obsessing about this wand thing! Thank you for your level headed answer it is a relief to know that it isn't quite the enormous plot hole I had imagined. Yes, Ollivander's disappearance would give DD the heads up that Voldy was going for the wand, I was a tad confused because DD said Voldy didn't know about the Hallows (indeed nor does Ollivander) but they both know about the Elder wand as a lone item so that's covered then (phew). DD had hoped to defuse the wand with his cunning euthanasia play, which as you rightly point out rather does for old Snape target wise, he failed as we know. For me this is where it still remains quite creaky, even though, as you say, DD intended Harry to know that Voldy was mistaken in his belief that he had an all powerful weapon, he still set up the willed items so that Harry could be distracted by the Deathly Hallows when, if his knobble the Deathstick plan had worked, it would have been a wild goose chase. It remains unclear if the Deathly Hallows triumvirate still functions after the Elder wand becomes simply a wand, which gives us some wriggle room. Also, I suppose we could speculate that DD couldn't be sure his wand plan would work out and he left Harry an alternative solution. But, as with much of this book, it all seems overly convoluted and in the end it detracts, for me, from the story as a whole. Ironically I quite like the idea of the DH. A sword, a shield and a magic stone which brings strength to the hero and yet they are all compromised. The sword is in his enemy's hand, the shield cannot be used honourably and the stone, whilst giving strength, abuses the ones he loves. Its an idea that deserves more room than it got! `Hallows,' murmured Dumbledore, `not Horcruxes. Precisely.' DH, King's Cross, CH 35. I feel JK should have introduced the Hallows at the same time as she introduced the HRX. HBP would have been a better book for it and DH wouldn't have become the spaghetti junction of plot lines that it appears to be. Good to have some cool heads around. Regards Jo From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:24:00 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:24:00 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up > with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning > over some dead slapper? Nope, that's not how I've been > reading Sevvy. A definitive un-romantic IMO. > > Yes, he was probably being brave, but I doubt that ever > crossed his mind. But pride rules. Once he'd given his > word he'd do his damndest to play his part to the hilt > in an attempt to stab in the back those whose actions > had reduced him to such a pitiful pass, if only to show > that he was cleverer than they. > > And he pretty well succeeded. > But he was still a miserable old git - and probably proud > of that too. > > Kneasy > Dead slapper? Dead Slapper! Kneasy are you British and know the definition of that word? If so, you should know better. Lily was hardly a 'slapper'. Many things perhaps but not a slapper. Not in my imagination anyway. Now Lavender Brown might have slapper potential. If you don't know a Slapper is a female who is very loose. Worse than a tart or even slag. Could translate into tramp but more likely to be Ho although there is no true American equivalent that I know off. The accurate definition is rather adult and I don't know I could get away with posting on the thread. ;-) Mandy From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:29:41 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: =?iso-8859-7?B?UmU6IFt0aGVfb2xkX2Nyb3dkXSBSZTogV2hhdKJzIHRoZSBwb2ludCBv?= =?iso-8859-7?B?ZiB0aGUgRGVhdGhseSBIYWxsb3dzPyBOb3QgdGhlIGJvb2ssIGJ1dCB0?= =?iso-8859-7?B?aGUgSGFsbG93cz8=?= Message-ID: <624280.2497.qm@...> SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE Mandy: >>> You know perhaps that's my problem. I'm having a hard time just accepting a saccharine ending. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to read things into the ending that just aren't there. JKR always impressed me with her willingness to keep it real and show us the darker side to humanity when it was required. This book looses that. <<< SSSusan: But weren't there lots of us who weren't at all surprised at the saccharine? I mean, she said this: "The Little White Horse was my favourite childhood book. I absolutely adored it. It had a cracking plot. It was scary and romantic in parts and had a feisty heroine." Anyone who's read TLWH knows that it has about as saccharine and cheesy and totally implausible ending, where EVERYthing that could possibly happen to bring about EVERY single character's happiness does happen. While I had my wonderings (is that a word?) about whether JKR would kill Harry, whenever I recalled that that was her favorite childhood book, I suspected again that Harry would definitely live... and we might just get OBHWF. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:20:18 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape a hero? Message-ID: <713786.41490.qm@...> Kneasy: >>> No, I don't think so, he doesn't qualify. If someone acts as a double agent for 16 years, reporting from the heart of the enemy camp, living a double life, keeping up a front in his public life, finally dying at the hands of the enemy just before victory is achieved, but none-the-less surviving long enough to pass important information to the leader of the struggle, he'd normally be hailed as a hero with no hesitation. If, that is, he did it from a sense of moral or ethical conviction. That's not ole Snapey. There was no such conviction. It was a sort of half- cocked combination of revenge for the death of the girl who threw him over plus emotional blackmail from one of the most practiced fixers in the business. Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning over some dead slapper? Nope, that's not how I've been reading Sevvy. A definitive un-romantic IMO. Yes, he was probably being brave, but I doubt that ever crossed his mind. But pride rules. Once he'd given his word he'd do his damndest to play his part to the hilt in an attempt to stab in the back those whose actions had reduced him to such a pitiful pass, if only to show that he was cleverer than they. And he pretty well succeeded. But he was still a miserable old git - and probably proud of that too. <<< SSSusan: Couldn't agree more... about bravery vs. being a hero and about his being a miserable old git. Pulling in some bits from a post Over Yonder, 'cause I'm too damn lazy to re-compose it altogether. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173013 colebiancardi: > > yep, I saw that interview and thought, wow oh wow. So, what is > > the definition of a hero, I wonder? Nora: > I would suspect that it has something to do with doing the right > thing for the right reason. I've always thought that intention > plays a major role in JKR's worldview, as magic seems to respond to > it, among other things. Take Neville standing up to his friends > and showing courage for the right reason. > > The way that Snape's love for Lily is presented, it's on an > uncomfortable line. It motivates him to a lot of risks, but it > doesn't make him a better person in areas such as treating students > well, etc. It's more along the lines of obsession than love. SSSusan: That reference to Neville reminds me of another reason that I feel it was 'appropriate' to bring up that Snape was not a hero even while he was very brave. We all remember the famous moment of Neville standing up to his friends, which got him praise & reward from DD. It was a very brave thing to do, to stand up to his friends. And Neville, I think, developed along those lines even more. What about Snape? What about what we saw in his pensieve memories, when Lily confronted him about him joining in with his 'little Death Eater friends'? He had once told her that her Muggleborn status did not matter, he obviously craved her affections & cherished their relationship, but in the end, he lacked the bravery to stand up to his friends and tell them that they were wrong. He *turned* brave later, making the choice of honoring Lily's memory by playing the dangerous role of double-agent, by protecting a boy he couldn't love or even like, and by *showing* all of this to Harry. THAT was brave, and I think that's what Harry recognized and what JKR acknowledged today. But he wasn't able to do it back when his earlier decision faced him (nor was Dumbledore in his earlier life!), so I do give him credit for his later bravery. But the fact that he changed sides only for Lily's sake, not for ideological reasons, not for James' or Harry's sake... only for Lily's... I guess that's what prevents me from thinking of him as a hero. Colebiancardi? > > And basically, is JKR stating that placing Snape in Slytherin > > doomed and sealed his fate as a bad person with no redeeming > > qualities whatsoever, if he didn't *love* Lily? Nora: > I didn't get the feeling that it was specifically his placement in > Slytherin House that did it. SSSusan: Me, either. Again, I refer back to Neville. He was placed in Gryffindor but he didn't *automatically* go along with his Gryffindor friends. He evidenced the Gryffindor trait of bravery in standing up to his friends and *not* going along with him. Snape could have done the same thing and not gone along with his Slytherin friends when faced with the choice of losing Lily's respect & friendship forever. He did not. I see that as a personal choice, not as some kind of 'automatic' coming from his placement in Slytherin. I guess I see it that his love for Lily wasn't *enough.* Back when he was a student at Hogwarts AND later after he'd come back to DD. His love for Lily got him to the point of taking many right actions, but it didn't take him to a lot of true growth & change internally, which is what Nora was saying as well, I believe. And I realize I could be missing something here, but I'm not seeing that as connected to his being placed in Slytherin, to his having been doomed by that placement. Nora: > I think a good portion of Snape's story IS that he was stunted and > unable to let go, and he was kept running by his own personal > interests and motivations. Being as the series is not "Severus > Snape and the...", we don't get the internal view into what's going > on in his head throughout, but his end story is rather tragic, > although he is a profound force for the victory over Voldemort. SSSusan: Absolutely! As I was talking things over with my 11-year-old daughter, I told her that Snape's story is a profoundly sad one in my view. He was socially & emotionally stunted. As I told her, many people in life suffer heartbreak in love, but most of them find a way to move on. Snape was pathetically damaged socially (and I'm not BLAMING him for that, I'm just saying). He could not move on. Siriusly Snapey Susan From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:27:37 2007 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:27:37 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Anne: > > Of course, whatever happened with the Wand, DD pasted a > > big "sacrificial pig" sign on Snape's back since he knew the manner > > of his death would make Snape appear to be the master of the Wand. > > If anyone can tell me how things would have gone better for Snape had > > DD died with his wand in his hand, please, let me know. > > > Pippin: > Um, I may have it all wrong once again, but Dumbledore said Snape was > supposed to get the wand, right? And then, no doubt, stow it away > so he could produce it at the right moment and dispose of the > Dark Lord once Harry had died and rendered him killable. But Draco > messed it up by getting the wand first. As Snape must have known or > could have guessed. Anne: Well, I had been thinking this came from Dumbledore, but it was actually Harry who said: "Aren't you listening? /Snape never beat Dumbledore!/ Dumbledore's death was planned between them! Dumbledore intended to die undefeated, the wand's last true master! If all had gone as planned, the wand's pwer would have died with him, because if had never been won from him!" [DH ch. 36, p. 742 US] Do we trust Harry's interpretation? If we do, then Snape would never have been the master of the wand, and where ever LV may have found it, he would have killed Snape to win its loyalty. If we don't trust Harry's interpretation, then one can become the new master of the wand by zapping the current master even when he wants you to zap him. In that case, I don't see how LV could have failed to gain mastery of the wand when he AKed Harry in the forest. It was a real AK, and it seems Harry *could* have "boarded a train" and "gone on." Yet the wand never gave its allegiance to LV. On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that LV got as good as he gave, since he was knocked out too, and they were even - so, no effect on the wand. I do wish JKR had put the explanation in DD's mouth rather than Harry's, if she wished us to trust it. I don't know how Snape could have guessed *any* of this. Dumbledore didn't send *him* a book with a familiar symbol in it; nor did Snape have a chance to talk to Ollivander or look inside LV's mind. He was tied to Hogwarts, protecting the students, or else pretending to serve LV. He didn't know what the ring was, nor the cloak even though he wore it once. There's no way for Snape to have known what to do with the wand -- and nothing we are shown hints that DD even told him to take it. On the contrary, the most likely thing would have been for DD to have been buried with it in any case. Anne From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:37:03 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:37:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=A2s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: <624280.2497.qm@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, susiequsie23 at ... wrote: > > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > SPOILER SPACE > > > Mandy: > >>> You know perhaps that's my problem. I'm having a hard time just > accepting a saccharine ending. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to read > things into the ending that just aren't there. > > JKR always impressed me with her willingness to keep it real and show > us the darker side to humanity when it was required. This book looses > that. <<< > > > SSSusan: > But weren't there lots of us who weren't at all surprised at the saccharine? I mean, she said this: > > "The Little White Horse was my favourite childhood book. I absolutely adored it. It had a cracking plot. It was scary and romantic in parts and had a feisty heroine." > > Anyone who's read TLWH knows that it has about as saccharine and cheesy and totally implausible ending, where EVERYthing that could possibly happen to bring about EVERY single character's happiness does happen. > > While I had my wonderings (is that a word?) about whether JKR would kill Harry, whenever I recalled that that was her favorite childhood book, I suspected again that Harry would definitely live... and we might just get OBHWF. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan You are absolutly right. I know we are not supposed to post agreement posts but... ;-) I guess I should have known better. It all had to have a Happily Ever After. and I'm fine with that except I want the plot in the final chapters to be stronger. Still love the book though. Plan on starting a re-read this weekend. A slooooow one. I think it'll be much clearly then. :-) Mandy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:39:50 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:39:50 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > Dead slapper? Dead Slapper! Kneasy are you British and know the > definition of that word? > Oh yes. True Brit here. Thought that it might stir up a bit of reaction. > If so, you should know better. Lily was hardly a 'slapper'. Many > things perhaps but not a slapper. Not in my imagination anyway. Now > Lavender Brown might have slapper potential. > Think of it as a counterblast to those who reverently polish Lily's pedestal. The truth is we know very little about her - but an awful lot of males seem to remember her with fondness. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:43:00 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:43:00 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_What=92s_the_point_of_the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book,_but_the_Hallows=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > If we don't trust Harry's interpretation, then one can become the new > master of the wand by zapping the current master even when he wants > you to zap him. In that case, I don't see how LV could have failed > to gain mastery of the wand when he AKed Harry in the forest. It was > a real AK, and it seems Harry *could* have "boarded a train" > and "gone on." Yet the wand never gave its allegiance to LV. On the > other hand, I suppose you could argue that LV got as good as he gave, > since he was knocked out too, and they were even - so, no effect on > the wand. But I think that was the point. Harry chose not to board the train and came back, so he again took Mastery over the Elder Wand. Perhaps true possession of the wand flicked breifly to Voldy in the second Harry was out and then flipped back. The Wand seems to be very fickle. :-) > I do wish JKR had put the explanation in DD's mouth rather than > Harry's, if she wished us to trust it. Hear hear!! :-) From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:45:18 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bthe=5Fold=5Fcrowd=5D_Re=3A_What=A2s_the_point_of_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?the_Deathly_Hallows=3F_Not_the_book=2C_but_the_Hallows=3F?= Message-ID: <698206.84279.qm@...> > SSSusan: > But weren't there lots of us who weren't at all surprised at the saccharine? I mean, she said this: > > "The Little White Horse was my favourite childhood book. I absolutely adored it. It had a cracking plot. It was scary and romantic in parts and had a feisty heroine." > > Anyone who's read TLWH knows that it has about as saccharine and cheesy and totally implausible ending, where EVERYthing that could possibly happen to bring about EVERY single character's happiness does happen. > > While I had my wonderings (is that a word?) about whether JKR would kill Harry, whenever I recalled that that was her favorite childhood book, I suspected again that Harry would definitely live... and we might just get OBHWF. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Mandy: You are absolutly right. I know we are not supposed to post agreement posts but... ;-) I guess I should have known better. It all had to have a Happily Ever After. and I'm fine with that except I want the plot in the final chapters to be stronger. Still love the book though. Plan on starting a re-read this weekend. A slooooow one. I think it'll be much clearly then. SSSusan: Oh, don't apologize. >;-) I didn't mean to imply one shouldn't *feel* certain things. I just wanted to point out that there was a reason to have suspected certain things, you know? I can't wait to dive back into those last few chapters, either. I finished up about 2:30 am Sunday morning and haven't had a chance yet to review them, which is driving me nuts. I know there was a great deal which didn't really sink in on just that one reading. Siriusly Snapey Susan From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 18:48:12 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:48:12 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > Dead slapper? Dead Slapper! Kneasy are you British and know the > > definition of that word? > > > > Oh yes. True Brit here. > Thought that it might stir up a bit of reaction. > > > If so, you should know better. Lily was hardly a 'slapper'. Many > > things perhaps but not a slapper. Not in my imagination anyway. Now > > Lavender Brown might have slapper potential. > Think of it as a counterblast to those who reverently polish Lily's > pedestal. The truth is we know very little about her - but an awful > lot of males seem to remember her with fondness. Oh, you are a rotter. ;-) The only way men can remember a woman with fondness is because she's a slut? You cruel man. ;-) It's true though, we do know nothing about Lily and perhaps she was a bad girl. It's amazing how social conditioning works though, after all if Lily was rewarded with such a good man as James Potter and blessed with being loved by so many we automatically assume she must have been a paragon of virtue. From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 19:03:27 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:03:27 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" > wrote: > > > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > > > Dead slapper? Dead Slapper! Kneasy are you British and know the > > > definition of that word? > > > > > > > Oh yes. True Brit here. > > Thought that it might stir up a bit of reaction. > > > > > If so, you should know better. Lily was hardly a 'slapper'. Many > > > things perhaps but not a slapper. Not in my imagination anyway. > Now > > > Lavender Brown might have slapper potential. > > > > Think of it as a counterblast to those who reverently polish Lily's > > pedestal. The truth is we know very little about her - but an awful > > lot of males seem to remember her with fondness. > > Oh, you are a rotter. ;-) The only way men can remember a woman with > fondness is because she's a slut? You cruel man. ;-) > Not so! It helps if she can cook, too. And knows the lbw law. Not many of 'em about. