Layers in Harry Potter VI: Next Generation

[whizbang121]

Welcome to the new Layers VI thread.

Now where were we? Hmmm......

[scouse_7]

Whats this thread about? :huh:

[Machiavelli]

Whats this thread about? :huh:
Anything and everything... and you only have thousands of threads to read to figure it out!

Just read a bit of the last version of layers and you'll soon catch on. It's a great place.

I just replied (probably at too much length) on the last thread and I hope it doesn't get lost...

[whizbang121]

This thread is for the discussion of the "Layers" in JKR's Harry Potter in its third incarnation.



Here is a good link about Spartan life, with an excerpt about the wittiness of the Spartans. That is certainly a big part of the Harry Potter books!

http://www.e-classics.com/lycurgus.htm

Quote:

--Their sayings were so sharp and pertinent that the Spartans were more famous for their wit than for their prowess as soldiers and athletes. Even though at war and in sports they were by far the best in Greece, intellectual exercise was considered to be the essence of the Spartan way of life. From an early age, they learned to pack many layers of meaning into a few words -- and, more importantly, when to speak and when to shut up.

JKR has mastered this Spartan art. :agree: Her interviews seem to be the outermost layer. The rest is up to us. As Purplehawk says, we're the onion slicers.:huh:

JKR has woven so many layers into these books. She is amazing. So far we've seen alchemy, astrology, celtic and druid belief and mythology, greek and roman history and mythology, herbology, sociology, Jungian psychology and archtypes, European history, runes, wicca, word puzzles, fantastical beasts, obsession with sports involving balls and the careful choice of names all woven together. What have I missed? I don't think she missed very much at all. No doubt they will discover Atlantis and Lemuria in book six and travel to a galaxy far, far away in book seven! It wouldn't surprise me to find elements of John's Revelation represented in HP, as well.

Edit: I forgot Shakespeare. Sorry.

Anything and everything... and you only have thousands of threads to read to figure it out!

I just replied (probably at too much length) on the last thread and I hope it doesn't get lost...
cut and paste it Mach. No penalty. :agree:

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for the kind permish! Now I feel terribly self indulgent though...
Originally Posted by barmy codger
You have mentioned this outlook before and I would think it must limit your reading experience. Ms Sayers' view is incomplete because it separates the author and reader. We are all part of humanity and therefore share the universal experience of being human. This shows up in many ways and not always consciously. So even if Ms Rowling weren't deliberately employing symbols so much in her work, many would surface anyway from her artist's intuition. But Ms Rowling is using symbols purposefully and they can't be ignored. Her concerns with life and death make the serpent significant, for example, and the patronus is not just a bit of clever imagery, as it involves both Harry and his father and the Christian emblem of the stag. You are free to look at things in the way you do, just as you allow others their perspectives, but I feel the symbolic level is an important element to the story and if you ignore it you are missing much of her message. Maybe like the difference between black and white and colour. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just suggesting a view that would enrich your experience.

Here's a thing about the Jungian idea of collective unconsciousness and its use of symbols.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~cgc/Culturesystem.html

Don't worry - I have a very rich world view! And I don't think this view separates the author from the reader because the author created the words the reader is experiencing. Essentially all these views are linked - very closely linked of course! We are reading the same books, laughing at the same jokes, caring for the same characters. But I think the infinite numbers of theories and ideas that are presented just on this site alone are evidence that we create a unique experience for ourselves when we read. It doesn't make it a lonely experience - because on so many levels it is shared (and after all, that's what reading a book is isn't it? Sharing the creation of another person?) Just because the symbols so many of you find aren't important to me personally doesn't mean that I haven't had a rich experience of the book - just a different one! My personal symbols are just based on my experience and my philosophies - and sometimes they simply aren't relevent to the text itself. They are part of me though, and certainly that is part of my experience in reading this, and every other book I read.

