Layers in Harry Potter

[Dedalus Diggle]

I hadn't considered that it might have been his father's father's name. The books don't definitely state which it is, do they? It just seemed natural that as his mother named him .......

Uh, Yah, that's what JessicaCarstens and I have been saying: Mother - Ma - MAternal; Father - Pa - PAternal. Marvolo comes from Voldie's mother's father

Well, there might have been a letter, or the witch may have lived long enough to tell someone. She named him. She might have left more information.

Okay, could be. I had the impression it was a cold and isolated death, like Eppie's mother in Silas Marner, but I'd have to re-read. Of course, I'll take any old excuse to re-read HP books, so ...

[sindatur]

Well, there might have been a letter, or the witch may have lived long enough to tell someone. She named him. She might have left more information.

Hehe, the first thing that enters my mind when reading that first sentence is not a magical person. :)

Very possible that she left a letter, but who would she have left it with, it certainly doesn't seem the Orphanage was a "Magical Persons Orphanage", so maybe there was a worker who had magical blood that explained it all when Tom grew to be old enough. Or possibly, like in HArry's case, Tom was informed of his magical ancestory when he got to Hogwarts, and the things that wouldn't neccessarily be appropriate to tell him (Heir of Slytherin, etc), he was able to fill in the blanks through research while at Hogwarts

[barmy codger]

While you all were posting, I was composing this and it is already a little behind times:

"My mother died just after I was born, sir. they told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me -Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather."
-from Chamber of Secrets US page 244

Marvolo could be Tom's maternal or paternal grandfather.

But then we have from Goblet of Fire US, page 646: "...He didn't like magic, my father...He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage...but I vowed to find him...I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle..."

I took a good look at the texts last night. I found that every loophole that I thought I saw, had another statement that seemed to take care of the detail, and confirm the ordinary perception of events. So I can not make a case supporting any alternative reading of the plot.

All the same, I remain puzzled. For example, in the two quotes above it seems established that Tom Riddle Jr. killed Tom Riddle Sr. But look at what else is stated- Tom Riddle's mother named him and Tom Riddle's father gave him his name. So which one is responsible? How did his father do this if he wasn't even there? And why seek revenge on his father for something his mother did? How did Tom Jr. learn that his father hated magic and deserted his wife? Why would a woman name her son after the man who abandoned her?

Tom Riddle Jr. also states in the Chamber of Secrets US, page 312: "I thought someone must realize that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the Heir of Slytherin. It had taken me five whole years to find out everything I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the secret entrance...as though Hagrid had the brains, or the power!"

On page 243, Tom RIddle in the diary is described as a boy of about 16. So this suggests he began his search for the chamber immediately upon entering Hogwarts at age eleven. The question then is how did Riddle learn of his heritage from life in a Muggle orphanage and know from the start that there was a Chamber of Secrets to be opened? And what does it take to open the Chamber? Parseltongue. Is that a power? I understood it more as being a gift of language.

Most of these questions are not original with me. I would like to take credit for even one idea, but I can't. I have read so many different ideas on different threads that my head is a jumble. The idea about who named Tom is mine, I think, but I won't claim it is so.

Another thing is Riddle's well-known remark: "Voldemort," said Riddle softly,"is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter..." We all know what he means but isn't that a strange way to express it? Not only that, throughout the entire chapter "The Heir of Slytherin" he is referred to as Riddle. Understandably it is done before we learn Riddle is Voldemort, but it is continued to the end of the chapter. Tom Marvolo Riddle becomes I am Lord Voldemort, but he is still called Riddle throughout the entire confrontation. On page 317: But Riddle's twisted smile was widening again. "Now, Harry, I'm going to teach you a little lesson. Let's match the powers of Lord Voldemort, Heir of Slytherin, against famous Harry Potter" It sounds as though Riddle were talking about another person instead of himself. It is Voldemort naming the contestants by their credentials, Lord Voldemort Heir of Slytherin vs the famous Harry Potter, which is melodrama and understandable. But it says Riddle is the one speaking, which suggests a contrast.

As to the deaths, from the Goblet of Fire US, page 2, the maid said the Riddles were "Lying there with their eyes wide open."
This agrees with the description of dead Cedric, but on page 4 it says "each of the Riddles had a look of terror upon his or her face-" This agrees with Frank Bryce's death on page 15: "he was screaming so loudly that he never heard the words" Mr Bryce was terrified and was killed with the Avada Kedavra curse. But Cedric, who also was A-K'd' ,GoF US page 638: "For a second that contained an eternity, Harry stared into Cedric's face, at his open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised." This does not seem like a look of terror to me. Admittedly, Cedric did not have time enough to become terrified. But it suggests that a look of terror is not automatically the product of an A-K curse. On the other hand, what would have terrified the Riddles? A teen-age boy with a wand in his hand? What would Muggles like them know about what was in store for them? I can see a resemblance to the Dursleys' terror of Arthur Weasley when he brandished a wand in their living room. They had the experience of Hagrid's magic as a lesson. What were the Riddles frightened of?

It is highly probable that these issues arise from a neglect of details by Ms Rowling. and probably they are a glossing over of details for the sake of story-telling effects, rather than lapses of attention while writing. In many instances as well, the wording might be played with for dramatic impact. And as I said, there is not enough that I can make a case for anything. However, I always am left with the feeling that we were not given information about Tom Riddle/ Lord Voldemort in a straight forward manner, and that there are too many names for the same person. Even if I could establish there are multiple identities in Voldemort, I could in no way predict how this would work out in the story as a whole.

[Masterfroggy]

While you all were posting, I was composing this and it is already a little behind times:

"My mother died just after I was born, sir. they told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me -Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather."
-from Chamber of Secrets US page 244

Marvolo could be Tom's maternal or paternal grandfather.

But then we have from Goblet of Fire US, page 646: "...He didn't like magic, my father...He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage...but I vowed to find him...I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle..."



According to J.K.Rowling, he was born in Little Haggleton to a witch and a Muggle, Tom Riddle. His mother died at his birth, living long enough to give him his name, Tom Marvolo Riddle, Tom after his father, and Marvolo after his grandfather. He was always contemptuous of his name,

As he didn't know his mothers side of the family we can only assume that the name was from the Riddle side otherwise it would be written as "after his father Tom and her Father Marvolo."

[lightofmagic]

"My mother died just after I was born, sir. they told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me -Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather."
-from Chamber of Secrets US page 244

But then we have from Goblet of Fire US, page 646: "...He didn't like magic, my father...He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage...but I vowed to find him...I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle..."

I took a good look at the texts last night. I found that every loophole that I thought I saw, had another statement that seemed to take care of the detail, and confirm the ordinary perception of events. So I can not make a case supporting any alternative reading of the plot.

All the same, I remain puzzled. For example, in the two quotes above it seems established that Tom Riddle Jr. killed Tom Riddle Sr. But look at what else is stated- Tom Riddle's mother named him and Tom Riddle's father gave him his name. So which one is responsible? How did his father do this if he wasn't even there? And why seek revenge on his father for something his mother did? How did Tom Jr. learn that his father hated magic and deserted his wife? Why would a woman name her son after the man who abandoned her?

This depends upon the name that Tom was referring too at the time he made such a statement. If it was the Tom Riddle part of his name that he blamed his father for giving him, then it could be due to the fact that his mother still showed some love for her ex-husband to name her son after the father that had left them both. The fact that his father was named Tom Riddle was enough in Voldemort's eyes to condemn his dad for leaving them both and marking him with his name. I also thought that his father only left hours before Tom was born and it was during this period where his dad told his wife the partial name he wanted for his son.

On the other hand it could be the creation of name Voldemort that Tom blames his father for and not the Tom Riddle part. It was the pain caused by abandonment and the hatred from his father that led Tom to become Voldemort in the first place. It was his fathers’ death that started Voldemort’s rein of terror and creation in life within the wizarding world. So Tom blames his father for his many transformations into Voldemort perhaps.


On page 243, Tom RIddle in the diary is described as a boy of about 16. So this suggests he began his search for the chamber immediately upon entering Hogwarts at age eleven. The question then is how did Riddle learn of his heritage from life in a Muggle orphanage and know from the start that there was a Chamber of Secrets to be opened? And what does it take to open the Chamber? Parseltongue. Is that a power? I understood it more as being a gift of language.

I think the power behind the chamber of secrets lies within the control of the Basilisk itself. Perhaps Tom had to learn Occlumency and Ligamency for himself to control such a beast with in the chamber. Tom could have inherited the information from his grandfather, Marvolo regarding a secret held within Hogwarts itself.

Another thing is Riddle's well-known remark: "Voldemort," said Riddle softly,"is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter..." We all know what he means but isn't that a strange way to express it? Not only that, throughout the entire chapter "The Heir of Slytherin" he is referred to as Riddle. Understandably it is done before we learn Riddle is Voldemort, but it is continued to the end of the chapter. Tom Marvolo Riddle becomes I am Lord Voldemort, but he is still called Riddle throughout the entire confrontation. On page 317: But Riddle's twisted smile was widening again. "Now, Harry, I'm going to teach you a little lesson. Let's match the powers of Lord Voldemort, Heir of Slytherin, against famous Harry Potter" It sounds as though Riddle were talking about another person instead of himself. It is Voldemort naming the contestants by their credentials, Lord Voldemort Heir of Slytherin vs the famous Harry Potter, which is melodrama and understandable. But it says Riddle is the one speaking, which suggests a contrast.[/qoute]

I think it might be Toms alter ego talking about power as he sees himself as a much more braver wizard when he is Lord Voldemort than just Tom. Or perhaps Tom was possessed in the chamber by Salazar Slytherin and that is what is meant by the secret power that lies within.

[quote]This does not seem like a look of terror to me. Admittedly, Cedric did not have time enough to become terrified. But it suggests that a look of terror is not automatically the product of an A-K curse. On the other hand, what would have terrified the Riddles? A teen-age boy with a wand in his hand? What would Muggles like them know about what was in store for them? I can see a resemblance to the Dursleys' terror of Arthur Weasley when he brandished a wand in their living room. They had the experience of Hagrid's magic as a lesson. What were the Riddles frightened of?

Maybe Tom had more than just his wand present that day at the Riddle house, what if he had a dementor there and was able to order it to administer the kiss of death on to each Riddle as they watched each other die from fear one after the other.

[purplehawk]

According to J.K.Rowling, he was born in Little Haggleton to a witch and a Muggle, Tom Riddle. His mother died at his birth, living long enough to give him his name, Tom Marvolo Riddle, Tom after his father, and Marvolo after his grandfather. He was always contemptuous of his name,

As he didn't know his mothers side of the family we can only assume that the name was from the Riddle side otherwise it would be written as "after his father Tom and her Father Marvolo."

Froggy dear, I don't buy that take for a minute. Criminal ambiguity, with malice and forethought, are hallmarks of J.K. Rowling. Her writing is intentionally done without dotting i's and crossing t's, lest she allow any reasonably intelligent reader figure out her plot and publish something that would render future royalties less than anticipated.

Light, Tom had only to master his gift of parseltongue to control the basilisk. It had nothing to with anything other magical talent he possessed.

[barmy codger]

As he didn't know his mothers side of the family we can only assume that the name was from the Riddle side otherwise it would be written as "after his father Tom and her Father Marvolo."
Well, if he didn't know his mother's side of the family, how does he know he is the Heir of Slytherin?

[purplehawk]

He didn't know much about either side of his family, if you think about it. His mother and father were estranged before he was born. He grew up in a Muggle orphanage, so obviously none of his mother's kin claimed him.

I am guessing she left a letter telling him of his heritage, of his father's name and location, and also his Slytherin descent on her side. Perhaps she identified someone in the wizarding world as the person to whom Tom should go for further direction and/or information when the time came for him to matriculate at Hogwarts. Perhaps that someone was Dumbledore; maybe it was whomever old Marvolo is/was. I'm not sure about Dumbledore. He didn't seem to care much for young Tom and we know he likes the adult version even less. Dippet, on the other hand, seemed to be a fan of young Tom Riddle Junior.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Does it occur to anyone that for being a direct descendant of Slytherin, Voldemort's mother acted surprisingly un-Slytherinlike. I mean, can you imagine any of the Slytherin girls we know of 1. marrying a muggle, then 2, going quietly when he dumps her while she's pregnant for being a witch. I'm betting Parkinson or Balustrode would have done unspeakable things to the jerk. Does this suggest a flaw in the story - as the characters have related it to us?

[Sabine]

Does it occur to anyone that for being a direct descendant of Slytherin, Voldemort's mother acted surprisingly un-Slytherinlike. I mean, can you imagine any of the Slytherin girls we know of 1. marrying a muggle, then 2, going quietly when he dumps her while she's pregnant for being a witch. I'm betting Parkinson or Balustrode would have done unspeakable things to the jerk. Does this suggest a flaw in the story - as the characters have related it to us?

Or does it on the contrary occur to someone that we really don't know too much about Slytherins???

Since I'm a "fan" of the choices - I have a very hard time believing all that "bad rumor" that is going on about Slytherin house and the Students that live there or lived there.

Honestly - how many Slytherins do we really know?

Malfoy and his gang - ok. And we can come to the conclusion that the members of the Slytherin Quidditch team aren't to nice too.

We only know that the most of the DE's have been to Slytherin.

But thats about it.

Harry's point of view is what we read. And like it or not - this point of view is as biased as you can get one. He hears from Hagrid (who is also biased given his history with Tom). He hears from Ron (who isn't exactly unbiased) he doesn't like Malfoy and later on Crabbe and Goyle. Head of the Slytherin house doesn't like him as goes vice versa.

Given a low number of maybe 500 students in Hogwarts there would be 125 in Slytherin-House and we know about maybe 10?

and that gives anybody the right to say "the Slytherins are bad!"??

How can it be that in books where it is "hammered home" to us that our choices are the things that matter we take it for granted that "Slytherins are bad"?

How can it be that in books where we learn that prejudice is good for nothing we go along and prejudice everyone who was at Slytherin?

We hear in OOTP that the hat strongly advises to unite the school from within. Harry wouldn't even dream of that ... only based on Malfoy and the other ones he knows?

Just as the world is not devided into good people and Death Eater it isn't devided into good people and Slytherins!

If there is one wish I have for the future books, than it surely is that maybe some clearly real nice good witch or wizards shows up and is from Slytherin!!!

Snape is the person that shows, in my opinion, that you can be a Slytherin and do the right things all the same. Even if he needed a second chance. To notice that you are on the wrong path and then admit it and change the way is nothing what I would see as a bad thing to do. Even if he doesn't adore Harry, even if he treats not all of his students the same, even if he isn't nice and even if his flaws aren't loveable (like the ones from Sirius or others) - he still is doing the right things.

For me it would definitely ruin the whole books if Snape would in the end turn out to be a "bad guy". Not because I like that character so much, I would still like it, but it would give reason to say "aaaaaah look at that - oh well he was a Slytherin, so - no surprise here!" wouldn't it show that to be biased against a whole bunch of people just because they were in Slytherin, would be just the right thing to do? Wouldn't it make a lie out of "its our choices that matter!" because being in Slytherin wasn't exactly a real choice (certainly not for everyone)? Wouldn't it then be a lie that you have choices at all? Because they are sorted at the age of 11. And even if there are students who might have thought "Hey its pretty cool I want to go to Slytherin". Its not ONE choice that counts its the everyday choices that make a life.

enough rambling

Sabine

[Masterfroggy]

Froggy dear, I don't buy that take for a minute. Criminal ambiguity, with malice and forethought, are hallmarks of J.K. Rowling. Her writing is intentionally done without dotting i's and crossing t's, lest she allow any reasonably intelligent reader figure out her plot and publish something that would render future royalties less than anticipated.

Light, Tom had only to master his gift of parseltongue to control the basilisk. It had nothing to with anything other magical talent he possessed.


Were this information to have appeared in the third, fourth or fifth book I too would treat it, as you rightly suggested, with a rather large pinch of scepticism. But in her first two books her writing is subjected to a slight case of innocence and shall I say simplistic and an almost contempt for the deductive powers of her readers, she is forced to spelling it out if she wanted her readers to know something, everything from Tom spelling his name in the air, to Ginnys behaviour at the breakfast table

At that moment there was a diversion in the form of a small, redheaded figure in a long nightdress, who appeared in the kitchen, gave a small squeal, and ran out again.
"Ginny," said Ron in an undertone to Harry. "My sister. She's been talking about you all summer."
Now I ask you from her reaction at the end of the First book, is there anyone amongst us that didn’t think before reading the second book, Harry + little red head girl = crush. And later on


Ginny jumped up as though her chair had just been electrified, gave Percy a fleeting, frightened look, and scampered away. Percy sat down and grabbed a mug from the centre of the table.
"Percy!" said Ron angrily. "She was just about to tell us some-' thing important!"

JKR is hitting us about the head with clues.

This does not happen in the next three books as JKR has grown in her confidence, or more truthfully she has learnt that she can trust us to pick up and spot all the things she want us to spot, therefore she no longer feels she has to labour the points she wants to make. Of course it is a double edged sword as she has to be miserly with the easy clues now as she knows we are on to her style and are actively seeking the clues and hints, so her style has become more subtle
:D

[purplehawk]

I don't know if "trust" is the word I would use.

[phoenixsong]

As for Tom's mom, it seems to me that, given the example of Andromeda Black who marries Ted Tonks, even in the midst of such nasty pureblood fanaticism, it is quite possible that the woman in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin might nevertheless fall in love with a Muggle man.

Alternatively, perhaps there is a nasty pureblood eugenics program, in which they have traced wizarding bloodlines which disappeared into Muggle bloodlines, and they are "resuscitating" them by marrying into them, so that the Riddles and the Tonkses are simply third generation squibs or something. But this seems very farfetched to me, though people here do seem to wonder on and off whether the Riddles are really Muggles, whether the Evanses are really Muggles, etc.

[purplehawk]

I have a hard time with some of the genealogy theories too, Phoenix. Yet I wonder... perhaps, in the end, we'll be led to realize we all have the capacity to do magic in the form of the choices we make.

[lightofmagic]

Sorry if this goes off topic but we could take the genealogy one step further by suggesting that the man shouting at the woman in Snape memory as a child could have been Voldemort as the nose is used as the main description again. If this is true then it might be possible for Voldemort to be Snape biological father and therefore place him in the position of becoming a possible future heir to Salazar Slytherins thrown. It does fit somewhat as it would explain why Snape hates Harry yet keeps saving him because he knows that if Harry defeats Voldemort, then Snape takes over his fathers position. It would also explain why Dumbledore trust Snape so much because he is a power crazed Slytherin and would not give up on such a chance as defeating his own father to take his place. If Hogwarts were to see the return of the heir of Slytherin then Dumbledore would probably choose Snape over Voldemort, as he is the lesser of two evils. This could be what J. K. Rowling means by keeping a close eye on Snape because everything is not quite what it seems and that he is more powerful than he lets on.

[purplehawk]

What does the nose have to do with anything? Snape has a big hooked nose. Voldemort has a snakelike nose, with slits for nostrils.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Filia, Maternal Grandparents means mother's parents. Is this what you mean to say? Tom Riddle Jnr (Voldemort's Dad) would be unlikely to be a Riddle if Voldemort's Grandparents, are his mother's parents.
Also, I guess now I am confused on the name of Voldemort's family. I was under the impression it went like this:
Tom Marvolo Riddle (Tom Riddle Jr.) = Voldemort
Tom Riddle Sr. = Voldemort's dad
Marvolo Riddle = Voldemort's Grandfather
Oh dear, I've just confused things even more. I ought to proof read my posts more carefully. I meant paternal grandparents. I think Marvolo was his (get this right!) mother's father because, firstly I don't know if his mother would have been aquainted with her father-in-law and, secondly, I can't see such a stiff, snobbish family (whom I imagine like the Dursleys only more upper class) calling someone Marvolo.

Oh and Filia --- Marvolo being the name of Tom's grandfather is not a fact - it was only just an assumption
But what about: "...she lived just long enough to name me: Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather"
Although on one level it is an assumption because we don't know if Riddle got his facts right, I suppose...

How did Tom Jr. learn that his father hated magic and deserted his wife?
Well, it does point towards a letter. And it is a standard narrative structure, isn't it, having a letter which turns up on the recipients eleventh or thirteenth birthday or at some other important turning point in their life. It happened for Harry after all, although in his case it generated more questions than it answered. Perhaps she sent him a parcel with some memories in, like in the Pensieve? Would work nicely.
Why would a woman name her son after the man who abandoned her?
Well, perhaps she still loved him. Or maybe she thought that, by giving Tom jnr an incessant reminder of his origins, she could use him in the long term to exact revenge on Tom snr.

Maybe Tom had more than just his wand present that day at the Riddle house, what if he had a dementor there and was able to order it to administer the kiss of death on to each Riddle as they watched each other die from fear one after the other.
No, if that were the case, the Riddle's would not be dead. We've never seen what a person is like once they have irrevocably lost their soul, but the impression I got was that such a person would be living, and healthy. Perhaps, even in an imaginary world, existing only on the page and in the mind, JK considered the sight of a living, but souless person, too terrible for our eyes. Or perhaps she's saving it up for book seven.

Dad just came in to make "phone bill" noises. Apparently Christmas Eve is still peak time. Would you credit it. :sigh:

Criminal ambiguity, with malice and forethought, are hallmarks of J.K. Rowling.
:lol: Too true! Her writing is intentionally done without dotting i's and crossing t's, lest she allow any reasonably intelligent reader figure out her plot and publish something that would render future royalties less than anticipated. Well, I do think if her clues were any clearer we would have got it by now. The question is, can she keep it up, or will she make a vital slip-up and make the answer sufficiently accessable that we'll have got it before book seven?

For me it would definitely ruin the whole books if Snape would in the end turn out to be a "bad guy". Not because I like that character so much, I would still like it, but it would give reason to say "aaaaaah look at that - oh well he was a Slytherin, so - no surprise here!" wouldn't it show that to be biased against a whole bunch of people just because they were in Slytherin, would be just the right thing to do? Wouldn't it make a lie out of "its our choices that matter!" because being in Slytherin wasn't exactly a real choice (certainly not for everyone)? Wouldn't it then be a lie that you have choices at all? Because they are sorted at the age of 11. And even if there are students who might have thought "Hey its pretty cool I want to go to Slytherin". Its not ONE choice that counts its the everyday choices that make a life.
Well, the Sorting is a fundamentaly flawed concept anyway. As someone who resists catagorising in any way, I don't think much of the idea that the whole world is divided into four kinds of people: brave, clever, slimy and other (please specify). Only no one seems to be interested on what you write on the little dotted line (next to "please specify"); they're just interested in which box you tick. I'm inclined to agree with Sabine about the Slytherins.

As its Christmas Eve, Mum's spent all day running round in a panic. At least the Christmas bread has actually risen; the kind of panic inspired by bread that won't rise is uniquely dreadful. Some friendly hearth-god is clearly taking care of things.

[Dedalus Diggle]

What does the nose have to do with anything? Snape has a big hooked nose. Voldemort has a snakelike nose, with slits for nostrils.

P-H, I'm sure that the suggestion that Snape and Voldie are related, except possibly to the extent that all of the purebloods (maternal side) are related, is not going to prove out. But on the other hand, we cannot judge anything based on Voldemort's current appearance. He has become nearly nonhuman from all the dark arts he has practiced on himself. He didn't always have the snakelike slit nostrils, etc. We would have to go back to Tom Riddle's appearance for some clues as to familial affinity.

[purplehawk]

True, Dedalus... but if young Riddle had a hook nose, it seems Harry would have noticed it. The description is there in the text and there is no mention of an unusually large hooked nose. Here are some descriptive quotes:

He was much taller than Harry, but he, too, had jet-black hair."

A tall, black-haired boy was leaning against the nearest pillar...

"... We even look something alike... "

I'll grant those quotes aren't much to go on, DD, but Snape's hooked nose has been so prominently described throughout the series that if Riddle had had one, Harry surely would have picked up on it.

[whizbang121]

"My mother died just after I was born, sir. they told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me -Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather."
-from Chamber of Secrets US page 244

Marvolo could be Tom's maternal or paternal grandfather. This is true. But perhaps the Marvolo was part of his clue to his maternal heritage. Somehow, there is some magic in this name. Did the witch plan it carefully before he was born? And it's been suggested that previous heirs of Slytherin or other parselmouths didn't come to Hogwarts because they didn't live in England. We know so little about Tom's mother. Was she foreign? Albanian, perhaps? Is that near Durmstrang? (What is Hermione learning in her letters from Viktor Krum that she isn't sharing with Harry and Ron?) If she'd left home and come to England, perhaps pursuing Tom Sr., this would explain why Tom's mother had no one here to trust with her child and had to leave him in a muggle orphanage. (I'm indulging in conjecture. There is nothing stated in canon about the origins of Tom's mother.)

But then we have from Goblet of Fire US, page 646:
"...I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle..."

But look at what else is stated- Tom Riddle's mother named him and Tom Riddle's father gave him his name. So which one is responsible?
It's commonly understood, or a common idiom to say that a man who fathers or adopts a child gives it his surname. I don't think there's any deeper meaning here than that. This is probably connected to English Common Law which understands that a child belongs to it's mother, so for a man to give a child his name is a form of acknowledgement of paternity. Because his parents were married and his mother would have taken his father's surname, that name was also understood to be Tom Jr's.

How did Tom Jr. learn that his father hated magic and deserted his wife? Why would a woman name her son after the man who abandoned her? There are some good ideas about this one, a letter, someone at Hogwarts who knew and told him. But, so far, I don't think we can do more than guess how Tom knew these things. Clearly, though, he did.

As to the deaths, from the Goblet of Fire US, page 2, the maid said the Riddles were "Lying there with their eyes wide open."
This agrees with the description of dead Cedric, But it suggests that a look of terror is not automatically the product of an A-K curse. On the other hand, what would have terrified the Riddles? A teen-age boy with a wand in his hand? What would Muggles like them know about what was in store for them? I can see a resemblance to the Dursleys' terror of Arthur Weasley when he brandished a wand in their living room. They had the experience of Hagrid's magic as a lesson. What were the Riddles frightened of? Well, Tom Sr. certainly may have recognised his son, the wizard. It's interesting to me that mindset of the Riddle family, aristocratic snobs apparently, is reminiscent of the attitude of the pureblood magical families. So, the attitude comes down on both sides for Tom.

Even if I could establish there are multiple identities in Voldemort, I could in no way predict how this would work out in the story as a whole.As it looks like a good case can be made pro or con for this idea, we'll just have to wait it out. :shrug:

Sabine, I think Tonks is the "good" Slytherin. Remember when Ginny or Hermione asked her if she'd been a prefect? She said no. Her head of house didn't feel she had a proper regard for the rules. Very Snapish thing to say. :agree: ;)

[purplehawk]

Good catch on Tonks, Whiz. I missed that entirely.

I was also thinking of Dawlish, the auror, and would lay odds that Fudge was a Slytherin at school - not that he is exactly the personification of a good guy.

[whizbang121]

I don't remember Dawlish. Can't you point me to him? And Fudge. :grumble:
I don't think he's bright enough to be a slytherin, although he is certainly sufficiently self-serving. He and Bagman strike me as a couple of Buffoons. (What house is that?) Watch me be wrong and they'll both turn out to be geniuses at the heart of the action. :rolleyes: But they've both got trouble at Gringotts and that will play out soon enough.

[purplehawk]

Dawlish was one of two aurors Fudge brought to Hogwarts the night Dumbledore fled the school. (Kingsley Shacklebolt was the other). Dawlish was again on the scene when Umbridge went after Hagrid the night of the astronomy O.W.L. And he was at the Ministry with Fudge the night of the duel.

Edit: There's another character mentioned just once in OotP. His name was Scrimgeour.

Lupin glanced at Harry, then said to Tonks, "What were you saying about Scrimgeour?"

"Oh... yeah... well, we need to be a bit more careful, he's been asking Kingsley and me funny questions... "

Now, just who d'ya suppose Scrimgeour is? The head of the Auror Department? That seems likely, but why is his name mentioned at all unless he is going to play a role later? I wonder if this Scrimgeour might be the individual who will become MoM if they should boot Fudge out of office. Or maybe his name is there only because it illustrates the danger of Tonks' and Shacklebolt's participation in the Order.

[whizbang121]

Do you suspect he's a member of the OotP?
Are there any former Slytherins in the Order? Hmmm......
Well, I suspect Tonks, and Snape, of course. Interesting.

[purplehawk]

Nah... I doubt Dawlish is a member - yet.

[lightofmagic]

I think you have a point purplehawks with the nose description issue but Snape definetly had a father and the questions that burns inside me is who is this mysterious man and what terrible secret about Snape is J. K. Rowling keeping from us?

Dawlish was one of two aurors Fudge brought to Hogwarts the night Dumbledore fled the school. (Kingsley Shacklebolt was the other). Dawlish was again on the scene when Umbridge went after Hagrid the night of the astronomy O.W.L. And he was at the Ministry with Fudge the night of the duel.

Fudge might have been Slytherin in origin due to his demeanor. The way he craves power and strips it or should I say tries to take it from Dumbledore also lead to the idea that Fudge is indeed Slytherin born.

Edit: There's another character mentioned just once in OotP. His name was Scrimgeour.