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 19:24:35 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:24:35 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Think of it as a counterblast to those who reverently polish > > > Lily's pedestal. The truth is we know very little about her - > > > but an awful lot of males seem to remember her with fondness. > > > Kneasy > > Oh, you are a rotter. ;-) The only way men can remember a woman > > with fondness is because she's a slut? You cruel man. ;-) > > Mandy > Not so! > It helps if she can cook, too. > And knows the lbw law. > Not many of 'em about. > Kneasy lbw law - Leg Before Wicket? lol! I only realized I know what that was when I spoke it out loud. Funny what you assimilate as a kid even if you've never played the sport. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 20:01:26 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's Death - Tragic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SPOLIER ALERT 22222222 333asf ddddddddddddddd ffffffffffffffffffff bbbbbbbbbbb rrrrrrrr tgg fffffff gggggggg ds > .....and just why do we assume he is dead? Didn't show up at the > last stroll into the woods to meet my doom party did he? > > Regards > Jo > LoL! I'd liked to have seen that. :-) Snape strolling along side James and Sirius and Lily. Would he have risked a bit of beyond the grave bullying just to be near Lily again? Would he have continued to have begged for her forgiveness for calling her a mudblood all those years ago? Or perhaps an apology for seven years of abusing her son in class. I honestly don't think Snape would have risked Lily's wrath and showed up. Or perhaps he would have? :-) Mandy From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Thu Jul 26 22:55:31 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:55:31 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320707261555t432e37edg4e96d92eb6d741b5@...> On 7/27/07, Amanda wrote: > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" > wrote: > It's true though, we do know nothing about Lily and perhaps she was a > bad girl. It's amazing how social conditioning works though, after > all if Lily was rewarded with such a good man as James Potter and > blessed with being loved by so many we automatically assume she must > have been a paragon of virtue. Point of order: the way the tale runs you're given to think its James who got the reward, not Lily, and he's no paragon of virtue either. Frankly they seem both devious and cruel to a point (think of the Cloak!Harry vs Malfoy scene for comparison) like Snape, it just happens there's a prejudicial divide over Muggles. The problem is of course Harry's hagiography which as Barry notes, continues to strike a dischord to the very end. -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 00:23:27 2007 From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:23:27 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Link worth reading In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b65c0707250456v71262167k58ff3d39179ba2d4@...> Message-ID: <91d14f320707261723j4817dd8cr405fce4e391a82ea@...> On 7/25/07, mooseming wrote: > The link rather confirms a suspicion I've had for a while. Kneasy > asked what's it all about? To which I would reply - Harry, at least > for JK. It also confirms many of the theories about HBP in hindsight. > Dumbledore and Snape are products of her less conscious creativity > and that is, in my mind, why they are more interesting. Snape > appears to have got away from her and I think that his end was > deliberately written so that he didn't upstage Harry. I'd argue a lot more than Snape got away from her; Hallucinatory!Harry is getting a bit much for me on a second reread... -- Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 08:09:56 2007 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:09:56 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: <713786.41490.qm@...> Message-ID: > Kneasy: > >>> No, I don't think so, he doesn't qualify. > > If someone acts as a double agent for 16 years, > reporting from the heart of the enemy camp, living > a double life, keeping up a front in his public life, > finally dying at the hands of the enemy just before > victory is achieved, but none-the-less surviving > long enough to pass important information to the > leader of the struggle, he'd normally be hailed as > a hero with no hesitation. > > If, that is, he did it from a sense of moral or ethical > conviction. > > That's not ole Snapey. > There was no such conviction. It was a sort of half- > cocked combination of revenge for the death of the > girl who threw him over plus emotional blackmail > from one of the most practiced fixers in the business. > > Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up > with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning > over some dead slapper? Nope, that's not how I've been > reading Sevvy. A definitive un-romantic IMO. > > Yes, he was probably being brave, but I doubt that ever > crossed his mind. But pride rules. Once he'd given his > word he'd do his damndest to play his part to the hilt > in an attempt to stab in the back those whose actions > had reduced him to such a pitiful pass, if only to show > that he was cleverer than they. > > And he pretty well succeeded. > But he was still a miserable old git - and probably proud > of that too. <<< > > > SSSusan: > Couldn't agree more... about bravery vs. being a hero and about his being a miserable old git. Now Ginger: Sorry, but I have to disagree. What makes a hero do what a hero does? If there was a madman out there killing all known Potter fans, how many of us would wipe our hard drives clean and thank our lucky stars that we didn't use our real names? How many would take on a madman? If there was a prophecy that the madman (we'll call him Lord Bob) would be defeated by a boy, how many of us would risk pain, torture and death to keep that boy safe? The killings are not limited to this list. (RIP, Steve. Nice knowing you, Randy. Hope that's the last of us to go.) Let's say that the prophecy said that an American boy whose first name was the same as an American President's last name would defeat Lord Bob, but he would be as cursed as his mother's favourite sports team. How many of us are jumping up to defend the boy? (Fond farewell, Potioncat. You were a great filker, CMC.) The boy's parents die trying to save him. Sure, we'd all say how tragic it was. We may even chip in for a statue in the Crawfordsville town square in their honour, but how many of us are ready to risk life and limb for a child we've never met? (Too bad about Deb. Always liked her posts.) So some guy who loved the boy's mother keeps him safe, and because of that, Lord Bob is defeated? Is he a hero, even though he didn't do it for a great love of JKR? Or of HP? How do we feel about him? (Good thing he's defeated... was supposed to be a double killing in Texas, followed by massive bloodshed in California.) Maybe he isn't a great hero in the literary sense, but what if you had been the next on Lord Bob's list? Is he a hero to you now? A hero who acts out of duty or sense of right and wrong is a great hero indeed, but a hero who acts out of love is no less a hero. We consider the boy's fallen parents to be heros, even though we know they were motivated by the love for their son. Why is the one who acts out of love for the boy's mother any different? I'm sure the boy's mother would consider him to be a hero seeing as he saved the boy's life. Wouldn't you think? Ginger, who considers Snape to be even more of a hero since he left the comfort of the side that was winning at that time. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 10:49:37 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:49:37 -0000 Subject: No spoilers here Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6918723.stm Mwahahahahahaha.... MWAHAHHAHAHA.... *gasp* Sorry 'bout that. :D From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 11:13:42 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:13:42 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme Message-ID: For all the discussion on so-called 'adult themes' in HP - by which the participants generally mean stuff like loyalty, ethics and that old standby love - there is absolutely no hint of the most popular adult activity of all. Sex - with its fascinating complications, variations and frustrations - the last being particularly prevalent among teenagers IIRC. Oh yes, my memory can stretch that far back, no matter that some regard me as a model of drooling senility. Sure, thoughts/activity in this area are a bit premature in the earlier books, for the kids anyway, though you'd expect that from GoF on it'd at least get an oblique mention or two. Certainly by this age for European kids (can't speak for the others) the nuts and bolts are a standard part of the educational curriculum and the more exciting practicalities have already been explored to varying degrees behind the bike-sheds. The readership that these books are presumably aimed at could teach Jo a thing or two about teenage relationships. This lacuna is no doubt an encouragement to those of the fanfic brigade who have seen what looks like a gap in the market and they've leapt into it with no little enthusiasm. And even on the main lists the fans seem so frustrated at this total non-appearance that they slide over to extremes and muse on the possibilities of rape for Ariana and an off-camera (but with sound effects) replay from classical mythology for Umbridge. Unlikely to be intended IMO. If she won't even hint at the bread-and-butter stuff, the shocking has no chance at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that HP should be replete with steamy scenes, but so far as I can see, there's no indication that sexual thoughts ever occur (an impossibility for teenage males, the girls - they can speak for themselves) or indeed any indication that wizards reproduce by any natural means whatsoever. I think Jo has invented a sub-species lacking certain hormones and reproduction occurs after a shall we /sharn't we discussion over a nice hot cup of cocoa and if the decision is affirmative then they wave a magic wand - and voila! The missus is up the duff. This may well be why purebloods have such a downer on Muggles and mudbloods. Muggles have certain expectations above and beyond a magically induced immaculate conception - and purebloods don't like to be reminded of their deficiencies after the lights go out. Mind you, given the way magical society is organised, what with the strong emphasis on separateness, it's difficult to imagine how any of 'em get to know Muggles well enough to pick one of them as a life-partner. From what we see it all happens early - snog a few House-mates at Hogwarts, raising your standards with each round, pick a winner and that's it. I'd guess the average age for marriage is much lower than in the RW. Serves 'em right. Jo is utterly conventional as to what the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue consists of (assuming it exists at all in the WW), not even any descriptions of what Victorians would approve of as an 'awful warning'; no adultery, no co-habiting couples, no serial monogamy, no shotgun weddings, no divorces, no second/third marriages with arrangements for who gets the kids, the house, the hippogriff, and none of the more, let us say modern arrangements that have allowed formerly victimised minorities some breathing space. On reflection there are a couple of awful warnings - but both concern the consequences of unrequited passion - and the emphases conflict somewhat: Merope and Snape (with Lavender Whatsit as a junior league try-out). The parables teach that if you force a one-sided relationship you die miserably in the workhouse, and if you do nothing you end up with a snake for a necktie. Lesson: only ever love somebody who already loves you. Very helpful, that. Mind you, if the casualty list from the final battle were to be amended, there'd be one partnership that I bet wouldn't have lasted - the Lupins. A classic really - very reluctant groom, match goes ahead anyway, followed by second thoughts strong enough to consider doing a runner, dampened (temporarily?) by arrival of offspring. All too often an arc that's followed by an attempted acceptance of the staus quo (aka making a go of it), growing recrimination and eventual termination. (Shadows of Portugal?) Never gets that far of course. It'd spoil the plastic perfection by introducing the more commonplace. Fortunately most of us have had a lot more fun in this aspect of our lives than Jo's creations have. Though in places that can leak through .... hmm, might be about time to drop in on Madam Whiplash for a corrective (ahem) viewpoint... Kneasy From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 11:32:26 2007 From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:32:26 -0000 Subject: Real world endings for HP Message-ID: Thought I'd share this from the Financial Times. (will make more sense to Brits on the whole) Published: July 18 2007 Across the world, fans of Harry Potter are in a state of high excitement as they await the final book in the series and the saga's outcome. The result of the final showdown between Harry and his foe Voldemort remains a well-kept secret, but many believe the author J.K. Rowling will want to surprise readers with something more original than a mere battle to the death. Here are the main theories. 1) Harry and Voldemort agree a leadership pact at a posh eatery in Islington, in which Harry agrees to stand aside for the Dark Lord in seven years' time, when he will disappear into the murky shadows and allow Voldemort to present himself as the change candidate. Harry later reneges on the deal, setting off a second series and an accompanying diary by his press secretary. 2) Voldemort launches an audacious leveraged buyout bid for Hogwarts backed by Gringotts and KKR. A team of other fictional villains led by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Professor Moriarty and the Daleks launch a rival consortium, with funding from Bain Capital. The rival consortium trump his bid with an all-cash offer and a promise to retain the existing management but are beaten when Voldemort turns them into gerbils. 3) Voldemort's and Harry's warring factions are just about to face off in the final conflict when they get word that Tesco is planning to site a hypermarket near Diagon Alley. They call off their feud and join forces with the Witches' Institute to protect small shopkeepers and the right to buy Mattesons processed meat. 4) At the age of 19, Hermione Grainger publishes a kiss-and-tell autobiography, blowing the lid off the seething cauldron of sex at Hogwarts. Although this stymies her opportunities in the job market she secures a column in Maxim and a daytime presenting slot on UK Gold. After the work dries up she is forced into posing in varying states of undress for lads' mags but resurfaces triumphantly five years later on Celebrity Big Brother, after which she secures a column in Maxim and a daytime presenting job on UK Gold. 5) Ron Weasley quits magic and sets up a hedge fund (Hedgewarts) that goes long on Bloomsbury and Warner Bros having secretly discovered plans for an eighth book. 6) The cast of characters all go their separate ways but keep in touch via a social networking site, Wizbook. However, the bad blood reignites when Draco Malfoy claims to have more Wizbook friends than Harry. 7) Voldemort defeats Harry and becomes the new headmaster of Hogwarts, which becomes a city academy. His teaching style is widely denounced by educationists but wins praise from Chris Woodhead for its emphasis on traditional methods. 8) Voldemort and Harry bury the hatchet and shortly afterwards announce their intention to marry by civil partnership, with Hello magazine securing the exclusive rights to the reception. 9) Harry defeats Voldemort but then spends years in analysis working out his anger and post-traumatic stress disorder, becoming a regular on Oprah, before slapping Hogwarts with a ?12bn lawsuit. He is countersued by Ron and Hermione who accuse him of reckless endangerment while the death-eaters hire ambulance-chasing lawyers to file a class action against all Harry's allies. 