I prefer my symbols covert rather than overt - I am like JRRT - I don't like analogy and I haven't since I was old enough to detect it. I like my story to be a story and to teach me or expand my view subtly. That's why I like Rowling - because I think she does that! What makes her so successful is that she also seems to reach you in the way you like to be touched, and you are finding her symbols overt and meaningful to you. I think that's terrific, and the mark of a good artist. But please, don't think that I am limited, or poor, or lacking in some way because I don't share your particular symbolic set. Just be pleased, as I am, that we can share some things about this experience, and learn from other's perspectives at the same time!

[whizbang121]

I understand what you mean. And those symbols and methods of interpretation are perfectly valid. But the Layers thread is a little more like trying to read JKR's mind to guess where the story is going, or rather, taking us. :D

[Machiavelli]

I understand what you mean. And those symbols and methods of interpretaion are perfectly valid. But the Layers thread is a little more like trying to read JKR's mind to guess where the story is going, or rather, taking us. :D
Exactly! And your guess is as good as (but not better than, mind you) mine!

I have been thinking about the Spartan stuff lately a lot. I still think the whole plot is trying to move Harry away from an essentially stoic philosophy toward one that accepts and embraces emotion - and throught that process controls it.

Or maybe you're thinking of Harry as the Spartan boy who allowed himself to be eaten by... was it a fox? Rather than cry out. Always thought that kid was a bit dim myself...

[Dedalus Diggle]

I think the difference is between the symbology that arises unbidden out of our common experiences and the sometimes ham-handed symbology that artists sometimes employ. The Forbidden Forest is both an actual interesting narrative device and it is a symbol, at the very leat of the unknown and going beyond our 'comfort zones'. I doubt JKR really thought about it is htose terms - she just needed a scary space that would have Harry testing his mettle early on. It was also useful in so many other ways. Sometimes the overt imagery canbe interesting, as in say pre-Renaissance moralistic iconography, and sometimes it can be a bore, as in Communist propaganda posters. Van Gogh appeals both on the 'feast of the senses' level and for the symbology which he almost certainly did not think through very calculatingly.

Sometimes, I find the attempts at interpretations of HP via various mythologies and allegories to be so painfully strained I cannot even finish reading posts. JKR certainly has an overall moral milieu for the books, and a major plot 'feature' which has been driving and guiding the books all along. But the 'this person + that mythic character' type of analysis if nothing else just appears to not fit the facts of canon.

[whizbang121]

I was thinking that JKR herself had mastered the spartan art of packing Layers of meaning into few words.

[ornjbreezy]

I think I'll just jump to connect a bit of what was happening in the last Layers thread to this one. Whiz, you were talking about the possibility of Harry being the reason that the Potter's house blew up on that last page, and I think that's really interesting. Now that you show us, there are many references to Harry 'blowing up' and that sort of thing.

What if Lily got in front of the AK aimed at Harry and died in his place. What if Harry, hearing his parents panic, seeing his mother killed in front of him, had an extreme emotional reaction? What if Harry initiated the strike at Lord Voldemort that should have killed him, but instead, because of the Dark Lord's immortality experiments, ripped him from his body, separated his life force from his consciousness, (leaving him "worse than dead") and plastered his life force on Harry's forehead transferring his powers and leaving the mark ......

.. Oh, and blew up the house.

Harry is a bomb. The twins are right. He's the weapon the Order is guarding.

And this could explain why no sign of the rebounded curse came out of Voldemort's wand. It wasn't Voldemort's curse that rebounded. It was Harry's.
That's interesting. But as others have said, is that strong of an emotional reaction even possible in a child that young? I don't think so, or at least Baby Harry wouldn't have been able to channel that kind of energy. And Harry is very emotional, so why wouldn't other things happen? I doubt that Dumbledore would simply put his emotional magic on hold, or erase it somehow.

On the other hand, that would be a good explanation as to why Harry is the One. I like the idea that Harry did something, and not Voldemort, because it's a nice twist. But really...I don't think he'd be able to unless he was older, i.e. if he went back in time as a teenager to save himself as a baby (I don't believe it to be the case, it's just an example.)