Now, just who d'ya suppose Scrimgeour is? The head of the Auror Department? That seems likely, but why is his name mentioned at all unless he is going to play a role later? I wonder if this Scrimgeour might be the individual who will become MoM if they should boot Fudge out of office. Or maybe his name is there only because it illustrates the danger of Tonks' and Shacklebolt's participation in the Order.

Scrimgeour sounds to me like someone of great importance within the small part he plays in the OotP. He could take over the MoM position but there is also the department of Aurors to run and I have a feeling we are going to find out much more about there operations and role in the forth commencing war. Scrimgeour might be in charge of the main program to bring down Voldemort and his death eaters, especially if they try to attack the MoM. The order did work separate to the MoM during Voldemorts last stand and we still do not fully understand whether each department agreed on how to tackle such a problem. There could be some tensions that need to be finally ironed out between the order and the MoM and perhaps Scrimgeour is the one who will finally bring the two groups together.

[sindatur]

I actually have thought about Tonks being a good Slytherin, as well, due to that little quote. However, I haven't been convinced because the same could be said for the Weasley twins. Tonks could just as well have been the odd Black Family Member who was a Gryffindor (Like Sirius), but played fast and loose with the rules as Fred and George do. Works with the other houses as well, and actually Gryffindor is probably less likely, since that's the house our gang comes from, she would most likely have specified McGonagall, rather than generalizing "Head of House", unless of course she didn't even go to Hogwarts? Do we know for sure Hogwarts was where she attended. {Dang, I gotta stop talking myself around those corners like that}

Regarding the look of terror on the Senior Riddle's faces, versus the blank stare of Cedric, I find no problem with this at all. You're a Muggle, someone breaks into your home, and threatens you with a wand, once you take them serious, you're gonna start to look pretty frightened. AK the first one, and the other two are most definitely gonna start taking it very serious. Young Tom (Voldemort) may have even spent quite a bit of time taunting them, making them realize what was coming, before doing the deed. In Cedric's case, it just came out of nowhere, no time to even think about it, let alone have a scared look on his face.

As to how Young Tom learned of his inheritance, and who MArvolo is, I think we'll need to wait for more evidence, right now, everything that has been floated is still a possibility, and I'm not sure which way to lean. I do think Dippet may have alot to do with alot of the early pieces Tom got, and then he built on those from his own research.

Merry Christmas to all (or Happy whatever other Holiday you may be celebrating this week. And for any who don't celebrate Holidays at all, a good day to you as well)

[purplehawk]

I'm just not buying Voldemort being Snape's father, I guess. I just went hunting for the scene in which Harry saw into Snape's mind during an occlumency lessons and found a brief description of Snape's father.

A hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner...

That sounds like Snape's father to me!

[sindatur]

I can't see Voldemort being anyone's father, he's too selfish.

As I've said before, maybe he stopped into a Pub sometime when he was younger where you can purchase love by the hour, and maybe didn't wear a raincoat during this event, but I can't see his participation in fathering a child any other way, certainly I can't see him ever being in a relationship where he was a live-in father. So, an accident, ...eh...maybe. If he's anyone's relative, I gotta believe it's through another means (Uncle, cousin, whatever). Once Voldemort started going through his transformations, he probably wasn't even any longer capable of fathering a child.

[barmy codger]

I don't remember Dawlish. Can't you point me to him? And Fudge. :grumble:
I don't think he's bright enough to be a slytherin
Remember the two Slytherin dim bulbs Crabbe and Goyle, Draco's pals?

The name Marvolo seemed interesting and I looked it up in Latin dictionary. No results. Part of the word volo is a form of the verb for wish or want. It occurred to me that the whole name of Tom Marvolo Riddle has no inherent significance, but is just a suitable anagram from I am Lord Voldemort. I don't like this idea.

Also, Erin Linn's recent piece in the Quibbler is discussing Professor Trelawney. She bases her ideas on the exclusive use of the term Dark Lord in the prophecies. She links this to the Death Eaters who call him that, too. I point this out because it shows how suggestive the different names for Voldemort can be. There are other examples throughout the books, but I won't bore you with them right now. Erin builds her ideas on the interpretation that the Dark Lord, Voldemort, Tom Riddle, the Heir of Slytherin are all names for one person. From this she produces an unlikely theory. This is typical of many theories that arise from the normal interpretation of events. If you read the books with the idea that Voldemort is a combination of entities, different prospects open up. I realise I am obsessed with this concept and am worrying it like a dog with a bone. I'll try not to go on about it again unless I can make a more convincing case.

Something completely different: Do you think Voldemort can conjure a Patronus? Are happy evil thoughts good enough to protect him from a dementor's kiss?

Happy holidays. Have a Harry Christmas!

[lightofmagic]

Something completely different: Do you think Voldemort can conjure a Patronus? Are happy evil thoughts good enough to protect him from a dementor's kiss?

I doubt Voldemort would be capable of conjuring up a Patronus through happy evil thoughts. I think it requires some pure happy thoughts of good and not evil origin. There must be another way to control the dementors as they have been kept at prison as guards for a long time by the wizarding world. The thing that puzzles me is how Voldemort is able to control them and get them to do his bidding. It is one thing to conjure up a patronus to get rid of a dementor but a completely different level of ability to control such a creature.

[Jessica]

We had an interesting discussion a few pages back about what might happen to Voldemort (via the scar) if Harry experinced a moment of pure happiness. I think it was on page 3 or so if you're interested.

EDIT: I found it, it stasrt on page 8

[lightofmagic]

If this is true then Voldemort can experience happiness through Harry and therefore produce a patronus if they are truly connected through the scar. As Harry can feel the bad emotions of Voldemort, the dark lord can feel the complete opposite but this could not happen all the time, so it still poses the question of how Voldemort controls the dementors all the time and whether he can feel enough happiness to produce a patronus at will when ever it is needed. I doubt Voldemort could have ever produced a patronous throughout OotP as Harry spent most of his time in a real temper.

The conversations on page 8 where very interesting though.

[barmy codger]

Discussions on page 8 very interesting, yes. Much food for thought. Thanks.

Not only would Voldemort have to be sharing Harry's happies at the time, he would also need to be able to tolerate them, and then be able to make use of them in conjuring a Patronus. So far Harry on his end has not made use of Voldemort's mental things when they are being shared, that is to say Harry, on his own and not being possessed, has not conjured up, or charmed, or jinxed anything for his own purposes using Voldemort's mind state. But I just now thought- Voldemort's powers are already in Harry. They were transferred with the curse, but none of Harry's innate powers were transferred to Voldemort, or so I assume. That means Harry can do what Voldemort can and even back-at-ya, if he can reverse magical power. That suggestion of phoenixsong would account for how the curse was thrown back at Voldemort when Harry was a baby.

Leaving happy thoughts aside and turning to dementors, maybe Voldemort could control them just with bribes. In the graveyard he said McNair would soon have better victims than magical beasts, a nice step up. Voldemort probably can provide lots of victims for dementors without the nine-to-five hours they had at Azkaban. But still, how does one get a dementor to do anything?

[whizbang121]

Wow! Lots going on here, today. Mar volo. Doesn't "mar" have something to do with the sea? "Sea-wish." A riddle is a puzzle. A clue and a question.

And I think we figured out that Voldemort is something like "flying death." I think.

I don't think think we should write off the idea of Tom Riddle being possessed, yet. At this point, I just don't think we have enough to work with to reach a reasonable conclusion. <fume> So we wait for the next book. Probably a year away. sigh

About Voldemort's patronus, <shudder> I do recall there was one time when Harry was aware that Voldemort was happy about something. Was it when the death eaters escaped from Azkaban? So maybe he can produce some kind of terrifying patronus. The dark mark, maybe? What would Voldemort's patronus be? Or, how does he control the dementors?

Probably too obvious, but perhaps his patronus is a snake.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Once Voldemort started going through his transformations, he probably wasn't even any longer capable of fathering a child.
Although there's no proof for it, and I can't imediately think of a precedent, I would expect that the capacity to beget children would be one of the things Voldemort gave up in exchange for a chance at immortality.

Something completely different: Do you think Voldemort can conjure a Patronus? Are happy evil thoughts good enough to protect him from a dementor's kiss?
My first response would be no, or perhaps only a weak and distorted one which wouldn't have a real effect. But if Harry can use the Cruciatus Curse then Voldemort can perform the Patronus Charm. Is that reasoning sound?
No, I've changed my mind again. Surely the kind of happiness needed for a Patronus is unconditional happiness? I mean being really happy about something _for_its_own_sake_ not because it facilitates something else. According to Goethe's version, the condition of the pack made with the devil is that Faust must never say to the passing moment "You are beautiful; Stay awhile". In other words, he's never to be satisfied with what he has, but always wanting more. As well as the capacity to father children, I'd imagine Voldemort will have had to give up, in his search for immortality, the capacity to be happy with anything here and now, for its own sake.
I doubt the kind of happiness he felt when his Death Eaters escaped Azkaban was true happines (and thus capable of forming a Patronus); he was happy because he had his supporters back, which meant new information, a better chance of getting the prophecy, information on how to kill Harry, unobstructed path to total domination, maybe find a way to become truly immortal and invulnerable, then what?

As for how he controls the Dementors, I've always assumed it's the same way Mrs Coulter controls the Spectres in the Amber Spyglass (any Philip Pullman fans here? After HP, the his Dark Materials are totally the best novels ever set down in print); he can lead them to somewhere where they can gain more than they would by destroying him. Incidentally, you'd never believe the number of people who fuss about the obvious similarities between Spectres and Dememtors (or perhaps you would). Doesn't it occur to anyone that if two artists sit down to draw the same thing their pictures will end up looking alike?

Fya, I heard on the radio the the US Defence Department is currently keeping track of Father Christmas. Apparently he's somewhere over the United States (and so has presumably metamorphosed into Santa Claus) at the moment, where it's still night time (or is it early morning by now? it was a few hours ago). I suppose the fact that the Defence Department (or whatever it calls itself) has nothing better to do than keep track of Father Christmas is encouraging. Merry Christmas!

[phoenixsong]

Going back to the last page, it does strike me that we probably should not believe that Tom's Mom's death was the "accident" of a "silly girl". Why should we believe that she died in childbirth, or shortly thereafter, any more than we should believe that Harry's parents died in a car crash? I can't help but to wonder if poor Tom Jr. wasn't the subject of a prophecy, and the object of an attack by a Dark Lord? There is, of course, zero evidence to support this, but I am pretty taken with these cyclical-history theories we've been working with, that it is up to Harry to break the cycle.

And here's a weird tidbit that adds something to the mix. check out the OED entry for "Mar" as a prefix:
1. Prefixed to nouns, to form nouns with the sense ‘a person who mars’, in many nonce-words (chiefly names) occurring in the Marprelate tracts or in later works referring to them. Now hist.

2. More generally, prefixed to nouns to form nouns with the sense ‘a person who or thing which mars’, and adjectives with the sense ‘that mars’, as http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbbi/dag.gifmar-all (n. and adj.), -feast (arch. and literary), http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbbi/dag.gif-good, http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbbi/dag.gif-hawk, -joy; http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbbi/dag.gifmar-right adj. http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbb/dag.gifmar-tail n. derogatory, a prostitute. Cf. also MARPLOT (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=mar&edition=3e&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=pooS-arRGa9-169&result_place=1&xrefed=REV&xrefword=marplot) n. and a.
So we get "Marvolo" as "the one who mars Volo" (with "volo" as flight, or the "person who is willing"). I mean, I think the obvious association of the name is "marvelous" as in "fantastical", but might there be an association between "marring" something and "marking" something?

[magicalwand]

Wow! Lots going on here, today. Mar volo. Doesn't "mar" have something to do with the sea? "Sea-wish." A riddle is a puzzle. A clue and a question.

This could be a possible clue to Voldemort’s control of the mer people within the lake as they are associated with wishes too. The riddle is a puzzle just as in the Twizard tournament with the sphinx. Perhaps the clue is Voldemort’s control of the mer people and the question that needs to be answered, how does Harry defeat Voldemort, comes from the sphinx.

And I think we figured out that Voldemort is something like "flying death." I think.

Very interesting statement as it appears that the dementors can actually glide or even fly if you consider the clip in PoA. So does this suggest that one of the many transformations may have involved the dementors? That Voldemort is partially a dementor and that it explains how he is able to control them so readily.

I don't think think we should write off the idea of Tom Riddle being possessed, yet. At this point, I just don't think we have enough to work with to reach a reasonable conclusion. <fume> So we wait for the next book. Probably a year away. sigh

If Salazar Slytherin did not have a child to continue with his line then possession is the only way I can think of him achieving his goal today. If Salazar Slytherin did have a child then it is possible that Voldemort could have as well as they are supposed to have the same personality. A child would make sense, as someone will need to continue Salazar Slytherins line if Voldemort fails (a back up plan).

What would Voldemort's patronus be?

A snake yes but what about medusa herself, his patronus would have more of a function, as it would affect wizards too. Does Voldemort need a patronus if he is part dementor from one of his many transformations?

Going back to the last page, it does strike me that we probably should not believe that Tom's Mom's death was the "accident" of a "silly girl". Why should we believe that she died in childbirth, or shortly thereafter, any more than we should believe that Harry's parents died in a car crash? I can't help but to wonder if poor Tom Jr. wasn't the subject of a prophecy, and the object of an attack by a Dark Lord? There is, of course, zero evidence to support this, but I am pretty taken with these cyclical-history theories we've been working with, that it is up to Harry to break the cycle.

And here's a weird tidbit that adds something to the mix. check out the OED entry for "Mar" as a prefix:

1. Prefixed to nouns, to form nouns with the sense ‘a person who mars’, in many nonce-words (chiefly names) occurring in the Marprelate tracts or in later works referring to them. Now hist.

2. More generally, prefixed to nouns to form nouns with the sense ‘a person who or thing which mars’, and adjectives with the sense ‘that mars’, as mar-all (n. and adj.), -feast (arch. and literary), -good, -hawk, -joy; mar-right adj. mar-tail n. derogatory, a prostitute. Cf. also MARPLOT n. and a.

So we get "Marvolo" as "the one who mars Volo" (with "volo" as flight, or the "person who is willing"). I mean, I think the obvious association of the name is "marvelous" as in "fantastical", but might there be an association between "marring" something and "marking" something?

This is quite an interesting remark in terms of defining what might have happened to Voldemort’s mother, that she may have indeed been killed not by Tom but by those who wished for something more sinister, a sacrifice just like that of Lily for Harry but of course opposite in causality and meaning.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

So we get "Marvolo" as "the one who mars Volo" (with "volo" as flight, or the "person who is willing"). I mean, I think the obvious association of the name is "marvelous" as in "fantastical", but might there be an association between "marring" something and "marking" something?
Oh very good! And here was me thinking it was just pulled out f the left over letters. I'd forgotten Rule One: where JK is concerned, nothing is EVER co-incidense.

Just discovered who it is I was in fact replying to in the latter part of my post. Might as well leave the reply in anyway; it might contain something useful.

A child would make sense, as someone will need to continue Salazar Slytherins line if Voldemort fails (a back up plan).
Indeed it would, to you or me. But I think Voldemort lives in such an advanced state of selfishness that it would never occur to him to provide in case of failure and death. For him, failure is the end of the world.

About Voldemort being part Dementor: I suspect that those subjected to the Dementor's Kiss themselves become Dementors. And Lupin said that if a Dementor gets the chance it will feed off you long enough to reduce you to something like itself, soulless and evil. Voldemort does sound like someone who has been subjected to long time in the presence of a Dementor, although one could argue that he doesn't need a Dementor to destroy his soul, as he is managing to do so very well on his own.
Does Voldemort need a patronus if he is part dementor from one of his many transformations?
Depends what you mean by need. Need to do what? He's barely got a soul worth preserving now. Assuming that there was once some good in his character and that perhaps a shadow of that still exists now, then that bit definitely needs a Patronus.

This is quite an interesting remark in terms of defining what might have happened to Voldemort’s mother, that she may have indeed been killed not by Tom but by those who wished for something more sinister, a sacrifice just like that of Lily for Harry but of course opposite in causality and meaning.
I would say that the slaying of the unicorn is the direct reverse of Lily's Sacrifice (I think we can justifiably grace it with the capital letter). Lily gives up her life for her son, whereas Voldemort killed the unicorn for himself. Its like the word sacrifice has two meanings: one infinitely elevated, the other unspeakably grotesque.

[barmy codger]

Just so you don't stray to far afield: vol is the French word for theft. Voldemort is theft of death. I have considered this to be an equivalent of cheating death -an actual phrase in English- as in his search for immortality, but now I think the actual word theft is more appropriate. Not sure why.

Edit: Oops, the word can mean flight as well. It was a long time ago I checked the dictionary. Don't know why I discarded the word flight. Which is appropriate?

[whizbang121]

Going back to the last page, it does strike me that we probably should not believe that Tom's Mom's death was the "accident" of a "silly girl". Why should we believe that she died in childbirth, or shortly thereafter, any more than we should believe that Harry's parents died in a car crash?

What if she's not dead at all? What or who is Nagini? Could Tom's mother have been an animagus? Was her death prevented by transforming into a snake? Voldemort's "ugly baby" stage is nourished by unicorn blood and something (poison) that is "milked" from Nagini. How maternal. When did Tom actually begin to share the company of this snake? She noses around the Riddle house at Little Hangleton, discovers Frank and reports her finding to Ugly Baby Tom.
So, three questions. What did happen to Tom's mother? Who or what is Nagini? And how did Tom know so much about his ancestry and the whole "heir of Slytherin" thing?