10) Harry acquires a posh girlfriend and the couple emigrate to Los Angeles, where he has been hired at enormous cost in an attempt to take Quidditch to the US. 11) After a brief period of celebrity, Harry finds himself eclipsed by a new publishing phenomenon and ends up performing conjuring tricks in clubs in the north-east. From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 11:47:37 2007 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:47:37 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Kneasy: > > >>> No, I don't think so, he doesn't qualify. > > > > If someone acts as a double agent for 16 years, > > reporting from the heart of the enemy camp, living > > a double life, keeping up a front in his public life, > > finally dying at the hands of the enemy just before > > victory is achieved, but none-the-less surviving > > long enough to pass important information to the > > leader of the struggle, he'd normally be hailed as > > a hero with no hesitation. > > > > If, that is, he did it from a sense of moral or ethical > > conviction. Kathy (Potioncat) And how would you determine that? If JKR had kept Snape's motives under wraps, would he be a hero? > > Kneasy: > > Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up > > with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning > > over some dead slapper? Nope, that's not how I've been > > reading Sevvy. A definitive un-romantic IMO. Kathy: Yeah, I was caught off guard. I was expecting Florence and Sevvie Jr. or a bit more to his motive. > > Kneasy: > > Yes, he was probably being brave, but I doubt that ever > > crossed his mind. But pride rules. Once he'd given his > > word he'd do his damndest to play his part to the hilt > > in an attempt to stab in the back those whose actions > > had reduced him to such a pitiful pass, if only to show > > that he was cleverer than they. Kathy: When did keeping your word fall off the good list? > > Kneasy: > > And he pretty well succeeded. > > But he was still a miserable old git - and probably proud > > of that too. <<< Kathy: Oh, yeah---far more than I realized, and I thought I was being realistic. > Now Ginger:> > A hero who acts out of duty or sense of right and wrong is a great > hero indeed, but a hero who acts out of love is no less a hero. We > consider the boy's fallen parents to be heros, even though we know > they were motivated by the love for their son. Why is the one who > acts out of love for the boy's mother any different? Kathy: Oh good, we're a gathering of 2. Well, what is a hero? Are all the soldiers on "our" side heroes, or only ones who go above and beyond? Are James and Lily really heroes? What did they do that was above and beyond? I mean, if we're going to say that all the Order members were heroes, then Snape gets back on the list. Is every parent who defends their child a hero, or are the ones who don't cowards? > Ginger, who considers Snape to be even more of a hero since he left > the comfort of the side that was winning at that time. Kathy: I'm still working out just who JKR's Snape is and what she thinks about him. She more she says, the more confused I am. But how can someone risk all he's risked and not be a hero? And, what does it mean that the Chief Auror (or whatever his title is) named his son after the git if he doesn't consider Snape a hero? I'm sure Harry doesn't recall Snape with any fondness. Kathy (Potioncat) who almost tossed her cookies when Lily called him Sev. From catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 12:35:10 2007 From: catorman at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:35:10 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > Shame, really. I had hoped that Jo would have come up > with a more gutsy motivation for him. 16 years mooning > over some dead slapper? Poor Lily. Does she really deserve to be referred to as "some dead slapper"? From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 12:37:30 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:37:30 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Kathy (Potioncat) > And how would you determine that? If JKR had kept Snape's motives > under wraps, would he be a hero? > Unlikely. Was there anyone who thought that Sevvy spied for the Order because of anything other than personal motives? > > Kathy: > When did keeping your word fall off the good list? > It was never on it. Keeping your word is about personal honour, not objective goodness. And he fails that test too. Didn't he first swear allegiance to Voldy? > > > Now Ginger:> > > A hero who acts out of duty or sense of right and wrong is a great > > hero indeed, but a hero who acts out of love is no less a hero. We > > consider the boy's fallen parents to be heros, even though we know > > they were motivated by the love for their son. Why is the one who > > acts out of love for the boy's mother any different? > > Kathy: > Oh good, we're a gathering of 2. I see. So if Arthur fell for Bellatrix he'd be justified in betraying the Order? Or is it only love for 'nice' people that counts? > > Well, what is a hero? > Good question. But IMO it doesn't include acts driven by personal agendas. Bravery yes, heroics no. Example - a house catches fire, there are kids inside. A parent that recues them is considered brave; a stranger that rescues them is considered a hero. You probably disagree. > > Kathy: > I'm still working out just who JKR's Snape is and what she thinks > about him. She more she says, the more confused I am. But how can > someone risk all he's risked and not be a hero? > I like Snape, I think he's a splendid character, miserable curmudgeon that he is, and I can't help but imagine what his reaction would have been if someone accused him of heroism. > And, what does it mean that the Chief Auror (or whatever his title > is) named his son after the git if he doesn't consider Snape a hero? > I'm sure Harry doesn't recall Snape with any fondness. > That he feels he owes him something - on a personal level? Kneasy From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 13:11:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:11:50 -0000 Subject: Snape a hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kneasy: > Example - a house catches fire, there are kids inside. A parent that > recues them is considered brave; a stranger that rescues them is > considered a hero. > You probably disagree. Kathy: No, I think I agree here. That's my point about James and Lily. They may be heroes for something they did earlier, but the events at GH don't make them heroes. What if, instead, someone who hated the houseowner rescues the kids. Is he a hero? Or someone who was once friends with one of the parents but can't stand the kids at all sees the fire and rescues the kids. Is he a hero? Wait, of course it's complicated because he's a former member of a gang of arsonists.... >Kneasy: > That he feels he owes him something - on a personal level? Kathy: For what? btw, don't have my book, doesn't it say little Albus Severus is the most like Harry? I bet Heavenly Snape loves that! From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 13:45:11 2007 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:45:11 -0000 Subject: plugs and more holes was Re: Conflicts, cheats and credibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dung: > And here's a job for a holesmith: > If Hermione was able to (effectively) side-along apparate Yaxley to > Grimmauld Place, into the Fidelius Charm, why couldn't Snape side- > along with a gang of DEs? Apparition doesn't require speaking, so the > tongue-tying hex wouldn't have stopped him. > Kathy: But what good was the tongue-tying hex anyway? Snape could only tell if the Fidelius Charm was already broken and he could have as easily written a note. And--ta dah--why didn't Moody's curse vanish when he died? According to JKR, the DADA jinx ended with LV's death. According to Harry, DD's bodybind jinx on Harry ended at DD's death. I read it that eveyone became a secret keeper when DD died. On a second read, it doesn't look like that. But, if the reason Hermione could side- along apparate is because the Charm accepted her as SK, that would be different than a non-SK trying to gain entry with someone. If that's the plug in the hole, as long as LV didn't know DD was SK, then he wouldn't know the secret was out and wouldn't ask Snape. But, if the DEs don't know where HQ is, why are they hanging around 12 GP? And, how did Snape get by those hexes? What was he looking for? (Oh, please, not Lily's letter?) From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 15:28:40 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:40 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Mind you, if the casualty list from the final battle were to be > amended, there'd be one partnership that I bet wouldn't have lasted > - the Lupins. A classic really - very reluctant groom, match goes > ahead anyway, followed by second thoughts strong enough to consider > doing a runner, dampened (temporarily?) by arrival of offspring. All > too often an arc that's followed by an attempted acceptance of the > staus quo (aka making a go of it), growing recrimination and eventual > termination. (Shadows of Portugal?) > Kneasy Yep. And add Ron and Hermione to that too. They'd have a fun, passionate relationship with great love/hate sex but it would never last. Ever. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 16:48:32 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:48:32 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > For all the discussion on so-called 'adult themes' in HP - by > which the participants generally mean stuff like loyalty, > ethics and that old standby love - there is absolutely no > hint of the most popular adult activity of all. Sex - with its > fascinating complications, variations and frustrations - the > last being particularly prevalent among teenagers IIRC. > Oh yes, my memory can stretch that far back, no matter > that some regard me as a model of drooling senility. Snipped > Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that HP should be > replete with steamy scenes, but so far as I can see, there's > no indication that sexual thoughts ever occur (an impossibility > for teenage males, the girls - they can speak for themselves) > or indeed any indication that wizards reproduce by any natural > means whatsoever. I think Jo has invented a sub-species lacking > certain hormones and reproduction occurs after a shall we > /sharn't we discussion over a nice hot cup of cocoa and if the > decision is affirmative then they wave a magic wand - and voila! > The missus is up the duff. Snipped > Kneasy I agree, the book is almost entirely devoid of sexuality. The only two places it appears is the epilogue (the trio have kids so by default they've had sex) and at the hint at unwanted sexual terror in Fenrir's delight at getting to devour Hermione. It seems to me (without taking anytime to go back a look) that Fenrir is the only character that is overtly sexual in the saga even though it's well hidden behind the references to eating and devouring. Although, on a side note, I did have a hope that Bellatrix might get to use her hinted at sexuality by compromising one of the younger male characters; Neville or Ron. But that is beside the point. ;-) Fenrir, a werewolf open to attacking children, is a cleaver way to bring in sex into a young person's story about war and violence. I believe Jo means him to hint at a horror that that we adults know to be a reality and yet try so very hard to protect our children from; sexual violence against children and especially female children. It's a fact of war and I give JKR kudos for touching on it if that is indeed what she intended. But, as Kneasy points out, where is the sex? Or rather the consumation of positive sexuality? Are we right to want to want it or even expect it? It's not like it's a taboo subject in children's lit. Philip Pullman has his 12 year old heroin spend time in a forest with her true love, Will. Pullman doesn't elaborate on the scene but leaves it all to our imagination as to whether they just kissed or had sex, but it's made very clear that this is the moment when Lyra looses her `innocence' and moves from childhood into womanhood. It's beautifully and respectfully done and as an adult reader I was delighted. It's my sense JKR deliberately kept the two couple; Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione apart or distracted enough so they were unable to consummate their partnerships and she didn't have to deal with writing it. But how wonderful would it have been to have one of the couples sneak a night outside at the Burrow? All the reader would need to see is the awkwardness the following day; the slight blushes and furtive looks. We grown ups would have got it. ;-) Mandy From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 18:14:43 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:14:43 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > I agree, the book is almost entirely devoid of sexuality. The only > two places it appears is the epilogue (the trio have kids so by > default they've had sex) and at the hint at unwanted sexual terror in > Fenrir's delight at getting to devour Hermione. > A bit blunted by the scene at the end of HBP where it's Harry that he's slavering for a nibble at. But yes, it's probably Victorian literary code - the vampire/werewolf bite as ersatz thrills for the sexually repressed. > It seems to me (without taking anytime to go back a look) that Fenrir > is the only character that is overtly sexual in the saga even though > it's well hidden behind the references to eating and devouring. > Although, on a side note, I did have a hope that Bellatrix might get > to use her hinted at sexuality by compromising one of the younger > male characters; Neville or Ron. But that is beside the point. ;-) > La Bella Dame Sans Merci... yes, I had hopes, nay vivid images, of what a plotmeister could do with that armful. Quite brought a maidenly blush to my cheeks. > > It's my sense JKR deliberately kept the two couple; Harry/Ginny and > Ron/Hermione apart or distracted enough so they were unable to > consummate their partnerships and she didn't have to deal with > writing it. But how wonderful would it have been to have one of the > couples sneak a night outside at the Burrow? All the reader would > need to see is the awkwardness the following day; the slight blushes > and furtive looks. We grown ups would have got it. ;-) > Again Victoriana -plenty of healthy outdoor activity to keep their minds occupied - and on the occasions when they're indoors Molly makes sure there's no opportunity for hanky-panky. It got tedious, it was all so un-natural and eventually it seemed so contrived. Surprised there wasn't a plot requirement for Harry and Ron sup a bromide nightcap and to wear boxing gloves in bed. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 18:36:58 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:36:58 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Again Victoriana -plenty of healthy outdoor activity to keep their minds > occupied - and on the occasions when they're indoors Molly makes sure > there's no opportunity for hanky-panky. It got tedious, it was all so > un-natural and eventually it seemed so contrived. Surprised there wasn't > a plot requirement for Harry and Ron sup a bromide nightcap and to wear > boxing gloves in bed. > > Kneasy I did notice to my horror that Mrs Weasley had Hermione washing Ron's underwear! Talk about slapping the romance out of the girl. Do I detect a Victorian sensibility there? Something about a hard working, honest woman has no time (or energy) for sex? Although that clearly was not a problem for Molly. But then she's safely married. And what would the Victorian's have to say about Ginny and Hermione sharing the smallest bedroom in the house. Now if that doesn't make a grown man blush... ;-) From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 18:40:22 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:40:22 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I agree, the book is almost entirely devoid of sexuality. The only > > two places it appears is the epilogue (the trio have kids so by > > default they've had sex) and at the hint at unwanted sexual terror > > in Fenrir's delight at getting to devour Hermione. > A bit blunted by the scene at the end of HBP where it's Harry that > he's slavering for a nibble at. Yes, but I'm not sure Fenrir was quite so taken by Harry's `soft' or was it `sweet' skin. I don't have my book here at work but I think Fenrir was more than a little excited by Hermione's inherent femininity. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 18:54:08 2007 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: More random jottings - on a theme Message-ID: <951211.88612.qm@...> Mandy: > It's my sense JKR deliberately kept the two couple; Harry/Ginny and > Ron/Hermione apart or distracted enough so they were unable to > consummate their partnerships and she didn't have to deal with > writing it. But how wonderful would it have been to have one of the > couples sneak a night outside at the Burrow? All the reader would > need to see is the awkwardness the following day; the slight blushes > and furtive looks. We grown ups would have got it. ;-) > Kneasy: >>> Again Victoriana -plenty of healthy outdoor activity to keep their minds occupied - and on the occasions when they're indoors Molly makes sure there's no opportunity for hanky-panky. It got tedious, it was all so un-natural and eventually it seemed so contrived. Surprised there wasn't a plot requirement for Harry and Ron sup a bromide nightcap and to wear boxing gloves in bed. <<< SSSusan: Come on, guys. Surely you know, when Ron & Hermione dashed out, claiming they were off to the bathroom, what they were REALLY doing? Yep, sick of the endless camping trip w/ third wheel Harry hanging around, tired of all the adventure, stunned by all the carnage strewn about them, they realized they'd better consummate their relationship NOW or risk never making it to that point. That malarky about Ron being able to speak Parseltongue, just by standing there making funny sounds over & over? Well... you know.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 18:57:35 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:57:35 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > > I did notice to my horror that Mrs Weasley had Hermione washing Ron's > underwear! Talk about slapping the romance out of the girl. Alas, she knew the worst too young. > Do I detect a Victorian sensibility there? Something about a hard working, > honest woman has no time (or energy) for sex? Although that clearly > was not a problem for Molly. But then she's safely married. > The opposite, probably. Sublimating her frustrations by beating up Arthur's vests. > And what would the Victorian's have to say about Ginny and Hermione > sharing the smallest bedroom in the house. > Now if that doesn't make a grown man blush... ;-) > Nah. It'd all be very Fifth Form at St Dominic's. Somehow the imagination can't fit the latest creations from La Perla in there. They probably sat around comparing verrucas. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 19:29:36 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:29:36 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: <951211.88612.qm@...> Message-ID: > SSSusan: > Come on, guys. Surely you know, when Ron & Hermione dashed out, claiming they were off to the bathroom, what they were REALLY doing? > > Yep, sick of the endless camping trip w/ third wheel Harry hanging around, tired of all the adventure, stunned by all the carnage strewn about them, they realized they'd better consummate their relationship NOW or risk never making it to that point. > > That malarky about Ron being able to speak Parseltongue, just by standing there making funny sounds over & over? Well... you know.... > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Ah, so that's the secret to sucessfully speaking Parseltongue! ;-) From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 19:26:49 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:26:49 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > And what would the Victorian's have to say about Ginny and Hermione > > sharing the smallest bedroom in the house. > > Now if that doesn't make a grown man blush... ;-) > Nah. It'd all be very Fifth Form at St Dominic's. > Somehow the imagination can't fit the latest creations from La Perla in there. > They probably sat around comparing verrucas. > Kneasy Oh, you are a cynical old codger. :-) Of course it's Malory Towers, St. Clares and The Chalet School girls all rolled into one. What's not sexy about that? No need for La Perla when you have two young women fresh faced and glowing from a turn on the quidditch pitch (or in Hermione's case a heathly dose of mucking out the horses, illustraited by the washing of Ron's underpants) flopping down on the bed, giggling about their respective boy crushes and desperatly looking for an outlet to their lustful desires. Trust me when I say that girls that age get so carried away into fantasy that it would terrify a boy if he just had the tinest glimps into her mind. The thing about Hermione and Ginny is they are both horsey enough to not be turned off each other. But that's enough of that... :-) From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 27 23:15:49 2007 From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:15:49 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme References: Message-ID: <009a01c7d0a4$26fbd240$482fdcd1@...> Kneasy wrote: >>>...an off-camera (but with sound effects) replay from classical mythology for Umbridge.>>> Dear one, what have you got against Centaurs? After they've resisted the nubile nymphs of Hogwarts all these years, you palm them off with old Toadface? (I wonder if, after it had sunk in what they'd been stuck with, it wasn't Dolores chasing the Centaurs. A girl's gotta make the best of what she's got.) Purrs! Gatta Quantum me cogitis omnes! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 03:30:21 2007 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:30:21 -0000 Subject: FILK: Undesirable Message-ID: Undesirable To the tune of Extra-Ordinary from Stephen Schwarz's Pippin Dedicated to (duh!) Pippin You-tube performance here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au1TPizvwHo Note: The title word is pronounced UN-DEE-ZIE-ER-ABLE (last two syllables rhyme with table) THE SCENE: HARRY, in DH extremis . HARRY: The Chosen One, the Boy Who Lived Is now on the lam as a fugitive When you're Undesirable You gotta do Undesirable things This is a time dark and intense For I must spend ev'ry night in tents When you're Undesirable You're made to do Undesirable things There's an answer I cannot see How best I should respond To oppose DEs and the Ministry With just a broken wand. And although this is major Although this is vast I'll have to wager that we finish last Voldy's launched a cabal That wants to put the label "Undesirable" on me. And if Ron keeps on swearing And Hermione's despairing And our Gryffindor prospects seem bleak If we're fleeing from Greyback And we can't find our way back Well, this isn't the worst day I've had this week . I've come to be downright depressed Wearing this locket upon my chest When you're Undesirable You have to do Undesirable things Our next course of action's not easy to judge And whoever would dream that we'd miss Cornelius Fudge? I'm Undesirable I need to do Undesirable things I'm on a mission to finish the man Who gave to me my scar. So I'll design a Horcrux plan If someone would just tell where the hell they are! So keep us all safe, don't let me be framed And stop me from blurting out Voldemort's name For I must disable That old miserable Undesirable LV! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 04:23:23 2007 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:23:23 -0500 Subject: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <879469221977427F9A5135318821F31B@AmandaPC> For God's sake, Kneasy. You're really getting down to the bottom of the barrel, finding things to complain about. Sometimes I think you comment for the joy of seeing your witticisms in type, rather than any substantive comment. For my part, I found this book, and the whole series, totally satisfying without any arousal involved, on my part or the characters'. I even believe that one can have a long-lasting, geninue relationship without once considering anything physical. So if this lack dismays you, so sorry. Go read fanfic, they more than make up for it. I don't think anyone would argue that Lord of the Rings dealt in adult themes, either, and it also had no overt sex. One wonders what your comments would be, on that sequence, if it were Tolkien's next book that we were all hanging on, rather than Rowling's. Of all the irrelevant things to harp on. ~the Geist _____ From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com [mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Arrowsmith Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:14 AM To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com Subject: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme For all the discussion on so-called 'adult themes' in HP - by which the participants generally mean stuff like loyalty, ethics and that old standby love - there is absolutely no hint of the most popular adult activity of all. Sex - with its fascinating complications, variations and frustrations - the last being particularly prevalent among teenagers IIRC. Oh yes, my memory can stretch that far back, no matter that some regard me as a model of drooling senility. Sure, thoughts/activity in this area are a bit premature in the earlier books, for the kids anyway, though you'd expect that from GoF on it'd at least get an oblique mention or two. Certainly by this age for European kids (can't speak for the others) the nuts and bolts are a standard part of the educational curriculum and the more exciting practicalities have already been explored to varying degrees behind the bike-sheds. The readership that these books are presumably aimed at could teach Jo a thing or two about teenage relationships. This lacuna is no doubt an encouragement to those of the fanfic brigade who have seen what looks like a gap in the market and they've leapt into it with no little enthusiasm. And even on the main lists the fans seem so frustrated at this total non-appearance that they slide over to extremes and muse on the possibilities of rape for Ariana and an off-camera (but with sound effects) replay from classical mythology for Umbridge. Unlikely to be intended IMO. If she won't even hint at the bread-and-butter stuff, the shocking has no chance at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that HP should be replete with steamy scenes, but so far as I can see, there's no indication that sexual thoughts ever occur (an impossibility for teenage males, the girls - they can speak for themselves) or indeed any indication that wizards reproduce by any natural means whatsoever. I think Jo has invented a sub-species lacking certain hormones and reproduction occurs after a shall we /sharn't we discussion over a nice hot cup of cocoa and if the decision is affirmative then they wave a magic wand - and voila! The missus is up the duff. This may well be why purebloods have such a downer on Muggles and mudbloods. Muggles have certain expectations above and beyond a magically induced immaculate conception - and purebloods don't like to be reminded of their deficiencies after the lights go out. Mind you, given the way magical society is organised, what with the strong emphasis on separateness, it's difficult to imagine how any of 'em get to know Muggles well enough to pick one of them as a life-partner. From what we see it all happens early - snog a few House-mates at Hogwarts, raising your standards with each round, pick a winner and that's it. I'd guess the average age for marriage is much lower than in the RW. Serves 'em right. Jo is utterly conventional as to what the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue consists of (assuming it exists at all in the WW), not even any descriptions of what Victorians would approve of as an 'awful warning'; no adultery, no co-habiting couples, no serial monogamy, no shotgun weddings, no divorces, no second/third marriages with arrangements for who gets the kids, the house, the hippogriff, and none of the more, let us say modern arrangements that have allowed formerly victimised minorities some breathing space. On reflection there are a couple of awful warnings - but both concern the consequences of unrequited passion - and the emphases conflict somewhat: Merope and Snape (with Lavender Whatsit as a junior league try-out). The parables teach that if you force a one-sided relationship you die miserably in the workhouse, and if you do nothing you end up with a snake for a necktie. Lesson: only ever love somebody who already loves you. Very helpful, that. Mind you, if the casualty list from the final battle were to be amended, there'd be one partnership that I bet wouldn't have lasted - the Lupins. A classic really - very reluctant groom, match goes ahead anyway, followed by second thoughts strong enough to consider doing a runner, dampened (temporarily?) by arrival of offspring. All too often an arc that's followed by an attempted acceptance of the staus quo (aka making a go of it), growing recrimination and eventual termination. (Shadows of Portugal?) Never gets that far of course. It'd spoil the plastic perfection by introducing the more commonplace. Fortunately most of us have had a lot more fun in this aspect of our lives than Jo's creations have. Though in places that can leak through .... hmm, might be about time to drop in on Madam Whiplash for a corrective (ahem) viewpoint... Kneasy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 05:41:42 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 05:41:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and other details of DH Message-ID: Now that we know what the Prophecy meant, can anyone explain it to me? I wrote in : << I was *shocked*; I'd believed that Snape never was really a bloodist, because it's so stupid and illogical and in contradiction to empirical evidence, and one thing he is is intelligent! >> But at least his bloodism explains what he had against Hermione as a student, which otherwise I was never able to figure out. Dungrollin wrote in : << JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM ]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. >> I am less bothered by 'what did she mean by 'dead'?' than by 'what did she mean by 'not a coincidence'?'. Until the first time I read that of yours, I had simply assumed that she meant that Grindelwald was the power behind Hitler, assisting him with powerful magic, and the Allies couldn't have won except that Hitler was no longer backed with magic once Dumbledore had disposed of Grindelwald. That fits my image that ambitious wizards don't try to become King; instead they choose a Muggle puppet and try to make him King. But then it occured to me that 'not a coincidence' might only mean that Herself had specified the year to emphasise the similarity between Dark Wizard purebloodism and Nazi racism. Nora wrote in : << In fact, it's very possible to argue That Athena's assertion isn't meant to be taken as doctrine And there's something synthetic going on >> Synthetic? Tell me about what they argue about the Oresteia. Nora, I didn't tell you how I cried out in joy at seeing that there was a post from you after so long a time. Plenty of other long-lost familiar names have re-appeared this week, and I'm too lazy to greet each of them with loud hugs. Kirstini << a few chapters of constant location jumping, with nothing much being done. >> Reading that long stretch of book, I wondered what piece of alchemy was being symbolised. Ginger wrote in << A hero who acts out of duty or sense of right and wrong is a great hero indeed, but a hero who acts out of love is no less a hero. We consider the boy's fallen parents to be heros, even though we know they were motivated by the love for their son. Why is the one who acts out of love for the boy's mother any different? >> DDM!Snape, who knew he was being set up to be killed to give LV false confidence in the Deathstick (I learned that from reading posts here), sounds like a hero. But I don't believe his feeling for Lily was love. It was obsession and (greedy rather than lusty) desire and hurt pride. Kneasy << Was there anyone who thought that Sevvy spied for the Order because of anything other than personal motives? >> Actually, yes. There was a coterie who believed that he had decided by pure logic, and not at all by personal inclination, to believe that there really is a difference between good and evil that makes it worthwhile to serve good and oppose evil, even in a losing fight. I could almost see that -- it must have become pretty clear to him, as a Death Eater, that LV triumphant was likely to destroy everything a wizard might hold dear: tradition, scholarship, cherished old secret spells, the economy, the environment, the food supply ... which is something one might as well fight against, as allying with it is a completely doomed strategy. (Not that *I* live by such heroic principles!) But, truthfully and embarrassingly, my idea used to be that killing people had turned out to give him a squeamish feeling that life leaving the body was too damn big a deal to do it just for kicks, and that's why he chose good over evil. Pip!Squeak wrote in : << Given that the British still intensely disliked the Germans during my childhood, which was 20+ years after WW2, I reckon JKR decided people actually liking Slytherins was going to take a bit longer than 'nineteen years later' {g}. Even today, you'll hear the occasional comment. >> Yes, but there should have been a couple of Slytherin students among the students who joined the defenders at the Battle of Hogwarts. She could have used Theo Nott, having built him up to the role in OoP. When Pansy shouted to hand over Potter to the Dark Lord, Theo or someone could have grabbed her hand and pulled her down into her seat while saying, in a loud, clear, calm, firm voice: "Sit down, Pansy!" or jumped up to grab her shoulders to push her down into her seat while saying, in a loud, clear, calm, firm voice: "Pansy. Shut up." Then Pansy could have yelled at himL: "Do you want to die? Don't you understand that there's an army attacking us, and we, just a few teachers and students, can't possibly defeat an army? Give Potter to the Dark Lord and everyone else will be saved." Then Theo could say: "Do you think the Dark Lord keeps his promises? Do you think he'll coddle you because you're a pureblood? He kills his followers as readily as his enemies. Draco, tell her how many Death Eaters he killed in a tantrum because that goblin from Gringotts said his vault had been broken into? List their old pureblood names. It happened at your house, didn't it? My father died in his service and he killed my brother in that little episode. I think my chances of survival are better if I stay here and fight against him." From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 09:39:46 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:39:46 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: <879469221977427F9A5135318821F31B@AmandaPC> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > For God's sake, Kneasy. You're really getting down to the bottom of the > barrel, finding things to complain about. Sometimes I think you comment for > the joy of seeing your witticisms in type, rather than any substantive > comment. > > I can find a lot more to complain about, and without witticisms. A week ago IMO it rated 6 out of 10. After a re-read it's down to 5. Substantive? Where is there anything substantive in this book? It felt padded yet at the same time it felt that the author wanted to get it over and done with asap. An odd combination. It's slight, trite and contrived. Not necessarily damning faults in a book aimed at the younger market - so long as dialogue, technique and plot can take up the slack. The technical aspects have never been her strength and the way dialogue ends up on the page can very samey - too much he said, she said, she shrieked and so on. Everything depended on clever plotting and characterisation. But this time the plot fell apart like a badly made meat-loaf and the characterisations offered nothing new. You may think this unduly harsh, even totally wrong, that's up to you. The posting figures for this site aren't a good guide to fan enthusiasm, the membership is small and most also post elsewhere anyway. Even so, compare with the first week after HBP. Then -750; now it'll be about 250. So try TOL: then about 2,000 in 4 days; now about 1,000 - and that with an increase in membership. These are indications that the majority of fans found it a cracking read? I don't think so. > > For my part, I found this book, and the whole series, totally satisfying > without any arousal involved, on my part or the characters'. I even believe > that one can have a long-lasting, geninue relationship without once > considering anything physical. So if this lack dismays you, so sorry. Go > read fanfic, they more than make up for it. > > Arousal? Who the hell is on about arousal? HP is supposed to be about a magical realm inside/alongside the real world, and the travails of an adolescent who's part of both, or have I got it wrong? So tell me, just what do you think adolescence is? What are the trials, tribulations, concerns, lessons, uncertainties and misunderstandings of adolescence? No, they shouldn't take centre stage, but one would expect at least some realistic reference to the feelings and problems that many in the main readship target group are probably struggling with on a daily basis. I agree with Amanda ex-Slytherin. Pullman was much, much better and deserves be more appreciated than JKR. > > I don't think anyone would argue that Lord of the Rings dealt in adult > themes, either, and it also had no overt sex. One wonders what your comments > would be, on that sequence, if it were Tolkien's next book that we were all > hanging on, rather than Rowling's. > > Tolkien? It wasn't set in this world, no characters were growing into adulthood, and he didn't like women much anyway. Meantime I'll salvage what minor pleasures I can from the wreckage. Kneasy From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 10:16:18 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:16:18 -0000 Subject: JKR the anti-shipper Message-ID: OK, time to start re-evaluating the wole series now. To kick off, I think DH does in a kind of back-handed way cast all that fuss about the Leaky- Mugglenet interview in a new light. No comfort for upset H/H fans, but it's clear that the bonds of adventure trump romantic love for JKR. Look how, at the end, Harry deliberately ignores Ginny and seeks out Ron and Hermione, who in turn function as his companions rather than lovers at this point. One Big Weasley Family, yes, with a hint of the Malfoys, but if it's Happy, it's for extraneous reasons, not because of the relationships. In that sense the extreme R/H fans were as deluded as anyone else: they just didn't happen to catch the rough edge of JKR's tongue in an interview. David From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 11:01:11 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:01:11 -0000 Subject: The Political HP Message-ID: An aspect of HP that has been noted before. Probably more relevant to developments here in the UK than elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/yomtk6 Kneasy From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 11:24:20 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:24:20 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and Hallows Message-ID: (I'm kind of assuming that spoiler space is pointless, really. Maybe Neil can be persuaded to come back into his vacant portrait and issue a decree, but I'm not counting on it.) It seems plain to me now that much of the manoeuvring of the plotlines is aimed at setting up the final situation, only fuly revealed at the end of the Prince's Tale, in which Harry and Voldemort are symmetrically placed, at the intention of neither. Harry is a Horcrux, which means that for Voldemort to be killed, Harry must be killed first. And Voldemort sustains Lily's protection on Harry (how JKR's eye must have gleamed in triumph when she thought up that dodge in GOF), which means that if Harry is to be killed, Voldemort must die first. (The situation is not *quite* symmetrical because there is nothing to stop Harry dying a natural death, or being killed by a third party. However, it seems the protection against Voldemort extends to Voldemort's agents, which is enough for the story.) I think this symmetry is what the Prophecy is driving at. However, it seems the exact opposite of what it states: "Neither can live while the other survives." It seems more accurate that neither can die while the other survives. The result of this set-up is to permit JKR's moral aim, that whoever goes out to kill will lose, and whoever is prepared to sacrifice will win. Definitely Christian overtones there. I agree with Lyn's comment that the main function of the Hallows is to provide a deadly distraction for Dumbledore, Grindelwald, and Voldemort, and a test for Harry. As such, they are also a red herring for the reader for a while. (As an aside, I think the one question I'd like to ask JKR is "What part did your experience working for Amnesty play in influencing the series?") However, I think the precise form (particularly the Wand) and genesis of the Hallows in JKR's arc comes from a plot necessity. At the final scene in the Great Hall, JKR has broken her symmetry by having Harry (for Horcrux purposes) die, so Voldemort is vulnerable, while Harry is not. The double problem for JKR is that Harry needs to eliminate someone who is still a very powerful wizard, and do it without the moral compromise implicit in casting AK. In this final encounter Harry is quite safe (Lily's protection), but Voldemort is also protected by Harry's scruples. So, how to get Expelliarmus to cause Voldemort to