I, too, thought there was something more to the weapon thing the Order was guarding. But we know now that Harry really could have been the weapon- I mean, Voldemort possessed him and everything. Through Harry, the Dark Side managed to kill Sirius. And the Order would all sacrifice themselves for Harry, because they know he is the One (er...some of them at least.) But Harry being the bomb...I dunno. It's possible, and interesting, and slightly far-fetched, which at least makes for a good discussion! :agree:

[atherella]

Could we jump back to this discussion that we were having when the last thread ended? I was really interested in what others thought!! Here's a copy of whizbang's post

Originally Posted by Elder Granger
I might give Harry blowing up the house... Maybe... But, conjuring Avada Kedavra out of thin air because of the duistress of hearing his parents murdered (which at 15 months likely sounded very much like a scuffle)... I don't think so... Wandless magic is one thing, but, wandless Avada Kedavra? Geez, I hope not... Remember, Moody said that you have to mean an Unforgivable Curse, particularly Avada Kedavra... So, Harry intentionally killed Voldemort at 15 months? If he is just that powerful a wizard, why doesn't Malfoy start sprouting leeks out of his ears everytime Harry walks by him?

Whizbang - In the pensieve and in conversations with Sirius and Lupin, it seems clear that the decree for underaged wizardry wasn't much enforced during the marauders days at school. And Lily came home from school with pockets full of frog spawn and turning things into teacups. Also the rules about students doing magic in the outside of class also seems to have been created just for Harry's benefit. The impression is that while Harry's been off getting the magic unsuccessfully squashed out of him, most wizard children are blythely attempting magic without the minstry threatening to break their wands. Only Harry is straightjacketed when he's unsupervised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OotP, pg 143, scholastic
"We have no record of any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging other than Harry Potter," said Madam Bones at once. "That situation has always been closely monitored,given ... given past events."


Whizbang - What past events?! If no other witch or wizard is living in Harry's neighborhood, the ministry is only watching to see if Harry does magic. (This is why Harry took the rap when Dobby dropped the pudding.) Why is it so important to monitor Harry's magical activities? What are they afraid of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elder Granger

I actually like the idea that Harry, in some way, caused the house to explode... I don't think it is so much that Petunia actually knows, but, that all those references to Harry's ecplosion abilities are symbolic, or clues from JKR... Or something... Oh, I don't know... Humph!


Whizbang - Don't panic. It's just a theory. Very likely dead wrong. Did I mention lately that I came in third from last in the "predictions for book five" contest last year?

Hmmm, now that is interesting. During all of my readings, I always just assumed the situation was carefully monitored because of who Harry was, the fact that he is 'the boy who lived', and the potential for attack on him. I have never even considered it was monitored for a more, um, potentially 'sinister' reason.

*Off track question - Does the minister of magic (in this case Fudge) have access to what is contained in all of the prophecies in the MoM? Meaning, does he know what is in the prophecy concerning Harry? Would that be a reason to watch Harry and the area in which he lives more closely?

Back.. it is interesting to ponder whether the ministry watches the area in which Harry resides for other reasons.

If it were because Harry was 'super baby' with the ability to do all sorts of powerful magic at a young age, why would that mean that the area in which he lives and any wizards living there needed to be monitored?

[Machiavelli]

I think the difference is between the symbology that arises unbidden out of our common experiences and the sometimes ham-handed symbology that artists sometimes employ.

The Forbidden Forest is both an actual interesting narrative device and it is a symbol, at the very leat of the unknown and going beyond our 'comfort zones'. I doubt JKR really thought about it is htose terms - she just needed a scary space that would have Harry testing his mettle early on. It was also useful in so many other ways. Sometimes the overt imagery canbe interesting, as in say pre-Renaissance moralistic iconography, and sometimes it can be a bore, as in Communist propaganda posters. Van Gogh appeals both on the 'feast of the senses' level and for the symbology which he almost certainly did not think through very calculatingly.