I remember that the male cobra in Rudyard Kipling's Rikki Tikki Tavi, was called Nag. I think the female was Nagaini or Nagaina. Nagini seems to be in the same word family. Anyone know what the words mean? They are probably Hindi or possibly Sanskrit.
I wonder if we could analyze Harry with Rikki Tikki Tavi. He is unafraid of the cobras and he saves his human family from them. Hmmmmm......... Very Gryffindor little mongoose. He was found nearly dead and a little boy and his mother nursed him back to health. Think I'll go read that again.

~~~~~~~~~~
Here (http://www.literaturepage.com/read/thejunglebook-89.html) it is online. I can't believe it.


At the hole where he went in
Red-Eye called to Wrinkle-Skin.
Hear what little Red-Eye saith:
"Nag, come up and dance with death!"

Eye to eye and head to head,
(Keep the measure, Nag.)
This shall end when one is dead;
(At thy pleasure, Nag.)
Turn for turn and twist for twist--
(Run and hide thee, Nag.)
Hah! The hooded Death has missed!
(Woe betide thee, Nag!)

This is the story of the great war that Rikki-tikki-tavi fought single-handed, through the bath-rooms of the big bungalow in Segowlee cantonment. Darzee, the Tailorbird, helped him, and Chuchundra, the musk-rat, who never comes out into the middle of the floor, but always creeps round by the wall, gave him advice, but Rikki-tikki did the real fighting.
I wonder if there is thread about this anywhere. :eyebrows: I'll check.

[barmy codger]

There may be something about the name Nagini in one of the threads, and I remember reading about it, but where I don't recall. A web search immediately yielded some interesting sites such as this:

http://www.thelema.net/ramsey/naga.html
It says right off that Naga is rooted in Sanskrit and means "serpent."

[whizbang121]

There may be something about the name Nagini in one of the threads, and I remember reading about it, but where I don't recall. A web search immediately yielded some interesting sites such as this:

http://www.thelema.net/ramsey/naga.html
It says right off that Naga is rooted in Sanskrit and means "serpent."
Thanks, Barmy. That site was really interesting.

I'm looking for diamond patterned snakes. Most of the entries I'm finding are for the diamond python, and various rattlesnakes. For example


bushmaster


large venomous snake, Lachesis muta, of Central America and N South America. It is a member of the pit viper family, which also includes the rattlesnake. The largest New World snake, it reaches a length of 8 to 12 ft (2.5–5.5 m). It is gray and brown, with a diamond pattern. Unlike most pit vipers, which bear live young, the bushmaster lays eggs. It is classified in the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Reptilia, order Squamata, family Crotalidae.


The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2003 Columbia University Press.

[purplehawk]

Ron and I have one thing in common - hatred and fear of snakes. I'm going to be quiet on this theory. Yech!

[whizbang121]

Hi, Purp! I thought Ron was afraid of spiders? You are in good company, though. My mom and Indiana Jones also have problems with snakes. I'm afraid of bears, and we have very few to none around here. :rolleyes:

Have you ever read Kipling's Rikki Tikki Tavi? The little mongoose is very Harry like. :agree: There's a link to the story above a few posts.

[purplehawk]

You're right, of course. Ron is afraid of spiders. I feel the same way about snakes... I cannot abide the darned things.

I have read Riki-Tiki-Tavi and think you might be on to something. Trouble is, it's about a snake and I'm going to wig out of the conversation.

[whizbang121]

I have read Riki-Tiki-Tavi and think you might be on to something. Trouble is, it's about a snake and I'm going to wig out of the conversation.

Just keep telling yourself it's a 12 foot diamond patterned teddy bear?
Or, you could just concentrate on the Harry/Rikki Tikki Tavi part of the interpretation! That could work! I wonder where Voldemort fits into the story. and Rikki Tikki tricks Nagaina by stealing one of her eggs. I'm trying to thing of references to eggs in HP. There's the egg Norbert hatched from. The egg that Harry had to take from the dragon's clutch in the first triwizard challenge. It was also the clue to the next challenge. Remember any more eggs? How might an egg be used to trick Voldemort?

[purplehawk]

Well, in CoS there was the business about a basilisk being born from a chicken's egg hatched beneath a toad.

[whizbang121]

Good one. (scribble, scribble.) So eggs = one basilisk and 2 dragon connections. When Fawkes is reborn, does he return to an egg or a chick?

[purplehawk]

Godd one. (scribble, scribble.) So eggs = one basilisk and 2 dragon connections. When Fawkes is reborn, does he return to an egg or a chick?

A chick. An ugly, featherless, chirruping chick. It's in OotP and CoS.

[whizbang121]

Oh well. You know, you really are amazing. You must have a photographic memory.

[purplehawk]

I read a lot... too much, perhaps. And I happen to enjoy the Potter books exceedingly.

[barmy codger]

Finally, the discussion has come very close to being on topic: Layers in Harry Potter = hens.

[phoenixsong]

I remember that the male cobra in Rudyard Kipling's Rikki Tikki Tavi, was called Nag. I think the female was Nagaini or Nagaina. Nagini seems to be in the same word family. Anyone know what the words mean?Well, Nagas and Naginis (the masculine and feminie forms), are serpent beings who appear in classical Indian literature and art, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain. They are often associated with treasure, whether gold and jewels, or the treasure of wisdom or esoteric knowledge.


Finally, the discussion has come very close to being on topic: Layers in Harry Potter = hens.Actually, doesn't the basilisk's egg need to be the egg of a cockeral, laid on a dung heap and hatched beneath a toad? (One text even says it must be laid in the days when Sirius is in the skies!)

And, apparently, more than the enmity of basilisks and phoenixes is the enmity of basilisks and weasels (though there is also the fatal sound of the cock's crow). There is a quite nice little essay on the basilisk to be found here (http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Basilisk.htm).

[purplehawk]

I guess I'm going to follow this link to see what you're talking about, Phoenix. My text says nothing at all about dung heaps and Sirius in the skies. I have the American edition, however, and maybe it's different than the U.K. version?

[phoenixsong]

Sorry, purplehawk, I wasn't being clear that I was referring to the broader mythology of the basilisk, not to JKR's version. But she is clearly working with the later, European version of the basilisk in which there is a strong chicken component.

One of the things that is so interesting about the basilisk is that, even though it later takes the chicken as its enemy, in and of itself it combines the serpent and the bird (whose animosity we have discussed before). It has plumes on its head, resembling a crown (one of the reasons it is the "king of serpents"), and it is often thought to fly, not simply creep like other serpents.

[purplehawk]

It's okay. I figured it out after following your link. You know, I've mentioned the possible link between the basilisk and the phoenix as creatures of prey before. I wonder if the connection JK referred to in CoS - the one everyone seems to have missed or overlooked - could possibly be the battle between Fawkes and the basilisk, or perhaps Gryffindor and Slytherin. In effect, that's exactly what it was...

Voldemort, the heir of Slytherin, is again building power. Dumbledore has recalled the Order of the Phoenix. There is surely a connection in the name chosen for the resistance... The Order of the Phoenix didn't just come out of the blue. The symbolism is striking.

[whizbang121]

Fawkes blinded the basilisk and Harry killed it. Is that a clue to the outcome of the series?

[purplehawk]

Yes, it is... but I was thinking of something more profound. There has been so much speculation about Harry being heir to Gryffindor and we know Voldemort is heir to Slytherin. We know there was a huge flap between Gryffindor and Slytherin when Slytherin left the school... or did he actually leave? Was their confrontation merely a bitter argument, or did these two actually do battle as snake and phoenix? Was the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets actually Slytherin's snake, or Slytherin himself? Is Fawkes an incarnation of Gryffindor, or perhaps the old wizard himself, in bird form?

I'm wondering if their old battle hasn't been an ongoing thing down through the ages. You've spoken of the idea of a dark lord rising and a "good" wizard being born to vanquish each one...

I dunno, it just seems as though Slytherin and Gryffindor aren't quite finished.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

My text says nothing at all about dung heaps and Sirius in the skies. I have the American edition, however, and maybe it's different than the U.K. version?
Not that different I should hope! I mean, I can see the businness of substituting jumpers for sweaters or whatever it was, but I hope they're not confusing facts like that.

Voldemort, the heir of Slytherin, is again building power. Dumbledore has recalled the Order of the Phoenix. There is surely a connection in the name chosen for the resistance... The Order of the Phoenix didn't just come out of the blue. The symbolism is striking.
Yes, I think the basilisk and the phoenix are symbols, not just of Slytherin and Gryffindor but also of Voldemort and Harry. Question: in the cases where these creatures have been known in legend to appear differently from in the books, should we be taking the elements of them existing in mythology but not in HP as equal in significance to their elements described in HP or even of any significance at all? For example, is it really important that the basilisk is part bird if JK has chosen to portray it solely as a snake?

Remember any more eggs? How might an egg be used to trick Voldemort?
Well, there is a story where a boy has to find something so new that no one had ever seen it before. His answer to the riddle is to produce an egg which is about to hatch. And "egg" is the answer to another riddle too isn't it? Something about a box without a key or lid, but golden treasure inside is hid? The Hobbit? Squirrel Nutkin? However, I can hardly imagine that the outcome of the books will depend on Harry answering a riddle (I can see a horrible pun coming...please don't say it).

A chick. An ugly, featherless, chirruping chick. It's in OotP and CoS.
Yes, but this comes back to my question above, I'm sure the phoenix does, in some legends, lay an egg. And the egg is a more common-place way of doing what the phoenix does. Remember that riddle we came up with ages ago? Which came first the phoenix or the ashes; which came first the chicken or the egg?

Fawkes blinded the basilisk and Harry killed it. Is that a clue to the outcome of the series?
Hopefully.

Edit after purple's post:
Yes, it is... but I was thinking of something more profound. There has been so much speculation about Harry being heir to Gryffindor and we know Voldemort is heir to Slytherin. We know there was a huge flap between Gryffindor and Slytherin when Slytherin left the school... or did he actually leave? Was their confrontation merely a bitter argument, or did these two actually do battle as snake and phoenix? Was the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets actually Slytherin's snake, or Slytherin himself? Is Fawkes an incarnation of Gryffindor, or perhaps the old wizard himself, in bird form?

I'm wondering if their old battle hasn't been an ongoing thing down through the ages. You've spoken of the idea of a dark lord rising and a "good" wizard being born to vanquish each one...

I dunno, it just seems as though Slytherin and Gryffindor aren't quite finished
Interesting thoughts. The only thing which doesn't quite seem to fit is having Gryffindor=good and Slytherin=evil. Gryffindors are brave and chivalrous. Chivalry (sp?) is always good, I suppose, but its not the only kind of good, while bravery can easily be misused. Harry's daring has on occaisons allowed him to do things which are not morally justifiable (Snape's memories; visiting Hogsmeade illegally). Slytherins are cunning, shrewd, ambitious, "use any means to achive their ends" and are usually pure-blood. Shrewdness and cunning are, like bravery, a gift, with which good or evil can be accomplished; ambition and using any means to achive ends both depend on the goal of the ambition or the end to the means; pure-blood shouldn't actually make any difference. The words used to describe Slytherins suggest dishonesty, ruthlessness, bigotry and evil but they do not neccesarily imply them. The question is, is this bias introduced by Harry, the Sorting Hat, the Slytherins' portrayal of themselves, or JK herself?
But having said that, Gryffindor, its virtues and its symbolism are definitely on the side of good in this particular case, as Slytherin is on the side of evil. Or should we say that evil is on the side of Slytherin and good on the side of Gryffindor? Too much salmon salad, I think...

Isn't there a favourite theory that the Final Battle will take place inside the conection forged by the scar? When Voldemort possesses Harry, the possession is shown using imagery: the tightly coiled snake with red eyes. Is it possible that the final battle will appear in this way, with a metaphorical phoenix fighting a metaphorical serpent? The risk would be having it look too much like CoS. The other problem would be that, in her battle scenes, JK makes good use of the setting and here there would be no oportunity to do so.

[purplehawk]

There could be, though. Hagrid first brought up the idea in the first book when he told Harry Hogwarts was the only place on earth that might be safer than Gringotts Wizarding Bank. He also told Harry Voldemort had never dared to attempt taking Hogwarts by force.

Harry reiterated that premise to Riddle in Chamber of Secrets.

"You're not," he said, his quiet voice full of hatred.

"Not what?" snapped Riddle.

"Not the greatest sorcerer in the world," said Harry, breathing fast. "Sorry to disappoint you and all that, but the greatest wizard in the world is Albus Dumbledore. Everyone says so. Even when you were strong, you didn't dare try and take over at Hogwarts. Dumbledore saw through you when you were at school and he still frightens you now, wherever you're hiding these days - "

What if the setting for the final confrontation isHogwarts? The school was the scene of the original whatever-it-was-that-happened-between-Gryffindor-and-Slytherin; what says the final battle, the definitive battle won't also occur there?

[phoenixsong]

For example, is it really important that the basilisk is part bird if JK has chosen to portray it solely as a snake?Rats! Again, I don't have my books with me here on holiday, but doesn't Fantastic Beasts say that the basilisk does have plumes on the top of its head?

But I like your suggestion that Fawkes' egg might be involved somewhere along the way. I wonder how far along his life-cycles he is? As opposed as Fawkes and the basilisk might be, I do maintain that there is similarity between them, and we should not forget that serpents, like birds, do hatch from eggs, though the basilisk IS a serpent that hatches from a bird's egg.

[barmy codger]

When book 5 came out, I was disappointed to learn that the Order of the Phoenix was merely a resistance group. I'll spare you my conjectures from that time, but it still seems possible that Dumbledore, and Fawkes might be the current keepers of the secrets inherited from Gryffindor, and are part of a true Order. It may also be possible that Harry has inherited those things and abilities of other Houses, but even if it is just Gryffindor vs Slytherin, the final conflict may not be merely a final battle where the most powerful wins by killing the other.

I have a book of alchemical art (Alchemy & Mysticism- the Hermetic Museum by Alexander Roos. About 700 pages of images. Really nice, a fortunate find.) It has two pictures of a basilisk. The caption on one of them is a quote from Aurora consurgens, which is a book, I guess, not a person, 16th century. It's a suggestive name anyway. Aurora = sunrise, dawn, etc. and consurgens is a form of the verb meaning to come from hiding, grow rise spring up, etc according to my dictionary. The quote is: "The 'basilisk' is a poisonous mixture of cock and toad. Its eye fixes and kills everything at once, like a strong solvent or the projection powder that transmutes the metals. If you hold up a mirror to it, it kills itself. "From its ashes arise wonderful things."" Doesn't the ashes business sound similar to a phoenix? The phoenix and the serpent biting its own tail both symbolise death and rebirth.

I don't know how the powers of Slytherin and Gryffindor might be transferred down the ages from one wizard to another. Through the phoenix, yes, but through the basilisk that is now dead? Did Voldemort get the Slytherin power from the basilisk when Riddle first opened the Chamber of Secrets? Is it associated with Nagini now? I don't know. But it suggests the final confrontation might not be the killing of an individual, but the death of the inherited power (the red eyed monster that coils around Harry, and is the essence of the Dark Lord). Since the series seems based on alchemical allegory, it is possible that this vanquishing of the baseness in Voldemort, could result in a transformation, a spiritual growth. Harry is not only linked to Voldemort by the scar, they are linked by many similarities that have been definitely pointed out to us. This tie makes it something that Harry must overcome in himself. Something (the Prophecy does not say specifically that it is a person) would die, and could mean that it is left behind in the transformation.

Qustions remain, of course! Why doesn't Dumbledore have the Power, if it's a Gryffindor/ phoenix thing? Why does Harry have it? Why is some of it locked in a room?

[purplehawk]

Why doesn't Dumbledore have the Power, if it's a Gryffindor/ phoenix thing? Why does Harry have it? Why is some of it locked in a room?

Barmy, I believe Dumbledore had the power to vanquish his particular Dark Wizard, Grindelwald. No other wizard could have accomplished what he did at that time, just as no wizard other than Harry has any hope of vanquishing Voldemort for good. I see this as a series of Dark Lords through the ages, each vanquished by an anointed "good" wizard. I also see the culmination of their struggles in the final battle Harry will have with Voldemort. Their confrontation will mark the end of the phenomenon, I think... perhaps because the combatants have become so much alike, each having essentially the same elements of power in terms of lineage and strength. The difference has to be the "power the Dark Lord knows not," the power in the locked room which Harry has in abundance and Voldemort has not at all.

[whizbang121]

Rats! Again, I don't have my books with me here on holiday, but doesn't Fantastic Beasts say that the basilisk does have plumes on the top of its head?

But I like your suggestion that Fawkes' egg might be involved somewhere along the way. I wonder how far along his life-cycles he is? As opposed as Fawkes and the basilisk might be, I do maintain that there is similarity between them, and we should not forget that serpents, like birds, do hatch from eggs, though the basilisk IS a serpent that hatches from a bird's egg.

It's beginning to look like the basilisk and the phoenix are two sides of the same coin. :eyebrows: One and the same almost. Like the yew in Voldemort's wand, the serpent represents immortality. The holly in Harry's wand and the phoenix lean more towards ressurection. One fears death and avoids it. The other embraces death to find life. Getting very deep here.

Anyway, I got the schooldbooks for Christmas! Here's the description of the basilisk.

The Basilisk is a brilliant green serpent that may reach up to fifty feet in length. The male has a scarlet plume upon its head. It has exceptionally venomous fangs, but its most dangerous means of attack is the gaze of its large yellow eyes. Anyone looking directly into these will suffer instant death.
They can live up to nine hundred years. Basilisks are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths. The first one was bred by Herpo the Foul, a Greek Dark Wizard and parselmouth. I wonder what ever became of Herpo? Will he come into the story? Hmmmmm.............

And we come full circle again, (so, of course, it's not a circle but a spiral), to the difference between Voldemort and Harry being the attitude towards ... the willingness to accept death. Voldemort will give up his life to save it. (Where have I heard a phrase like that?) And Harry willing to give up his life, will find it. Is that courage? Faith. Wisdom? Life? In Yoga, it's jnana. There is no death. There is only life. Life is power. Life is the power over death?

Where's Ultimate Sacrifice these days?

[morgan le fay]

hmm interesting find, whiz. i found this in an internet search:

Herpes is based on the word herpo, which is Greek for "creep along".

makes sense, snakes creep along. herpo the foul. lol he must have been hated to earn such a name. :evil:

[barmy codger]

Barmy, I believe Dumbledore had the power to vanquish his particular Dark Wizard, Grindelwald. No other wizard could have accomplished what he did at that time, just as no wizard other than Harry has any hope of vanquishing Voldemort for good. I see this as a series of Dark Lords through the ages, each vanquished by an anointed "good" wizard. I also see the culmination of their struggles in the final battle Harry will have with Voldemort. Their confrontation will mark the end of the phenomenon, I think... perhaps because the combatants have become so much alike, each having essentially the same elements of power in terms of lineage and strength. The difference has to be the "power the Dark Lord knows not," the power in the locked room which Harry has in abundance and Voldemort has not at all.

purplehawk, your ideas have given me much to think about, but I question some aspects. One thing is: who does the anointing of the good wizard? Would this be like teacher passing the job on to apprentice? Also, I would rather see a grander ending. I would be disappointed if it all came down to a shootout where Harry beats Voldemort by simply having more firepower. Another point is that ending the evil phenomenon is not the same as ending evil. So I wonder whether the grand finale will acknowledge that evil will appear again, such as in Lord of the Rings. I think this struggle with evil is endless and I would like an ending that highlights this point in some way. But most of all, I hope the end of the story will really amaze me.

Thinking about this tonight, I realised I was equating phoenix and Dumbledore with Gryffindor. The symbolic beast for Gryffindor is the lion, so the force of good that corresponds to the phoenix might not be the same as the Gryffindor linage. I have suspected Slytherin was not the source of the opposing evil force, but was seduced by it. This would account for the discord with the other founders. That would put the evil force outside the Slytherin line, but it causes some difficulty because the serpent represents both Slytherin and the evil of the Dark Lord.

A problem I see with the talk about the basilisk is that the basilisk is dead. It can't function as a counterpart to the phoenix. The serpent of evil seems to be in Voldemort, and was shown when he possessed Harry. Perhaps it was taken from the basilisk and that creature is no longer needed, especially since Voldemort plans to live forever. Is there a counterpart force of the phoenix that might reside in someone? Actually, many of the old alchemic images show two serpents entwined around a figure or a staff. It is said one is evil and one is good. Maybe Harry has a good serpent force? The similarities between Harry and Tom Riddle may be part of a story mechanism that will show they are two aspects of the same powers, At the end of book 2 Harry says he is like Riddle. Dumbledore then says Voldemort is the last descendant of Slytherin and gave Harry the ability to speak parseltongue. The next referral has Dumbledore explaining that Riddle made his choice and Harry made his. This is one of the instances of name changing I find so confusing- Riddle, Voldemort, Riddle. But it implies Harry and Tom Riddle differ only by the choices they made from similar beginnings. One thought I had was that Riddle was to be a good wizard. He got a wand with Fawkes' feather in it. But Riddle told Harry that Dumbledore was suspicious of him after he had framed Hagrid, and there is no indication that Dumbledore expected to train him. So that raises the question how Harry and Tom came to be so much alike, and have so much power? Are they the chosen ones like vampire slayers? So many questions. I hope there's a book 8 that will explain everything about the first seven.

[phoenixsong]

herpo the foul.Of course, it is a fun play on words, as well, that matches the nature of the basilisk: a snake (herpo) that is a chicken (fowl instead of foul).

I have suspected Slytherin was not the source of the opposing evil force, but was seduced by it. This would account for the discord with the other founders. That would put the evil force outside the Slytherin line, but it causes some difficulty because the serpent represents both Slytherin and the evil of the Dark Lord. Or Slytherin willingly embraced it in their quest for power. But I don't think that the serpent power is inherently evil, either. I think that we are on to something with discussing the possible overlap between bird and serpent, to suggest that they are not as diametrically opposed as it first appears.

whizbang: does Fantastic Beasts say anything about magical uses for basilisk egg/skin/venom etc.?

[purplehawk]

But it implies Harry and Tom Riddle differ only by the choices they made from similar beginnings. One thought I had was that Riddle was to be a good wizard. He got a wand with Fawkes' feather in it. But Riddle told Harry that Dumbledore was suspicious of him after he had framed Hagrid, and there is no indication that Dumbledore expected to train him. So that raises the question how Harry and Tom came to be so much alike, and have so much power? Are they the chosen ones like vampire slayers? So many questions. I hope there's a book 8 that will explain everything about the first seven.

I have the impression Dumbledore's distrust of Riddle predated Riddle's framing of Hagrid, that it stemmed from a (much) earlier incident yet to be identified.

Or Slytherin willingly embraced it in their quest for power. But I don't think that the serpent power is inherently evil, either. I think that we are on to something with discussing the possible overlap between bird and serpent, to suggest that they are not as diametrically opposed as it first appears.

I don't think anything, any characters, in these books are as "diametrically opposed" as they first appear, Phoenix. We're dealing with choices and can safely assume that Harry is Tom Riddle as he should have been, had the latter's choices in life been other than what we've seen.

[FlyingPhoenix]

I like to look at something else regarding to the power which Harry has but Voldemort not has. Its about one of the theme in those books its death and love. I'll explain at hands of examples:

PS/SS: "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, and I ask you not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you will be prepared. It does not do to dwell on dreams and to forget to live, remember that."

W all know what Harry see in that mirror: His parents. Its in someways grief to stay there and dwell on dreams. You don't want to let go what you so dearly love but its no good. You need to let go of it and go on with your life.

Thats lesson number one.

Later lesson number two:
"After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure."

Reminds me at Gandalf but thats another story. Well here we are and learn Death isn't evil nor a end. Its part of life and not at all the worst thing of earth.

Lesson three: Love is immortal.
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love (life itself). He didn't realise that love as poweful as your mothers for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.."

I did add Life itself because if you want to know Voldemort fears to die, Harry however does not fear it. He fears not to be beloved. To live a life like Voldemort without warmness, without love would be the most terrible thing for Harry. Harry can not take it if he fears to lose his friends this one he loves. Rather die with all love then to life forever without love. This is Harrys power, the one power which Voldemort does not understand. Its the power of love and the meaning of life, dead. Voldemort did never understand love, never understand that Love is the only thing what makes you immortal.

[whizbang121]

Of course, it is a fun play on words, as well, that matches the nature of the basilisk: a snake (herpo) that is a chicken (fowl instead of foul).

whizbang: does Fantastic Beasts say anything about magical uses for basilisk egg/skin/venom etc.?
Drat. I just picked it up to check and Gramps wandered in for a second cup of coffee. Now where did I put it down?

I was looking up griffins, because Barmy makes a good point the Gryffin, or Lion would be the Gryffindor counterpart to the Slytherin Basilisk, rather than Fawkes. The phoenix seems to be associated with Dumbledore, or with something different altogether. Perhaps it is Fawkes that marks the resemblences between Harry and Tom while the Basilisk and the Griffin represent their differences? Is there a Lion in Harry?
Rammmmmmble.. Ramble on .....

Where's that book?

[purplehawk]

Excellent insight, FlyingPhoenix! The three life's lessons you have described are absolutely key to both the differences between Harry and Voldemort and also to the way the series has to resolve.

I was looking up griffins, because Barmy makes a good point the Gryffin, or Lion would be the Gryffindor counterpart to the Slytherin Basilisk, rather than Fawkes. The phoenix seems to be associated with Dumbledore, or with something different altogether. Perhaps it is Fawkes that marks the resemblences between Harry and Tom while the Basilisk and the Griffin represent their differences? Is there a Lion in Harry?

The symbol is Slytherin House is a snake, a regular old serpent rather than a basilisk. As for Harry, I don't think any of us would doubt he possesses the coeur de lion so often associated with members of Gryffindor House. Fawkes, I think, is the tie... the key that binds together the two sides of the struggle before us. I too associate Fawkes with Dumbledore, yet it is entirely possible Fawkes once belonged to Godric Gryffindor, or to another being with a vested interest in this eternal struggle of good versus evil. I like the Gryffindor idea best, particularly as Fawkes would then have been owned by each wizard born "chosen" to defeat the Dark Lord of their age. That, as Flying Phoenix notes, is very like Gandalf - the primary mover and shaker and mentor of those great deeds described in LOTR. Remember the little bird or butterfly or whatever it was that brought tidings to Gandalf?

[whizbang121]

Griffin
M.O.M. Classification: XXXX

The griffin originated in Greece and has the front legs and head of a giant eagle, but the body and hind legs of a lion. Like sphinxes ... griffins are often employed by wizards to guard treasure. Though griffins are fierce, a handfull of skilled wizards have been known to befriend one. Griffins feed on raw meat.

Interestingly, the griffin and the basilisk both have connections to birds, chickens and eagles. How does this tie in with the phoenix?

[phoenixsong]

Interestingly, the griffin and the basilisk both have connections to birds, chickens and eagles. How does this tie in with the phoenix?Hmm, I guess that you could say that both Gryffindor and Slytherin, if their emblems are the griffin and the basilisk, have hybrid animals as their emblem, a bird-like version of another animal (if Griffin=bird-like lion and basilisk=bird-like serpent). But how the phoenix, who is, after all, a bird proper (though a magical one), relates to either the Griffin or the Basilisk is unclear to me.

[Masterfroggy]

Hmm, I guess that you could say that both Gryffindor and Slytherin, if their emblems are the griffin and the basilisk, have hybrid animals as their emblem, a bird-like version of another animal (if Griffin=bird-like lion and basilisk=bird-like serpent). But how the phoenix, who is, after all, a bird proper (though a magical one), relates to either the Griffin or the Basilisk is unclear to me.

This is stating the obvious but neither a Basilisk nor a Griffin is pure bred, so I wonder why the symbol of Salazar Slytherin House at Hogwarts is a half bred creature.
The same cannot be said for the other two houses (Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) as they have proper animals on their coat of arms,

Is it just the noble aspect of the Griffin that appealed to JKR or is there a hidden more subtle meaning to the link between Harry and Voldemort not being purebloods and the animals that are represented on the house coat of arms not being pureblood either

[purplehawk]

Whoa, wait a minute... is the symbol for Slytherin House a basilisk or a snake or serpent? Does the image reflect the crested basilisk? I don't have any images at hand and texts do not say "basilisk."

[Masterfroggy]

Whoa, wait a minute... is the symbol for Slytherin House a basilisk or a snake or serpent? Does the image reflect the crested basilisk? I don't have any images at hand and texts do not say "basilisk."

The books call it a serpent, but on the badges it is the green colour that hints towards the Basilisk, (which is after all the King of the serpents) on the only image I have of the badges used in the film there is some form of hood just above the eyes of the serpent on the robes, (I am not certain that the badges was ever shown clearly in the film so I don't know whether the prop was every used), also in the film there was no crest on the snake (I don't remember seeing one anyway) It might have been a female Basilisk which has no crest.

[purplehawk]

I think we would know, by now, if JK intended the symbol of Slytherin House to be a basilisk rather than an everyday ugly old green snake. The Gryffindor symbol is pretty straightforward; thus I'm assuming the snake must also be taken as fact.

As for the dead basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, I'm betting we see another one before the end. Maybe the dead one was a female and left an egg behind?

Whiz, you were looking for examples of eggs. I've just thought of another one... in the little room off the Great Hall, where the champions were gathered with several officials, Karkaroff mentions hearing that Alastor Moody mistook a carriage clock for a "cunningly disguised basilisk's egg."

[Masterfroggy]

I think we would know, by now, if JK intended the symbol of Slytherin House to be a basilisk rather than an everyday ugly old green snake. The Gryffindor symbol is pretty straightforward; thus I'm assuming the snake must also be taken as fact.

As for the dead basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, I'm betting we see another one before the end. Maybe the dead one was a female and left an egg behind?

Whiz, you were looking for examples of eggs. I've just thought of another one... in the little room off the Great Hall, where the champions were gathered with several officials, Karkaroff mentions hearing that Alastor Moody mistook a carriage clock for a "cunningly disguised basilisk's egg."

There are twenty odd pages of things that people have posted about in this thread alone and everyone is talking about links so tenuous, that I feel that people must have made a leap of faith to find even a hint let alone a connection, JKR herself decided on the badges and house colours, she also decided to include the description of a basilisk in the book as the 'King of the serpents' even down to telling us that 'the Basilisk is a bright green serpent' in her book Fantastic Beast,

To take as a fact anything that JKR has written would negate most of the point for this whole thread if not the Forum, and as to where it has been hinted that there may be another basilisk in future books, I can find nothing to support that, unless it is the hint that JK gave us that something small from the second book may play an important role later one.

[whizbang121]

Interestingly, Nagini is described as having a diamond patterned tail. Hmmmm.....
The Black house was full of images of snakes.

It's a point well taken that we don't know if Slytherin house is represented by a Basilisk. But the Chamber or Secrets, which only his heir could open, contained a huge one that arrived when Sal's name was invoked. We haven't seen a Griffin, yet. I wonder if we will. Oh, maybe Masterfroggy is right and we've strayed too far.

[purplehawk]

It's a supposition of mine, Froggy. I don't believe we're quite finished with the Chamber of Secrets. I have nothing upon which to base that assumption other than gut instinct.

I still maintain the Slytherin symbol is not a basilisk.

[whizbang121]

Fruit cups?

I have to agree we have not seen a griffin or the snake on the slytherin crest. We have seen a basilisk, Nagini and a phoenix. I don't know what this all means.

Griffins and basilisks are mythical beasts, but snakes and lions are real.

[Masterfroggy]

Fruit cups?
.

Am I missing a connection here

[barmy codger]

I like to look at something else regarding to the power which Harry has but Voldemort not has. Its about one of the theme in those books its death and love. I'll explain at hands of examples:

PS/SS: "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, and I ask you not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you will be prepared. It does not do to dwell on dreams and to forget to live, remember that."

W all know what Harry see in that mirror: His parents. Its in someways grief to stay there and dwell on dreams. You don't want to let go what you so dearly love but its no good. You need to let go of it and go on with your life.

Thats lesson number one.

Later lesson number two:
"After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure."

Reminds me at Gandalf but thats another story. Well here we are and learn Death isn't evil nor a end. Its part of life and not at all the worst thing of earth.

Lesson three: Love is immortal.
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love (life itself). He didn't realise that love as poweful as your mothers for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.."

I did add Life itself because if you want to know Voldemort fears to die, Harry however does not fear it. He fears not to be beloved. To live a life like Voldemort without warmness, without love would be the most terrible thing for Harry. Harry can not take it if he fears to lose his friends this one he loves. Rather die with all love then to life forever without love. This is Harrys power, the one power which Voldemort does not understand. Its the power of love and the meaning of life, dead. Voldemort did never understand love, never understand that Love is the only thing what makes you immortal.

There is a small book called "Love is Letting Go of Fear" by Gerald Jampolsky. The premise of the book is simple: Love and fear are the two primary emotions, and when there is more of one there is less of the other. Once, while considering this, I thought about what is the greatest fear and decided it is fear of death. This fear is very deep and almost unrecognised in everyday life. Each person goes through life as an individual, an identity that does not want to be dis-integrated by death. The alternative to this fear is the desire to unite with the One. Love of the divine is the opposite of fearing loss of identity. In medieval times it was thought that love of the divine, the attraction to be one with god, was what caused everything to be in motion. It is the prime mover.

So, I would amend the excellent observations of FlyingPhoenix to say the themes of Harry Potter are fear and love rather than death and love. It is the fear of death that is motivating Voldemort.

Many people think the power that Harry has and Voldemort does not have is love. It seems to fit with the themes of the story and it is endorsed by Ms. Rowling's remark that the only kind of magic she believes in is love. If we think of love as only the strong feeling one has for another person, then Dumbledore's description of the power doesn't seem to apply. Everyone has the ability so why would it be locked in a room? Our modern thinking equates being locked in a room with imprisonment. Perhaps the lock is not to keep it in the room, but to allow access only to ones with a key. One must learn how to access love. Maybe. Considered as the Prime Mover of the universe, love could be "a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature." I am not happy with the ambiguity, but perhaps it is Ms Rowling's intent that we look for the key to the room for ourselves while we await book six.

[whizbang121]

I read somewhere that in surveys asking people what their worst fear was, death came in second. :lol: Number one was public speaking.

But the opposite of love is not hate so much as fear.

We have seen that happiness is required to produce a patronus, humor to produce a ridikkulus and sadism to perform the crucio. We have also seen how Harry uses Voldemort's weapons against him. In OotP, Harry's love for Sirius is the weapon Voldemort uses to lure Harry to the DoM. When Voldemort possesses Harry in the MoM, it is this same love for Sirius that forces Voldemort to flee. I have a feeling that whatever magic Harry must do to vanquish the Dark Lord, it will require a disciplined emotion. It might very well be love again, or it could be something else all together.

[barmy codger]

I have a feeling that whatever magic Harry must do to vanquish the Dark Lord, it will require a disciplined emotion.

Oh, just the thing he was supposed to be learning for Occlumency.

[whizbang121]

How so?

[barmy codger]

Snape to Harry: "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily--weak people, in other words--they stand no chance against his powers!"

and: "Master yourself! Control your anger, discipline your mind!"

[FlyingPhoenix]

So, I would amend the excellent observations of FlyingPhoenix to say the themes of Harry Potter are fear and love rather than death and love. It is the fear of death that is motivating Voldemort.

You're right its rather the fear or better the not understanding of dead and love by Voldemort what let him fear those two things.

This leads me to another thing what I did recognoise. Its that from book1 till 4 we or rather Harry learns what love does to him. JKR let Dumbledore explain all those things in each book about dead and love. PS/SS I did already cover up so I shall go on to PoA: You think the dead we loved truely leave us? You think we don't recall them more than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him...You found him inside yourself.

I did jump over COS because what said in PoA you can take for COS too. Just there was it Dumbledore and not Harrys father.

In GoF is it the ghosts of his parents, both. Now let look back in this books. We have in PS/SS mainly the love of Lily Potter for her son, in COS is it again more Lilys love at least she is mentioned. Dumbledore is there in some ways too but I let him out here. In PoA steps James Potter in this story his love for Harry does rescue his son. In GoF is it both James and Lily there does it end.
The part of this story where we get to know what love from others can rescue you ends in book4.

In OotP does it start to change. No longer is it love by someone else who rescue Harry its Harrys love for someone in this case for Sirius what let end Voldemorts power over Harry's body. Even Dumbledores words after DoM is more concentrated at Harrys feelings, his love. No longer what love can do to him. Its what Harrys love can do. This will go on in future books.

Thats even the reason why I do think that one of Harry's best friends will die. Its like that in book1 we learned the love from Lily isn't gone with her dead, its still there. If we see it like a coin then in book7 it should be Harry as the one being alive who still love the one who died. Its exactly opposite in that case.

After book5 we are going to look at the other side of the coin. No longer love what Harry get, rather Love what Harry give.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

What if the setting for the final confrontation isHogwarts? The school was the scene of the original whatever-it-was-that-happened-between-Gryffindor-and-Slytherin; what says the final battle, the definitive battle won't also occur there?
Yes, I think I'll put my money on that idea. And Hogwarts is a castle, after all. Perhaps in book six or seven it will be beseiged.

I have a book of alchemical art (Alchemy & Mysticism- the Hermetic Museum by Alexander Roos. About 700 pages of images. Really nice, a fortunate find.) It has two pictures of a basilisk. The caption on one of them is a quote from Aurora consurgens, which is a book, I guess, not a person, 16th century. It's a suggestive name anyway. Aurora = sunrise, dawn, etc. and consurgens is a form of the verb meaning to come from hiding, grow rise spring up, etc according to my dictionary. The quote is: "The 'basilisk' is a poisonous mixture of cock and toad. Its eye fixes and kills everything at once, like a strong solvent or the projection powder that transmutes the metals. If you hold up a mirror to it, it kills itself. "From its ashes arise wonderful things."" Doesn't the ashes business sound similar to a phoenix? The phoenix and the serpent biting its own tail both symbolise death and rebirth.
And Harry and Riddle appear to have an uncanny amount of things in common. And in the end Ged's shadow turns out to be the other half of himself. Can we draw conclusions from this, or are we really out over deep water here?

And we come full circle again, (so, of course, it's not a circle but a spiral), to the difference between Voldemort and Harry being the attitude towards ... the willingness to accept death. Voldemort will give up his life to save it. (Where have I heard a phrase like that?) And Harry willing to give up his life, will find it. Is that courage? Faith. Wisdom? Life? In Yoga, it's jnana. There is no death. There is only life. Life is power. Life is the power over death?
_Very_ deep water here. It's always so hard to know, out here, whether I've got to the state of spotting connections where they don't exist. I think what you said made sense, but I'm not quite sure I trust my own judgement. More Ursula Le Guin:
Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life
Bright the hawk's flight,
On the empty sky
Good, isn't it?

Griffins and basilisks are mythical beasts, but snakes and lions are real.
Although in medeival times lions and rhinoceroses were placed alongside unicorns and dragons (because the countries inhabited by them were so far away) and snakes were often very stylised. So lions and snakes kind of have a mythical existance as well as a real one.