die? The answer is the complex trail of ownership of the Elder Wand. The point of Harry's rather convoluted mastery of the Elder Wand is *not* so that Harry can be the more powerful wizard in battle: if that were the case, all that would happen is that Voldemort's normally unblockable AK would indeed bounce off Harry, and he would lose his wand through Harry's Expelliarmus, and they'd go to Round 2. No, I think what JKR is establishing here is a version of the wand connection at the end of GOF. That scene, and the one where Voldemort uses Lucius' wand, establish that where there is a personal connection between wand and wizard, then the normally unblockable nature of AK no longer holds, and opens the way for Harry to fully defeat Voldemort. It's not very satisfactory: why couldn't Voldemort be finished by 'simple' AK bounce as he almost was when Harry was a baby? I guess the answer is that he was right that Lily's protection does extend to him, too, but then it's hard to see how the Elder Wand really helps. Also, in the Lucius Malfoy wand incident, the decisive factor is that Voldemort has a connection to Harry's wand; at the end it's that Harry has a connection to Voldemort's wand, but the effect is the same. Bagatelles in JKR's estimation, I imagine. It's clear from the narrative that Voldemort does die from AK bounce, caused by the Elder Wand's service to "the master it would not kill". Anyway, that's how I see things, at present. David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 11:40:35 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:40:35 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > An aspect of HP that has been noted before. > Probably more relevant to developments here in the UK than elsewhere. > > http://tinyurl.com/yomtk6 Yes, interesting. My own feeling is that JKR presents the MOM as the state gone bad rather than evidence that the state is intrinsically bad, but I might be bringing my preconceptions to the text there. Trouble is, if a Libertarian told me the sun rises every day, I'd start to question it. David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 11:51:59 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:51:59 -0000 Subject: Griphook Message-ID: On the first reading I was somewhat dissatisfied with the way the Griphook plot just seems to fizzle. Harry is basically planning a double-cross and there is so little payoff? In a sense, though, the way Neville gets the sword at the end closes that off. Harry's bad faith causes the 'rightful' ownership of the sword to pass from him to Neville, while Griphook's greed (or legalistic anger) is rewarded by the force majeure of the Sorting Hat. Though no doubt he sees it as a typical wizarding trick played by the hat's owner, perfidious Gryffindor, like attaching the sword to the hat with a piece of invisible elastic. Suggests that JKR supports the wizard (ie everyday in our society), not the Goblin, concept of property rights. FWIW David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 11:51:59 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:51:59 -0000 Subject: Griphook Message-ID: On the first reading I was somewhat dissatisfied with the way the Griphook plot just seems to fizzle. Harry is basically planning a double-cross and there is so little payoff? In a sense, though, the way Neville gets the sword at the end closes that off. Harry's bad faith causes the 'rightful' ownership of the sword to pass from him to Neville, while Griphook's greed (or legalistic anger) is rewarded by the force majeure of the Sorting Hat. Though no doubt he sees it as a typical wizarding trick played by the hat's owner, perfidious Gryffindor, like attaching the sword to the hat with a piece of invisible elastic. Suggests that JKR supports the wizard (ie everyday in our society), not the Goblin, concept of property rights. FWIW David From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 12:04:12 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:04:12 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] JKR the anti-shipper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009901c7d10f$697776e0$5dcc3c82@hwin> b r o i l ' e r , s p o i l ' e r o i l ' e r David write, >>>>> To kick off, I think DH does in a kind of back-handed way cast all that fuss about the Leaky- Mugglenet interview in a new light. No comfort for upset H/H fans, but it's clear that the bonds of adventure trump romantic love for JKR. Look how, at the end, Harry deliberately ignores Ginny and seeks out Ron and Hermione, who in turn function as his companions rather than lovers at this point. One Big Weasley Family, yes, with a hint of the Malfoys, but if it's Happy, it's for extraneous reasons, not because of the relationships. In that sense the extreme R/H fans were as deluded as anyone else: they just didn't happen to catch the rough edge of JKR's tongue in an interview. >>>>>> Are you a reader of Cassandra Claire/Clare? (I bought her book, have enjoyed it immensely and am looking forward to the next volume. True: every character in the whole book has the same sense of humor - but since it's Cassie's own weird but endearing sense of humor, I don't mind.) Anway: she wrote a (very positive) review on her website in which she made an intersting conjecture: not only is JKR not particularly good at high romance, she doesn't even like writing it very much. (Unless she's making a joke of it, in which case she's devastating.) OTOH, what JKR is very good at and loves writing about is friendship. I liked that thought, and your observation dovetails with it. Mike Gray _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 12:21:51 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:21:51 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009a01c7d111$e10af770$5dcc3c82@hwin> David suggested, >>>> Yes, interesting. My own feeling is that JKR presents the MOM as the state gone bad rather than evidence that the state is intrinsically bad, but I might be bringing my preconceptions to the text there. >>>> Hm. I don't sense too much of the saddened patriot in Rowling - I have more the impression that she's (a) skeptical about all institutional power structures but (b) deeply convinced that we need to practice solidarity. And (b) necessitates said institutinal power structures *despite* (a). (Just as people like Voldemort necessitate war, even though she distrusts that too.) In that sense I would see her more as an anarchist manqu? than a libertarian. Mike Gray _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 13:08:43 2007 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:08:43 -0400 Subject: [the_old_crowd] JKR the anti-shipper In-Reply-To: <009901c7d10f$697776e0$5dcc3c82@hwin> References: <009901c7d10f$697776e0$5dcc3c82@hwin> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0707280608h43c24060ue1f519f56711404c@...> Mike: Anway: she wrote a (very positive) review on her website in which she made an intersting conjecture: not only is JKR not particularly good at high romance, she doesn't even like writing it very much. (Unless she's making a joke of it, in which case she's devastating.) OTOH, what JKR is very good at and loves writing about is friendship. Debbie: I'll agree with this observation and push it one step further. JKR didn't intend to write romance, and she intentionally handled the romantic relationships in the same vein as the Canary Creams. In light of the tone of these books, her approach to the romances was about right -- they *are* funny, right down to the scene in the Room of Requirement, which pokes fun at the tendency of new lovers to expect the world to stop for them. What would have been awful, IMO, is if JKR had actually tried to write serious romance into the series, although that seems to be what a lot of people would have preferred. What a distraction that would have been, and probably a bad one at that. Debbie off on a week's holiday which will include a reread of DH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 13:26:49 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:26:49 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: <009a01c7d111$e10af770$5dcc3c82@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > > Hm. I don't sense too much of the saddened patriot in Rowling - I have more > the impression that she's (a) skeptical about all institutional power > structures but (b) deeply convinced that we need to practice solidarity. And > (b) necessitates said institutinal power structures *despite* (a). (Just as > people like Voldemort necessitate war, even though she distrusts that too.) > > In that sense I would see her more as an anarchist manqu? than a > libertarian. > Quite possibly. Certainly the most easily remembered v. v. minor characters (the quick snapshot and then disappear bods) tended to display anarchic mindsets and individualistic eccentricities doubleplus. Though the message may be that while solidarity is needed, it need not be expressed solely through formal structures, and that without the individual as corrective all may be lost. Haven't heard or read it, but I gather that Jo has broadcast an expanded epilogue. The Ministry has been revamped and is now new and exciting. Oh dear. I wonder if this has anything to do with her friendship with Gordon Brown and the coincidence (surely!) of the real time publishing history of a series that in part depicts the progressive corruption of government, matches almost exactly the 10 year Premiership of Blair? A book of its time? Kneasy From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 14:54:45 2007 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:54:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and other details of DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Synthetic? Tell me about what they argue about the Oresteia. In short, it's synthetic because Athena makes that statement you cited as a gesture towards Apollo, but the Furies are also incorporated into the city-structure instead of being totally cast out as Apollo and Orestes would like to see them. They become Eumenides 'Kindly Ones', and have their cult respected properly. Athena's pretty gender-ambiguous, too; female but born from the male. By being female (and thus belonging to the oikos, the house) but being the patron goddess of the city (polis), things get folded together. Greek tragedy (which was a remarkably short-lived genre) and the logic of exclusivity (Is something A, or is it not A?) that you get later with Plato and Aristotle do not work well together. I'm really rusty on this so I can't pull out the more modern interpretations off the top of my head, but one of my cohorts did his bachelor's on this topic. I wrote on Vergil instead. > Nora, I didn't tell you how I cried out in joy at seeing that there > was a post from you after so long a time. Awww. :) I've been busy, dissertating away, but the last surge of canon was too interesting not to come and chat and see what I got right and lol over what I got wrong. > Actually, yes. There was a coterie who believed that he had decided > by pure logic, and not at all by personal inclination, to believe > that there really is a difference between good and evil that makes > it worthwhile to serve good and oppose evil, even in a losing fight. Pre-OotP, and even a little post-OotP, I was inclined to see it that way, more in moral terms (George and Diana). I think it may have become more of a moral thing later in his life, judging by the comments to Dumbledore, but it wasn't initially, not at all! -Nora gets back to cataloging performance dates on a muggy morning From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 16:05:08 2007 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:08 -0500 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: References: <879469221977427F9A5135318821F31B@AmandaPC> Message-ID: I don't care to give you more fodder so you can provide yet *more* flourished posts onlist, so I will make a few points and leave you to your shredding. > The posting figures for this site aren't a good guide to fan enthusiasm, > the membership is small and most also post elsewhere anyway. Even so, > compare with the first week after HBP. Then -750; now it'll be about 250. > So try TOL: then about 2,000 in 4 days; now about 1,000 - and that with > an increase in membership. So, is that what you're doing? Trying single-handedly to keep the posting figures up? > So tell me, just what do you think adolescence is? > What are the trials, tribulations, concerns, lessons, uncertainties and > misunderstandings of adolescence? No, they shouldn't take centre stage, > but one would expect at least some realistic reference to the feelings and > problems that many in the main readship target group are probably > struggling with on a daily basis. Well, for one thing, they were seventeen, and that's a bit post-adolescent in my book. For another, I didn't go through any of these huge hormonal struggles, nor did any of my friends. I believe the huge emphasis on "discovering sex" and all that is largely cultural. I had zits. I worked through what it meant to start reacting and interacting in a mature way, with some objectivity, rather than in a childish way, which is largely subjective. On the basis of my experience, the books have rung true, including the proportion given to thinking about the other gender. > Tolkien? > It wasn't set in this world, no characters were growing into adulthood, and > he didn't like women much anyway. Quite a glib dismissal. I will interpret your refusal to engage my point as my having a point you didn't think you could meet. > Meantime I'll salvage what minor pleasures I can from the wreckage. Which seems to be the heroic effort to "save" this list by keeping up the list volume. If it was that much a disappointment, go burn your books and join a Pullman list. I, for one, would enjoy seeing some discussion that included positives as well as negatives, and I believe your volume and tone are damping down others who would otherwise be posting. Who wants to post a differing interpretation than yours, when it simply guarantees that their words will be sliced and diced, thrown back at them with sarcasm and sly comments, and their depth of thought and ability to analyze could be called into question? You don't let a post pass, and you don't allow the validity of alternate interpretation without passive-aggressive overtones. YOU are the reason I'm not engaging in much discussion on this list, and I don't doubt it's true of a few others. ~Amandageist [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 16:37:35 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:37:35 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > snip > > Which seems to be the heroic effort to "save" this list by keeping up the > list volume. If it was that much a disappointment, go burn your books and > join a Pullman list. I, for one, would enjoy seeing some discussion that > included positives as well as negatives, and I believe your volume and tone > are damping down others who would otherwise be posting. Who wants to post a > differing interpretation than yours, when it simply guarantees that their > words will be sliced and diced, thrown back at them with sarcasm and sly > comments, and their depth of thought and ability to analyze could be called > into question? You don't let a post pass, and you don't allow the validity > of alternate interpretation without passive-aggressive overtones. YOU are > the reason I'm not engaging in much discussion on this list, and I don't > doubt it's true of a few others. > > ~Amandageist > > I love it! The first true post-HP era discussion group post. We shall now fill the vacuum with analysis not by, but of Kneasy. And surely, if not enough posts occur to support that analysis, Kneasy will be "kind" enough to provide sufficient self analysis to keep us all going. Such a comfort for me in the wake of the DH plot disappointments, and the utter pap of that extended epilogue she provides in the Today Show interview. Lyn From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 17:40:43 2007 From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:40:43 -0000 Subject: Hallows / Prophecy / Anarchy / Greek Tragedy Message-ID: Xenophilius Lovegood's notion that seekers of the Deathly Hallow identify themselves in hope of finding other DH seekers to aid them in the quest is one of his craziest ideas. Only one person at a time can own a Hallow, so only one person at a time can own all three and thus be Master of Death, and it seems most DH seekers would rather kill a fellow seeker (i.e. a competitor) than assist him/her. Anyway, I don't think DD's plan to die as undefeated owner of the Deathstick, and once he was dead no one could defeat him, and that would take the Deathstick out of play, is a sound plan. If Grindelwald defeated Gregorovitch and became owner of the wand just by stealing it, dead DD could be defeated and the wand pass to new ownership by someone stealing it from his tomb, just as LV thought. Dave wrote in : << I think this symmetry is what the Prophecy is driving at. However, it seems the exact opposite of what it states: "Neither can live while the other survives." It seems more accurate that neither can die while the other survives. >> The Prophecy says 'live', which I absolutely cannot figure out, instead of 'die', which was pretty much what I was expecting from the time from the end of PS/Ss when DD said Harry was too young to be told why LV attacked him: that there is a Prophecy that Harry is the only one who can kill LV but killing LV requires him to die in the process. Do you think it is for the same reason that TMR was Slytherin's last 'ancestor' instead of 'descendent'? In which case, asserting that she and Trelawney had worded the Prophecy 'very carefully' was not a correct statement. Mike Gray wrote in : << In that sense I would see her more as an anarchist manqu? than a libertarian. >> The word 'Libertarian' originates as meaning one who believes in 'liberty', but has been captured by a kind of right-wing anarchist philosophy. To that extent, the Libertarian Party *are* anarchists manqu?. Sam Konkin (Samuel Edward Konkin III, who had his own right-wing anarchist extremist nut cult) used to call them 'Partyarchs' and call them very vicious things, such as 'statist hypocrites'. Nora wrote in : << Greek tragedy (which was a remarkably short-lived genre) >> I read somewhere someone wrote that the theatrical genre of tragedy flourishes only where a still rich and powerful aristocracy realizes it is losing its wealth and power to a merchant class. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 18:29:12 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:29:12 -0000 Subject: Epilogue (was More random jottings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lyn wrote: > Such a comfort for me in the wake of the DH plot disappointments, and > the utter pap of that extended epilogue she provides in the Today Show > interview. As to pap and disappointments, I dn't have anything to add, but I see she mentions one aspect of the epilogue I'd been intendig to comment on: the pervasive mist. Presumably this is the steam from the engine, but of course no normal engine smoke and steam can cover such a space. The effect is to make the whole scene slightly unreal, as well as to evoke the earlier dream sequence with Dumbledore. On the one hand, the characters are in heaven, having passed through their suffering and seeing only dimly the next generation aking up the baton; on the other, the scene is removed from the reader; it becomes 'long ago and far away'. At long last we are made to feel that the conceit of a parallel world intermingled with ours is just that, and the 'real world' of Kings Cross and Muggles is just as much a fantasy in the series as that of Hogwarts and Azkaban. Encyclopedias, whatever, it's over. Over. David From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 18:35:08 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:35:08 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > I don't care to give you more fodder so you can provide yet *more* > flourished posts onlist, so I will make a few points and leave you to your > shredding. > > snip > Which seems to be the heroic effort to "save" this list by keeping up the > list volume. If it was that much a disappointment, go burn your books and > join a Pullman list. I, for one, would enjoy seeing some discussion that > included positives as well as negatives, and I believe your volume and tone > are damping down others who would otherwise be posting. Who wants to post a > differing interpretation than yours, when it simply guarantees that their > words will be sliced and diced, thrown back at them with sarcasm and sly > comments, and their depth of thought and ability to analyze could be called > into question? You don't let a post pass, and you don't allow the validity > of alternate interpretation without passive-aggressive overtones. YOU are > the reason I'm not engaging in much discussion on this list, and I don't > doubt it's true of a few others. > > Uh oh. Doesn't want to provide more fodder, yet makes some not-so-thinly-veiled accusations that almost demand a response. Gets personal, too. Do I react? Nah. 