Sometimes, I find the attempts at interpretations of HP via various mythologies and allegories to be so painfully strained I cannot even finish reading posts. JKR certainly has an overall moral milieu for the books, and a major plot 'feature' which has been driving and guiding the books all along. But the 'this person + that mythic character' type of analysis if nothing else just appears to not fit the facts of canon.
That's a good point. I like what you are saying about symbols being a buried factor in the narrative. I think that the reason what JKR is doing works is because she doesn't tie herself to absolutes in symbols - she uses common things that we all can relate to in some way, but doesn't overtly dictate that these elements have "one" meaning. The stag thing for example - there was mention of it as being - as an absolute - a Christian symbol. It certainly is, and perhaps that's what many Christians think of when they read "stag" - perhaps the vision of St. Eustace, hunting in the forest, pursuing the stag who becomes Christ and converts Placidus the pagan to Eustace the Christian. When that's pointed out, I can say "definitely", and into my mind comes the lovely "Vision of St. Eustace" by Pisanello at the National Gallery. But to a pagan perhaps the symbol would be more of Herne the hunter with his stag's horns and owl eyes - a powerful, but more dangerous image. To me however, stag will forever be a night in September, clear and dark, and a huge animal that burst through my campsite. What we can all agree on though, is the strength, speed, power and natural essence of the stag. Our differing views only enhance the understanding. To me James, Prongs, the Patronus is the most important thing and the symbolism is just a subliminal richness that subtly colours my impression of James without dictating what or who he "is."

[dcv]

I like the thought of Harry the Super Baby blowing up the house and Voldemort. The discussion so far has been about whether Harry, at 15 months old, could have the power to do something like that. I think it's more likely that Harry's power, combined with LV's, somehow reacted to blow up. Like a chemical reaction, I supposed, when two chemicals that shouldn't mix do. Harry's power and LV's power are incompatible in some way, and you get a massive explosion when they mix. (Could explain why Harry had the gut reaction that he shouldn't let the power beads - or whatever they were - from LV's wand get into his own wand in Priori Incantatem. He somehow knew that LV's power could not mix with his own.)

[Machiavelli]

I like the thought of Harry the Super Baby blowing up the house and Voldemort. The discussion so far has been about whether Harry, at 15 months old, could have the power to do something like that. I think it's more likely that Harry's power, combined with LV's, somehow reacted to blow up. Like a chemical reaction, I supposed, when two chemicals that shouldn't mix do. Harry's power and LV's power are incompatible in some way, and you get a massive explosion when they mix. (Could explain why Harry had the gut reaction that he shouldn't let the power beads - or whatever they were - from LV's wand get into his own wand in Priori Incantatem. He somehow knew that LV's power could not mix with his own.)
That's kind of an interesting idea... I wonder what would have happened then if Voldemort had managed to tag Harry with that AK spell in the MoM? Anybody want to weigh in on that? It would be nice to hear speculation on that from those who see Harry acting intentionally that night. And what about the Lily's protection camp? Does Voldemort sharing Harry's blood mean that he could now AK Harry with impunity? Voldemort certainly seems to think so...

[tjrih]

I guess that those posters with hungry babies or toddlers do not remember the tantrums that can be thrown when hungry! HAHA. I think that a 15 month old could be THAT mad. Maybe the room that the order was guarding is a room devoted to Harry. Maybe there are notes, charts, photographs, and so on, possibly relating to that fateful Halloween in Godric's Hollow and this day after when time is unaccounted for. Maybe the 'unspeakables' study Harry, and the MoM named them so because they do not want more attention drawn to Harry or wizards either using his uncontrollable energy or fearing Harry to the point that he is an outcast and resents the wizarding world, which could lead to that uncontrollable anger.

Maybe I am a dreamer.........

[ravenfeather]

so basically what it all boils down to is:

Ugly Baby vs. Super Baby?