There is a small book called "Love is Letting Go of Fear" by Gerald Jampolsky. The premise of the book is simple: Love and fear are the two primary emotions, and when there is more of one there is less of the other. Once, while considering this, I thought about what is the greatest fear and decided it is fear of death. This fear is very deep and almost unrecognised in everyday life. Each person goes through life as an individual, an identity that does not want to be dis-integrated by death. The alternative to this fear is the desire to unite with the One. Love of the divine is the opposite of fearing loss of identity. In medieval times it was thought that love of the divine, the attraction to be one with god, was what caused everything to be in motion. It is the prime mover.

So, I would amend the excellent observations of FlyingPhoenix to say the themes of Harry Potter are fear and love rather than death and love. It is the fear of death that is motivating Voldemort.
Brilliant. I agree completely.

Number one was public speaking.
Nah, number one is French orals. Number two is public speaking.

Right, lunch time, got to go. I'll be away at my Grandma's for a few days so I may or may not be able to get internet access in that time. See you asap, anyway. :)

[barmy codger]

After book5 we are going to look at the other side of the coin. No longer love what Harry get, rather Love what Harry give.

Your ideas are fine, FlyingPhoenix, but I think you are not giving Harry enough credit. At the end of book 1, Voldemort said to Harry, "Better save your own life and join me...or you'll meet the same end as your parents...They died begging me for mercy..." "LIAR!" Harry shouted suddenly. -This to me seems the turning point of the scene. The talk soon ended and the action began. The deciding factor was Harry standing firm in his love for his parents.

In book 2 it was Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore that brought Fawkes to his aid in the Chamber of Secrets.

In book 3, it was Harry's desire to see his father conjuring the patronus that got him to the point of conjuring one of his own- and while it doesn't say what his positive thought was based upon for the cunjuring, the thought of his father was high in his mind.

In book 4, I can't say it was an act of love, but it was Harry's decision at the graveyard to accept death and die upright like his father that was the turning point and brought about the connection of the two wands.

In book 5, obviously it was love for Sirius that did the deed.

So, altogether it seems that Harry has brought the necessary aid by expressing his love, each time with greater strength than the time before. Some discussions suggest Harry's capacity for love will allow him to draw upon the strength of others, and use the combined strength to vanquish Voldemort. That's just one possibility of how he might use his growing ability to love. So rather than two sides of a coin, I look at it as a steady growth, which is what his real education is all about.

[whizbang121]

Snape to Harry: "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily--weak people, in other words--they stand no chance against his powers!"

and: "Master yourself! Control your anger, discipline your mind!"

Yet occlumency requires clearing the mind and thus the emotions, rather than actively using a particular emotion to perform a spell. It's almost the opposite, deliberately clearing the mind so that no emotions or thoughts are experienced, rather than deliberately evoking a particular emotion in order to "power" a magical spell. But clearing the mind of thoughts and emotions and deliberately calling up thoughts that produce a desired emotion both require tremendous discipline of the mind. No question about that.

So are emotions the "force" or power behind magic? Hmmmmm.........

[whizbang121]

And Harry and Riddle appear to have an uncanny amount of things in common. And in the end Ged's shadow turns out to be the other half of himself. Can we draw conclusions from this, or are we really out over deep water here? Wizard of Earthsea was a brilliant series. Thanks for bringing it up. Think I'll pick up a set and read them again.:agree:

I'll be away at my Grandma's for a few days so I may or may not be able to get internet access in that time. See you asap, anyway. :)

Have fun! Look forward to seeing you soon.

[barmy codger]

Yet occlumency requires clearing the mind and thus the emotions, rather than actively using a particular emotion to perform a spell. It's almost the opposite, deliberately clearing the mind so that no emotions or thoughts are experienced, rather than deliberately evoking a particular emotion in order to "power" a magical spell. But clearing the mind of thoughts and emotions and deliberately calling up thoughts that produce a desired emotion both require tremendous discipline of the mind. No question about that.

So are emotions the "force" or power behind magic? Hmmmmm.........
Occlumency has been compared to meditation, but clearing the mind does not mean going blank, having no thought or feeling. It is getting rid of distracting thoughts so that one can concentrate on the object/ subject of meditation. The most difficult part is learning to clear the mind, but it is for concentration and purposeful direction of one's thoughts. I see no difference in directing one's thoughts/feelings in meditation and controlling one's thoughts/feelings in occlumency and doing the same to set aside distractions to call up the proper thought/emotion for casting a spell. "Happy" thought for a patronus, silly thought for a boggart ("The charm that repels a boggart is simple, yet it requires force of mind. -Professor Lupin). Instead of looking for differences in all these, I was hoping for similarities, and that the training Harry was receiving for occlumency would enhance his ability in all forms of magic. In fact, it would be a particularly effective form of training, for one has to get rid of discracting thoughts forcefully brought up by legillimency in order to concentrate on resisting it.

[whizbang121]

Occlumency has been compared to meditation, but clearing the mind does not mean going blank, having no thought or feeling. It is getting rid of distracting thoughts so that one can concentrate on the object/ subject of meditation. I think we compared occlumency to meditation rather than Rowling. What you are describing is concentration, a first step in meditation.
The most difficult part is learning to clear the mind, but it is for concentration and purposeful direction of one's thoughts. I see no difference in directing one's thoughts/feelings in meditation and controlling one's thoughts/feelings in occlumency
I think this is where I disagree. Occlumency is not controlling or directing one's thoughts so much as simply not having certain thoughts. This ability in itself, requires tremendous control. ...and doing the same to set aside distractions to call up the proper thought/emotion for casting a spell. "Happy" thought for a patronus, silly thought for a boggart ("The charm that repels a boggart is simple, yet it requires force of mind. -Professor Lupin). Instead of looking for differences in all these, I was hoping for similarities, and that the training Harry was receiving for occlumency would enhance his ability in all forms of magic. In fact, it would be a particularly effective form of training, for one has to get rid of discracting thoughts forcefully brought up by legillimency in order to concentrate on resisting it.I think there is a difference and I agree that eliminating distracting thoughts and facilitating focus and concentration is what is needed for doing a spell. However, it appears that occlumency does require making the mind blank, at least at first. Eventually, the student should be able to only "not think" selected thoughts, so that a conversation can be carried on without opened doors to certain memories. Many descriptions of Dumbledore's calmness seem to inicate he is often functioning in these states.
"Clear your mind, Potter," said Snape's cold voice. "Let go of all emotion . . ."

Harry tried to empty his mind, tried not to think, or remember, or feel . . . "I told you to empty yourself of emotion!""You are to rid your mind of all emotion every night before sleep --empty it, make it blank and calm, you understand?"

[barmy codger]

Frankly, I cannot understand how resisting legilimency can be only a passive thing. Occlumency is not controlling or directing one's thoughts so much as simply not having certain thoughts.My feeling is that this -is- a form of control. However, I am completely unqualified to carry the discussion further. I cannot meditate. I was basing my ideas on books about it, and one benefit of this topic is that I will go back and try the exercises again.

Since I cannot guess what Ms. Rowling intends, and since I cannot refute what you say, I'll leave it at that.

[iamshahin]

Greetings too all!! i posted this in another thread but its just something i could put there too:

I know this didn't happen but .... What if ginny did die in the Cos and Tom came back to life in his teen form "very much alive". Lets just say if this happened and Tom was standing there with Harry in the Chamber of Secrets what exactly would the voldemort that had been defeated by harry first year...the one that was hiding out in the forest in shapeless form because he no longer had a body(quirell) to survive in....(pew)...what exactly would he be doing. How could 2 voldemorts have existed at once.

This would be a serious Time Travel issue here!!!:wow:!!!
Please tell me what u think.

[harp230]

Maybe it would be like what Hermione describes with the time-turner. Persent selves killing past selves and vise versa. One Voldemort would probally end up killing the other . I would that ink the voldemorts would feel like they are competing wityh each other.

[whizbang121]

Greetings too all!! i posted this in another thread but its just something i could put there too:

I know this didn't happen but .... What if ginny did die in the Cos and Tom came back to life in his teen form "very much alive". Lets just say if this happened and Tom was standing there with Harry in the Chamber of Secrets what exactly would the voldemort that had been defeated by harry first year...the one that was hiding out in the forest in shapeless form because he no longer had a body(quirell) to survive in....(pew)...what exactly would he be doing. How could 2 voldemorts have existed at once.

This would be a serious Time Travel issue here!!!:wow:!!!
Please tell me what u think.
Thank heavens it didn't happen.:lol:
Frankly, I cannot understand how resisting legilimency can be only a passive thing.
Have you ever tried to clear your mind? :D

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Hello again! I'm running up my Grandma's phone bill today and I'm also (gulp) using Internet Explorer on a computer running XP so I'm expecting the box to implode any minute now. (Chronic hatred of Microsoft is a family trait). I miss my middle mouse button and the quick copy/pasting it provides.

Yet occlumency requires clearing the mind and thus the emotions, rather than actively using a particular emotion to perform a spell. It's almost the opposite, deliberately clearing the mind so that no emotions or thoughts are experienced, rather than deliberately evoking a particular emotion in order to "power" a magical spell. But clearing the mind of thoughts and emotions and deliberately calling up thoughts that produce a desired emotion both require tremendous discipline of the mind. No question about that.
Which is why Harry can't do Occlumency. Originally I thought it was just adverse circumstances that prevented him from succeeding at it, but I think that he probably won't ever be able to do Occulmency really well. It's just not the way he deals with dangerous circumstances.


So are emotions the "force" or power behind magic? Hmmmmm.........
...mm! This only seems to be the case with big spells, though. To say that one needs strong emotion to work the levitating spell or reparing spell is clearly not the case. But then, remember how Ron managed the levitating spell under stressful conditions when he couldn't do it in the classroom? (PS, at Halloween) This seems to depend a lot on the witch or wizard. Even a stronger spell like the Boggart Banisher seems to be possible without making the boggart look funny in the case of more powerful wizards.

Wizard of Earthsea was a brilliant series. Thanks for bringing it up. Think I'll pick up a set and read them again
ULG produced two more books lately: the Other Wind and Tales from Earthsea. Both recommended, though more the latter. Not quite as good as the main series, but still pretty good.

Frankly, I cannot understand how resisting legilimency can be only a passive thing.
Neither can Harry. In his case, it isn't.

Have you ever tried to clear your mind?
Once or twice. I can't do it; in fact, if anything my mind speeds up and starts madly worrying/analysing/attempting to compose poetry when I'm looking the other way...

My feeling is that this -is- a form of control. However, I am completely unqualified to carry the discussion further. I cannot meditate. I was basing my ideas on books about it, and one benefit of this topic is that I will go back and try the exercises again.
I'm not sure that, just because Occlumency is likely to be related to meditation, those who can't do meditation should keep quiet in a discussion of it. I would point out that none of us can do magic (I assume).

btw, my generous uncle gave me a copy of PS for Christmas -- in Latin! I'm surprised at how much I can understand, it must be mainly because I know the book inside out in English. I'm sure my Latin's improving no end. :D
More usefully, I've also received a book on Celtic myths and legends. I'll see if I can spot any striking HP parallels.

[whizbang121]

Hello again! I'm running up my Grandma's phone bill today and I'm also (gulp) using Internet Explorer on a computer running XP so I'm expecting the box to implode any minute now. (Chronic hatred of Microsoft is a family trait). :lol:

... but I think that he probably won't ever be able to do Occulmency really well. It's just not the way he deals with dangerous circumstances.
That's a really good insight. However, clearing the mind isn't as passive as it sounds, and I do think that many descriptions of Dumbledore suggest that he is frequently practicing selective occlumency. Either that, or he's leaving an awful lot back in that pensieve. :rolleyes: (Did the smilies change again?)

ULG produced two more books lately: the Other Wind and Tales from Earthsea. Both recommended, though more the latter. Not quite as good as the main series, but still pretty good. I'll look for it.

I can't do it; in fact, if anything my mind speeds up and starts madly worrying/analysing/attempting to compose poetry when I'm looking the other way... perfectly normal. This is why concentration is learned first.
I'm not sure that, just because Occlumency is likely to be related to meditation, those who can't do meditation should keep quiet in a discussion of it. I would point out that none of us can do magic (I assume). :lol: Exactly!

[barmy codger]

It's one thing to talk about occlumency, a fictional device, and another to talk about meditation, a real practice. Yesterday was a poor day for me and I could not muster the brain cells to deal with this. I was disappointed to find we were debating meditation when originally I had been trying to agree with whizbang's observation that Harry's magic when confronting the Dark Lord will require disciplined emotion. Agree and find a future for the story by having occlumency training help him find this discipline. Unfortunately I brought up the comparison to meditation and I have no direct experience to draw upon. I did not enjoy the situation where we were in disagreement over a subject removed from the original idea, and where I was talking as though I knew something about it when I didn't.

I think I am not alone in my confusion about the techniques of occlumency and legilimency. In seems the more ambiguous Ms. Rowling is in her writing, the more it is discussed in the forums (fori (?) for the Latin minded). Occlumency has been discussed a lot and there is indeed some lack of understanding of it. On the one hand we have Snape telling Harry to master his thoughts, and we have Harry successfully repelling Snape's legilimency --"He screwed up his face in concentration." On the other hand we have Snape constantly reminding Harry to clear his mind of emotion. We have Harry not liking occlumency if it's like this. We have Harry thinking that doing this makes things worse. We have Ron suspicious of Snape's intentions, and we have many readers, including me, confused about what makes for good occlumency.
Which is why Harry can't do Occlumency..
Harry can do occlumency. He repelled Snape, who is supposed to be a superb Occlumens. It shows potential, at least. But see the confusing part? Lupin say Snape is a superb Occlumens but is he a superb Legilimens? Is there a difference? And if he is a superb Occlumens, why did he think it necessary to hide some of his thoughts in the pensieve? Is it only for the sake of the story, or was a deliberate lure for Harry? And so on.
Whizbang, could you elaborate on Dumbledore's practicing selective occlumency? I can't think of any examples.

[Sabine]

Harry can do occlumency. He repelled Snape, who is supposed to be a superb Occlumens. It shows potential, at least. But see the confusing part? Lupin say Snape is a superb Occlumens but is he a superb Legilimens? Is there a difference? And if he is a superb Occlumens, why did he think it necessary to hide some of his thoughts in the pensieve? Is it only for the sake of the story, or was a deliberate lure for Harry? And so on.
Whizbang, could you elaborate on Dumbledore's practicing selective occlumency? I can't think of any examples.

Harry can do Occlumency? If that would be the case so why would so many jump at Snapes throat for quitting the lessons? No - I think it is a bit far fetched to say Harry can do Occlumency. He did it once and that seemed to be a mere accident - Harry wasn't able to do it again. And I think it is highly questionable that Harry did Occlumency - I think he did in fact Legiligmency.

So lets try to get to the confusing part... The Occlumens does the "shielding off" of the Legilimens. We aren't told if Snape is a superb Legilimens, but I think so. It wouldn't make much sense if a bad Legilimens tought Occlumency.

The difference seems to be clear to me: Legilimens is the "magical intrusion" into another ones mind.

Occlumency is the defence against that.

I think that one "big deal" about Occlumency is to really reckognize that someone is about to intrude your mind. Thats why I think one can't be good at one of them and bad at the other.

As to why Snape putted away some of his memories:

I think that was a precaution - because to teach Occlumency Snape used Legilimens on Harry, so he was occupied with Legilimency - and I highly doubt that one can do Occlumency and Legilimency at the same time.

Sabine

[sindatur]

Hi BArmy,

Don't feel bad about being lost, I go very quiet when the talk turns to Legillemency/Occlumency (L&O), because it makes my head spin. I can talk Prophecy, Time travel/paradoxes, and such until I'm blue in the face, and keep up with no problem, but the L&O boggles my mind, LOL.

Regarding Dumbledore's "Selective Occlumency", I believe what she's saying is, Dumbledore seems to compartmentalize his mind, and only allow what thoughts he needs to be present on the surface, everything else is buried below the surface, where no one can get at it, through any kind of mind reading.

Thanks Sabine, very well put, I think :wow: :rotfl:

[purplehawk]

Excellent definition, Sabine.

Edit: Sindatur, you did a great job of explaining the angst so many of us feel with the twin topics of occlumency and legilimency. Both drive me nuts.

[whizbang121]

Hey all! I didn't realize how long it took me to put this together until I saw all the posts that showed up. Nice definitions, Sabine and Sindatur.

we were debating meditation when originally I had been trying to agree with whizbang's observation that Harry's magic when confronting the Dark Lord will require disciplined emotion.You're right, of course. It was the readers, myself included, who compared occlumency to stages of meditation, not Rowling. But the funny thing is, Harry doesn't get it, either. Snape tells him to clear his mind of thoughts and emotions. After Snape succeeds in breaking into Harry's mind, he tells Harry he's not doing it. Harry responds that he's trying, but Snape is not telling him how. So the confusion is not ours alone.

But as near as I can tell, occlumency is the discipline of clearing the mind of thoughts and the emotional responses that come with them. The purpose seems to be to prevent observation of thoughts and memories by an intruder into the mind.

But a spell like the Patronus, for example, requires the ability to concentrate on a particular thought and evoke the emotion necessary to perform the spell.

Harry can do occlumency. He repelled Snape, who is supposed to be a superb Occlumens.
mmmmmm....
I'm not exactly sure that what Harry did was occlumency, though. He raised his wand and did the protego charm to shield himself from the legilimency spell Snape was doing. A couple of things happened there. Harry had just remembered what Snape had said about eye contact on the page before.
This is from OotP, pg 591 - 592, Am ed

He (Snape) raised his wand. "One -- two -- three -- Legilimens!"
A hundred dementors were swooping toward Harry across the lake in the grounds . . . . He screwed up his face in concentration. . . . They were coming closer. . . .He could see the dark holes beneath their hoods. . . . yet he could also see Snape standing in front of him, his eyes fixed upon Harry's face, muttering under his breath. . . . And somehow, Snape was growing clearer, and the dementors were growing fainter . . .
Harry raised his own wand.
"Protego!"
Snape staggered; his wand flew upward, away from Harry -- and suddenly Harry's mind was teeming with memories that were not his --
(Some great occlumens, Snape. :rolleyes: )

This looks to me like Harry was completely failing occlumency, but had somehow managed to figure out legilimency. Harry was concentrating on Snape, aware that the professor's eyes were on his face. The protego or shield charm blocked Snape's spell and stopped his attack on Harry. But it didn't end there. Harry's mind was full of Snape's memories. Harry successfully, and without a wand or incantation, performed legilemency on Snape.

So I think Filia was on to something when she realized that occlumency is not Harry's talent. But legilimency is. And this is where the idea of "directing or controlling a thought in order to do a spell, comes in. Harry is already adept at this. He has tremendous powers of concentration.

Oddly, though, Snape compares occlumency with resisting an Imperious, which Harry can do. Strange.

????????

So the reason that Snape, the skilled occlumens, needed to use a pensieve and and a wand and incantation was that they suspected that Harry would be able to do legilemency. They sent in the best man for the job and Harry still blew him away.

Harry is an extremely powerful being.

As for the pensieve, how many times have we said, "This man is a reformed Death Eater, and that was his worst memory?" I'm not sure that it wasn't a set up. Why would someone want Harry to see that scene?

[Sabine]

But as near as I can tell, occlumency is the discipline of clearing the mind of thoughts and the emotional responses that come with them. The purpose seems to be to prevent observation of thoughts and memories by an intruder into the mind.

The purpose could also be to rid your mind of thoughts so that you would be aware of someone trying to approach your mind. Or maybe even - in regard to the scar and the "permanent connection" between Voldemort and Harry - not to attract Voldemorts attention.


Harry successfully, and without a wand or incantation, performed legilemency on Snape.

To me it seems completely logical that Legilimency and Occlumency are normaly done wandless. Imagine: If you would want to know if your vis-à-vis is lying to you, you wouldn't want to take out a wand and yell legilimens at him? You would want to it in secret. Or imagine Snape actually spying on Voldemort and using a wand to prevent Voldemort from doing Legilimency???? That would be a hell of a a give away! :lol:

So the reason that Snape, the skilled occlumens, needed to use a pensieve and and a wand and incantation was that they suspected that Harry would be able to do legilemency. They sent in the best man for the job and Harry still blew him away.

As I said above ... Snape was doing Legilimency - and I don't think there is a way to do Legilimency and Occlumency at the same time. Because like you said yourself, it both seems to requiere different "actions of the mind" not only different but opposit. It seems to have been some "calculated risk" or some highly possible thing to happen.

As for the pensieve, how many times have we said, "This man is a reformed Death Eater, and that was his worst memory?" I'm not sure that it wasn't a set up. Why would someone want Harry to see that scene?

First we don't know what the other memories are that Snape stored away.

Again regarding this setup-theory: If one would sell me a logical sounding one, I would buy it. But so far I've not run across any suggestion that makes sense to me.

As said in my last post: ANY memory of Snape would have been enough if the reason for the setup was that Snape could qiut giving Harry lessons because the sneaking in itself would have been sufficient.

So the question would be: Why would someone want Harry to see that scene?

And the next question that immideately springs to my mind is always: How could anybody be sure that Harry would of all things see THIS particular memory????????????????? Because:

Snape was standing with his back to Harry, removing, as usual, certain of his thoughts and placing them carefully in Dumbledore's Pensieve. He dropped the last silvery strand into the stone basin and turned to face Harry.

So we have proof that Snape removed more than one memory on this special evening.

Sabine

[whizbang121]

To me it seems completely logical that Legilimency and Occlumency are normaly done wandless. Imagine: If you would want to know if your vis-à-vis is lying to you, you wouldn't want to take out a wand and yell legilimens at him? You would want to it in secret. Or imagine Snape actually spying on Voldemort and using a wand to prevent Voldemort from doing Legilimency???? That would be a hell of a a give away! :lol: :rotfl: Thank you! :lol: But that's exactly the point! I've been trying to explain on another thread why I don't think the wand and the incantation are the usual method. How do you feel about wandering over to "Is Harry a Legimens" and explaining it there?
As I said above ... Snape was doing Legilimency - and I don't think there is a way to do Legilimency and Occlumency at the same time. Good point. Probably right.
ANY memory of Snape would have been enough if the reason for the setup was that Snape could qiut giving Harry lessons because the sneaking in itself would have been sufficient. maybe that's all it was.

[barmy codger]

The difference between the terms occlumency and legilimency I can follow. The confusion comes from how they are used in the story. I pointed out that Snape is known as a superb occlumens, but that implies that one can be better an blocking than at reading. Further, Harry thinks legilimency is mind reading, but Snape corrects him in his inimitable style, and offers a flowery description of legilimency that completely ignores the fact that the word is derived from the Latin word for reading. Was this done just to make Harry less guarded? Does Snape actually know what he is talikng about? More ambiguity for the hapless reader.

I also stand by my opinion that Harry successfully performed occlumency. He did it earlier and Snape praised him with faint damning: "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been." "You managed to stop me eventually." and "Repel me with your brain and you will not need to resort to your wand." So it seems to me that whatever Harry does that repels Snape's mental intrusion is occlumency. Harry may have read Snape's thoughts but that is performing legilimency -another incident to add to the mix-up. However, reading Snape is not occlumency, repelling Snape is, and that's what Harry did twice, the second time with greater effect. Snape himself remarked that was certainly an improvement. Great understatement. Harry seems to have the potential for both skills. There is discussion about whether he was reading answers from Pavarti Patil's mind during OWLs. Ms. Rowling only suggests it, of course, leaving us to guess.

About Dumbledore's selective occlumency, I still would like examples showing him doing this.

[whizbang121]

I'm not sure there are examples of Dumbledore performing occlumency. But there are descriptions that suggest it.
His expression was calm, almost detached.

[purplehawk]

I seem to recall far more occasions upon which Dumbledore was using legilimency rather than occlumency. If there were ever an example of him closing his mind to intrusion, it would have been during his battle with Voldemort at the MoM when Voldemort asked "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?"

Voldemort, the legilimens extraordinaire, would surely have been seeking some thought, some clue from his foe that night.

Edit: On the other hand, each of them might have been using both occlumency and legilimency that night!

Double-Edit: What about the Pensieve chapter in GoF? When Dumbledore paced around his office, seemingly oblivious at times to Harry's presence there?

[whizbang121]

Maybe. But he might have been lost in thought. I think it's mostly in the adjectives. Words like calm, detached, serene, benign.
.

Two - Snape isn't as biased towards Harry as a lot of you think.

This would show also, that Harry has to be very much more open minded towards other persons and not loaded with prejudices as he is for now. The way I understand Legilimency/Occlumency Harry would never be able to use Legilimency on Voldemort AND interpret the findings correctly! At least not in that state of mind that he now is in.

To me those quotes clearly answers the question if Occlumency will be important for Harry in the future. Yes, it will be, Harry has to learn it! In my mind Dumbledore did never give the impression that Occlumency would have been useless - he just states that Occlumency wasn't what saved him from possession by Voldemort. Occlumency was never meant to fullfill that purpose. It was meant to hide Harry's memories and feelings from Voldemort. No more - no less.

And, I am afraid, I'm under the impression that Snape is better at Legilimency than Dumbledore. After all it is Snape who is spying on Voldemort and should have far more practise than Dumbledore has. But given Harry's (and Snape's) loathing Snape isn't the best person to teach Harry.

I truly do think there a some other ....ency's around in the magical world. Maybe even a way to "communicate" without words.

I was often under the impression that some of them did that many times.
Sabine
Interesting ideas on the reason to use a wand. Hmmm.....
I like the idea about communicating without words. Makes me think of Dumbledore's statement that members of the order have other means of communicating.

[Sabine]

The confusion comes from how they are used in the story. I pointed out that Snape is known as a superb occlumens, but that implies that one can be better an blocking than at reading.

I don't see that this is necessarily implied - but that might depend on the point of view.

Further, Harry thinks legilimency is mind reading, but Snape corrects him in his inimitable style, and offers a flowery description of legilimency that completely ignores the fact that the word is derived from the Latin word for reading. Was this done just to make Harry less guarded? Does Snape actually know what he is talikng about? More ambiguity for the hapless reader.

I would place my bet on Snape on this. Snape seems to know very well what he's talking about.

I also stand by my opinion that Harry successfully performed occlumency. He did it earlier and Snape praised him with faint damning: "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been." "You managed to stop me eventually." and "Repel me with your brain and you will not need to resort to your wand." So it seems to me that whatever Harry does that repels Snape's mental intrusion is occlumency.

...

However, reading Snape is not occlumency, repelling Snape is, and that's what Harry did twice, the second time with greater effect. Snape himself remarked that was certainly an improvement. Great understatement.



It seems to me that whatever Harry did that repelled Snape's mental intrusion was .... well .... something .... but not Occlumency. Occlumency - I know I am repeating myself - should be done in secret to not give away that you are doing it at all. And by the way: Snape even asks Harry if "this was meant to be some "Stinging-spell" (sp?)

Harry may have read Snape's thoughts but that is performing legilimency -another incident to add to the mix-up.

There is some other possibility - one I had not thought of, but came across in the thread whizbang mentioned:

Its highly possible that Harry didn't even do Legilimency. He used that shielding charm - so Snapes spell could have easily backfired at him. The mor I think about it the more logical it seems to me that this is true.

Sabine

[whizbang121]

There is some other possibility - one I had not thought of, but came across in the thread whizbang mentioned:

Its highly possible that Harry didn't even do Legilimency. He used that shielding charm - so Snapes spell could have easily backfired at him. The mor I think about it the more logical it seems to me that this is true.

Sabine
I'm not sure the Protego causes a spell to rebound. It should just shield whoever used it. So I think that Harry's protego stopped Snape's legilimens spell. But Harry, who was concentrating on Snape and his eyes, successfully penetrated Snape's mind. Dumbledore and Snape must have suspected this could happen. If legilimency is a skill that Voldemort has, it's safe to assume it wouldn't take Harry long to master it.

[barmy codger]

Sabine, Snape was called a superb Occlumens by Lupin. Perhaps it does not matter what one calls the person, but if occlumency and legilimency are used with equal skill it seems to me an overall name for the practitioner would include both skills in the name, such as say Psychomens, one who does Psychomency. Then you could say that someone was a superb Psychomens. Separating the skills, by saying he is a superb Occlumens, opens the possibility that one can have unequal skills, and that perhaps Snape isn't so great at reading. I am not asserting that this is so. I am only pointing to the things in the book that increase confusion about this subject, instead of increasing understanding. In fact, just as Dumbledore may be often using legilimency, so may Snape. People have noted examples of Dumbledore seeming to see right into Harry, but Harry has had a number of encounters with Snape where he felt Snape knew what he was thinking -i.e that he was lying. So Snape may indeed be very good at the reading business, but then perhaps it takes less skill to intrude on an unsuspecting subject.

Also, I do not agree with your view that the intrusion and the blocking are secret things. I had the impression that it was more a measure of skill whether or not one had to use a wand. Snape said to Harry, "Repel me with your brain and you will not need to resort to your wand." Does this not sound like just a matter of skill level? It sounds to me like anything that does the job is occlumency. On the one hand you have skilled occlusion so the intruder may not suspect some thoughts are being hidden. On the other hand you have forceful expulsion of the intruder. Are these different things? I'm guessing they are just different options available to someone who has the skills.

Whizbang, I had a difficult time getting my head around the example you gave of Dumbledore using occlumency. I saw nothing in the scene that suggested it. I thought his serene manner was a contrast to Harry, a wall against which Harry's waves of anger could smash. Thinking more about it, I guess you are suggesting that Dumbledore practices occlumency habitually. I can see no direct need for it in that scene, unless Dumbledore was still mindful of Voldemort's presence in Harry. By the way, I read your thing in the other thread about Dumbledore legilimencing Harry in book 2. That was a very good observation.

[purplehawk]

I'm not sure the Protego causes a spell to rebound. It should just shield whoever used it. So I think that Harry's protego stopped Snape's legilimens spell. But Harry, who was concentrating on Snape and his eyes, successfully penetrated Snape's mind. Dumbledore and Snape must have suspected this could happen. If legilimency is a skill that Voldemort has, it's safe to assume it wouldn't take Harry long to master it.

Protego does indeed cause the spell to rebound, Whiz. There are several good examples of this in the chapters describing the battles at the MoM. One that comes to mind immediately is the stunning spell Harry leveled at Bellatrix; her Protego sent the stunner right back at him and he had to duck under cover to avoid being hit with it.

[whizbang121]

Sabine, Snape was called a superb Occlumens by Lupin.

Separating the skills, by saying he is a superb Occlumens, opens the possibility that one can have unequal skills, and that perhaps Snape isn't so great at reading.

So Snape may indeed be very good at the reading business, but then perhaps it takes less skill to intrude on an unsuspecting subject.

Also, I do not agree with your view that the intrusion and the blocking are secret things. I had the impression that it was more a measure of skill whether or not one had to use a wand. Snape said to Harry, "Repel me with your brain and you will not need to resort to your wand." Does this not sound like just a matter of skill level? It sounds to me like anything that does the job is occlumency. I know this is hair splitting, and I'm not sure any more why breaking all this down is important, but just to add to the confusion:
This is from Harry's first occlumency lesson:OotP, pg 534, Am ed.
"You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or defend yourself in any other way you can think of," said Snape. So I'm not sure that the stinging hex or the protego charm that Harry used were exactly occlumency. He was following Snape's directions to defend himself.

On the one hand you have skilled occlusion so the intruder may not suspect some thoughts are being hidden. On the other hand you have forceful expulsion of the intruder. Are these different things? I'm guessing they are just different options available to someone who has the skills.

Again, splitting hairs, but it seems to me that occlumency as described by Snape, clears the mind of thoughts and thus emotions. With skill, only certain thoughts and emotions can be selected and walled off, but it seems in the early stages of learning, that all thoughts must be cleared. As for the Sneaky Factor, a skilled occlumens with secrets to keep will have certain thoughts concealed most of the time, as Dumbledore's surface of calm gives the appearance of. Snape's nasty attitude may be what shields much of his concealed knowledge. This gives me the impression that a skilled legimens could "sneak up" on a person. If the wand and incantation were the norm, it would be easier to defend oneself with charms and hexes as Harry did without having the developed the skill of occlumency. So maybe that's the reason it's used in the early stages of learning. Hmmm.....

Whizbang, I had a difficult time getting my head around the example you gave of Dumbledore using occlumency. I saw nothing in the scene that suggested it. I thought his serene manner was a contrast to Harry, a wall against which Harry's waves of anger could smash. Thinking more about it, I guess you are suggesting that Dumbledore practices occlumency habitually. I can see no direct need for it in that scene, unless Dumbledore was still mindful of Voldemort's presence in Harry. By the way, I read your thing in the other thread about Dumbledore legilimencing Harry in book 2. That was a very good observation.Thanks. If you are referring to the, "do you have anything to tell me," scene, it's one of those interactions that makes me suspicious. But there's no proof that this is what was happening.
And with Dumbledore, I can't point to a place and say, "See? Occlumency!" There are only words used to describe his demeanor that suggest it, to me at least.

[Sabine]

Quote:
***********
ANY memory of Snape would have been enough if the reason for the setup was that Snape could qiut giving Harry lessons because the sneaking in itself would have been sufficient.
***********
maybe that's all it was.

Errrrr -- did you get me right? This means Snape could have planted ANY memory for Harry to find .... even some memory of Snape picking daisies. There would have been no need to show Harry a memory that was embarassing and humiliating for Snape.

So I think the option that Snape planted that whole incident isn't an opportunity, because to merely have a reason to quit lessons he would surely not have choosen this particular memory.


I do think that we haven't seen Dumbledore doing Occlumency until now. Legilimency yes. Not only from Dumbledore but from Snape or Fake-Moody too.



I'm not sure the Protego causes a spell to rebound. It should just shield whoever used it. So I think that Harry's protego stopped Snape's legilimens spell.

hmmmm hmmmm ... I seem to remember that we saw something backfire from a protego. I'm not sure. I'll have to look for it.

If legilimency is a skill that Voldemort has, it's safe to assume it wouldn't take Harry long to master it.

I don't think that we can take for granted that everything Voldemort knows or has inherited was transferred to Harry. That would indeed make some poor copy out of Harry.

I don't think that this Legilimency-thing is for Harry as for instance parseltounge was. I think will have to work and practise hard to master Occlumency or Legilimency. Which he didn't bother to do in OOTP.

Sabine, Snape was called a superb Occlumens by Lupin. Perhaps it does not matter what one calls the person, but if occlumency and legilimency are used with equal skill it seems to me an overall name for the practitioner would include both skills in the name, such as say Psychomens, one who does Psychomency. Then you could say that someone was a superb Psychomens. Separating the skills, by saying he is a superb Occlumens, opens the possibility that one can have unequal skills, and that perhaps Snape isn't so great at reading. I am not asserting that this is so. I am only pointing to the things in the book that increase confusion about this subject, instead of increasing understanding.

I can see where the confusion is coming from.

We could even try and find out what the possible skills are that are needed to do Occluthingy and Legilithingy ...

It [Legilimency] is the ability to extract feelings and memories from another person's mind -"
...
"Only muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader."
...
"It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him.

So you extract feelings and memories, but they are not clearly spelled out, the legilimens has to interpret his findings correctly!

Thats why I like to compare it to Intuition. A magically-magnified-Intuition. And because it says that you have to not only interpret the findings, but to interpret them CORRECTLY, it seems to me that the success of the Legilimens is contingent on (or with????)

a) the state of mind the person is in (calm or excited)
b) the "relationship" or opinion one has about the person he is using Legilimency on

thats why I think that if one is severely biased towards one person it is much harder to do Legilimencyas opposed to a person which is for instance a stranger. Or if you have reached a state of mind where you can accept the other person and put grudge or love aside when doing Legilimency.

That Snape has not reached that state of mind when it comes to Harry seems to be obvious.

I'll let you in on a little secret, of what I think prooves this theory: ;)

Harry often had the feeling that Snape was seeing right through him and found out when or if he lied. But there is one point Snape obviously never got right: THe fact that Harry did NOT steal the boomslang skin from his office... Harry was involved but he didn't do the actual stealing that was Hermione as I am sure we all know. But Snape never interpreted his findings in this context CORRECTLY! Because he can't put aside bias when it somes to Harry.

And I am very sure that Dumbledore for instance would have had no problem in getting that right.


About the skills you need to master Occlumency there are far less hints:

It seems to be related with

- clearing the mind of thougts and
- seems to be ressembling the fight against the imperius curse

So what is needed to fight the imperius curse? You need a "challenging" mind (I do hope this is the right word for it). Your mind should not be one that easily accepts everything but rather is on guard and "asks questions". Moody says: "It takes real strength of character"

And we do see this in both cases: The voice that asks questions in Harrys mind when Fake-Moody had him under the Imperius. And the Voice that said stop when Snape was approaching Harry's memories of Cho Chang.

Also, I do not agree with your view that the intrusion and the blocking are secret things. I had the impression that it was more a measure of skill whether or not one had to use a wand. Snape said to Harry, "Repel me with your brain and you will not need to resort to your wand." Does this not sound like just a matter of skill level? It sounds to me like anything that does the job is occlumency. On the one hand you have skilled occlusion so the intruder may not suspect some thoughts are being hidden. On the other hand you have forceful expulsion of the intruder. Are these different things? I'm guessing they are just different options available to someone who has the skills.

You don't have to agree - its only just my interpretation of things :)

And I do stubbornly stick to: both Legilithingy and Occluthingy are meant to be done in secret. But I do think the road to master them both in secret is a very long one. I thinkits a learning process: First you have to be aware of the fact that there is someone who wants to get into your mind - you have to reckognise him inside your head - then you get rid of him - no matter how and then you can start to improve your technique and start to really exercise to do Occlumency!

And by the way I am thinking that you are not consistent with your own thoughts. I think you agreed to the assumption that throughout the books we have seen a lot of times when there is Legilimency done on Harry. (Everytime he has the strange feeling that Dumbledore, Snape, Fake-Moody or whoever did see right through to him and found him lying). None of this incidents shows any sign of a forceful intrusion into Harrys mind and on no occasion someone used a wand or an incantation (sp?) to find out.

So Legilimency IS done secretly - and it would make no sense to me at all if the counter measure against it would be a forceful one.

Sabine