'Cept to say you'll be delighted to hear that it's highly probable that I'll be down-grading to occasional lurk mode in the not too distant future. There's little left to discuss of HP that interests me all that much. In the meantime - you skip my posts and I promise not to respond to yours. Kneasy From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 19:04:30 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:04:30 +0200 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005c01c7d14a$209ccac0$5dcc3c82@hwin> Snipping and ducking at the same time ... > go burn your books and > join a Pullman list. For the record, I think DH was terrific, but then nobody ever said that I'm not weird (even when they agreed with me .. ) BUT: if there's a Pullman list out there, I want to join it. Is there? (For the record: Although the writing is better, I find the climax and denouement of His Dark Materials enirely too mawkish - in fact, manipulative -, particularly in comparison to the way it's handled in DH.) Mike Gray _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://aberforths-goat.livejournal.com/ http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 20:09:24 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:09:24 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: Who wants to post a > differing interpretation than yours, when it simply guarantees that their > words will be sliced and diced, thrown back at them with sarcasm and sly > comments, and their depth of thought and ability to analyze could be called > into question? You don't let a post pass, and you don't allow the validity > of alternate interpretation without passive-aggressive overtones. YOU are > the reason I'm not engaging in much discussion on this list, and I don't > doubt it's true of a few others. > > ~Amandageist > Ah, this will be the same Kneasy that's just given me a heads-up that the new Jasper Fforde is out**, a sustained and subtle amusement on the joys and pitfalls of literary analysis, to quote at random: 'Jurisfiction is the name given to the policing agency within books. Working with the intelligence-gathering capabilities of Text Grand Central, the Prose Resource Operatives at Jurisfiction work tirelessly to maintain the continuity of the narrative within the pages of all the books ever written, a sometimes thankless task. Jurisfiction agents live mostly on their wits as they attempt to reconcile the author's original wishes and the reader's expectations with a strict and largely pointless set of bureaucratic guidelines laid down by the Council of Genres.' Carolyn, Who has often thought that participating in HP discussion groups is like stepping straight through one of Fforde's Prose Portals, and takes black amusement in the multiple SPAMs that are proliferating in the heading here.. **First Among Sequels From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 20:54:21 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:54:21 -0000 Subject: Epilogue (was More random jottings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > Lyn wrote: > > > Such a comfort for me in the wake of the DH plot disappointments, and > > the utter pap of that extended epilogue she provides in the Today Show > > interview. > > As to pap and disappointments, I dn't have anything to add, but I see she mentions one > aspect of the epilogue I'd been intendig to comment on: the pervasive mist. > > Presumably this is the steam from the engine, but of course no normal engine smoke and > steam can cover such a space. The effect is to make the whole scene slightly unreal, as well > as to evoke the earlier dream sequence with Dumbledore. On the one hand, the characters > are in heaven, having passed through their suffering and seeing only dimly the next > generation aking up the baton; on the other, the scene is removed from the reader; it > becomes 'long ago and far away'. At long last we are made to feel that the conceit of a > parallel world intermingled with ours is just that, and the 'real world' of Kings Cross and > Muggles is just as much a fantasy in the series as that of Hogwarts and Azkaban. > > Encyclopedias, whatever, it's over. Over. > > David > Lyn here again: A little expansion on the pap and disappointments. As I've mentioned before, I had a fairly enjoyable time during my actual reading of DH, but for the epilogue. But at the end was left cold by the errors, inconsistencies, and unfulfilled promises she made. It was time for the series plot to truly hold together (and she had 17 years to pull it together) and in the end, IMO, she didn't do that. Thus the disappointment. Perhaps we may begin a few of lists: One of the inconsistencies (for example, Grindenvald dead or not dead); another of promises unfulfilled (e.g., Lilly's employment), and another of plot arcs that were uncompleted or severely truncated (how James went from a bully to being admired by all in the Order and school). The pap is the sickly sweetness of the post Voldy world. Even children know, and JKR specifically pointed out to them in the series, than the world does not become safe simply because any individual bad guy is "vanquished." Yet 19 years later, all is basically sweetness and light. Harry ends the book (the real end, not the silly epilogue) with the statement, "I've had enough trouble for a lifetime." JKR basically keeps telling us he just wants to settle down to a "damaged" but quiet life. Yet in the Today interviews, we are told he and Ron go off to become Aurors. Hardly a position of safety, quiet, and avoidance of trouble. Furthermore, Harry's mastery of the Death Wand makes him having a "natural" death of considerable importance, yet he takes on an occupation just asking for another magical person to kill him, and thereby assume master of the wand. Pap also because of the just silly rehabilitation of the DOM to which all of the trio now are integral parts. JKR takes a fairly consistent, and often not very subtle, stance about the inherent flaws in big government, yet basically reverses all of that in her interview. Nah, I'm not happy with the destination, despite enjoying the ride. David wrote: > Encyclopedias, whatever, it's over. Over. > I suppose it was senseless to say so the first time, let alone again, but I really am not sure that the tale of HP is over. Of course JKR would say so now, she really wants out of the pressure of producing another volume, and does care about her fans and rightly understands that they need closure at this point. But I've never much believed her past public statements, and I don't believe her to any greater extent now. She definitely left the door open for a return to HP (ring to be found on the ground, Death Wand to be stolen or a 'WandSlinger' to come after Harry to take mastery of it, Harry becoming an Auror, Harry staying alive and the trio intact, Harry having his own children to protect and their future to fight for, Draco still lurking in the wings). She has made it exceedingly easy to report again on Harry's life when he is 38 or 58 or 78. Obviously none of us will know until it happens, but I won't be even faintly surprised if it does. JKR has a lot of years ahead of her, her own children will grow up, and it is clear from the Today Show interviews that HP remains alive not only at the end of the books, but in her life. Will she really be able to resist sharing her thoughts of him again? If she does, will most of us climb right back on the ride? I again have no doubt. From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 21:59:55 2007 From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:59:55 -0000 Subject: JKR the anti-shipper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: "To kick off, I think DH does in a kind of back-handed way cast all that fuss about the Leaky- Mugglenet interview in a new light. No comfort for upset H/H fans, but it's clear that the bonds of adventure trump romantic love for JKR. Look how, at the end, Harry deliberately ignores Ginny and seeks out Ron and Hermione, who in turn function as his companions rather than lovers at this point. " A good point, although JKR, I believe, took a swipe at R/Hers for their condescension by having Harry and Hermione seem so much closer than Ron and Hermione. JKR settled a lot of scores in DH, such as against conspiracy theories; but I digress. Dave: "One Big Weasley Family, yes, with a hint of the Malfoys, but if it's Happy, it's for extraneous reasons, not because of the relationships." I disagree to the extent that happiness always has many sources, just as JKR recognizes love of many kinds, and wants to be sure her readers understand that romantic love isn't the only kind. There are all sorts of relationships here, not just romantic ones, and while Harry loves Ginny very much he loves Ron, Hermione, the Weasleys, Neville and Luna too, and they all contribute to his peace and happiness. We're just so used to reading eros as the only kind of love we're missing a lot of it. OBHWF is too saccharine for words for a lot of people, but I sure wouldn't mind it in my life. Jim Ferer From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 28 22:23:05 2007 From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:23:05 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amandageist: "I, for one, would enjoy seeing some discussion that included positives as well as negatives..." Well, Amanda, here goes for me. I've only read the book once, and there's a lot of details I haven't absorbed and inconsistencies I haven't caught, but the story rings completely true to me on the emotional level; JKR understands this very well. I found the book satisfying on the emotional level, even as I was noticing all the stories that still need told. I agree with you that kids think of a whole lot else besides sex. The modest amount of sex in DH only points out how oversexed most of what we read in books and see on screens is. It is cultural. One thing that does strike me on that level is how mature some of the kids act. Harry, Hermione, and Ginny all seem to get it far more than most teenagers do; Ron seems more of a typical teen than the others. My daughter is sixteen and I wonder how she would respond to what they've been through; of course, she wasn't trained up to it from age eleven. The epilogue is frustrating only because it could have gone on for another fifty, sixty, or hundred and fifty pages. It's not a saccharine world because families can take their children to the school train on a peaceful day. If Harry and Ron are Aurors chasing down Death Eater pretenders (you know there'll be plenty)that doesn't mean it isn't a peaceful world. Neither has forgotten "constant vigilance," but it beats hell out of hiding out in the forest trying to keep the world from being destroyed. I won't even try to defend this book. It doesn't need it, certainly not by me. Jim Ferer From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 05:31:52 2007 From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:31:52 -0000 Subject: Mixed emotions Message-ID: I (Snow) maintain that I solemnly swear that I am up to no good! I read the book slowly wanting to drink in every possible tidbit that I had been long awaiting, which took me approximately twenty hours. It has taken me this long to absorb and write honestly how I felt about the book ... or should I say the book itself in comparison to my reaction to the conclusion of the series, which is completely separate. I can almost feel what Harry must have gone through having had such a stronghold of negativity against his very goodness by having a bit of Voldy luggage attached to his very being when I read the last book in comparison to the series as a whole. The book itself was quite gripping for me, with every page there seemed to be an answer to the puzzle or a piece that had not quite been fitted in. And as I neared the end of this gripping tale I sunk into the Harry lives (when he heard through the pencieve that he must sacrifice himself) doldrums that I was right all along... It's not that I didn't want Harry to live; it was that I had concluded the ending (the meat of the story that she said couldn't be guessed) all along and I was awaiting the twist at the end that didn't come (for me). And then I turned the final page to the Epilog from hell (for me) to face James, Lily and Albus (new characters that I had to envision with old faces to the names coming back to haunt my depictions); what a nightmare. I feel like I have done enough obscene bashing of the very person that enticed me to read. I absolutely hate to read unless it is a condensed version of the topic at hand. (People tend to drown on to make their point when I have already figured it out before they open their mouth. `A bit of pompous Percy here but it is true') If a person can make me read further than "I was born", its president. No author has ever had that effect on me (guess I've picked up the wrong books) other than poets. I cannot give JKR enough credit for not only making me read period but faster than most of the persons nearest to me. JKR also opened a world (literally `the world') of people that I would have never met if it had not been for the magic of Potter. I bless her for that. No matter the ending to a fabulous book and series, no matter the things left unresolved, this woman can write! She can take you anywhere and you are right there beside her... In the end I would have to say She gave me a ride I will never forget...good...bad...or indifferent! Snow From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 11:46:51 2007 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:46:51 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: "Jim Ferer" > I agree with you that kids think of a whole lot else besides sex. The > modest amount of sex in DH only points out how oversexed most of what > we read in books and see on screens is. It is cultural. I have to say I agree. I finally started my first proper teaching job two weeks ago, and it's keeping me very busy so I haven't been as free to discuss HP as I would like, but this is an issue that does move me to comment. I find it rather fascinating the focus that so many readers of these books seem to put on issues of romance and sex - as if they feel there is some mandate that the Harry Potter books should contain sex and/or romance - as if they feel that this is a *required* part of a book, or at least, a required part of *these* books. I've no real problem with the romance we see in the books - I don't think that it is out of place. I also wouldn't object if the books had had more sex in them. Teens/adolescents can have romances. Some of them do have sex. It wasn't, by any means, unrealistic for JKR to have romances in these books, and it wouldn't, by any means, have been unrealistic for her to have sex in the books. *But* I do think it would have been just as realistic if there hadn't been the same level of romance, and I do think it's perfectly realistic that there isn't a major sexual focus. It's not abnormal for adolescents to be romantically engaged. It's not abnormal for adolescents to be sexually active. But it's also not abnormal for adolescents to not be involved in romance, and it's not abnormal for them not to be sexually active. Plenty of teens don't have these things as a significant part of their lives. I went to a boarding school in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I had plenty of opportunities for romantic entanglements, and some degree of opportunity for sexual relationships. So did all of my peers. But only a minority of us actually dated anybody and only a minority ever engaged in any sexual activity (well - at least any sexual activity involving two people). Those who did - well, fair enough, there was nothing particularly strange or unusual about them... but I don't think any of the rest of us thought there was anything strange about the fact that we didn't. It wasn't that we weren't interested in the concepts, or we didn't understand them... it was just that our priorities were - and were expected to be - our schoolwork. Other things could wait - our schoolwork couldn't. I look at the world of Hogwarts and that's pretty much what I see... the students are at school to learn. Their schoolwork - their OWLs and then their NEWTs - are their priorities. Some of them find some time for romance. There are sometimes organised activities - dances, etc - and some of them take those opportunities. I doubt every single sixth and seventh year at Hogwarts is a virgin - but I don't think it's unrealistic to suppose that the significant majority of them are. Because among my peers at school, that was the case - not all, but most. And so I wonder at the idea that there's something unrealistic about the way JKR depicts teens... I don't think it's the only realistic way to depict them, but I do think it is *one* realistic way. The Wizarding World also does seem to me to be somewhat old fashioned and traditional in a number of ways - and this may be one of those ways. Of course, sexual activity between teens is hardly unknown in any period of society - but it was less prevalent at many periods than it is now. We need to think about that, I think, in looking at this issue. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 14:49:10 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:49:10 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [the_old_crowd] More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I, for one, would enjoy seeing some discussion that > included positives as well as negatives, and I believe your volume > and tone are damping down others who would otherwise be posting. Who > wants to post adiffering interpretation than yours, when it simply > guarantees that their words will be sliced and diced, thrown back at > them with sarcasm and sly comments, and their depth of thought and > ability to analyze could be called into question? You don't let a > post pass, and you don't allow the validity > of alternate interpretation without passive-aggressive overtones. YOU > are the reason I'm not engaging in much discussion on this list, and > I don't doubt it's true of a few others. > ~Amandageist I think you are being unfair here. I have never know Kneasy to slice and die someone else's opinion unless he opposes it, and then he counters with his own opinions and theories (often quite brilliant) and backed up with examples and book citations. He is never rude, insulting or disrespectful and if you spend anytime on almost any other forum on the web, you'll know that is a rare thing indeed. Kneasey is not always right (and he might disagree with that) but he does has a sharp wit that can cut the thin skinned and he also has a superbly dry sense of humor that I think you do not understand (and possibly can cause minor transatlantic misunderstanding at times), but the point is, I, or anyone else, can decide for ourselves whether to entertain his argument or not. You're right; Kneasy's tone is currently leaning negative but it's his opinion and if another poster cannot hold up their end of an argument with him that is their problem. It's called debate and heaven forbid we on this site should encourage the dumbing down of argument for the sake of not hurting someone else's feelings. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. Amanda (ExSlytherin) From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 15:01:33 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:01:33 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] More random jottings - on Fford sooooo off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ah, this will be the same Kneasy that's just given me a heads-up that > the new Jasper Fforde is out**, a sustained and subtle amusement on > the joys and pitfalls of literary analysis, to quote at random: > > 'Jurisfiction is the name given to the policing agency within books. > Working with the intelligence-gathering capabilities of Text Grand > Central, the Prose Resource Operatives at Jurisfiction work > tirelessly to maintain the continuity of the narrative within the > pages of all the books ever written, a sometimes thankless task. > Jurisfiction agents live mostly on their wits as they attempt to > reconcile the author's original wishes and the reader's expectations > with a strict and largely pointless set of bureaucratic guidelines > laid down by the Council of Genres.' > > Carolyn, > Who has often thought that participating in HP discussion groups is > like stepping straight through one of Fforde's Prose Portals, and > takes black amusement in the multiple SPAMs that are proliferating > in the heading here.. Oh lawkes, this is utterly off topic but I'm a third of the way through First Amoung Sequels. Love it!! And I agree with you the forums are kind of like stepping in to the fiction world, except the characters are absent. What a thrill that would be to have the Trio here to defend themselves! I noticed Fford's comment on wear and tear fanfic can cause to a book. Genius. Alright I'm done highjacking the thread...apologies. Lets get back to HP. From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 15:25:23 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:25:23 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jim Ferer wrote: > I find it rather > fascinating the focus that so many readers of these books seem to > put on issues of romance and sex - as if they feel there is some > mandate that the Harry Potter books should contain sex and/or > romance - as if they feel that this is a *required* part of a > book, or at least, a required part of *these* books. Not a mandate but in a saga that is so large and deals with so many `adult' issues in an incredibly realistic way to not touch upon sexuality stands out like a sore thumb. Jim Ferer wrote: > I've no real problem with the romance we see in the books - I don't think > that it is out of place. I also wouldn't object if the books had had more > sex in them. Teens/adolescents can have romances. Some of them do have sex. > It wasn't, by any means, unrealistic for JKR to have romances in these > books, and it wouldn't, by any means, have been unrealistic for her to have > sex in the books. Exactly, I agree and in a smaller book ignoring sex completely would work perfectly well it wouldn't feel missing or out of place. But in a series this large and that deals with so many different characters, many of who are teens, to have all of them ignore sex completely is just well odd. As you say there are some kids who are obsessed just as there are some kids who aren't. Now I'm not saying there should be porn in HP and I don't feel some kind of desperate need to get my rocks off by reading about teens having sex, but touching on sexuality in young people (consumated or not) can be done and done well. As I pointed out in a previous post Phillip Pullman did just that, brilliantly, in The Amber Spyglass, book 3 of the His Dark Material series. Amanda (ExSlytherin) From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 15:56:16 2007 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:56:16 -0000 Subject: Has Anyone Revisited Pippin's "The List.doc" Yet? Message-ID: Remember way back when? When Pippin posted The List (A list of plots, mysteries and unfinished character arcs to be completed in Book Seven)? You can find the complete list in the Files section, but here's a glimpse of it for those who need a bit of a refresher course: ------------------------------- "I can't tell you that..." Who will survive? Is Snape evil? What are Snape's boggart and patronus? What does 'either must die at the hand of the other' mean? Who was at Godric's Hollow besides Voldemort? "Hint, hint..." We'll see the two way mirrors again We'll understand why Sirius had to die Grawp will do something useful Petunia's not a squib but that's a good guess The Lestranges were sent to attack the Longbottoms, but not because they knew the prophecy Sirius sent Snape into the tunnel because he loathed Snape (and the feeling was mutual) Snape has been loved Someone becomes a teacher, but it's not who you might think Someone will show magic late in life Thinking about Dumbledore's family might be fruitful The shape is not the most significant thing about Harry's scar You'll hear more about the Founders Harry's glasses are the key to his vulnerability You can guess where Sirius's motorcycle is now Regulus Black is a fine guess for the identity of RAB You might see Dumbledore's scar again The two- way mirror wouldn't have helped as much as you think, on the other hand, it will help more than you think ---------------------------------- Ah, good fun. Well, have at it! Go take a look at the full document. Let us know if you feel JKR lived up to her hints and our expectations, or if she was leading us down the primrose path all along! :: Entropy :: From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 16:26:28 2007 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:26:28 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] More random jottings - on Fford sooooo off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > > > Oh lawkes, this is utterly off topic but I'm a third of the way > through First Amoung Sequels. Love it!! > > And I agree with you the forums are kind of like stepping in to the fiction world, except the characters are absent. What a thrill that would be to have the Trio here to defend themselves! > > I noticed Fford's comment on wear and tear fanfic can cause to a > book. Genius. > > Alright I'm done highjacking the thread...apologies. Lets get back to HP. > Ain't it just the funniest Thursday Next yet? I've just got to the bit where they are giving Pride & Prejudice a clean-up and Lady Catherine de Burgh has offered her ghastly daughter as a Jurisfiction trainee. Thursday counters by suggesting that Anne's first assignment be character re-training in Fanny Hill, whose genre has been moved from Literary Smut to Racy Novel. Oh, and don't start me on Welsh cheese-dealing.. Carolyn ..who has lost count of the laughs that Kneasy has provided over the years From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 16:32:49 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:32:49 -0000 Subject: JKR interview Message-ID: Some tidbits here: http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/2007/07/rowling_speaks.html Most notably, the reprieved character was Arthur Weasley, and she implies the ones who she killed off at the last moment were Tonks and Lupin. David From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 17:37:32 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:37:32 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c7d207$256ea240$07ce3c82@hwin> I was really, really not going to get involved in this - but I mean, what red-blooded male is going to take a pass on sex? Not this goat. So ... Says the other Amanda: > Not a mandate but in a saga that is so large and deals with so > many `adult' issues in an incredibly realistic way to not touch upon > sexuality stands out like a sore thumb. Oh dear ... where to start, where to start ... Right, boys and girls, back to the birds and the bees: What is sex? Apparently, a few otherwise clever people are laboring under the illusion that sexuality refers to an energetic activity involving anatomical friction between one or more persons and/or body parts. Which is a bit like saying that nutrition means eating a hamburger for lunch or that driving a car means turning a steering wheel and making honking noises. Here's a top-of-the-head overview of the trio's experience of sexuality in the Potter books: Harry and Ron and Hermione are all human beings; however, their humanity is such that the first two are called boys whereas the latter is called a girl. That's sexuality. Harry and Ron and Hermione quickly develop confusing feelings about each other and other boys and girls. (These feeling are caused by things in their bodies called hormones and are introduced by an aspect of the human maturation process called puberty.) That's sexuality. Ron, in particular, becomes increasingly aware of those parts of his and other people's bodies which are usually covered and makes jokes about getting to see them. That's sexuality. Harry and Ron and Hermione all participate in socially negotiated patterns (called balls, for example) which allow closer encounters of interaction between boys and girls which they both desire and fear. That's sexuality. Harry, Ron and Hermione all participate (with greater and lesser degrees of success) in a widely-spread pre-mating ritual known as kissing. That's sexuality. Harry, Ron and Hermione are siezed by otherwise inexpicable emotions of jealousy and rage when persons with whom they have established a hormonally charged bond show signs of forgetting it or of establishing such a bond with other persons. That's sexuality. Harry, Ron and Hermione experience both positive and negative emotional states as members of Ron's family move through various socially recognized mating patterns and establish a long-term bond known as marriage. That's sexuality. Harry, Ron and Hermione all enter into this same type of bond. That's sexuality. Harry, Roon and Hermione all become parents and raise their children. If that's not sexuality, I don't know what is. To say JKR ignores sexuality is about as absurd as saying the Titanic didn't really hit an iceberg because no one saw an icey thing poking out of the water. * * * * * Now, if you were really saying that Rowling might *also* have provided details (age, regularity, conctraception, positions, etc.) about *coitus* as practiced by teenagers in her world - well, there you have it. She might have; she didn't want to. Of course, I might mention that there are a few well placed jokes - but, of course, joking about sex (coitus) really bothers some people. If you want to convince people that it is a serious aesthetic flaw for a contemporary Bildungsroman to neglect the non-jokeful depiction of this specific activity, you are well within your rights. But you might want to note that a lot of people who are entirely open and upfront about sexuality (coitus included) don't give a fig and will wonder what your problem is. Hence, a modicum of humilty would be advisable. Last time I checked, coitus ignoratus wasn't on the canonical list of literary perversions. Baaaaaa! Mike Gray (a.k.a. Aberforth's Goat, whose wife took the kids up to Interlaken last week while I stayed home to work on my project. No more posts of this kind from me, or I'll probably have an accident.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://aberforths-goat.livejournal.com/ http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm http://groups.google.com/group/fantasy-and-religion From jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 18:02:47 2007 From: jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid (serenadust) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:02:47 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jim Ferer wrote: > > I find it rather > > fascinating the focus that so many readers of these books seem to > > put on issues of romance and sex - as if they feel there is some > > mandate that the Harry Potter books should contain sex and/or > > romance - as if they feel that this is a *required* part of a > > book, or at least, a required part of *these* books. I do agree that the passionate interest in the romantic lives of the characters seems to be entirely out of proportion to the kind of story Rowling has been telling. I've always been puzzled by this but apparently all fandoms (and this is the only one I've been in, so I wouldn't know) are rife with this sort of obsession, so apparently it's not as unusual as it's always seemed to me. Amanda writes: > Not a mandate but in a saga that is so large and deals with so > many `adult' issues in an incredibly realistic way to not touch upon > sexuality stands out like a sore thumb. But not to everyone, as it seems other posters have been pointing out. Amanda continues: > Exactly, I agree and in a smaller book ignoring sex completely would > work perfectly well it wouldn't feel missing or out of place. But in > a series this large and that deals with so many different characters, > many of who are teens, to have all of them ignore sex completely is > just well odd. As you say there are some kids who are obsessed just > as there are some kids who aren't. The thing is, I don't believe that she *has* ignored sex completely. She certainly has put plenty of subtext throughout the series, (particularly from GoF onward) that the alert adult reader can easily perceive the adolescent hormones seething just off camera. Beginning with Snape blasting the student couples (Harry thought Fleur and Roger Davies looked "very busy")out of the bushes after the Yule Ball, through Merope's enchanting Riddle Sr. (and subsequent pregnancy), the power of the Veela over males, Ron and Lavendar's very physical relationship, and Harry's own strong attraction to Ginny, I think that the sexuality is pretty hard to miss. It's just that Rowling seems to prefer a light touch with the topic because she's telling an adventure story that I think she'd rather not de- rail by distracting the readers, many of whom seemed to already be over invested in romantic couplings. After all, that topic seems to be driving 95% of the fanfiction, and God knows, 99% of that is utter crap (IMO). Amanda continues: > Now I'm not saying there should be porn in HP and I don't feel some > kind of desperate need to get my rocks off by reading about teens > having sex, but touching on sexuality in young people (consumated or > not) can be done and done well. As I pointed out in a previous post > Phillip Pullman did just that, brilliantly, in The Amber Spyglass, > book 3 of the His Dark Material series. Well, Pullman seems to have a completely different agenda in his books from Rowlings, so his approach and style would be significantly different. I've only read his first book of that series and unfortuately didn't love it, so I'm really not qualified to discuss his work further. I'm not a fan. Suffice to say, I thought Rowling put a believable amount of age- appropriate sexuality in her books, so I can't understand why anyone thinks there isn't any although I can understand if it just wasn't enough to satify other readers. Tastes vary (says Captain Obvious). Jo S. From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 18:23:21 2007 From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:23:21 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > > An aspect of HP that has been noted before. > Probably more relevant to developments here in the UK than elsewhere. > > http://tinyurl.com/yomtk6 Univ. of Tennessee Prof. Benjamin Barton also gives a libertarian interpretation of HP http://www.lashawnbarber.com/ffc/wp-content/SSRN-id830765.pdf This essay was written after HBP, and is fairly lengthy - a brief article about is available here: http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51562 - CMC From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 18:59:39 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:59:39 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d207$256ea240$07ce3c82@hwin> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" wrote: > > Here's a top-of-the-head overview of the trio's experience of sexuality in > the Potter books: > > Harry and Ron and Hermione all participate in socially negotiated patterns > (called balls, for example) which allow closer encounters of interaction > between boys and girls which they both desire and fear. That's sexuality. > Harry, Ron and Hermione all participate (with greater and lesser degrees of > success) in a widely-spread pre-mating ritual known as kissing. That's > sexuality. > Harry, Ron and Hermione are siezed by otherwise inexpicable emotions of > jealousy and rage when persons with whom they have established a hormonally > charged bond show signs of forgetting it or of establishing such a bond with > other persons. That's sexuality. I can see your point, but... The Ball for instance. If Harry and Ron's partners had been hoping for a little socially acceptable sexuality, then I fear they were sadly disappointed. And no dancing since, IIRC. Kissing - yes, it's there. Harry has kissed two girls, so has Ron; Hermione probably two fellows - mighty short rations. I'd complain if I were they; seventeen and only two kissing datees? T'aint natural, I tellee. Admittedly Ginny may have had more fun, but what we hear is mostly disapproving conjecture on Ron's part. Besides, Ginny seems more genuine than the other three put together - particularly since book 4. Maybe that's part of it. Hormones - ah well. You should read what my physiology manuals have to say about teens and hormones. It'd fair make your hair curl, and would not go down well amidst the pages of HP. But I never suggested it should. Despite all the brou-haha since, my point was that a little more realism, congruence with contempory norms - especially the same-sex discussions regarding uncertainty, ignorance and guesswork epidemic among the younger set as they grope(!) towards adulthood, would not be amiss. We had it once. In seven years. In seven books. It may be that this is all of a part with one of the other points in that post - the total blank on any other adult arrangement except wedlock. It may be the most desirable state where many folk are concerned, but in society as a whole life-long wedlock has declined towards being a minority activity. There are a lot of young readers who will not recognise the WW family unit as something they're familiar with. It's a shame that the HP books neglects to recognise them. Kneasy From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 20:25:50 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:25:50 -0000 Subject: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d207$256ea240$07ce3c82@hwin> Message-ID: > Oh dear ... where to start, where to start ... Right, boys and > girls, back to the birds and the bees: What is sex? > Apparently, a few otherwise clever people are laboring under the illusion > that sexuality refers to an energetic activity involving anatomical friction > between one or more persons and/or body parts. Which is a bit like saying > that nutrition means eating a hamburger for lunch or that driving a > car means turning a steering wheel and making honking noises. Heavy snip. > Baaaaaa! Ech, yes I was not clear at all in my statement, and it's come out making me look rather silly. I used the word sexuality incorrectly; I should have typed sex. The saga is full of sexuality, absolutely, from Aberforths goat infatuation, to Bellatrix tormenting Harry about the ineffectuality of his Curciartus curse. The twin's rampant wand use in OotP, Ron's never-ending, unrequited lust for Hermione (and all the lovely examples you give that I snipped for space). There are the Hogwart's girls and their Love Potions, Ginny and her Boys, the Yule Ball and the Quest for a Suitably Attractive Date, etc, etc, etc. Sexuality all over the place but that is part of my issue. The fact that JKR dealt with sexuality so well during the entire saga and yet when she arrived at the point of having 17/18 year olds thrown together in desperate and terrifying times for there to be no hint of sex is, as I said, just odd. I think JKR could have snuck sex it in there if she wanted (clearly she didn't and that's her right), delicately and with respect. It would have simply made the situation all more real for me. That's all. It doesn't diminish the impact of the story for me but I'm certain it would have giving it more depth, making it just a little better. Amanda (exslytherin) From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 21:08:53 2007 From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:08:53 -0000 Subject: Misquotes on a theme Message-ID: Jim Ferer didn't write: "I find it rather fascinating the focus that so many readers of these books seem to put on issues of romance and sex - as if they feel there is some mandate that the Harry Potter books should contain sex and/or romance - as if they feel that this is a *required* part of a book, or at least, a required part of *these* books." Can we figure out who wrote this? I did not. Jim Ferer From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 21:54:41 2007 From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:54:41 -0000 Subject: Misquotes on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jim Ferer didn't write: "I find it rather fascinating the focus > that so many readers of these books seem to put on issues of romance > and sex - as if they feel there is some mandate that the Harry Potter > books should contain sex and/or romance - as if they feel that this > is a *required* part of a book, or at least, a required part of > *these* books." > > Can we figure out who wrote this? I did not. > > Jim Ferer Oh I apologize Jim. I believe it was me that assigned that quote to you. I seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth over and over again to day. Sometimes I find it hard to tell who wrote what when the threat automatically places someone's name at the top. I mistakenly assumed the person named at the top was the poster, when in fact they are the person being quoted from a previous post. *doh* The person who wrote the quote you cite signs themselves: Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 Here's the link to the post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/5006 Amanda (exslytherin) From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 21:58:52 2007 From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Ashley) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:58:52 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" > wrote: > > > > An aspect of HP that has been noted before. > > Probably more relevant to developments here in the UK than elsewhere. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/yomtk6 > > Univ. of Tennessee Prof. Benjamin Barton also gives a libertarian > interpretation of HP > > http://www.lashawnbarber.com/ffc/wp-content/SSRN-id830765.pdf > > This essay was written after HBP, and is fairly lengthy - a brief > article about is available here: > > http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51562 > > - CMC > I leave all of the above to preserve the links. Barton details the evidence over the first six books (and the last book provides additional examples) of the malignancy inherent in the MOM, essentially irrespective of its leader. So is it any wonder I find fault with her casual epilogue comments (Today Show interview) that the future careers of all three of the trio is in extended MOM service. Saccharine is actually too kind a term to apply to what she now presents. Lyn From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid Sun Jul 29 23:03:55 2007 From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:03:55 +0200 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: More random jottings - on a theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c7d234$bde25e90$07ce3c82@hwin> Kneasy wrote, >>> Kissing - yes, it's there. Harry has kissed two girls, so has Ron; Hermione probably two fellows - mighty short rations. I'd complain if I were they; seventeen and only two kissing datees? T'aint natural, I tellee. >>> Kneasy, you evil, evil man! You just ruined my whole self-image. I was 19 before I even got a decent snog. (Err - yes. And I'm afraid it was only one girl, too.) (Where was TOC when I needed it?!) >>> Hormones - ah well. You should read what my physiology manuals have to say about teens and hormones. It'd fair make your hair curl, and would not go down well amidst the pages of HP. But I never suggested it should. >>> Hear, hear! I'm still mildly surprised that I lived to celebrate my 15th birthday. Whatever action I didn't get wasn't for lack of practice. >>> Despite all the brou-haha since, my point was that a little more realism, congruence with contempory norms - especially the same-sex discussions regarding uncertainty, ignorance and guesswork epidemic among the younger set as they grope(!) towards adulthood, would not be amiss. We had it once. In seven years. In seven books. >>> Goat the I am, I honestly don't see the need for more heterosexual activity. I suppose the road trip would have afforded chances for extra snoggery, but then, that's the problem with texts: they are lazy machines. Make you do half the imagining yourself, the stupid things. I do think it's more meaningful to ask about homosexual relationships, divorce and - in particular - single parenting. Ms. Rowling could definitely say a thing or two about the latter two topics, and she doesn't strike me as the sort who would turn green about the first. But ... there you have it. She decided to write about friendship and take the vanilla options on love. * * * * * (Of course, if only JK had been acquainted my own writing, she would have had the key for a truly profound conclucion to her story, plumbing the literary depths of high tragedy and drunken kink. For the record, my own contribution to the Potterverse, The Viagramus Curse: http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/aberforths_goat/TVC.html Ah, the sins of my youth ... ) Bwahahahahaa! Mike Gray (a.k.a. Aberforth's Goat, who's off to Interlaken himself tomorrow and is now *really* planning on being to exhausted to get online much.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire. http://aberforths-goat.livejournal.com/ http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm http://groups.google.com/group/fantasy-and-religion From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 30 14:55:34 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:55:34 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Ashley" wrote: > > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" > wrote: > > > > > > Univ. of Tennessee Prof. Benjamin Barton also gives a libertarian > > interpretation of HP > > > > http://www.lashawnbarber.com/ffc/wp-content/SSRN-id830765.pdf > > > > This essay was written after HBP, and is fairly lengthy > > I leave all of the above to preserve the links. Barton details the > evidence over the first six books (and the last book provides > additional examples) of the malignancy inherent in the MOM, > essentially irrespective of its leader. > > So is it any wonder I find fault with her casual epilogue comments > (Today Show interview) that the future careers of all three of the > trio is in extended MOM service. Saccharine is actually too kind a > term to apply to what she now presents. > Nice essay, though her hope that HP will inculcate a lasting distrust of RW government in its readers is more than a little optimistic IMO. Very few books have managed to achieve that. Nothing wrong with planting a few suspicions subliminally, though - you really can't trust 'em. And if a few more authors come along and reinforce the idea, who knows what might happen? Better, more responsive governance perhaps? Dream on, Kneasy; dream on. Wonder if she'll update it, given how the Ministry is depicted in DH? A nasty dictator comes along and the bureaucratic machinery just rolls over, changes the emphasis of its function and carries on with hardly a hiccup. Yes, there will be those like Arthur who'll do what they can from the inside, but in reality it can't be much and ultimately the system can replace them easily. They're watching him, certain that he'll make a slip sooner or later - then it'd be bye-bye Arthur and "Morning, team! Meet the new manager." And a more reliable cog is slipped into the machine. Anyone know if in her comments Jo mentions what happens to Umbridge? Bet she used the Nuremburg Defence - "I was only obeying orders." Sure. Didn't work then and shouldn't work now. Nuke the bitch. Kneasy From jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 31 04:51:31 2007 From: jmmears at serenadust.yahoo.invalid (serenadust) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:51:31 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" wrote: > Anyone know if in her comments Jo mentions what happens to > Umbridge? Bet she used the Nuremburg Defence - "I was only > obeying orders." Sure. Didn't work then and shouldn't work now. > Nuke the bitch. > > Kneasy Yep, >From the Leaky Cauldron's webchat: Pablo: What is toadface umbridge doing now J.K. Rowling: Glad to see you like her as much as I do! J.K. Rowling: She was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned for crimes against Muggleborns. Jo S.,who thinks that one Ms H. Granger, esq. may have had her hand in here. From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 31 06:06:27 2007 From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:06:27 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Barry, Asley, and Caius: http://tinyurl.com/yomtk6 Univ. of Tennessee Prof. Benjamin Barton also gives a libertarian interpretation of HP http://www.lashawnbarber.com/ffc/wp-content/SSRN-id830765.pdf This essay was written after HBP, and is fairly lengthy - a brief article about is available here: http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51562 - = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Lyn: "I leave all of the above to preserve the links. Barton details the evidence over the first six books (and the last book provides additional examples) of the malignancy inherent in the MOM, essentially irrespective of its leader. So is it any wonder I find fault with her casual epilogue comments (Today Show interview) that the future careers of all three of the trio is in extended MOM service. Saccharine is actually too kind a term to apply to what she now presents." JKR doesn't seem to trust large, intrusive government, so I think she is taking something of a libertarian tack here. Libertarians believe governments will inevitably get into self-perpetuating mischief if they grow at all large or get involved in too many things. Defense, though, is one of the government functions libertarians admit, so careers as Aurors are still valid in this view. I was always struck at how the MoM never seems to have to answer to anyone. The Minister is chosen by ? who? We never learn, except that he's not elected. I thought of all the technocrats in Brussels when I thought of the Ministry bureaucracy. Jim Ferer From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 31 10:54:37 2007 From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:54:37 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > JKR doesn't seem to trust large, intrusive government, so I think she > is taking something of a libertarian tack here. Libertarians believe > governments will inevitably get into self-perpetuating mischief if > they grow at all large or get involved in too many things. Defense, > though, is one of the government functions libertarians admit, so > careers as Aurors are still valid in this view. I was always struck at > how the MoM never seems to have to answer to anyone. The Minister is > chosen by ? who? We never learn, except that he's not elected. I > thought of all the technocrats in Brussels when I thought of the > Ministry bureaucracy. No need to go to Brussels (don't get me started on them, just don't), the home-grown lot are perfectly capable of authoritarian tendencies. How far one is prepared go in drawing parallels between Jo's take on the perils of her fictional suppressive regime and developments in real life would largely depend on the reader's pre-existing views IMO. For example, I've seen it suggested that since education at Hogwarts consists mostly of mastering what is essentially a deadly weapon, then Jo is all in favour of an armed society. Laughed me socks off at that one. Just can't imagine it. The plot requires the capability of individuals to fight, agress, defend, even kill, but I'd be stunned if this in any way reflected her RW view of how society should be. However, for those beyond the Sceptred Isle, here in the UK during the period that she has been penning the tomes there has been a succession of assaults on long-accepted rights and freedoms, many of them at the boundary where the individual meets the State. The Double Jeopardy rule has gone, as has the right to remain silent without the prosecution being able, if they wish, to draw inferences from this. Habeas Corpus is no longer absolute, nor is the presumption of innocence. For certain categories of 'crime' goods and chattels may be confiscated on mere suspicion - no arrest, charges or conviction - just suspicion. The right to demand trial by jury is also under threat at both ends of the judicial spectrum - cases of complicated fraud (the jurors might not understand the evidence) and minor cases usually dealt with in the Magistrates courts (these on the grounds of cost effectiveness). Previously if the accused felt they weren't getting a fair shake (or thought delay might be to their advantage) they had the option of a jury trial. Mind you, if they then lost, the penalties would be higher, so there was a deterrent to the frivolous. And over all is the onward, ever more intrusive creep of what not a few regard as a panopticon state. All intended to protect the citizen, to ensure the nasties can be judicially clobbered without smart defences using to advantage those irritating legal restrictions that could stymie a prosecution. Funny that. They used to be regarded as protection for the innocent. Now irrelevant, obviously. That laws introduced to counter serious crime and disorder have been used as a hammer to smash quite minor and reasonable dissent - and protestations about this have been widespread - matters not a jot. 'They' tell us its for our own good. All this lovely protection - but who will protect us from the State if/when it gets over-mighty? Can't help but be reminded of the words of Sir Thomas More in 'A Man For All Seasons'. Sorry about the rant, but as you can tell, it's something I feel strongly about. Hmph. Now, where was I? Oh yes. As you can tell, I'd rush to draw parallels on this aspect of the books. And if Jo has strong feelings about such contemporary RW issues, that it's not just a useful plot device to be utilised as and when convenient, then it's very much to be welcomed IMO. Trouble is, we don't really know. SFAIK the Q & A sessions to date haven't touched on this possibility. But I'll be very interested in her responses if it does crop up. Kneasy From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 31 15:32:24 2007 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:32:24 -0000 Subject: The Political HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jim Ferer wrote: > JKR doesn't seem to trust large, intrusive government, so I think she > is taking something of a libertarian tack here. I don't see anything uniquely libertarian in her implied criticisms. Any democrat across the political spectrum would agree that there are glaring flaws in the governance, judicial processes, and so on, of the wizarding world. Within the world of Harry Potter, she just doesn't seem interested in the issues that particularly animate libertarians. On the one hand, she doesn't have Florean Fortescue whine about taxation, or present Percy's regulations as strangling the wizarding economy. On the other, she doesn't try to skewer libertarian beliefs through satire (imagine Vernon Dursley as a libertarian!), either. I think it's hard to know what she does think, or what to draw politically from the books. The way Dumbledore governs Hogwarts suggests that, with a bad headmaster, it could be a pretty awful place, but JKR doesn't seem concerned about it. David From adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid Tue Jul 31 15:34:42 2007 From: adanabbett at adanabbett.yahoo.invalid (Adan) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:34:42 -0000 Subject: A few thoughts Message-ID: I'm really hesitant to reintroduce myself and post before completing a second read and rechecking what I was thinking, but here goes anyway: The Epilogue. For me, it was okay. It confirmed my theories (Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione, Neville the Herbologist). It let me see that Harry did, in fact, live, though with a decided weakness in choosing children's names. It didn't wrap up everything in a nice, neat bow. It was a brief glimpse of a moment in their life. Sure, all was well, but not necessarily without the day to day struggles that is life. We just didn't see it. Might have liked it more if it was longer. Might have liked it more if it wasn't there. I was disappointed to see so many negative reactions, particularly those that complained "so Hermione and Ginny become housewives? That's it?". No. Nothing like that was ever said or even intimated, imo. None of the jobs/non-jobs of the trio+1 were stated. Strange that they're complaining about their own notions. The Master of the Elder Wand My first take on the whole convoluted episode was that the Elder Wand recognized not Harry, but the wand he was holding as its Master. I know, I know. "The wand chooses the wizard", or whatever. But you know what? Mayhaps an all-powerful wand doesn't really care about the wizards. This might have already been put out here and debunked, but I didn't see it. And it doesn't solve what happens with the Elder Wand after. He hid the Elder Wand, correct? I think maybe he also hid Draco's wand so that no one could defeat it so that the Elder Wand's power is cancelled. Possibly. Perhaps. Still working that through. Ginny. This is one of my biggest disappointments. Poor Ginny got the shaft, though not the naughty kind. I had such hopes and theories about her strength and abilities hinted at in the last, but it comes to nothing. She gets shunted off to the side because of her age or whatever, over and over again. Quite a letdown. Left me wondering why Slughorn was so interested in her last book. Amanda (ExSlytherin): Now I'm not saying there should be porn in HP and I don't feel some kind of desperate need to get my rocks off by reading about teens having sex, but touching on sexuality in young people (consumated or not) can be done and done well. As I pointed out in a previous post Phillip Pullman did just that, brilliantly, in The Amber Spyglass, book 3 of the His Dark Material series. Now me: I recall being quite disappointed at the end of the HDM trilogies. The alluded sexual encounter completely took me out of the story and left me thinking "all this, just so two 13yo can have sex?" I must say that there were a couple of times during DH that I was wondering where a couple had run off to and wondered just exactly what was up, if you will. I mean, just because Ron and Hermione said they were off gathering basilisk fangs and actually had a few in their hands doesn't mean that's all they were doing. How long does a bit of toothpulling take, anyway? That chamber might have a few more secrets. Enough for now. Adan, who doesn't post often due to unfortunate conflict between time and opportunity but who lurks often and well.