:lol:

[ornjbreezy]

I guess that those posters with hungry babies or toddlers do not remember the tantrums that can be thrown when hungry! HAHA. I think that a 15 month old could be THAT mad. Maybe the room that the order was guarding is a room devoted to Harry. Maybe there are notes, charts, photographs, and so on, possibly relating to that fateful Halloween in Godric's Hollow and this day after when time is unaccounted for. Maybe the 'unspeakables' study Harry, and the MoM named them so because they do not want more attention drawn to Harry or wizards either using his uncontrollable energy or fearing Harry to the point that he is an outcast and resents the wizarding world, which could lead to that uncontrollable anger.

Maybe I am a dreamer.........I'd agree that babies and toddlers can get mad (I've seen plenty of proof of that) but I strongly doubt that a baby Harry could channel that anger in any way towards Voldemort. He wouldn't have known about his emotional magic, and I doubt he would have consciously willed with his emotion for the house to blow up.

About the unspeakables studying Harry, I doubt it, and am too tired to explain why. Maybe I will later.

On a different note...I wonder who knows about the prophecy. Obviously Harry and Dumbledore have heard the contents, and many other people know that it exists. How many other people have heard what it foretells? I doubt that all of the Order members do. Hagrid, for example, seems completely unaware of it. Does the Ministry have access to hear the prophecies just because they want to?

[ParselTongue]

I dont to much understand why Harry had to return to the Dursleys if Voldemort is already trying to AK him. So Voldy has a little Potter blood in him now, I assumed this was just so he could overcome the "cant touch potter" thing that destroyed Quarrel in ss/ps. So I guess Lilys protection is no longer on Harry but then why does he have to return to privett drive? I realy need to brush up on my reading.

[SilverStar]

Because the protection is still alive in Petunia somehow, and that's what's protecting Harry.

[ParselTongue]

What I mean is, whats the point if Voldy is currently trying to AK him. What protection does he recieve by going back to privett drive. I havent got the books handy with me to look it up right now.

[MagicMuggle]

What I mean is, whats the point if Voldy is currently trying to AK him. What protection does he recieve by going back to privett drive. I havent got the books handy with me to look it up right now.

Isn't it said in the fifth book that Harry has to return to Privet Drive to seal a protection charm that was placed upon him when he was very young by Dumbledore? Isn't that why Dumbledore sent Petunia the Howler to stop Vernon from kicking Harry out?

[tjrih]

I'd agree that babies and toddlers can get mad (I've seen plenty of proof of that) but I strongly doubt that a baby Harry could channel that anger in any way towards Voldemort. He wouldn't have known about his emotional magic, and I doubt he would have consciously willed with his emotion for the house to blow up.

In my opinion, Harry's rage can be uncontrollable.

About the unspeakables studying Harry, I doubt it, and am too tired to explain why. Maybe I will later.

I look forward to your thoughts.

On a different note...I wonder who knows about the prophecy. Obviously Harry and Dumbledore have heard the contents, and many other people know that it exists. How many other people have heard what it foretells? I doubt that all of the Order members do. Hagrid, for example, seems completely unaware of it. Does the Ministry have access to hear the prophecies just because they want to?

I dunno

[winter snow]

What I mean is, whats the point if Voldy is currently trying to AK him. What protection does he recieve by going back to privett drive. I havent got the books handy with me to look it up right now.

I think it's because Lily put a charm on Harry that rebounded the Avada Kedavra spell back at Voldermort. Dumbledore then sealed that magic and perhaps put a protection spell on the Dursley's house. Because Petunia shares the same bloodline as Lily, Harry is protected and the charm is recharged every time he goes back.

Maybe in the end, the Avada Kedavra Curse will be dodged by Harry, or he'll be able to conjure some items to place in front of him. I'm not sure I have an answer for that.

[whizbang121]

I think I'll just jump to connect a bit of what was happening in the last Layers thread to this one. Whiz, you were talking about the possibility of Harry being the reason that the Potter's house blew up on that last page, and I think that's really interesting. Now that you show us, there are many references to Harry 'blowing up' and that sort of thing.