edit: didn't see whizbangs last post, so this is going to be slightly longer :rolleyes:



I know this is hair splitting, and I'm not sure any more why breaking all this down is important, but just to add to the confusion:
This is from Harry's first occlumency lesson:
Quote:
OotP, pg 534, Am ed.
"You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or defend yourself in any other way you can think of," said Snape.
So I'm not sure that the stinging hex or the protego charm that Harry used were exactly occlumency. He was following Snape's directions to defend himself.

Yes thats what I was trying to say .... Harry did something but not Occlumency. But he is on the right path.

Again, splitting hairs, but it seems to me that occlumency as described by Snape, clears the mind of thoughts and thus emotions. With skill, only certain thoughts and emotions can be selected and walled off, but it seems in the early stages of learning, that all thoughts must be cleared. As for the Sneaky Factor, a skilled occlumens with secrets to keep will have certain thoughts concealed most of the time, as Dumbledore's surface of calm gives the appearance of. Snape's nasty attitude may be what shields much of his concealed knowledge. This gives me the impression that a skilled legimens could "sneak up" on a person. If the wand and incantation were the norm, it would be easier to defend oneself with charms and hexes as Harry did without having the developed the skill of occlumency. So maybe that's the reason it's used in the early stages of learning. Hmmm.....

Aren't we really good at splitting hairs? :) I agree to this one too.

[sindatur]

I agree with the latest posts on the wand being involved.

1. A Wizard can use any old wand, but the wand that chooses him allows more control and a greater chance of success in whatever magic you are doing.
2. Harry started learning the Patronus with a Boggart, it's like a baby step, a starting point that allows him some measure of success. He wouldn't have been able to master the Patronus so well, or so quickly, if he'd had to learn it on a real Dementor from the get-go. Same with the DA kids, they did it without even a Boggart, do you think that 100% of those who were successful in the DA class could go right out and perform when in front of a Dementor tomorrow? Once again, it's a starting point, to allow some confidence to be built that you can do it, and to learn how to do it.

Once you get down doing it with a wand, you can grow and be able to do it without the wand.

I also agree it would be kinda pointless to have to use a wand to do it in everyday life, as most of the time, I would imagine that the advantage you gain from using Legilemency, is you become more informed than the other person. If someone lies to you, and you aren't aware of it, they probably have an advantage. If someone lies to you, and you know they're lieing, but they aren't aware you know, you most likely have the advantage. Therefore, what would the trigger be for you to decide to grab your wand to block the intrusion, so, you feel the intrusion, and fight back with your own mental/magical abilities to prevent the intrusion.

Happy New Year all

I have a curiosity, regarding the end of the Series. Everyone theorizes if Harry will live or die, if the good in Voldemort/Tom Riddle will survive while the bad is vanquished, etc, etc, and on and on. My curiosity is this. If JKR went off to left field, and the end of the series was Harry dying, and the bad Voldemort living, and taking over the world, (since there would be no one capable of taking him out if Harry died), is there anyone who would be in favor of that ending? I'm not, but it certainly would be an unexpected, surprising twist. Just a bizzaro curiosity.

[whizbang121]

I have a curiosity, regarding the end of the Series. Everyone theorizes if Harry will live or die, if the good in Voldemort/Tom Riddle will survive while the bad is vanquished, etc, etc, and on and on. My curiosity is this. If JKR went off to left field, and the end of the series was Harry dying, and the bad Voldemort living, and taking over the world, (since there would be no one capable of taking him out if Harry died), is there anyone who would be in favor of that ending? I'm not, but it certainly would be an unexpected, surprising twist. Just a bizzaro curiosity. :whistle:

Why would she put her family in that kind of danger? After what happened with Sirius, can you imagine what would happen if she let Harry die? :scared: :agree:

[Dedalus Diggle]

:whistle:

Why would she put her family in that kind of danger? After what happened with Sirius, can you imagine what would happen if she let Harry die? :scared: :agree:

Sorry, Whiz, but that's over the top. Yes, I would find all that immensely frustrating, too, but let's not make threats, even in jest.

[purplehawk]

I don't think it's "over the top" in the least. J. K. Rowling is not an unintelligent person. I'm sure she has to know there are muddle-headed people out there who would probably try something stupid if she were to write an ending like that. Not saying Whiz is one of them, by any means.

I don't even think Whiz was threatening Rowling... just making an observation that it could create a major ruckus.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

the more it is discussed in the forums (fori (?) for the Latin minded).
Er...actually, it's a neuter noun and in the words of my Latin teacher "Don't forget, everyday, neuter plurals end in 'a'!" so the plural is fora. OK, you have permission to call me pedantic/a smart Alec. :lol:

In an attempt to clarify the whole occlumency issue, I did some reclassification, based on the litteral meanings of the words:
Occlumency = _blocking_ the mind, or parts of it that you don't want your opponent to see
Legilimency = _reading_ a mind, or the bits of it which are accessable
Emissemency = _sending_ the mind, or rather thoughts to someone elses mind (word made up courtesy of yours truly)
Inicemency = _filling_ the mind with thoughts or emotions that repel your opponent or go against his will (word made up courtesy of yours truly)
So inicemency is like an alternative form of Occlumency, and is also useful for resisting the Imperius Curse. It comes naturally to Harry. I think I've suggested this before, without any howls of disapprobation, but I'm not at all sure about it. It relies a lot on my own interpretations and messing around with a Latin dictionary...

Further, Harry thinks legilimency is mind reading, but Snape corrects him in his inimitable style, and offers a flowery description of legilimency that completely ignores the fact that the word is derived from the Latin word for reading. Was this done just to make Harry less guarded? Does Snape actually know what he is talikng about? More ambiguity for the hapless reader.
Surely in his definition of legilimency, Snape is just being vindictive. Anyone else would have said yes to Harry's question about mind reading and then elaborated. I suspect, though, that what Snape says is true as far as it goes. I don't see how he could not know what he's talking about if he has had stand up to Voldemort's scrutiny before now. Unless he's lying to Harry? Which brings us back to the conspiracy theories.

overall name for the practitioner would include both skills in the name, such as say Psychomens, one who does Psychomency.
Nah, psycho is Greek, whereas mency is Latin. Could we say "mens" as someone who can practise branches of magic closely related with the mind?
I think there's a large difference between the kinds of mency that involve thoughts going in and out and the kind which involve thoughts being prevented from doing so.

Again, splitting hairs, but it seems to me that occlumency as described by Snape, clears the mind of thoughts and thus emotions. With skill, only certain thoughts and emotions can be selected and walled off, but it seems in the early stages of learning, that all thoughts must be cleared.
Not meaning to ask a stupid question here but, what do you do with the thoughts which are "walled off"? Do you actually get them to leave your mind altogether, or put them in somewhere inaccessible (that's the second spelling of inaccessible I've used)? Where is a thought when you're not thinking about it?

Once you get down doing it with a wand, you can grow and be able to do it without the wand.
That would make sense. But it doesn't tally with the way Snape seems to like to teach Harry. His attitude is "chuck him in at the deep end in the hope he'll drown, I mean, so he can learn to swim in deep water". I think a better tactic would have been to teach without wands, or to allow Harry his wand but have his teacher unarmed.

Why would she put her family in that kind of danger? After what happened with Sirius, can you imagine what would happen if she let Harry die?
JK has never shown any signs of giving in to fan pressure. She'll do whatever fits, no matter what we say. There wouldn't be any fun else, would there?

Happy New Year for (checks watch) 3 1/2 hours! I confess I won't be waiting up. I reckon 2004 can get in without my help.

[purplehawk]

And mine, Filia. All the "-mencies" are making me mad and I'll just say I'm not ready to deal with them today.

[phoenixsong]

Some nice points, filia, though what is so interesting in Snape's nasty comment about Legilimency not being mind-reading, is that it mimics Harry's explanation to Ron of his connection to Voldemort, in which he says that he can access Voldemort's feelings, not his thoughts. I still think that Legilimency and Occlumency are a bit off for the nature of the connection between Harry and Voldemort.

What makes the whole thing even a bit weirder, is that Harry has memories of Voldemort's feelings, he can even return to past sensations and interpret them anew, in light of new information.

A very happy new year to all of you, friends!

[barmy codger]

And by the way I am thinking that you are not consistent with your own thoughts.
Yes, that's me being barmy. On that point I do agree.

You said that occlumency is meant to be done secretly so when Harry expelled Snape from his mind, it was not occlumency. I was trying to say that secret use was not the only form of occlumency. I did not word my post well. The crude form of occlumency used in training is still occlumency, in my opinion. Your excellent reasoning has shown me that forceful legilimency with a wand would have little practical use, and possibly be used only by someone with little skill. Or perhaps if someone could not get to the level of using legilimency without a wand, he or she would not bother with it at all.

It was discussed earlier in another thread or maybe this one, that Harry's use of Protego against Snape caused Snape's legilimency to bounce back on himself and allowed Harry to see Snape's memories. (Bellatrix, in the Ministry of Magic at end of book 5 used protego against Harry's stunning spell. "The jet of red light, his own Stunning Spell, bounced back at him.") So Harry being a true legilimens is still an open question. I myself think he is one. But to use the wand to make the Protego charm, Harry was using occlumency successfully, even though it was in the crude form. I say this because Harry's mind was swimming in long lost memories drawn up by Snape and Harry was able to find the thoughts and the words to make the Protego charm. That is occlumency. The protection against legilimency came from the wand and the charm, and not solely from the brain, but it still occlumency in its basic form. So that's what I think about it.

Dumbledore called himself a Legilimens when explaining to Harry how he got information from Kreacher. He did not say he was an occlumens. Naturally, one would think he must be a superb one. But this is only an assumption from clues that are few and vague. Dumbledore's concern about being near Harry while Voldemort might be present in Harry's mind has made me wonder whether Dumbledore's occlumency is a match for Voldemort's legilimency.

At any rate, I must thank you all for your ideas, I am a little less barmy from reading them.

And, Filia, I did think the plural of forum was fora, really I did. I knew it was a neuter noun, but just so I wouldn't appear ignorant, I looked it up in Latin Words which I recently installed on my mac. I mis-read the results and ended up appearing ignorant anyway. C'est la vita.

[whizbang121]

Certainly no threats intended. Happy New Year!!!

[Sabine]

I hope everyone made it safe to a new year :)

In an attempt to clarify the whole occlumency issue, I did some reclassification, based on the litteral meanings of the words:
Occlumency = _blocking_ the mind, or parts of it that you don't want your opponent to see
Legilimency = _reading_ a mind, or the bits of it which are accessable
Emissemency = _sending_ the mind, or rather thoughts to someone elses mind (word made up courtesy of yours truly)
Inicemency = _filling_ the mind with thoughts or emotions that repel your opponent or go against his will (wmucyt)
So inicemency is like an alternative form of Occlumency, and is also useful for resisting the Imperius Curse. It comes naturally to Harry. I think I've suggested this before, without any howls of disapprobation, but I'm not at all sure about it. It relies a lot on my own interpretations and messing around with a Latin dictionary...

Filia - what means (wmucyt)????? please help me.
There will certainly not be any howls from me, because I've too said (I think somewhere in a long gone prophecy thread) that I am sure there are other "...encys" around which we just have no proper names for :)

But there must be something else too. Voldemort and Harry share more than just thoughts. They are actually sometimes "inside" the other - they do actually sometimes see what the other one sees. But this may very well be some completely unique and completely due to the scar.


Surely in his definition of Occlumency, Snape is just being vindictive. Anyone else would have said yes to Harry's question about mind reading and then elaborated. I suspect, though, that what Snape says is true as far as it goes. I don't see how he could not know what he's talking about if he has had stand up to Voldemort's scrutiny before now. Unless he's lying to Harry? Which brings us back to the conspiracy theories.

I don't want to be nitpicky - I just want to avoid even more confusion for those who already struggle with ...encys ;) In the above qouted it is Legilimency what you are talking about and not Occlumency.

I don't know if Snape is lying - I don't think so. But I do think that Snape really has to balance every word he says in Harrys presence. More so because Harry is not able to close his mind against Voldemort. Isn't it highly possible that Voldemort could "find" all the things that are going on between Harry and Snape? In removing Dumbledore from the danger that would have arisen if he was to teach Harry Occlumency they putted Snape in that danger. So Snape has to be even more careful to not blow up his own camouflage.


I think there's a large difference between the kinds of mency that involve thoughts going in and out and the kind which involve thoughts being prevented from doing so.

I agree completely

Not meaning to ask a stupid question here but, what do you do with the thoughts which are "walled off"? Do you actually get them to leave your mind altogether, or put them in somewhere inaccessible (that's the second spelling of inaccessible I've used)? Where is a thought when you're not thinking about it?

That reminds me of the question if a falling tree in the wood is creating noise even if there is noone there to witness it ;)

Seriously - when I clear my mind of all thoughts that maybe preclude me from a good nights sleep, I put them on a white cloud and send them on a journey - but this is, as you are certainly aware off, just some figurative Imagination :) - I have no idea. Maybe someone who can really master Occlumency can sort of control what the Legilimens can see and hide what he doesn't want him to see. Because it seems to me that you have to allow some things to be seen to stay unsuspisious.


That would make sense. But it doesn't tally with the way Snape seems to like to teach Harry. His attitude is "chuck him in at the deep end in the hope he'll drown, I mean, so he can learn to swim in deep water". I think a better tactic would have been to teach without wands, or to allow Harry his wand but have his teacher unarmed.

For some people its for their own benefit to be "thrown in deep water" but I agree - another teacher (like Luoin for instance) would sure have had another way of teaching it to Harry. But then again - from the point of view of Snape - the spy - he also has to evaluate that Voldemort would sure give him some hard times if he would make things too easy for Harry. (I am not saying that Snape is some exeptionally gifted teacher and only hidding those qualities :) )


It was discussed earlier in another thread or maybe this one, that Harry's use of Protego against Snape caused Snape's legilimency to bounce back on himself and allowed Harry to see Snape's memories. (Bellatrix, in the Ministry of Magic at end of book 5 used protego against Harry's stunning spell. "The jet of red light, his own Stunning Spell, bounced back at him.")

Thanks for sparing me the trouble to search for it myself :clap: So it is indeed a possibility that he approached Snapes meory because Snapes spell fired back.


So Harry being a true legilimens is still an open question. I myself think he is one. But to use the wand to make the Protego charm, Harry was using occlumency successfully, even though it was in the crude form. I say this because Harry's mind was swimming in long lost memories drawn up by Snape and Harry was able to find the thoughts and the words to make the Protego charm. That is occlumency. The protection against legilimency came from the wand and the charm, and not solely from the brain, but it still occlumency in its basic form. So that's what I think about it.

Well I do think he will be one when he reaches the point where he can decide when he is using Legilimency or not and not as long as he is (if he even is) doing it by accident. (Whereat I still believe the incident at the exam was not Legilimency). But I am sure Harry will be a Legilimens, and he will become an Occlumens - he is on the way already.

Dumbledore called himself a Legilimens when explaining to Harry how he got information from Kreacher. He did not say he was an occlumens. Naturally, one would think he must be a superb one. But this is only an assumption from clues that are few and vague. Dumbledore's concern about being near Harry while Voldemort might be present in Harry's mind has made me wonder whether Dumbledore's occlumency is a match for Voldemort's legilimency.

This is an interessting question but I think its not the fact that Dumbledore can't close his mind against Voldemort properly but it would have been the fact that Voldemort would have had the chance to find in Harry that Dumbledore was far more for Harry than only the headmaster of the school.

The way it went, all Voldemort did find or could find was the impression that Harry felt "left alone" by Dumbledore, he would have found sort of a grudge against Dumbledore inside of Harry and not the love Harry has for Dumbledore.

[onetruegryffindor]

Dumbledore called himself a Legilimens when explaining to Harry how he got information from Kreacher. He did not say he was an occlumens.

I was under the impression to be honest that you could not be one without having some understanding of the other...

This may just be my misguided reasoning but i feel that they are so interconnected that knowing one branch of the magic would give you, if a small, amount of knowledge as to how to use the other branch.

[barmy codger]

It's just that Lupin said Snape was a superb Occlumens, and Dumbledore called himself a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens. Two examples which suggest they may be separate skills, which may be mastered to unequal degrees. It is hairsplitting, but unequal skills in one person may have implications for the story. It's possible that Ms Rowling couldn't think of an overall term for one who is a good Occlumens and a good Legilimens at the same time. Clever Filia Tenebrarum suggested Mens. Another suggestion is Mensmagi. Whatever, the term would include both skills.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Yes, that's me being barmy. On that point I do agree.
Yes, but we've all read book four, and your namesake is one of those people who lives on the no mans land between superhuman genius and complete barminess.
But to use the wand to make the Protego charm, Harry was using occlumency successfully, even though it was in the crude form. I say this because Harry's mind was swimming in long lost memories drawn up by Snape and Harry was able to find the thoughts and the words to make the Protego charm. That is occlumency.
I'm not sure if it is or not. Was he actually blocking out Snape, or just performing the spell inspite of him?

Dumbledore's concern about being near Harry while Voldemort might be present in Harry's mind has made me wonder whether Dumbledore's occlumency is a match for Voldemort's legilimency.
Possibly Dumbledore has trouble with occlumency in the same way and for the same reasons Harry has. But then how could he have stopped Voldemort from seeing everything he was thinking in the battle at the ministry of magic? He must be good at occlumency, even if he's not as good at it as he is at legilimency. Perhaps he didn't trust his occlumency against the unwittingly combined forces of Voldemort's legilimency and Harry trying to get his attention. If Harry is much stronger than he realises in the area of mencies then its possible he could significantly damage Dumbledore's mental defences just by trying to exchange thoughts or understanding with him the way they do in previous books, via eye contact.

And, Filia, I did think the plural of forum was fora, really I did. I knew it was a neuter noun, but just so I wouldn't appear ignorant, I looked it up in Latin Words which I recently installed on my mac. I mis-read the results and ended up appearing ignorant anyway. C'est la vita.
Or "illa vita est". Yes, I'm sorry if I was patronising; I'm glad to be talking to someone who looks up Latin endings.

Filia - what means (wmucyt)????? please help me.
Oh that's just abbreviated "word made up courtesy of yours truly". Sorry if that's unclear; I'll edit it.

I don't want to be nitpicky - I just want to avoid even more confusion for those who already struggle with ...encys
Ouch! I'll edit that as well; this is confusing enough without me making stupid errors.

That reminds me of the question if a falling tree in the wood is creating noise even if there is noone there to witness it
My answer to that is "Of course it does". And my dad says "Ah! Have you got your degree in quantum physics?" and I say "no, but the tree doesn't know that" which probably just proves that I've been reading too much Terry Pratchett. I'm not sure a thought is the same though. I mean, a tree is a tree, a noun. Whereas a thought is just the person thinking, thinking. Thought is derived from a verb; its more of a participle than a noun.

This is an interessting question but I think its not the fact that Dumbledore can't close his mind against Voldemort properly but it would have been the fact that Voldemort would have had the chance to find in Harry that Dumbledore was far more for Harry than only the headmaster of the school.
It could be both. That might be why it's left ambiguous. Not that JK needs a reason to make things ambiguous.

Edit after barmy's post:
It's just that Lupin said Snape was a superb Occlumens, and Dumbledore called himself a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens. Two examples which suggest they may be separate skills, which may be mastered to unequal degrees. It is hairsplitting, but unequal skills in one person may have implications for the story. It's possible that Ms Rowling couldn't think of an overall term for one who is a good Occlumens and a good Legilimens at the same time. Clever Filia Tenebrarum suggested Mens. Another suggestion is Mensmagi. Whatever, the term would include both skills.
I think it's likely that, although it would be well nigh impossible for a person the proficient at one and no good at the other, most people would be biased towards one or the other. Perhaps those who are naturally extroverted would be better at legilimency and introverts would be better at occlumency. Inicemency might be a form of oclumency suited to those who are better at legilimency. ??
It occurs to me that it's going to be awfully odd if we invent all our own terms for things, only to discover different ones invented by JK in books six or seven. Mind you, it would be even weirder if she came up with the same ones.

[whizbang121]

That reminds me of the question if a falling tree in the wood is creating noise even if there is noone there to witness it


My answer to that is "Of course it does". And my dad says "Ah! Have you got your degree in quantum physics?" and I say "no, but the tree doesn't know that" which probably just proves that I've been reading too much Terry Pratchett. I'm not sure a thought is the same though. I mean, a tree is a tree, a noun. Whereas a thought is just the person thinking, thinking. Thought is derived from a verb; its more of a participle than a noun.

Tree? What tree? Where is this forest? Quantum physics-ly speaking, it seems as though nothing exists until it's observed.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Tree? What tree? Where is this forest? Quantum physics-ly speaking, it seems as though nothing exists until it's observed.

It really depends on whether you subscribe blindly to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum or not :huh: . For me, I think a forest exists even when I am not there to collapse the wave form by making an observation :rolleyes: . Some people just can't see the forest for the probability functions :lol: . (Are we getting off-topic? :whistle: )

[barmy codger]

OK, at last I finally get it. Perhaps the student uses the wand during Occlumency training to bail out, until the student learns how to block the Legilimency using only the mind. I was stuck on the idea that Occlumency could be both wand and wandless magic. I still think it can be, but now I understand why others don't agree.

Yes, but we've all read book four, and your namesake is one of those people who lives on the no mans land between superhuman genius and complete barminess.

My namesake is far better prepared for the next great adventure than I am. My mind is chaos.
I brought up the matter of Dumbledore's Occlumency mostly for the sake of argument. I don't think he would ever have mentioned anything about a well organised mind if he didn't have one himself. It seems more than likely he excels at both Occlumency and Legilimency. I really wonder about Ms. Rowling's inconsistency of terms and vagueness on the matter.

As far as quantum physics and trees go, the falling tree probably makes vibrations in the air, but it is noise in the opinion of the listener, since all vibration is part of the music of the spheres.

[whizbang121]

It really depends on whether you subscribe blindly to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum or not :huh: . For me, I think a forest exists even when I am not there to collapse the wave form by making an observation :rolleyes: . Some people just can't see the forest for the probability functions :lol: . (Are we getting off-topic? :whistle: )Supposing you are deaf? ;)

Or maybe the trees perceive each other and our perceptions are unnecessary. Or maybe it's like trying to predict books 6 and 7. :agree:
So back to chaos, or the butterfly effect. :lol:

Topic? What topic?!

Uhhhh...... The topic is layers in Harry Potter, so all we need to do is find a place where quantum physics is evident in the plots and we're off the hook.
:whistle: :rolleyes: :blush:
So, how about those time turners, eh? :angel:

[Dedalus Diggle]

Supposing you are deaf? ;)

Or maybe the trees perceive each other and our perceptions are unnecessary. Or maybe it's like trying to predict books 6 and 7. :agree:
So back to chaos, or the butterfly effect. :lol:

Topic? What topic?!

Uhhhh...... The topic is layers in Harry Potter, so all we need to do is find a place where quantum physics is evident in the plots and we're off the hook.
:whistle: :rolleyes: :blush:
So, how about those time turners, eh? :angel:

Sorry, time travel is relativity. That's another can of wormholes we don't need to open. :elaugh:

[Masterfroggy]

Sorry, time travel is relativity. That's another can of wormholes we don't need to open. :elaugh:



How do we know time is relative just because one old guy worked it out on a paper?


Sorry to pre-repeat myself. However, as is music in the ear of the beholder, all time is subject to subjectivity i.e it depends where you are standing

[barmy codger]

Since there is a lull in discussion, whether the trees can hear it or not, and since I feel I have complained enough about the ambiguities Ms Rowling handed us, I would like to take the opportunity to praise the way she has depicted Harry's growing leadership qualities. There's no instance I can think of where she tells us outright that he is a leader, but she shows it very effectively many times.

Book 5 has one of my favourite scenes. It is in the Room of Requirement where the DA are training and Dobby enters to warn them of Umbridge's raid (US page 507). It begins without fanfare, Harry can't even see who came in. All at the same time we are shown Dobby's strength of character and his weakness. We also see Harry's kindness to Dobby, and see it kept in the forefront as he helps Dobby get his message out, and does it without allowing the elf to lose his dignity or injure himself much. Immediately the warning is completed and understood, Harry acts, telling the others to leave, while they have been standing around terrified. Moreover, Harry is the last to leave and even then makes sure that Dobby gets out as well. In the midst of the panic, Harry takes the time and makes the effort to minimise the consequences of Dobby's disobeying Umbride's order.

Poor Dobby. As much as he loves freedom, he is still can't let go of a lifetime of repression. His actions to help Harry are simultaneously comical , sad, and heroic. There is true loyalty and Harry acts in a manner worthy of that loyalty. As Sirius said, "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." I think the scene with Dobby gives us a very good look at what Harry's like. It's marvelous.

Time after time we are shown that Harry, when he knows the score and knows what must be done, can keep his head and make the right choices- and do it while looking out for the welfare of his companions. I hope to see him use all this in his confrontation with Voldemort. Now that Harry knows what the stakes are, and now that he has acquired the respect of his fellow students and others in the wizarding world perhaps he will be able to exercise fully his skills as a leader.

Thanks for reading this through. I wish I could write well enough to do the thing justice, and maybe it's just stating the obvious anyway. But I like the scene so much I had to tell somebody. Like Mr. Weasley and his plugs, I suppose.

[freyasd]

To Barmy Codger, I liked your comments on the scene with Dobby, and it made me think of the scene in the Ministry of Magic, with the Death Eaters. Harry takes the leadership role there as well. He keeps the Death Eaters talking, and then has the idea about smashing shelves. His only concern is about how to get his friends out of this situation safely.

[Filia Tenebrarum]

Back home again. Back to using a computer in a room like an ice-house (the study used to be the garage). Who'd have thought thermal underwear would be necessary for internet usage? But on the plus side, I don't have to use Internet Explorer and I'm back on a computer that does what I tell it.

Tree? What tree? Where is this forest?
Yikes, haven't you heard the riddle? Quantum physisists say that if a tree falls in the forest (they never specify the species of tree) and there's no one there to here it, it doesn't make any sound. Others say that's nonsense. I think of it as a riddle, which is possibly why my dad has trouble convincing me; he treats it as physics and I treat it as philosophy. Some people get around it by deciding that God witnesses everything, thus allowing it to go on existing, but I call that a cop out. It also raises the question of what's observing God. Eventually you always have to get back to something that exists in its own right, so why not say everything does?
Oh dear, you're right Dedalus, we (that is to say I) am getting off topic.
Supposing you are deaf?
Excellent; brilliant! Great answer. Just the sort of thing to make a mathmetician/physicist wince.
Topic? What topic?!
chaos, or the butterfly effect.

However, as is music in the ear of the beholder, all time is subject to subjectivity i.e it depends where you are standing
Ear of the harkener, surely? Time is a dimension, and presumably was here as early as anything was. Music is art, and has only been around as long as people. Our minds mess with time a lot, but I'm inclined to think it always plows on regardless. It's all mixed up with distance, but I think that might be the General Theory of Relativity. Shall I put on my Mad Philosopher hat and chew that about too?

Barmy, excellent post; I completely agree.

[sindatur]

Goodness, what about the light in the refrigerator, does it stay on when the door is closed, LOL?

Excellent points on Harry's leadership abilities Barmy. I think the final growth in this will be HArry being made Head Boy, rather than Ron, since if the final battle comes to Hogwarts, HArry will be leading the DA (and the rest of the student body) in defense of the castle when the bad guys break in and all heck breaks loose.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Yikes, haven't you heard the riddle? Quantum physisists say that if a tree falls in the forest (they never specify the species of tree) and there's no one there to here it, it doesn't make any sound. Others say that's nonsense. I think of it as a riddle, which is possibly why my dad has trouble convincing me; he treats it as physics and I treat it as philosophy. Some people get around it by deciding that God witnesses everything, thus allowing it to go on existing, but I call that a cop out. It also raises the question of what's observing God. Eventually you always have to get back to something that exists in its own right, so why not say everything does?

Actually it's not a quantum physics conundrum at all. It's a matter of the definition of sound/noise. By definition, sound and noise are vibrations which are PERCEIVED by something capable of perceiving. So the vibrations occur whether there is a listener or not, but it is not technically a sound without a hearer.

Oh dear, you're right Dedalus, we (that is to say I) am getting off topic.

Yeah, but it's a brilliant tangent, rather than something dopey like whether Britney Spears has butt implants or whatnot.

Ear of the harkener, surely? Time is a dimension, and presumably was here as early as anything was. Music is art, and has only been around as long as people. Our minds mess with time a lot, but I'm inclined to think it always plows on regardless. It's all mixed up with distance, but I think that might be the General Theory of Relativity. Shall I put on my Mad Philosopher hat and chew that about too?

Actually time plows on in one direction (so far as we have been able to show), but it has been demonstrated extremely thoroughly to do so at different rates depending on your state of motion (not distance but relative movement) and acceleration. The only theory which has been confirmed by observation/experiment to the degree of certainty of relativity is Quantum Electrodynamics. And yet, each one is known to be incomplete, if only for the fact that they do not accomodate all the predictions of the other.

"Quote: Originally Posted by masterfroggy 03/04/04
How do we know time is relative just because one old guy worked it out on a paper?"

Very clever LOL (I can't do the smilies on this computer). And if that's all there was to relativity it would just be an interesting article in a physics journal. However, while Einstein was still a young man (in his 20s) results predicted by relativity which were completely contrary to Newtonian physics were observed. Since then the theory has been confirmed in every test devised, and there have been some incrediby nitpicky tests devised.

Okay, I'm sorry. I'll take off my scince geek hat and put my Harry Potter geek hat back on.

Barmy - cool observation about both Dobby and Harry when the DA is raided.

[Sabine]

What has happened??? I didn't cause this, did I? It was a stupid sidenote and you are all jumping at it??????? :lol: :rolleyes: :grumble:

You know we are supposed to stay on topic??? Lets take the layers for discussing such deep things as trees and refrigerators lights, please :scared: :scared:

So .... erm .... what next - or haven't we finished Occluthingy?

Maybe we could try to find out what the reason for Hermiones/JKR continuing with S.P.E.W is.

I am a little bit bothered with this ... Hermione is not really making friends with the houseelfes there and Harry didn't even tell her about.

Or maybe someone has some better "back-to-topic-attempt?

Sabine :)

[sindatur]

Hi Sabine,

Yes, that's been a concern of mine. Hermione is hell-bent on setting the House Elves free, regardless of how they feel about it, and she definitely doesn't seem to be making friends, other than maybe Dobby's respect has increased for her. It's always a problem in society when people are closed minded and believe their view of right and wrong is the only possible view. I think this is Hermione's one weakness is that she doesn't understand there can be more than one right answer depending upon your view of the world. I think she'd have far more respect and friendship from the house elves, if she was actively campaigning for protecting their rights and keeping them from being abused, than trying to outright give them their freedom, their view of the world doesn't accomodate Hermione's. I think you are right, and there will be some kind of backlash because of this, JKR has promised there is a very legitimate reason for all the S.P.E.W. stuff.

Thing is, what exactly will that backlash be? I see the House Elves being on Dumbledore's side, and being happy about it in the final showdown (if it comes to Hogwarts, and is a multi-person battle, rather than just Harry/Voldemort). So how can both of these be right, a backlash that causes a great rift, yet they're back in the fold before the time they are needed? Perhaps they'll rebel, and Dobby will have to make some great sacrifice to bring them back around?

Edited to add another thought:
Rereading Snape's worst memory last night, I noticed something. Harry saw James, Lupin, Sirius, and Snape all in the OWLs, in the great Hall. The book doesn't make mention of him seeing Lily, but it does say there was a few girls sitting between two boys (maybe it was James and Sirius, not sure, but, two of the four I mentioned above). So, it can't be because Lily's a girl, since there's girls sitting in the OWLs. IT can't be because Lily was actually a Slytherin (Although I believe it's been confirmed she was a Gryfindor) since Snape was there. So why didn't Harry make note of Lily being there (was she a different year, or was she in Hufflepuff or Raveclaw afterall?)

There is a reference to Lily being in a crowd of girls that had just come from the Great Hall, but, it seems very suspicious that Harry found the 3 good Marauders (and even deliberately looked for and found Wormtail) and also found Snape, but didn't find or even look for Lily. Why didn't JKR write Harry seeing Lily in the OWLs with The Marauders and Snape? What's she hiding this time?

[Masterfroggy]

Hi Sabine,

Yes, that's been a concern of mine. Hermione is hell-bent on setting the House Elves free, regardless of how they feel about it, and she definitely doesn't seem to be making friends, other than maybe Dobby's respect has increased for her. It's always a problem in society when people are closed minded and believe their view of right and wrong is the only possible view. I think this is Hermione's one weakness is that she doesn't understand there can be more than one right answer depending upon your view of the world. I think she'd have far more respect and friendship from the house elves, if she was actively campaigning for protecting their rights and keeping them from being abused, than trying to outright give them their freedom, their view of the world doesn't accomodate Hermione's. I think you are right, and there will be some kind of backlash because of this, JKR has promised there is a very legitimate reason for all the S.P.E.W. stuff.

Thing is, what exactly will that backlash be? I see the House Elves being on Dumbledore's side, and being happy about it in the final showdown (if it comes to Hogwarts, and is a multi-person battle, rather than just Harry/Voldemort). So how can both of these be right, a backlash that causes a great rift, yet they're back in the fold before the time they are needed? Perhaps they'll rebel, and Dobby will have to make some great sacrifice to bring them back around?

Hermione did not even know that there were House elves in Hogwarts until someone told her, to decide that she knows best, (even though she does not understand the culture of the House elf) and that she will help the elves to freedom whether they like it or not, It's not like her to be so ill prepared, and is a little out of character,

I know she did run to the library but how much research did she really do, has she read all about the history of the elves, how they love their role in a well balanced society, and without a house to serve they pine away or turn to drink, her actions are well meant but foolhardy, The elves have a role, a service that they alone provide, OK in some houses they are mistreated and are killed for no reason, but reform should be aimed to those masters that abuse the elves before educating elves that are well cared for, it would be better to provide guidance and legal protection from abuse by their masters/mistresses


It is sometimes hard to make people understand, but one person's idea of helping not necessarily right or proper, a few years ago a doctor tried to force a couple into allowing him to operate on their deaf child, he thought that by giving the baby a cochlear implant it would help the child to grow up normal when the parent refused the doctor went to the press, the courts, even to the child welfare agency just about anyone who would listen.

He put forward that the operation was best for the child, Now to me that smack of the beginnings of a nanny state, luckily the parents were supported by their community and the doctor did not win.

Their reasons for refusing the implant are many and complicated, but to some in the deaf community, giving partial hearing to a child to "normalise it" would be the modern equivalent of bleaching the skin of a black baby so as it grew up, it would fit better into society (people would not be offended by being served by a light skinned servant)

I wonder why Hermione is so off base with this, she has shown better better judgement in the past, perhaps JKR wanted a hundred magical creatures on hand that would come to Dumbledore and the schools aid.

Sort of an Ewok moment, lots of little creature's suddenly appearing out of little holes all over the castles hitting nasty wizards over the head with bed warmers

[Sabine]

JKR has promised there is a very legitimate reason for all the S.P.E.W. stuff.

Hello sindatur,

has she???? I didn't know that. Oh dear another thing to ponder on. As if there weren't enough :rolleyes:

So how can both of these be right, a backlash that causes a great rift, yet they're back in the fold before the time they are needed? Perhaps they'll rebel, and Dobby will have to make some great sacrifice to bring them back around?

Its "bothersome" but if Hermione is annoying the elves even more are the elves able to distinguish between what comes from Hermione and what from Dumbledore?

But is it sure to be a backlash? Couldn't there be some chance that Hermione finally gets the drift before its too late? Could Winky or even Kreacher be of some help?

About Lily and Harry not looking for her. I was wondering about that too, and someone answered me then, that it would be completely normal for a boy at this age to be more interessted in his father than in his mother.

Well since I am no boy and I have only daughters, there is no one around who could approve that for me, but I do really doubt that.

Maybe that is true for "normal" boys that age. But since Harrys parents both where murered and the fact that Lily sacrificed her life and gave him this protection, I would have assumed that he would show more interesst in Lily. Not only in the pensieve but in generell.

I mean IF he is asking questions than about his father. He never even bothers to ask if there are friends of Lily around -- and that seems very odd for me.

I know she did run to the library but how much research did she really do, has she read all about the history of the elves, how they love their role in a well balanced society, and without a house to serve they pine away or turn to drink, her actions are well meant but foolhardy, The elves have a role, a service that they alone provide, OK in some houses they are mistreated and are killed for no reason, but reform should be aimed to those masters that abuse the elves before educating elves that are well cared for, it would be better to provide guidance and legal protection from abuse by their masters/mistresses

Yes and a reform should be made TOGETHER with those involved and not "against their wills". And shouldn't one think that of all people Hermione should have that much common sense to get this straight???

I wonder why Hermione is so off base with this, she has shown better better judgement in the past,

:agree: :agree: :agree:

Sabine

[whizbang121]

Sorry, time travel is relativity. That's another can of wormholes we don't need to open. :elaugh:
Yeah. It was the best I could do. :rolleyes: Oh well.;)

Yipes! Lots to talk about!
First, I hope no one manages to turn back time. The present is enough to worry about. :rolleyes:
I love watching Harry come into his own. There are discussions about whether Harry is the heir of Gryffindor or descended from one house or another. I think Harry, whether he's descended from one or all of the founders or not, will be Dumbledore's successor. He may not necessarily be the headmaster of Hogwarts, but I think he will take Dumbledore's role as the most powerful wizard and protector of the magical world.

Okay, Sindatur, you get in the fridge and I'll close the door. Then we'll send the data to the server for analysis? The whole vibration/perception thing illustrates that the divider between physics and philosophy is probably thinner than we were prepared for.

Than there's s.p.e.w. Somehow I'm sure this is all related to JKR's heroine, Jessica Mitford. She was a civil rights activist in the 50s and 60s, I think, and JK has said that Hermione is modeled on herself.

As for spotting Lily during the OWLS exams, Harry could only see what was in the range of Snape's (or whoever's) memory at that time. Maybe that's why Lily wasn't mentioned until they got outdoors. However, who was the young lady who looked hopefully at Sirius?


(Okay, it was me.)

~~~~~~~
<Giggle> wormholes .... I just got it. Brilliant! ;)

[barmy codger]

First, thanks for the kind compliments about the Harry / Dobby scene.

About Hermione and the house elves: Her first impressions of wizard-elf relations came from Harry's accounts of Lucius Malfoy and Dobby. Her second impressions came from Barty Crouch, Sr. and Winky. Her third impressions from the Hogwarts kitchen, and her fourth from Sirius Black and Kreacher. None of these reflected well on the wizards and it is no wonder she thinks something should be done. The idea that existing elf abuse be punished begs the question how would abuse be detected. Everyday family abuse is difficult enough to detect and stop, let alone the wizard-elf kind which is surrounded by secrecy. You have to give Hermione credit, I think. Or else, cut her some slack, at least. As a result of her rants, we readers learn there are other wizards who think the issue should be addressed. It also shows that complacency changes nothing.

What complicates the issue is the fact that the house elves don't want to be free. Who has ever heard of slaves who did not want to be free? Probably Hermione never has. The only modern life comparison I can think of is wage slavery. Most people are happy in their misery, because they have been taught that's the only way to live. I just got a suspicion that a parallel could be made with a certain very powerful wizard who entered volunteered slavery to the Dark Arts. Or maybe it was slavery to the Dark Lord. Riddle thinks he's got it good. Have to think about this one some more.

The only decent elf wizard interaction Hermione has witnessed has been between Harry and Winky, and Harry and Dobby, especially the scene which I just extolled in my previous post. I would guess, in a similar situation, Hermione would deal with an elf in a well meaning but patronising way (matronising -? for the gender-minded Latinists). Harry treats Dobby with the respect that one should show to all beings. I like to think this example will not be lost on Hermione.

It is easy to see the wrongness of racists in the Wizarding world, people like Umbridge. And it's easy to see how that relates to people in our own real world. It is more difficult to appreciate the wrongness of misguided actions of people who are acting with the best intentions. I think it is to Ms Rowling's great credit that she is presenting this important lesson in a digestible way that will reach many people. It is obvious that she thinks the issue is important, and it ties in well with her big theme of choices. If she makes this a factor that influences the outcome of the story, then it will be an even better lesson.

[phoenixsong]

What is it with you people and household appliances!!! Last time around, it was a washing-machine in the driveway (or was it a dishwasher?)!

I don't want to re-open this can of worms (because I know how much Sabine dislikes it!), but I was just looking for a different piece of data in a JKR interview, and she was asked if Harry will time travel again, and she said "Not telling!"

The whole S.P.E.W. thing has been wonderfully done, and also terribly misunderstood. There have been articles about racism in Harry Potter which use the SPEW storyline. I think they are off base. Rowling has done a masterful job complicating the whole issue, and as far as I am concerned, the more complicated the better. Hermione is NOT completely wrong, as we saw from the horrible results of Winky's enslavement to the Crouch's, which would not have been possible had she not been bound to keep Crouch's secrets. Look at the results of Kreacher's unhappy enslavement (though in his case, he might have appreciated a harsher master).

I agree 100% that Hermione's tactics are dead wrong, she should not be trying to free house elves against their will. Instead, IMO she needs to do some consciousness raising.

The biggest piece of evidence against the freeing of the house elves is Hagrid's flat-out refusal to join SPEW, his insistence that slavery is in their natures. Hagrid knows more about magical creatures and beings than anyone we have met. His opinion on this matter really gives me pause.

[Sabine]

What is it with you people and household appliances!!! Last time around, it was a washing-machine in the driveway (or was it a dishwasher?)!

redheaded dishwashers - yes I seem to remember :D

I don't want to re-open this can of worms (because I know how much Sabine dislikes it!), but I was just looking for a different piece of data in a JKR interview, and she was asked if Harry will time travel again, and she said "Not telling!"

Now please - wait a moment. I hope my disability in taking up timetravel does not really stop anyone from talking about????

After all: how should I ever "learn" it when I don't "practise it" .... and I had days of howling laughter for me when I sat at the computer and tried to grasp it. So don't deny me the fun of it!!! ;) :lol:

The whole S.P.E.W. thing has been wonderfully done, and also terribly misunderstood. There have been articles about racism in Harry Potter which use the SPEW storyline. I think they are off base. Rowling has done a masterful job complicating the whole issue, and as far as I am concerned, the more complicated the better. Hermione is NOT completely wrong, as we saw from the horrible results of Winky's enslavement to the Crouch's, which would not have been possible had she not been bound to keep Crouch's secrets. Look at the results of Kreacher's unhappy enslavement (though in his case, he might have appreciated a harsher master).

I agree 100% that Hermione's tactics are dead wrong, she should not be trying to free house elves against their will. Instead, IMO she needs to do some consciousness raising.

The biggest piece of evidence against the freeing of the house elves is Hagrid's flat-out refusal to join SPEW, his insistence that slavery is in their natures. Hagrid knows more about magical creatures and beings than anyone we have met. His opinion on this matter really gives me pause.

I don't think Hermione is wrong about SPEW oh ... sorry S.P.E.W. ... but I do think she is wrong about the way she wants to change things. And being Hermione she should have figured out by now that this doesn't work she planned it. On the other hand ... Harry knows about the feelings of the house-elves towards Hermiones "behavior" and doesn't tell her - so can she really know? But you are completely right about Hagrid. Hagrids refusal to help her should at least give her a bit to think about.

Sabine

[JadeDragon]

I think the more important question is: Why does JKR portray house elves with a desire to be enslaved, and why does she treat the idea of freeing them as something that would be close to cruelty? It would be interesting to hear her rational on the subject. Of course, with the voice in her works being so narrow (Harry's), it's hard to say what her world is really like. Nevertheless, the words are down in print and what people make of them, regardless of JKR's intentions, will be debated for years to come.

[phoenixsong]

I think the more important question is: Why does JKR portray house elves with a desire to be enslaved, and why does she treat the idea of freeing them as something that would be close to cruelty? It would be interesting to hear her rational on the subject. Well said! Of course we don't have her rationale as of yet, but I would hazard to guess that the house elves desire to be enslaved is a question of false consciousness (any Marxists out there?!?), which is why I was suggesting that consciousness-raising might be the more productive approach to changing the status of house elves. Until the house elves want to be free, or want to have the option of freedom, then it would be a cruelty to free them. So, Hermione's goal might better be to create in house elves the desire to be free.

And, I think the best way to do this might be handed to her on a platter: Voldemort's rise to power. If house elves see that their absolute fidelity to their masters causes them to do things that help to bring about the downfall of the wizarding world, perhaps they will see that changes need be made in their relationship to their masters, so that they can make decisions of consciousness (like to act against their masters if their masters are doing something terribly wrong). Of course, then you might also have bad house elves who wish to act against their anti-Voldemort masters! So be it!

[Filia Tenebrarum]

There is a reference to Lily being in a crowd of girls that had just come from the Great Hall, but, it seems very suspicious that Harry found the 3 good Marauders (and even deliberately looked for and found Wormtail) and also found Snape, but didn't find or even look for Lily. Why didn't JKR write Harry seeing Lily in the OWLs with The Marauders and Snape? What's she hiding this time?
Metamorphmagus?
???

I would guess, in a similar situation, Hermione would deal with an elf in a well meaning but patronising way (matronising -? for the gender-minded Latinists).
Actually, matronise means something else according to the Shorter Oxford, presumably in the same way that a patroness is different from a matron.

What is it with you people and household appliances!!! Last time around, it was a washing-machine in the driveway (or was it a dishwasher?)!
Oh I remember that! Something about a fridge or a cooker in a box. I suppose there are worse things to be obsessed about.

but I was just looking for a different piece of data in a JKR interview, and she was asked if Harry will time travel again, and she said "Not telling!"
Which probably translates as yes. She might say not telling just to be contrary, but I'd have thought if she was only going to use the plot device once she would have said.

The biggest piece of evidence against the freeing of the house elves is Hagrid's flat-out refusal to join SPEW, his insistence that slavery is in their natures.
Slavery in their natures...hmm. Taking Dobby as an example, he's probably one of the most enterprising house-elves, most willing to embrace freedom. But even he is more devoted to Harry than would be natural for a human. Doing anything to help Harry, serving him in any way is obviously a pleasure for Dobby and not at all a chore. Kreacher's devotion to his dead mistress and old master is a parallel, although we are meant to view that as revoltingly amusing rather than funny and somewhat cute. Winky, too, come to think of it. In all three cases, the house-elf is devoted to a level that just seems funny to us, but if we stop thinking of them as humans but as a different kind of sentient creature it makes more sense. A dog is devoted to a master in the same way, although house-elves are more intelligent (and thus both more useful and more dangerous if they turn against you). It might be fairer to say that what's in their nature's is not so much slavery, which implies unwillingness or at least like-it-or-not, but serving one person or family out of genuine devotion.

Incidently, after we've all praised Harry's growing leadership qualities, it might be fair to comment that Ron too is growing up. When Hermione first starts leaving hats out for house-elves, covering them up with rubbish, I thought Ron acted in quite an adult fashion. Time was, he would either have started squabbling with Hermione or rolled his eyes and ignored what she was doing. Instead he respects what she's trying to do far enough to leave the hats where they were, but respected the house-elves enough to let them see what they're picking up. Not spectacular, but it spoke well for him.

[purplehawk]

Ron may be the most underrated character in the books. I like Ron a good deal. He's perfectly cast as the youngest of six sons, the perfect foil for Hermione and Harry. All the "right" dynamics are in place with Ron. JK has done an excellent job with him.

Filia, you mentioned how Ron handled the hats Hermione had knitted. I thought of another incident. Remember the first night back at school when Seamus and Harry were squared off in their dorm? Ron was spectacular then... very adult in the way he handled Seamus. The same was true with Zacharias Smith in the Hog's Head Inn when the D.A. was first being organized.

[barmy codger]

Actually, matronise means something else according to the Shorter Oxford, presumably in the same way that a patroness is different from a matron.
Well, the fun was worthwhile if it got you looking into a dictionary.

. A dog is devoted to a master in the same way, although house-elves are more intelligent (and thus both more useful and more dangerous if they turn against you). It might be fairer to say that what's in their nature's is not so much slavery, which implies unwillingness or at least like-it-or-not, but serving one person or family out of genuine devotion.
This is a useful comparison. Thank you.

Also, thanks to both Filia T. and Purplehawk for pointing out Ron's better points. I have a hard time liking him because he can be too crude at times. Actually, it seems as though Rowling is making things kind of difficult for him. You want him to measure up to the others, but she puts obstacles in the way.

[Masterfroggy]

Yeah. It was the best I could do. :rolleyes: Oh well.;)
Okay, Sindatur, you get in the fridge and I'll close the door. Then we'll send the data to the server for analysis? The whole vibration/perception thing illustrates that the divider between physics and philosophy is probably thinner than we were prepared for.

Than there's s.p.e.w. Somehow I'm sure this is all related to JKR's heroine, Jessica Mitford. She was a civil rights activist in the 50s and 60s, I think, and JK has said that Hermione is modeled on herself.

;)

The Jessica Mitford, aspect of JKRs writing is more closely linked with Sirius Black then Hermione, his rejection of his family values is mirrored almost perfectly in the life that JK's heroine lived, Jessica was born the daughter of the 2nd Baron Redesdale,

Both Blacks parents and Mitford's parents held right-wing political views
Jessicas sister Diana married the leader of the British fascist party leader, Oswald Mosley. (Would that be Sirius's cousin Narcissa Malfoy) Another sister, Unity Mitford went to Nazi Germany and became a 'close' friend of Adolf Hitler. (Bellatrix Lestrange)

However unlike the rest of her family, Jessica developed left-wing political opinions. At the age of fourteen she was converted to pacifism and later, like her sister, Nancy Mitford, she became a socialist. Sirius Black left his family home aged sisteen and I think later became a member of the Order of the Phoenix (first war movement)

It was not until after her first husband (Esmond Romilly, the nephew of Winston Churchill) died that she moved to the USA and there she became a leading activist in the civil rights movement

In the 60's she faced prision alongside her second husband Robert Treuhaft, as they went before the California State Committee on Un-American Activities.

[whizbang121]

Both Blacks parents and Mitford's parents held right-wing political views
Jessicas sister Diana married the leader of the British fascist party leader, Oswald Mosley. (Would that be Sirius's cousin Narcissa Malfoy) Another sister, Unity Mitford went to Nazi Germany and became a 'close' friend of Adolf Hitler. (Bellatrix Lestrange) Wow. I didn't know about her early life.
In the 60's she faced prision alongside her second husband Robert Treuhaft, as they went before the California State Committee on Un-American Activities.

Very nice! It does sound more like Sirius. But Hermione couldn't convince him to be decent to Kreacher, either. (Of course, there are those among us who aren't entirely sure that the Sirius of OotP was the real Sirius, partly based on his treatment of Kreacher.)

So here we are with house elves. They are apparently extremely powerful but alarmingly loyal beings, wandless magic and all. Dobby blew Malfoy down the stairs. Do they need to be kept under control? And how did Dobby break through ... what ever it is that keeps house elves bound to their masters, to help Harry? Why? And now free, he is still intensely loyal to Harry. What's going on there?

Are they enchanted or magically bound to serve? Suddenly, I wish Binns was here to explain the whole thing.