That's interesting. But as others have said, is that strong of an emotional reaction even possible in a child that young? I don't think so, or at least Baby Harry wouldn't have been able to channel that kind of energy. And Harry is very emotional, so why wouldn't other things happen? I doubt that Dumbledore would simply put his emotional magic on hold, or erase it somehow. Things did happen in Harry's childhood at the Dursleys. But you're right, nothing of that magnitude. However, in Godric's Hollow, Baby Harry was looking at Voldemort. :agree:

And his age may have been an advantage. He was too young to think about what he was doing. Any reaction would have been primarily instinctive.

On the other hand, that would be a good explanation as to why Harry is the One. I like the idea that Harry did something, and not Voldemort, because it's a nice twist. But really...I don't think he'd be able to unless he was older, i.e. if he went back in time as a teenager to save himself as a baby (I don't believe it to be the case, it's just an example.) I actually don't hate that idea. The time travel scenarios interest me. Currently, my fave is that Ron at the point of death went back to become Dumbledore and Harry became Flamel. This is possibly why Dumbledore uses the phrase, "...more than headmaster and student." Is Harry the headmaster's best friend? And while we have been told more than once that the Dursleys are Harry's only family, there is definitely something special about the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore. In the graveyard, Voldemort acknowledged that he had to get Harry away from his relatives and out from under the crooked nose of the Hogwarts headmaster. And why couldn't Quirrell touch Harry at Hogwarts?
My guess is that there is some kind of a magic bond between them, like the life debt between Snape and James or Harry and Pettigrew, or the bond of blood created by Lily's sacrifice for her son. :huh: There's just so much we don't know about so many things.

But when Harry told Lupin during patronus lessons, that he heard his father's voice, Lupin expressed mild disbelief. :huh: Was it himself he heard and not his father? Just how much has time been tampered with?
I, too, thought there was something more to the weapon thing the Order was guarding. But we know now that Harry really could have been the weapon- I mean, Voldemort possessed him and everything. Through Harry, the Dark Side managed to kill Sirius. And the Order would all sacrifice themselves for Harry, because they know he is the One (er...some of them at least.) But Harry being the bomb...I dunno. It's possible, and interesting, and slightly far-fetched, which at least makes for a good discussion! :agree:
I was thinking about Voldemort possessing Harry in the MoM a little while ago. When Harry thought that he would be with Sirius again, and the positive feelings rose in him, Voldemort was expelled. Isn't that like the positive thoughts evoking the positive feelings that "fuel" for lack of a better term, a patronus? And don't the O.W.L. examiners give the impression that Harry's fully corporeal patronus
is remarkable for an adult wizard and amazing for a fifteen year old? The expulsion of Voldemort seems a similar process to producing a patronus and we know Harry's got that down. Even Snape said only a really powerful wizard could have produced such a patronus.

Switching computers.
http://websmileys.com/sm/animal/527.gif

[whizbang121]

*Off track question - Does the minister of magic (in this case Fudge) have access to what is contained in all of the prophecies in the MoM?
Meaning, does he know what is in the prophecy concerning Harry? Would that be a reason to watch Harry and the area in which he lives more closely? This is a good question. " ... and that's Bode and Croaker . . they're Unspeakbles . . "

"They're what?"

"From the Department of Mysteries, top secret, no idea what they get up to ..." Of course, the Minister of Magic may have more clearance than Arthur does in the DoM. :huh: Hard to tell.

If it were because Harry was 'super baby' with the ability to do all sorts of powerful magic at a young age, why would that mean that the area in which he lives and any wizards living there needed to be monitored? It would be reasonable to assume that the area is watched for Harry's protection. On the other hand, once Harry begins school, every spark that comes out of his wand is cause for alarm. When he blew Marge up, he expected to have his wand snapped. And the threatening owls from the Ministry in the beginning of OotP confirm those fears. If the ministry was monitoring his neighborhood to protect Harry, wouldn't someone have rushed out there to see what danger might be threatening him, instead of assuming that all magic was done by Harry and sufficient cause to snap his wand? ??? Somehow, it doesn't add up.