So is Hermione misreading the whole sitation? Would a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to House Elves be more appropriate than S.P.E.W.? Or is there some kind of enchantment that must be reversed to actually release them?

And I came across a line in GoF, when fake Moody is trying to help Harry realize he needs to summon his broom to face the dragon, where Moody says of Madame Maxime and Karkaroff that they want to win. They want to prove that Dumbledore is human. Is there some question of this point? Is Dumbledore something other than human? And how does this relate to Harry, who I suspect may be Dumbledore's successor?

Hmmmmm...... Back to the prophesy? Of course, in the OotP tell all speech Dumbledore tells Harry that his feelings about Sirius prove he is a man. Does he mean human?

Fresh cookies! Chocolate chip, warm from the oven. I'll get a plate from the magic dishwasher. :eyebrows:

[Masterfroggy]

Wow. I didn't know about her early life.

Very nice! It does sound more like Sirius. But Hermione couldn't convince him to be decent to Kreacher, either. (Of course, there are those among us who aren't entirely sure that the Sirius of OotP was the real Sirius, partly based on his treatment of Kreacher.)

So here we are with house elves. They are apparently extremely powerful but alarmingly loyal beings, wandless magic and all. Dobby blew Malfoy down the stairs. Do they need to be kept under control? And how did Dobby break through ... what ever it is that keeps house elves bound to their masters, to help Harry? Why? And now free, he is still intensely loyal to Harry. What's going on there?

Are they enchanted or magically bound to serve? Suddenly, I wish Binns was here to explain the whole thing.

So is Hermione misreading the whole sitation? Would a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to House Elves be more appropriate than S.P.E.W.? Or is there some kind of enchantment that must be reversed to actually release them?

And I came across a line in GoF, when fake Moody is trying to help Harry realize he needs to summon his broom to face the dragon, where Moody says of Madame Maxime and Karkaroff that they want to win. They want to prove that Dumbledore is human. Is there some question of this point? Is Dumbledore something other than human? And how does this relate to Harry, who I suspect may be Dumbledore's successor?

Hmmmmm...... Back to the prophesy? Of course, in the OotP tell all speech Dumbledore tells Harry that his feelings about Sirius prove he is a man. Does he mean human?

Fresh cookies! Chocolate chip, warm from the oven. I'll get a plate from the magic dishwasher. :eyebrows:


It is my understanding that Jessica Mitford was not very charitable towards people from the South of The United States of America (even some who were ‘on her side’ ) we all have our blind spots.

I agree that Dobby is loyal to Harry, why? I don’t know. Before he had met Harry, Dobby risked terrible punishment to prevent Harry from attending school and by doing so saved Harry’s life. Why did he do that, if he was ‘bound and loyal’ to the Malfoy family. I don’t think it’s either an enchantment or being magically bound, I think it’s the exploitation of an elfish trait, a need to serve (like an addiction) that only being employed can satisfy. That is why Dobby spent two years traipsing the country looking for work, and why he negotiated so hard with Dumbledore over wages and conditions at Hogwarts.

The elves loyalty to one house comes from a mistrust on the part of wizard community, and it was that community that imposed the conditions that once the elves have chosen a family/house they must serve until freed, or die. Wizards would not want other wizards learning about family secrets, (even Hogwarts is hidden from wizards that attended other school) not a lot of trust there I think.

Part of the lack of trust is that house elf’s have an inborn ability to perform magic, imagine that you are a wizard and you have just spent seven long years learning how to control magic, to find that the person who serve you breakfast, your doddery old servant can do all the tricks that you have spent years learning, all without the aid of schooling or wand.

You would start to wonder what they are getting up to at night; soon you would repress them so they don’t get ideas above their station, but in doing so you give birth to the thing that you feared most, an elf that wants his freedom. (Sound familiar? Hint “My name is Caesar” )

Hermione has a good heart but she has a mothering instinct that has yet to be fulfilled, she’s packed away her dollies and tried to mother the three boys she comes into contact with, (Ron Harry and Neville) as they have resisted her help, she finds another project to focus her attention, the Elves. I have posted elsewhere that I feel that she is way off base with her activities, but some good might come of it later on in the next war.



I’ve been telling Dumbledore from the start, he can be as high-minded as he likes, but you can bet old Karkaroff and Maxime won’t be. They’ll have told their champions everything they can. They want to win. They want to beat Dumbledore. They’d like to prove he’s only human.



I think that when you have a wizard as well respected as Dumbledore people with a chip on their shoulder, would like to see him brought down a peg or two, just to prove that like all humans he makes mistakes,

[Filia Tenebrarum]

I agree that Dobby is loyal to Harry, why? I don’t know. Before he had met Harry, Dobby risked terrible punishment to prevent Harry from attending school and by doing so saved Harry’s life. Why did he do that, if he was ‘bound and loyal’ to the Malfoy family.
Why is anybody loyal to anybody? Dobby gives a sort of explanation for his loyalty to Harry himself:
"Ah, if only Harry Potter knew!" Dobby groaned, more tears dripping onto his ragged pillowcase, "If he knew what it means to us, to the lowly, the enslaved, us dregs of the magical world! Dobby remembers how it was when He Who Must Not Be Named was at the height of his powers, sir! We house-elves were treated like vermin, sir! Of course, Dobby is still treated like that, sir," he admitted, drying his face on the pillowcase. "But mostly, sir, life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He Who Must Not Be Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord's power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir..."
(pg 134 UK edition)
Once he's met Harry, we ought to remember that Harry is probably the first wizard he's met who treats him with kindness and respect, confirming Dobby's view that Harry is the best and noblest person in the world. Taking the examples we've seen of truly loyal and devoted house-elves, I think we can say that the enslaving charms that masters put on their elves are quite unnecessary; if a house-elf decides to serve a certain person, they will do so selflessly, without being at all forced. Equally, if they decide not to serve a person, they will fight the enslaving charm or find ways around it, meaning that the charm is useless as well as unnecessary (and unethical).

The Jessica Mitford, aspect of JKRs writing is more closely linked with Sirius Black then Hermione, his rejection of his family values is mirrored almost perfectly in the life that JK's heroine lived,
Interesting. Should have looked up Jessica Mitford when JK mentioned her in an interview; I never spotted direct parallels between her and Sirius. It's such a shame that JK killed him off; you'd have thought, if he was based on her personal heroine... But I suppose that's the scariest thing about Sirius' death: if she's prepared to kill off such a well loved character as he then who's next?


Fresh cookies! Chocolate chip, warm from the oven. I'll get a plate from the magic dishwasher.
Although presumably while the cookies were in the oven they were in a state of flux because there was no way of telling whether they were chocolate chip or ginger... sorry, gets to be a habit.

[phoenixsong]

Quote: but I was just looking for a different piece of data in a JKR interview, and she was asked if Harry will time travel again, and she said "Not telling!"

_______________
Which probably translates as yes. She might say not telling just to be contrary, but I'd have thought if she was only going to use the plot device once she would have said. My thoughts exactly. She might have said, "Oh dear, it was hard enough wrapping my head around time travel paradoxes once!"

(Of course, there are those among us who aren't entirely sure that the Sirius of OotP was the real Sirius, partly based on his treatment of Kreacher.)Oh, whizbang! Really? On what else is this uncertainty based? Do tell!!! Because it seems to me that the animosity between "Sirius" and Snape in OotP was very real.

Filia Tenebrarum: In my opinion, it would be quite unnecessary for wizards to place enslavement charms on house elves, since the enchantment of their servitude does seem to be by birth: when a house elf is born to a house elf in service to a family, he or she also serves that family. But I could be wrong.

[purplehawk]

Dobby would disprove that theory, though, wouldn't he? For that matter, so would Kreacher. He was picky about the Blacks he served - refusing Tonks, for example, while pandering to Narcissa. I think he would go to Bellatrix in a heartbeat, if the chance presented itself.

All the "enchantments of his kind," Sirius' instructions, the charms Dumbledore added - I'm not sure any of this will be enough to control or contain Kreacher over the course of the last two books. Sirius is dead and can't forbid Kreacher to do anything. Dumbledore can't be on hand every moment to keep Kreacher in line. There is already an established trail to the Malfoys...

What if Voldemort got his hands on Kreacher?

[barmy codger]

The house elf business has its basis in folklore. Ms. Rowling said so herself somewhere. In the folktales the little creatures come to a household and are a nuisance and it's difficult to get rid of them. A Dane told me once about a nisse (don't know the spelling and have no reference material) who came to stay at a farm. The people became so desperate they packed up their belongings and left home. On the way, the sprite poked its head up from the hay in the wagon and said, "Oh! Are we moving?" Scandinavian humour. Often one must leave gifts for the visiting elf or bad things will happen. Leaving milk and cookies for Santa is a leftover from this tradition.

So the difference is that Rowling has given the elf thing a little twist, making the relationship one of bondage. Quite a twist. I think she has done this for some purpose related to the plot, and the social commentary is secondary, though still meaningful. With that in mind, it seems unlikely she would complicate the idea further by having the bond be imposed on the elves by the wizards. The adherence to a family is a thing that comes from the elf. Just guessing, of course. The idea about future trouble with Kreacher makes the issue as a plot device more of a possibility.

And I came across a line in GoF, when fake Moody is trying to help Harry realize he needs to summon his broom to face the dragon, where Moody says of Madame Maxime and Karkaroff that they want to win. They want to prove that Dumbledore is human. Is there some question of this point? Is Dumbledore something other than human? And how does this relate to Harry, who I suspect may be Dumbledore's successor?

I have been thinking about this since you posted it. Are you suggesting there is something more to Dumbledore, in the same way there is something more to Voldemort? The idea is intriguing, but it brings up some questions. If there is a succession of very powerful wizards on the side of evil and the side of good, is each one born with the extraordinary powers, or are the powers conferred upon them somehow once their role is determined? Both Tom Riddle Jr and Dumbledore seem to have abilities beyond the scope of Hogwarts even before they arrived at school. If one is not simply born with the abilities to be an uber-wizard, then how is the heritage transmitted? Is there an overseeing bad wizard spirit that becomes one with the bad wizard? This seems possible when we consider all the aliases of Voldemort. But I see no corresponding confusion of identities in Dumbledore. Well, perhaps they're hanging on the walls in the headmaster's office. It has been discussed that the symbolic beasts representing these uber-forces could be the serpent and the phoenix. But that has the problem that the phoenix is not the symbol of Gryfffindor. I'm all for the idea, but am stumped trying to think of a scheme that would work in the story.

It could, after all, simply be that Voldemort represents a magical Hitler. Then Dumbledore is Winston Churchill, with the lion his symbol and the phoenix simply his familiar.

[Masterfroggy]

The house elf business has its basis in folklore. Ms. Rowling said so herself somewhere. In the folktales the little creatures come to a household and are a nuisance and it's difficult to get rid of them. A Dane told me once about a nisse (don't know the spelling and have no reference material) who came to stay at a farm. The people became so desperate they packed up their belongings and left home. On the way, the sprite poked its head up from the hay in the wagon and said, "Oh! Are we moving?" Scandinavian humour. Often one must leave gifts for the visiting elf or bad things will happen. Leaving milk and cookies for Santa is a leftover from this tradition.


A note on the House elf, in history they are comparable to the Fenoderee or Brownie. They are magical creatures and have powerful magic of their own The Fenoderee is not very intelligent but he is a hard worker who performed labour for the farmers of the Isle of Man. He goes around naked for the offer of clothes will greatly offend him causing him to stop working.
He was originally very handsome but after making the mistake of wooing a mortal girl he was punished and lost his good looks. He turned into the ugly solitary creature he is now. Brownies are good-natured invisible brown elves, or household goblins that live in farmhouses and other country dwellings in Scotland. While people are asleep, they perform their labours for them. If offered payment for their services or if they are treated badly they disappear and are never seen again.

JKR has imposed restrictions on the mythical creatures, and I wonder if this is an important change, what would be gained by placed such bondage on Dobby and Winky, is this why Hermione is pursing her SPEW activities

It is interesting to note that the word Dobby comes from either a dotard, a person suffering from the childishness of old age, a person who shows excessive love and affection, or the name for a Brownie or House elf

[purplehawk]

I agree with the analogy of Dumbledore and Winston Churchill, but Grindelwald would be his Adolf Hitler. Voldemort is Harry's bad wizard and Harry will have to find a way to defeat him. Dumbledore/Churchill can't do that for him.

[barmy codger]

Yes, but that doesn't get us very far.

Hitler was the worst of our times. Grindewald wasn't, since Voldemort is the worst in a century. And just a few posts ago it was pointed out the similarities between Sirius Black's family and Jessica Mitford's. The similarities include: links with Hitler=links with Voldemort. Also, we have the current struggle with Voldemort called the Second War. So then Voldemort=Hitler and then it's Harry=Churchill. Doesn't sound good.

If Dumbledore vs Grindelwald represents Churchill vs Hiitler, then who in our time is worse than Hitler and =Voldemort?

In the end I would gather that these analogies are very loose, that the general similarities, then, are not at the core of the plot, and it seems more fruitful to follow the idea of a line of uber-wizards (please forgive the term), good and bad, struggling, each pair in their time, for good and evil in the world. That being a theory, then where's the evidence? I argued for multiple personae in Voldemort, to go with the many names he carries. There are several hints of this throughout the books, though not enough, but there are even fewer hints for Dumbledore. Fawkes and the Order of the Phoenix are hints, as are Dumbledore's unusual power in itself. Maybe someone can suggest a few?

[whizbang121]

Although presumably while the cookies were in the oven they were in a state of flux because there was no way of telling whether they were chocolate chip or ginger... sorry, gets to be a habit.
They smelled like chocolate chip. Today it's banana bread with cinnamon topping.
Tomorrow, it's diet food. :agree:

I'm sorry I've lost the train of thought. I'll try to pick it up tomorrow.

[purplehawk]

Darn you, Barmy, you're making me think on a Sunday night after I've spent most of the day cleaning up a 30-gallon "spill" from a very large aquarium.

There is a precedent in literature for what you've proposed. Tolkien comes at once to mind and the "bad guy" character we know best from his writings: Sauron, The Dark Lord, The Base Master of Treachery, Necromancer, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Power, Lord of Gifts, Lord of Mordor, Ring-Maker, The Sorceror. He had loads of names and I've probably forgotten as many as I've remembered tonight.

Sauron's origins went back to the beginnings of time, before elf, man, or dwarf walked the earth. He was an "angel," one of the lesser Maiar of Aulë (as opposed to the Ainur, or The Valar as they later came to be known). His first name was Annatar, later Gorthaur, and finally Sauron. He was seduced away from Aulë by Melkor, one of the great among the Ainur and later the greatest of the Dark Lords to trouble the earth, early on and soon became his must trusted lieutenant. Melkor was later named Morgoth by Fëanor after the theft of the silmarils. After Morgoth's final overthrow and banishment into the void, Sauron became the most powerful sorcerer in the world and it has been speculated that, at the time of his banishment in 3019 Third Age, his power had endured for some 16,000 years.

During those 16,000 years Sauron assumed many shapes (or forms) as he methodically picked off powerful elves and men of legend. Interestingly enough, one of the shapes he assumed at times was that of a serpent. He was well-known to work from behind the scenes, manipulating people and events to his advantage. On those rare occasions when he did come forth, he was always defeated quite similarly to someone else we're studying.

It was not until the coming of the Istari (Gandalf, Saruman, et al.) that each of the Dark Lords who arose through the Second and Third Ages were determined to be none other than Sauron, one and the same. He suffered many a defeat and yet he rose again, time after time, under a new name and in a new guise. All that finally ended with the destruction of The One Ring on Orodruin.

[barmy codger]

Darn you, Barmy, you're making me think on a Sunday night after I've spent most of the day cleaning up a 30-gallon "spill" from a very large aquarium.
Sorry about that. Hope you didn't lose any grindylows. Your post is all the more impressive for being done after such a bad day. And I paid attention to the many names of Sauron you mention.

Tolkien maintained he didn't like allegories, and didn't write Lord of the Rings as an allegory. Yet it is persistently seen to be one, especially since it came out immediately after WW II. He draws heavily on medieval concepts, and so does Ms Rowling. The use of allegory was a popular device in medieval times. I say that without being any kind of expert, but I believe I read that somewhere. At any rate it fits with the idea of Rowling using the great allegory of alchemy as a framework for Harry Potter.

So, granted these two wonderful stories are similar in having a great allegorical theme, there is still a difference. Tolkien's inventions sounded right and resonated with the reader because the ideas were drawn from existing mythology and folklore. But they were used in a completely invented environment that had little to do with our everyday life, except that people went around fighting with swords, smoking pipes, drinking beer, and that sort of thing.

On the other hand, Rowling's Wizarding World is directly congruent with ours, the Muggle World. The magical world she has invented is more directly linked to folklore and mythology than was Tolkien's. Therefore, we are not going to see a race of beings who oversee our world and its activities -or at least, we are not likely to see an invented sort of being. If they are used in Harry Potter, and if Dumbledore and Voldemort, et. al. are products or tools of their intervention in our worlds, then the beings will be the sort that already exist in our folklore. They won't be Valar and Malar and Istar. They would be maybe djinns and angels and the like. Something we know about. But I would be surprised if these beings are brought into the story at all. First, because there has been no reference to any such thing up to now that I can think of, and second because we have a story and a Wizarding World based mostly on medieval Christian concepts. The only intermediary beings between the Muggle/ Wizard words and the supreme One would be angels. I would think it far more likely that our uber-wizards (you can tell I like the term) are in a line of greatness set in place by really great magicians in the past, or they each may become allied with some greater power. If that power were to be a sort of superior being, then I can see it being referred to only in a vague way - as the Dark Lord, and not as The Angel of Darkness, for example.

So I feel I'm still back where I was, feeling that there is a force of evil working through the likes of Tom Riddle, Jr, and a force of good perhaps working through Dumbledore (and maybe now Harry) but without much evidence to support the idea. What little we a told only suggests that there are great wizards working for evil and great wizards working for good. Somehow that doesn't seem like enough.

[purplehawk]

I wish Whizbang was around. She had a bit of a theory about a single evil entity seducing and/or possessing a series of wizards through the ages, beginning perhaps with Salazar Slytherin and following through to Voldemort. I can't explain it adequately, but I think the Tolkien analogy is a good one if indeed her theory pans out. In other words the Dark Lord, whether Grindelwald or Voldemort, is another being unto himself - assuming "he" is male - and merely using the body of the current Dark Lord to achieve his ends.

Your last paragraph seems to indicate you're thinking along the same lines, or something close enough. As no one has mentioned Grindelwald (other than the blurb on the Chocolate Frog cards), we know only that Dumbledore defeated him in 1945 and that it was a monumental event in of itself.

Maybe... maybe the clue we've all been seeking for - the clue JK said appeared in Chamber of Secrets - is the possession of Ginny Weasley. Or maybe "possession" in its own right...

"... So Ginny poured our her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I needed... I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew powerful, far more more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a little of my soul back into her... "

"... It was me, Harry, but I didn't mean to. Riddle made me, he took me over... The last thing I remember is him coming out of the diary - "

[whizbang121]

That all makes sense, until Dumbledore calls him Tom. That's what keeps throwing a monkeywrench in it for me.

[barmy codger]

Yes, a lot of this has been covered already. I'm on it again as a result of Whizbang's post -number 757- where she asked is Dumbledore something other that human. I like the topic and was hoping to wheedle some more insights from her. But she's baking banana bread.
Maybe... maybe the clue we've all been seeking for - the clue JK said appeared in Chamber of Secrets - is the possession of Ginny Weasley. Or maybe "possession" in its own right...
Thanks for mentioning this. It's food for thought. The thinking will be: What similar thing does it for Dumbledore? How are the methods of the good super-wizards different?

[whizbang121]

Dumbledore is a special guy. He and Harry are both scarred but in different ways. He could do things with a wand that astonished his examiners. He worked with Nicolas Flamel and discovered the 12 uses of dragons blood, the 12th of which, Ms Rowling has assured us, is oven cleaner. He always seems to be just slightly "above it all." And he acknowledges a special relationship, more than headmaster and student, with Harry. Oddly, house elves with their wandless magic, seem more like Dumbledore than other wizards. And Dobby does have green eyes. :huh:

[barmy codger]

Thanks for the hints. They'll go into tonight's cogitations. You forgot to mention he's barmy, too.

[whizbang121]

And it so delighted Ron.:)

[sindatur]

HEHE Whiz, I think I'll pass on climbing into the Refrigerator for your little experiment.

Whiz, why does Dumbledore calling Voldemort Tom, make the theory of the Dark Lord possessing one Person after another throughout time (Salazaar possibly being the first, and Tom Riddle being the latest) go out the window. Perhaps in the MoM battle, Dumbledore was trying to get through to the Tom part of Voldemort, maybe whittle away at Tom Riddle's own weaknesses, in order to get a bit of an edge over Voldemort?

Regarding JKR's use of various mythological characters in the development of HP characters. I think that although she may, base a character upon one in mythology or history, or sometimes an event, she doesn't mix the two. So, for example, if she makes a Little Red Riding Hood character, that character is liable to go to Grandma's house to check up on her, and perhaps bring her some food, but that's where it ends, JKR is very unlikely to continue the similarity from there, and you won't see the Wolf in bed dressed up as Grandma waiting to eat Little Red Riding Hood (Hope that made sense). I think that's where we go wrong. We latch onto something, and follow it to it's conclusion, when what she should be doing is taking a swift left turn before we get to the end.

[whizbang121]

HEHE Whiz, I think I'll pass on climbing into the Refrigerator for your little experiment.

Whiz, why does Dumbledore calling Voldemort Tom, make the theory of the Dark Lord possessing one Person after another throughout time (Salazaar possibly being the first, and Tom Riddle being the latest) go out the window. Perhaps in the MoM battle, Dumbledore was trying to get through to the Tom part of Voldemort, maybe whittle away at Tom Riddle's own weaknesses, in order to get a bit of an edge over Voldemort?Using a little psychology on him. Maybe. So was he "possessed" when he took the name Lord Voldemort? I can't make up my mind. the toddler just took down the Xmas tree trying to get an ornament and Bailey is trying very hard to make it clear she had nothing to do with it. :lol: Guess I'll go straighten up.
As soon as I get out of the woods. :huh:

:cool:

[purplehawk]

I'm still on the fence with this single evil entity possessing wizard after wizard through the ages. Part of me wants to believe it; another part wants to believe each Dark Lord was a different individual and was summarily conquered by his respective good wizard, ala Dumbledore-types. Dumbledore's descriptions of Voldemort seem to point us to the second theory - that, as he said, Tom Riddle set out to turn himself into the most powerful wizard alive.

"Brilliant," he said softly. "Of course, he was probably the most brilliant student Hogwarts has ever seen." He turned around to the Weasleys, who were looking utterly bewildered.

"Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, five years ago, at Hogwarts. He disappeared after leaving school... traveled far and wide... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable. Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was once Head Boy here."

Hmm... "underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations... " Into what?

[whizbang121]

And was it a transformation that only an heir of Slytherin could accomplish? There's still that last ancestor/descendant comment to wonder about. Is that only significant to show that Harry isn't descended from the house of Slytherin? Or is there a deeper meaning.

[phoenixsong]

Dumbledore's descriptions of Voldemort seem to point us to the second theory - that, as he said, Tom Riddle set out to turn himself into the most powerful wizard alive.
While I agree that the quote you gave (particularly the use of the word "transformations") does lend itself to this interpretation, is it not possible that seeking out a Dark spirit (something like a genie, perhaps?) might have been part of his quest for power? Either way, even if he did welcome in some dark, possessing spirit, I feel that the choice rested with Tom, and that he must be held responsible for his choice.

As for what he has transformed himself into, it would seem something less and less human (remember the part about there not being enough human in him to die). But that begs the question: if less of him is human, then of what is increasingly more of him composed: spirit? mind? will?

[barmy codger]

This is great, you're all doing my thinking for me. Just waiting for Filia T's two knuts worth.

Two things: Tom Riddle Jr was styling himself as Lord Voldemort while still at Hogwarts, but perhaps it was after his transformations that he "came out" publicly. My impression was the transformations were part of his search for overcoming death, since that is his highest goal. He said his experiments must have helped preserve him after his curse on baby Harry bounced back.

Due to sporadic bouts of barminess, I haven't been able to think on this as I had hoped. But previous thinking got me to a dead end on the Voldemort/ Dark Lord issue. This time I was trying to think about the corresponding good side of Dumbledore and Harry. Some questions for Whizbang about her hints: Dumbledore has blue eyes, so is the implication that green eyes of Harry, Lily and Dobby are the clue to why Harry can vanquish Voldemort while Dumbledore cannot? Also, are you suggesting Dumbledore is Ron? A lot of that theory made sense except for the basic wizarding rule, "You must not be seen." which Dumbledore himself emphasized.

[sindatur]

This is great, you're all doing my thinking for me. Just waiting for Filia T's two knuts worth.

Two things: Tom Riddle Jr was styling himself as Lord Voldemort while still at Hogwarts, but perhaps it was after his transformations that he "came out" publicly. My impression was the transformations were part of his search for overcoming death, since that is his highest goal. He said his experiments must have helped preserve him after his curse on baby Harry bounced back.

Due to sporadic bouts of barminess, I haven't been able to think on this as I had hoped. But previous thinking got me to a dead end on the Voldemort/ Dark Lord issue. This time I was trying to think about the corresponding good side of Dumbledore and Harry. Some questions for Whizbang about her hints: Dumbledore has blue eyes, so is the implication that green eyes of Harry, Lily and Dobby are the clue to why Harry can vanquish Voldemort while Dumbledore cannot? Also, are you suggesting Dumbledore is Ron? A lot of that theory made sense except for the basic wizarding rule, "You must not be seen." which Dumbledore himself emphasized.

Barmy, alot of the Ron is Dumbledore possibility went out the window with OotP release. We now know Dumbledore had OWLs with the same OWL tester as our gang, and that he was impressed with Dumbledore's wandwork. So, if Ron went back in time to become Dumbledore, it would be after Ron had his OWLs, and Ron certainly isn't amazing with his wand work at this point in the story.

I think if there is anything to the thoughts that Voldemort is a possessing entity that's been inside all the Dark Lord's, the good side doesn't work that way, the good side is a mentoring of the "fated one" (IE: Dumbledore mentoring Harry), rather than the entity possessing the former "Chosen one" moving on to the current "chosen one". Does that make sense to have the bad "Uber-wizard" being possessed by the same entity throughout eternity, but, the good "Uber-wizard" that needs to vanquish him, would be a separate individual, or does that go against the grain, and if you have possession on one side, it needs to be on both sides

[Filia Tenebrarum]

In my opinion, it would be quite unnecessary for wizards to place enslavement charms on house elves, since the enchantment of their servitude does seem to be by birth: when a house elf is born to a house elf in service to a family, he or she also serves that family. But I could be wrong.
There's clearly something binding an elf to their master's will apart from free choice and loyalty on the part of the elf. This may not be a charm as such, or it may be some sort of enchantment passed genetically down the line of house-elves. Whatever it is, it's what I was refering to when I used the term "enslavement charm". Sorry for lack of clarity.

What if Voldemort got his hands on Kreacher?
Unlucky Kreacher, I should think. Or perhaps not. Still I can't imagine Voldemort treating the most useful of house-elves with a modicum of respect. Kreacher can't betray the Order's whereabouts, because of the Fidelius Charm, but he can give away all sorts of useful information. Unless JK finds a way to kill Kreacher off, he's bound to have a significant effect on the rest of the series.
Another thing that worries me is how Harry will react when he next sees Kreacher. For all that Harry prevented Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew, I'm not sure he could be safely allowed in the same room with Kreacher (not that it wouldn't be useful to have Kreacher out of the way, but it would be better for everyone if the elf could just choke to death on fish bone).

The house elf business has its basis in folklore. Ms. Rowling said so herself somewhere. In the folktales the little creatures come to a household and are a nuisance and it's difficult to get rid of them. A Dane told me once about a nisse (don't know the spelling and have no reference material) who came to stay at a farm. The people became so desperate they packed up their belongings and left home. On the way, the sprite poked its head up from the hay in the wagon and said, "Oh! Are we moving?" Scandinavian humour. Often one must leave gifts for the visiting elf or bad things will happen. Leaving milk and cookies for Santa is a leftover from this tradition.
And then there's the story of the Elves and the Shoemaker (which I know from the Ladybird book; it's got lovely pictures) where the poor cobbler and his wife are just about to go completely bankrupt and are helped by some skilful little elves wearing rags who come in the middle of the night to work on the shoes. When the shoemaker and his wife have been helped back to prosperity they thank the elves by leaving out little suits of clothes and shoes for them. The elves put them on delightedly and dance away singing "Now we are boys so fine to see, we need no more cobblers be!". I don't know at what stage the tacky rhyme was introduced.

It is interesting to note that the word Dobby comes from either a dotard, a person suffering from the childishness of old age, a person who shows excessive love and affection, or the name for a Brownie or House elf
Really? How neat. It's almost as if she based the whole character of her house-elves on that word. But then she's known for being a hoarder of weird words.

If Dumbledore vs Grindelwald represents Churchill vs Hiitler, then who in our time is worse than Hitler and =Voldemort?
Well, there's no one who directly affects us. But there are still evil maniacs in the world who have brutality and hubris on the same level as Voldemort's. Sadam Hussein is an example, I think there's also Robert Mugabe and wasn't there someone pretty awful ruling Chile? Is he still in power?

There is a precedent in literature for what you've proposed. Tolkien comes at once to mind and the "bad guy" character we know best from his writings: Sauron, The Dark Lord, The Base Master of Treachery, Necromancer, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Power, Lord of Gifts, Lord of Mordor, Ring-Maker, The Sorceror. He had loads of names and I've probably forgotten as many as I've remembered tonight.
Come to that, doesn't Satan have many names? The person I think of as being most endowed with names is Odin, but he's not a dark lord as such. I mean, who knows if Odin's good or bad? One of his names is Bolverkr, worker of evil, another is Sath, truth, also Grimnir, hooded, and Pekkr (or is it Thekkr or Threkkr? I'm trying to do this from memory), much loved. High, Just as High and Third. One of these days I'll learn to recite them all. They're delightfully ambiguous.

Sauron's origins went back to the beginnings of time, before elf, man, or dwarf walked the earth. He was an "angel," one of the lesser Maiar of Aulë (as opposed to the Ainur, or The Valar as they later came to be known). His first name was Annatar, later Gorthaur, and finally Sauron. He was seduced away from Aulë by Melkor, one of the great among the Ainur and later the greatest of the Dark Lords to trouble the earth, early on and soon became his must trusted lieutenant. Melkor was later named Morgoth by Fëanor after the theft of the silmarils. After Morgoth's final overthrow and banishment into the void, Sauron became the most powerful sorcerer in the world and it has been speculated that, at the time of his banishment in 3019 Third Age, his power had endured for some 16,000 years.
Yikes, purplehawk, did you do all _that_ from memory? I thought my dad was the only person who could discourse in quite so much detail on LotR.

I would think it far more likely that our uber-wizards (you can tell I like the term)
All right! I give in! I'm going to look up "uber" in the dictionary!
There's just something about uberous meaning "abounding in milk". Am I missing something? Latin dictionary?
No, uber still seems to mean something like "rich" or "copious". ??? You're just going to have to tell me.

Yes, a lot of this has been covered already. I'm on it again as a result of Whizbang's post -number 757- where she asked is Dumbledore something other that human. I like the topic and was hoping to wheedle some more insights from her. But she's baking banana bread.
Right, lacking another monkeywrench to conclusively disprove this, I'm going to argue that Dumbledore and Riddle are both human, and there is no non-corporeal dark lord. Throughout OotP Dumbledore makes a mistake in his treatment of Harry. His reasons for this are very human in nature: he's trying to keep Harry safe for longer than is really practical. The interview at the end of OotP gives me the impression that Dumbledore is in someways admitting his mistakes and failings and finally bringing home to Harry that he is only human, and can't do everything, and can't protect Harry from his fate. I think the line "suffering like this proves you are still a man!" is important. It shows that Dumbledore believes being human can be an asset, not a weakness. Or as well as a weakness. He almost contradicts himself when he first says "I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act" and then to Harry "it was your heart that saved you". Again, I'm not proving anything, but the overall feeling I got from that conversation, if such a dry word can be used to describe it, was that it was being held by two people who were very much human.
Where Riddle is concerned, it seems to me that we can almost trace his transformations from a deprived orphaned boy to a depraved dark lord. Should go into more detail, I know, but I'm running out of time. Nevertheless, I find the whole story more effective if Voldemort started out just like you or I.

As for what he has transformed himself into, it would seem something less and less human (remember the part about there not being enough human in him to die). But that begs the question: if less of him is human, then of what is increasingly more of him composed: spirit? mind? will?
Oh that's a good question! Well, when Harry becomes immediately aware of his connection to Voldemort what he feels is pain and this was also what he felt when he was possessed. And I'm pretty sure Tom has a driving fear of death and loss of self. He also has a limitless ambition and hatred of Harry, Dumbledore, Muggle-borns and various other groups and individuals. But I'm not sure any of these things; pain, fear, ambition, hatred; are in themselves inhuman. They only become inhuman when they're in such terrifying quantities. Is Voldemort really not human, or is he just an example of the worst a human can become?

Unfortunately, my mock exams start the day after tommorrow and I really can't justify spending time here during said exams on the grounds that if I have enough energy to be discussing HP I should be revising, and if I don't I should be resting. I will therefore be effectively out of it for the next three weeks or so. I shall miss you all, but there it is. I hope the discussion goes well in my absence (although don't forget that the more you write while I'm away the longer my catch up post will be when I get back)
See you sometime around the 21st Jan!

[Sabine]

Also, are you suggesting Dumbledore is Ron? A lot of that theory made sense except for the basic wizarding rule, "You must not be seen." which Dumbledore himself emphasized.


:scared: :wow: :scared:

What is it lately with me??? Everywhere I look I'm stumbling over timetravelling.... All I have to say is: 131.400 turns and counting!!!!!!

.....

Oh well - I say some more things about that - I just can't resist ... :angel: ...

"You must not be seen" is indeed some very strong point against this Ron-is-Dumbledore even if one could argue that when Dumbledore finally meets Ron (or himself for that matter) he could be sure that Ron would not suspect Dumbledore to be himself. (aaah this is getting weird already)

But - after all - Dumbledore has a brother. He didn't make that up. Aberforth was on that picture that Moody showed Harry in OOTP!

Barmy, alot of the Ron is Dumbledore possibility went out the window with OotP release. We now know Dumbledore had OWLs with the same OWL tester as our gang, and that he was impressed with Dumbledore's wandwork. So, if Ron went back in time to become Dumbledore, it would be after Ron had his OWLs, and Ron certainly isn't amazing with his wand work at this point in the story.

Aaaaah sindatur my firm rock in the surge - when it comes to time travel I can hide behind you :agree: :lol:

I think if there is anything to the thoughts that Voldemort is a possessing entity that's been inside all the Dark Lord's, the good side doesn't work that way, the good side is a mentoring of the "fated one" (IE: Dumbledore mentoring Harry), rather than the entity possessing the former "Chosen one" moving on to the current "chosen one". Does that make sense to have the bad "Uber-wizard" being possessed by the same entity throughout eternity, but, the good "Uber-wizard" that needs to vanquish him, would be a separate individual, or does that go against the grain, and if you have possession on one side, it needs to be on both sides

Why would possession need to be on both sides? I mean we've had so many people comparing HP to LOTR. Even if Sauron was ONE evil entity, the ones that fought him always have been others, not even all have been humans.




All right! I give in! I'm going to look up "uber" in the dictionary!
There's just something about uberous meaning "abounding in milk". Am I missing something? Latin dictionary?
No, uber still seems to mean something like "rich" or "copious". ??? You're just going to have to tell me.

No I don't think you would be able to find that in the dictionary. I think - please correct me if I've got this wrong! - this boils down on Hitler who wanted to "create" a human that was pureblooded and just should have all the attributes that Hitler favoured. He wanted to "create" an "over-human" which would be the exakt translation of the word "Übermensch" Mensch = human and über = over (meaning to stand above all the other "normal" humans.

But since the english language lacks the letter ü it was "turned down" to the "uber"

Anyway - thats my guess :)


Unfortunately, my mock exams start the day after tommorrow and I really can't justify spending time here during said exams on the grounds that if I have enough energy to be discussing HP I should be revising, and if I don't I should be resting. I will therefore be effectively out of it for the next three weeks or so. I shall miss you all, but there it is. I hope the discussion goes well in my absence (although don't forget that the more you write while I'm away the longer my catch up post will be when I get back)
See you sometime around the 21st Jan!

Filia - good luck for your exams. I am looking forward to your catch-up-post :)

And we sure should discuss the question if Voldemort in "unhuman" or just as worse as a human could get.

Sabine

[sindatur]

Hi Sabine,

LOL, indeed, 131,400 turns and counting :agree: :rotfl:

Thanks for the compliment and for the Uber Definition (sorry, no dots for the top of the U available on a regular American Keyboard). It was always my undestand that Uber-anything was the ultimate of that thing, and your translation falls right into that. (IE: Uber-Wizard = The biggest baddest wizard possible; Uber-dangerous = The most dangerous situation possible, IE: extremely dangerous)

It is interesting to ponder what exactly "not human enough to die means". On the face of it, you would naturally think it was his transformations into the Snakelike creature, but, surely a snake can die, just as easily as a human, so, there definitely seems to be much more there.

[Sabine]

Thanks for the compliment and for the Uber Definition (sorry, no dots for the top of the U available on a regular American Keyboard).

Now wait a minute ... I once knew how to respont to that... ah yes ... "you're most welcome"

It was always my undestand that Uber-anything was the ultimate of that thing, and your translation falls right into that. (IE: Uber-Wizard = The biggest baddest wizard possible; Uber-dangerous = The most dangerous situation possible, IE: extremely dangerous)

Yes quite right - and an other thing that Voldemort/Hitler do have in common is that none both fullfills those requirements that they wanted for the uberhuman(wizard)

It is interesting to ponder what exactly "not human enough to die means". On the face of it, you would naturally think it was his transformations into the Snakelike creature, but, surely a snake can die, just as easily as a human, so, there definitely seems to be much more there.

But that not human enough to die dates back to the times when Voldemort didn't have that snakelike body but was Voldemort in full power. And I doubt that he then looked snakelike. hmmmmm

Harry asked Hagrid if Voldemort died when the spell backfired and Hagrid told him that he doesn't know if there was enough human left in Voldemort to die. Its rather in the begining of PS and I am sure purplehawk knows the exact quote without having to look them up.

I don't know - it says that Voldemorts appearance changed in the years he travelled long and far, that he almost wasn't recognisable but do you think he then looked snakelike too?

hmmmmmmmm

Sabine

[barmy codger]

My apologies. I used the term uber-wizard in a couple posts. It sounded clever and worked to say what I meant. However, it seemed to have unpleasant connotations, especially for an international discussion, so in a later post I changed it to super-wizard.

Ubermensche is from Nietzche. No I have not read his works. Here's a quote:

Superman, according to Nietzsche has reached a state of being where he is no longer affected by "pity, suffering, tolerence of the weak, the power of the soul over the body, the belief in an afterlife, the corruption of modern values ( Nietzsche's Overman: Blueprint for the Antichrist Superstar )." Superman is constantly changing and in a state of rebirth and growth. He determines what is good and what is evil, not allowing religion or society to determine these things for him. The Superman finds his happiness in this way. He uses a reason that is independent of the modern values of society or religion. He determines his own values. This creation of his own values gives him joy, and in order for the Superman to cope with a changing world, the Superman must constantly change. This constant state of change is a constant source of joy, leaving little or no room for suffering. The Superman does not believe in an afterlife or the power of the soul over the body because he does not believe in religion and has no proof of an afterlife or a God. Therefore, he makes the most out of this life, not depending on a reward in Heaven or a punishment in Hell for what he has done on Earth. The Superman does not pity or tolerate the weak. He feels that human compassion is the greatest weakness of all because it allows the weak to restrict the growth of the strong. In Thus Spake Zarathustra , Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, says "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome [surpassed]. What have you done to overcome [surpass] him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..
And here is where I found it:
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Knowles.htm

It actually sounds like someone we know and love.

[purplehawk]

Thanks for the compliment and for the Uber Definition (sorry, no dots for the top of the U available on a regular American Keyboard).


Windows does have a feature that will allow you to do that, Sindatur. It's called the Character Map. You'll find it on your start menu under System Tools. It's a simple little cut-and-paste function to make Uber read Űber. I did this in Verdana font since it's the forum default.

[Sabine]

So it dates back to Nietzsche - I didn't know that. I only heard of the Übermensch ( :p I can have dots over my u's, a's and o's whenever Ilike without copy and paste) in connection with Hitler.

But still how the uber was created remains the same.

But you are perfectly right. I meanwhile googled Nietzsche - that superman that he wanted to have seems familiar.

But it also seems that the field to interpret Nietzsche's superman is vast ... because Nietzsche seems to have stated to that his superman is not an ideal type of "human" and not a "next step in evolution" but a "typus" ...

Maybe I should read Nietzsche for a change :lol:

Sabine

[Dedalus Diggle]

So it dates back to Nietzsche - I didn't know that. I only heard of the Übermensch ( :p I can have dots over my u's, a's and o's whenever Ilike without copy and paste) in connection with Hitler.

But still how the uber was created remains the same.

But you are perfectly right. I meanwhile googled Nietzsche - that superman that he wanted to have seems familiar.

But it also seems that the field to interpret Nietzsche's superman is vast ... because Nietzsche seems to have stated to that his superman is not an ideal type of "human" and not a "next step in evolution" but a "typus" ...

Maybe I should read Nietzsche for a change :lol:

Sabine

I have read quite a bit of Nietzsche (I've only missed 2-3 books out of about 15) and he is quite interesting (Duh - I wouldn't have read that much if I didn't think so). It's also very challenging. I assume that you are German, given your stated location, so you should be able to read the originals, rather than rely on translations. That overview given above (or should I say uberview?) is not too bad, but it should be kept in mind that Nietzsche was in no way looking toward a 'master race' and very often viciously slammed nationalists of all types and particularly German nationalists. I hope that comment 'sounds like someone we know' was referring to Voldie and not Hitler. Very superficial and usually dishonest interpretations of Nietzsche have tried to attribute the intellectual support for Nazism to hsi works, when that was quite explicitly stated in his books to be contrary to his ideas. On the other hand, making oneself literally 'king of the world' - as Voldie seems intent on - would not necessarily be inconsistent, although Voldie seems all too trapped in the old ideas to be the sort of creative figure that Nietzsche envisioned. In fact, in a lot of ways, Dumbledore may be closer to the ideal, in that he has developed the power to do anything he jolly well pleases, and does so, motivated not by fear or hatred, but by the things and people he loves. By the way, if you are going to read some of his works, be prepared for some rough sledding - his style and vocabulary are a real challenge. However, it is much better to read his actual words than interpreters.

[Sabine]

I have read quite a bit of Nietzsche (I've only missed 2-3 books out of about 15) and he is quite interesting (Duh - I wouldn't have read that much if I didn't think so). It's also very challenging. I assume that you are German, given your stated location, so you should be able to read the originals, rather than rely on translations.

Yes you are perfectly right I am German and I, at least that time, could have the advantage to read the original. :)

That overview given above (or should I say uberview?)
:rotfl: :rotfl: well no ... you should say überview ... :rotfl: :rotfl:



is not too bad, but it should be kept in mind that Nietzsche was in no way looking toward a 'master race' and very often viciously slammed nationalists of all types and particularly German nationalists.

Something along that line was that what I found about Nietzsche. Thats what I was trying to get through to you with that "positive" but positive is not what to me sounds like a good translation for a word that in essence means "says-yes-to-life". Does that make any sense?

I hope that comment 'sounds like someone we know' was referring to Voldie and not Hitler.

I related it to Voldemort

Very superficial and usually dishonest interpretations of Nietzsche have tried to attribute the intellectual support for Nazism to hsi works, when that was quite explicitly stated in his books to be contrary to his ideas.

I think that this may very well be the reason why I connected that "uberwizard" or "uberhuman" to Hitler, because I've only heard about it in connection with him. Seems I learned a good deal tonight.


On the other hand, making oneself literally 'king of the world' - as Voldie seems intent on - would not necessarily be inconsistent, although Voldie seems all too trapped in the old ideas to be the sort of creative figure that Nietzsche envisioned. In fact, in a lot of ways, Dumbledore may be closer to the ideal, in that he has developed the power to do anything he jolly well pleases, and does so, motivated not by fear or hatred, but by the things and people he loves.

Well that was what I was thinking after finishing my read about the "superman". Thas "say-yes-to-life" immediately sent Dumbledore in my mind :)


By the way, if you are going to read some of his works, be prepared for some rough sledding - his style and vocabulary are a real challenge. However, it is much better to read his actual words than interpreters.

Actually I have ordered it at amazon after reading your post :lol:

Thanks for the inspiration

Sabine


Oups - I just found out that I deleted that part about being "positive" before sending the last post - I remember that I thought about doing so because I didn't find "possitive" to be in least suitable

[FlyingPhoenix]

I don't believe it. Here is debated the question "Ron is DD?" well I didn't know its possible but I said it before its possible as long you have enough fantasy.

What I found interesting almost incredible interesting is that Harry is with 16 (I mean after Sirius dead) not that far away from Riddle. Just look at his reaction in DD's office. You could easily think Harry turn out bad but guess what? He don't because of his best friends. They love him no matter what. Its what Harry learned in book5. Its In my eyes the very different between Harry and Riddle. Because Harry chosed to be a Gryffindor and because he chosed his friends because he likes them and not what they represent. Thats the very different what let him be different.

So it dates back to Nietzsche - I didn't know that. I only heard of the Übermensch ( I can have dots over my u's, a's and o's whenever Ilike without copy and paste) in connection with Hitler.
Well I can write it too you know like ä ü ö. Anyway I justed wanted to ask if anyone of you could give me some advice regarding to Nietzsche- I really like to read stuff by him. Of course in german so if you know any books I should read, tell me please. Hey that guy was born on the same day as I was. Not year of course but hey its nice o know.

[Sabine]

Well I can write it too you know like ä ü ö.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Great! Aren't we special????? ;) :lol: :lol:

Anyway I justed wanted to ask if anyone of you could give me some advice regarding to Nietzsche- I really like to read stuff by him. Of course in german so if you know any books I should read, tell me please. Hey that guy was born on the same day as I was. Not year of course but hey its nice o know.

Since we were talking about the superman I ordered "Also sprach Zarathustra" for starters.

Sabine

[Dedalus Diggle]

Something along that line was that what I found about Nietzsche. Thats what I was trying to get through to you with that "positive" but positive is not what to me sounds like a good translation for a word that in essence means "says-yes-to-life". Does that make any sense?

Well that was what I was thinking after finishing my read about the "superman". Thas "say-yes-to-life" immediately sent Dumbledore in my mind :)


I think what you are referring to is best summed up in his doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence. This was a claim that everything -EVERYTHING - repeates itself again and again. Not just similar things but you and me and everyone and everything else specifically. Therefore, since you're going to have to live everything you do over and over again ad infinitum, you'd better live it so that it is worth repeating. Some interpretations say that this is just a mindset so as to live your life without regrets and some people say that he considered it to be literally and scientifically true. Whatever. Very much a carpe diem attitude rather than 'watch your step.'

Flying Phoenix, It's best to start with the more straightforward books, such as the Genealogy of Morals and The Birth of Tragedy. La Gaya Scienza is also a beautiful book (as philosophu books go) as it was written when he was full of vitality having just recovered from a terrible bout with the recurring malady that made much of his life a living hell - but for his attitude about life. A lot of people recommend Also Sprach Zarathrustra, but I found it to be too difficult to ken until I had read more of his books. But then the first translation I tried to read was not a very good one, and you would not need to use a translation. Two others that I love are Beyond Good and Evil and The Antichrist (no pussyfooting in those books). And his autobiography Ecce Homo (which means 'behold the man') is an interesting overview up until the point in writing it where he went completely mad (it is believed that he had syphillis from his ONLY sexual encounter) - it has chapter titles like 'Why I am so clever' and 'Why I write such great books.'


edit: La Gaya Scienza is the subtitle of the book whose actual name in German is Die Froehliche Wissenschaft (I think I have the non-umlaut spelling correct).

[barmy codger]

The part of the quote that intrigued me the most was the part that human compassion is the greatest weakness of all. This compares well with Voldemort's view (yes, I had been referring to Voldemort, not Hitler- more apologies), and may be the thing that Harry has but Voldemort doesn't. Most people think Harry's secret power is Love but Compassion might be more accurate. Instead of being Voldemort's greatest strength, lack of compassion may be his greatest weakness.

Not having read Nietzche, I can only conjecture, but Voldemort may be the example of someone living as superman and therefore going wrong. It may be that Voldemort is getting it wrong as Hitler did, but also it may be Ms. Rowling is showing that this ideal may not be a good model. It is certainly a contrast to the alchemical /spiritual growth concept that seems the basis of the books.

[Sabine]

I think what you are referring to is best summed up in his doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence. This was a claim that everything -EVERYTHING - repeates itself again and again. Not just similar things but you and me and everyone and everything else specifically. Therefore, since you're going to have to live everything you do over and over again ad infinitum, you'd better live it so that it is worth repeating. Some interpretations say that this is just a mindset so as to live your life without regrets and some people say that he considered it to be literally and scientifically true. Whatever. Very much a carpe diem attitude rather than 'watch your step.

hmmmmmmmm I'm not quiete sure ... maybe FlyingPhoenix can help me out with this. I look for a translation for the word "lebensbejahend" which is translated in the dictionary as "positive" and seems to me not quite satisfying ....

It is an attitude one has towards life. Towards everything that happens in life. Its sort of not to grumble about every little piece of life that seems to be inconvinient, like complaining permanently on the weather, or how bad everyone is, or how bad life in general is.

Its very more like Dumbledore having a friendly and open attidtude towards "everything" in his life rather than Voldemort having a grudge against everyone who does not as HE pleases.

That "having to live life over and over again" wouldn't that imply that you make your life as easy as you can and that doesn't seem to be very "positive" in regard to a hole life.

Maybe I just have to sleep it over :)

Sabine

[FlyingPhoenix]

Great! Aren't we special?????
Yup, we are special :rotfl:


hmmmmmmmm I'm not quiete sure ... maybe FlyingPhoenix can help me out with this. I look for a translation for the word "lebensbejahend" which is translated in the dictionary as "positive" and seems to me not quite satisfying ....

Its not exactly how I would look at it "lebensbejahend" is a dangerous word if we look at it with two views. "lebensbejahend" means that you have a positive or rather encouraged view at life. No matter what you have to life through you are happy to life. You know like you are on your knees but still say Yes to your life. Or if you are alone and life is bad though you love your life you still say Yes to your life never give up.
Thats the exact meaning of "lebensbejahend" which means if we translate it word by word "Yes to life". But I like to see it more complete. You know more as lifecircle. This word "lebensbejahend" reminds me infact of something bad. This guys who can't accept there exist dead. Voldemort is such a guy who can't accept it. But you could argue if Voldemort accept even life itself this means the lifecircle and include dead in that case he don't. And he isn't someone who agree to life, someone who is not "lebensbejahend".

[Terrilein]

lebensbejauend can be translated into "life affirming", but in some of the instances here, it's an awkward translation. I agree with FP on Voldemort:it's not so much that Voldemort craves life for any life affirming reasons/acts. I'm not so sure he's even afraid of death. Rather, I think he's a power addict and the only way to achieve more power (as far as we know as demonstrated by Voldemort's behavior) is by staying alive. I mean, what can a dead Voldemort achieve as a ghost or poltergeist??? What does he *really* want anyway? I don't buy the immortality spiel.

[jordmundt6]

Nice theroy on Metamorphing Jess, but you gotta remember that the ability to be a Parselmouth is inherited and Voldemort is the only one in 900 years from Slytherin's line to pass through Hogwarts with that skill. What if this talent skips generations like Seeing? Still--that'd be very interesting.

I'd like to bounce a very popular (read as oft-debated) theory off y'all, one which I'm inclined to favor. It's the "awful boy" = Snape theory. I bet you have a few pages back there somewhere dealing with this but I thought I'd recycle it to facilitate discussion.

1. Petunia heard someone she describes as "that awful boy" telling Lily about Dementors when Lily was school-aged.

2. Lily wasn't really on good speaking terms with any of the Marauders until sixth year and she and James weren't close enough to start visiting each others' houses until at least 7th year (they didn't start dating until then). This rules out any of the Marauders as the conveyor of that piece of information.

3. Snape had a very poor home life--Snape's father abused Snape's mother at least vocally, quite often. Given her cowering posture, I'd say it's safe to assume that it got physically violent on occassion.

4. The memory of Snape's house and room are both of small barren places, the house he remembers seems devoid of books.

5. Yet, he came into his First Year knowing more Curses than half the kids in 7th Year. If he wasn't exposed to book knowledge (and it appears he wasn't or wasn't very much) where did he learn all that? A possible and (I think) likely answer

6. Snape learned what the curses looked and sounded like from watching his parents.

7. Also, he learned to use them for his own and his mother's protection.

Which brings us to the part with absolutely no evidence (yet).

8. At some point it could have come to a showdown between father and son, and if it didn't perhaps once Papa went too far.

9. Either way, the resultant struggle produced injuries so severe that even the Victorian code of Wizard Britain ground into action.

10. Someone in the Snape family was arrested for magical assault on a family member, or, if it got bad enough, murder.

11. The penalty for this crime was a short stretch in Azkaban.

12. Assuming Papa went to jail and Mama went to St. Mungo's for an extended stay relatively early in Severus' school career, at least one summer he needed a place to stay.

13. He stayed with a friend--Lily Evans.

Which brings us back to the books.

14. Severus had a hard time fitting in at Hogwarts and would have turned to whoever stretched out a kind hand. Lily has an amazing capability for doing that and their mutual magical intellgience and differing backgrounds give them a lot to talk about. They become--possibly--study partners and friends.

15. When Severus needs a place to stay over the holidays, Lily invites him to her house and though Severus is out of his element he's welcomed kindly by Mr. and Mrs. Evans, though his temper and odd ways quickly get him into trouble with Petunia.

16. At some point, Lily and Severus have a long chat about his parents and Petunia, unable to control her curiosity, catches a snippet of it. She's discoverd, reprimanded, and forced to leave, but the information she gets (as unspecific as it is) is intriguing and she holds onto it.

17. A few years later things get serious. As a friend Lily has often come to Severus' rescue when besieged by the Marauders but in spite of her moral stance, she can't help being entertained by James.

18. Severus who's come to depend on the friendship more and more and possibly sees possibilities for it (i.e. he develops a Ron-esque crush on Lily) becomes more and more threatened by this.

19. By the end of fifth year Severus feels he should be able to take care of himself and being embarrassed in front of Lily, the girl that he, like James, would most like to impress, is too much.

20. He throws every vile thing he's ever thought or felt or heard at his attackers (James and Sirius) and can't even try to flip the maturity switch when Lily shows up (as James can). He throws some of his frustration at her and for the only time in the books, calls her a Mudblood, the worst insult he, as a pureblood, knows.

21. Lily isn't offended for herself (she has a very Hermione-esque view of the "blood" issue, as well she might) but she knows what the insult means to Severus. She quits defending him then and there and stops trying so hard to fight James' appeals.

22. Severus apologizes at some future date or never figures out how. In any case, he never does anything like that again but the damage is done.

23. Given the opening, James charms his way into Lily's heart, giving Severus another reason to hate him.

24. Severus never again disparages Lily, and this goes unnoticed even by his fellow DEs. He intervenes to try to pay his blood debt to James and protect Lily by becoming a spy and relaying Voldemort's choice of Harry over Neville to Dumbledore.

25. His attempt backfires.

Which brings us to where we are today.

I thought I'd repost my theory on Severus and Lily with two small additions.

1. During the incident by the lake after OWLS, Snape is directing all of his venom at James and Sirius. He only snapped the insult when James brought up how lucky "Snivellus" was that "Evans" was there. It was designed more to make James take him seriously than to hurt Lily.

2. Notice something, this is Snape's memory and we know how volatile he can be around James, but after Lily severs ties with him and walks away, he seems to be completely absent from the scene. He says nothing. He doesn't react at all to James pointing a wand at his chest and demanding an apology. He's lost his voice entirely. The stream of curses, obscenities, and threats has disappeared and does not reappear when James repeats his humiliating tactic. It seems almost like Severus doesn't care about the physical humiliation. Hmm. Why would that be?

[sindatur]

Hi Jormundt,

I've often pondered wether James was "That awful boy" or not. I am leaning towards it not being James, however, why do you believe that the fact that James and Lily wouldn't have dated until 7th year, means the Marauders couldn't be. Is that because we are assuming Petunia is older, and therefore would've already married Vernon?

In your scenario, I have a feeling that Petunia would sympathize with Snape though, and see James and the Marauders as the bad guys.

[jordmundt6]

Okay here's the thing. Lily abhorred James' attitude and shunned him personally at least until the end of their fifth year. It took a year of growing up on his part before she trusted him enough to go out with him. From the phraseology, I got the impression that whoever Petunia meant as "the awful boy" was someone she didn't know or know of that much. As I said earlier I see her saying more "I heard HIM tell HER about them years ago." "Awful boy" to me signals someone younger than a legal adult. Petunia may be older than Lily, but she's certainly not THAT much older. Lily wouldn't have gotten to know the Marauders until the last year of school and they'd all be adults. I'd say there's a good chance Petunia would have been married by Lily's 7th year. But there's another factor. Putting it any earlier than that--If she shunned James, she saw Sirius as worse. She wouldn't have considered Pettigrew at all. And I don't think Lupin would have permitted himself a visit of any lenght whatsoever with a school friend (and there's no evidence that they were school friends) without taking serious werewolf precautions.

As to the other query--Why would Petunia see Severus as a kindred spirit? Until adulthood, he looks and acts like her absolute worst nightmare of a wizard. And he has a--shall we call it a prickly disposition in general? Unless she were open and determined not to be initially put off, it's extremely unlikely she would have liked him at all. In fact, "that awful boy" seems to be a very apt description of Petunia's opinion of Severus as a boy, if they ever met.