To me James, Prongs, the Patronus is the most important thing and the symbolism is just a subliminal richness that subtly colours my impression of James without dictating what or who he "is."

:) Bambi. Like his father before him, he became the Great Prince of the Forest when his time came.

Okay, I read Bambi at least once a year throughout most of my childhood and teens. :rolleyes: And you thought I had no soft spots. :lol:

I like the thought of Harry the Super Baby blowing up the house and Voldemort. The discussion so far has been about whether Harry, at 15 months old, could have the power to do something like that. I think it's more likely that Harry's power, combined with LV's, somehow reacted to blow up. Like a chemical reaction, I supposed, when two chemicals that shouldn't mix do. Harry's power and LV's power are incompatible in some way, and you get a massive explosion when they mix. (Could explain why Harry had the gut reaction that he shouldn't let the power beads - or whatever they were - from LV's wand get into his own wand in Priori Incantatem. He somehow knew that LV's power could not mix with his own.)
Wow. That's really good. :agree: Very reasonable. Hmmmm........

That's kind of an interesting idea... I wonder what would have happened then if Voldemort had managed to tag Harry with that AK spell in the MoM? Anybody want to weigh in on that? It would be nice to hear speculation on that from those who see Harry acting intentionally that night Terrifying thought. It might have killed Harry and left a crater. It may have killed them both.

It seems like, at least when he was young, Harry's wild magic wasn't "intentional." A magical outburst happened as a result, of a powerful emotional reaction. I doubt he could control it.

As Harry matures he's learning that control is possible and that some spells only work when the proper emotions are elicited by control of the thoughts, particularly the Ridikkulus and the Patronus. The unforgivable curses seem to require a certain mindset and emotional "fuel," as well. So an important part of Harry's education is learning to control his thoughts, (remember when he found out that Ron had been made prefect?) and his emotional responses in order to control and direct the considerable magical power at his disposal. If Harry blew up the house in Godric's Hollow, then external control becomes very important not only for Harry's survival, but everyone else's, too. Until Harry develops the self control, overcomes himself, produces a stone, however we choose to call it, and can master himself and his magical power, it seems like he needs protection not only from his enemies, but from himself, as well. This is why it was so important for his character to develop properly. If he had arrived at Hogwarts a "pampered little prince" ..... :wow: There would probably be another crater, and Harry would be the scourge of the planet.
And what about the Lily's protection camp? Does Voldemort sharing Harry's blood mean that he could now AK Harry with impunity? Voldemort certainly seems to think so...I think that the protection Harry got from Lily is unchanged. It only worked against Voldemort and only under Petunia's roof, if we have been correctly informed. Numerous owls to stay in the house after the dementor attack suggest this may be the case. So it's my guess that Voldemort could have touched Harry in the graveyard even without his blood.
Now why Harry is safe at Hogwarts is still to be considered. I think it's either Dumbledore or Hagrid.

I guess that those posters with hungry babies or toddlers do not remember the tantrums that can be thrown when hungry! HAHA. I think that a 15 month old could be THAT mad. You are so right on that count. A hungry tired toddler who isn't getting his/her way is like a loaded gun. Everyone jumps "fix" the problem and soothe the baby, or nobody sleeps! :lol:
Maybe the room that the order was guarding is a room devoted to Harry. Maybe there are notes, charts, photographs, and so on, possibly relating to that fateful Halloween in Godric's Hollow and this day after when time is unaccounted for. Maybe the 'unspeakables' study Harry, and the MoM named them so because they do not want more attention drawn to Harry or wizards either using his uncontrollable energy or fearing Harry to the point that he is an outcast and resents the wizarding world, which could lead to that uncontrollable anger. My impression was that the unspeakables study all the mysteries, but you may be right. And the name, "unspeakables." Like Voldemort, they are unnamed. :huh: If you're right, and Harry himself is the topic for study by the unspeakables, does Harry also have an unspeakable name? :huh:

Wasn't the Order guarding the time room/prophesy door? Curiously, no one was on duty when the teens went to rescue Sirius. How long had the door not been guarded? Since Arthur was attacked? And knowing Dumbledore's fears that Voldemort was trying to lure Harry to the DoM, again, was the Order protecting the prophesy? Or Harry? Were they there to keep Voldemort out? Or Harry? :huh:

Maybe I am a dreamer.........But you're not the only one :) Imagine.......

so basically what it all boils down to is:

Ugly Baby vs. Super Baby?

:lol::rotfl: Olympic event?

I dont to much understand why Harry had to return to the Dursleys if Voldemort is already trying to AK him. So Voldy has a little Potter blood in him now, I assumed this was just so he could overcome the "cant touch potter" thing that destroyed Quarrel in ss/ps. So I guess Lilys protection is no longer on Harry but then why does he have to return to privett drive? I realy need to brush up on my reading.Exactly! This is why I believe that Voldemort could have touched Harry in the graveyard even without his blood. The protection from Lily only works against Voldemort and only in Petunia's house. He was not only sent back, but when there was danger he was repeatedly instructed to stay in the house.

Obviously, Dumbledore believes the protection from Lily is intact and Voldemort has again, misunderstood what's going on. :)

parseltongue
parles tongue?

Where's Filia Tenebarum these days? These marathon posts were her specialty? ;)

[barmy codger]

I prefer my symbols covert rather than overt - I am like JRRT - I don't like analogy and I haven't since I was old enough to detect it.
It was allegory Tolkien disliked, at least according to his foreword in my copy of Lord of the Rings. If you share his view maybe you can explain his reasons. I've always been puzzled by it and wondered whether to take him at his word, since he was a scholar of medieval literature and allegory is a big feature of it.
I think that the reason what JKR is doing works is because she doesn't tie herself to absolutes in symbols - she uses common things that we all can relate to in some way, but doesn't overtly dictate that these elements have "one" meaning. The stag thing for example - there was mention of it as being - as an absolute - a Christian symbol.
When I said the stag was a Christian symbol I did not mean it in an absolute sense. Of course it has broader references and those all may resonate in the reader's mind. The stag, like the basilisk, the unicorn, the bezoar, etc are medieval images, and being so combine magic and Christianity -a useful thing for a story of magic that is also a moral tale, as Ms Rowling has said it is. I think you underestimate her. In my opinion her presenting the stag, the patronus, and James in relation to Harry is quite deliberate, is very relevant to the story, and has little to do with your camping trip, although you are fortunate to have that impression to bring to your reading.

The Forbidden Forest is both an actual interesting narrative device and it is a symbol, at the very leat of the unknown and going beyond our 'comfort zones'. I doubt JKR really thought about it is htose terms - she just needed a scary space that would have Harry testing his mettle early on.
Once again, in my opinion, you are underestimating the author. Jane Austen's novels, for example, are devoid of symbols. In contrast, it's readily apparent they abound in Harry Potter. They are part of Ms Rowlings vocabulary and she is a careful writer who will rewrite a chapter several times to get it the way she wants.

[mirna_weasley]

Hai I'm new studies in Gryffindor. Could you tell me when the book of six realised? thank u.

[Drusilla]

I'd agree that babies and toddlers can get mad (I've seen plenty of proof of that) but I strongly doubt that a baby Harry could channel that anger in any way towards Voldemort. He wouldn't have known about his emotional magic, and I doubt he would have consciously willed with his emotion for the house to blow up.

I don't think it was Harry who made the house blow up-I've always thought that the collapse of the Potters' house was caused by Voldemort's separation from his powers. Think about it-all that negative energy from the Dark Magic he possessed, getting loose as a result of the failed curse that hit him-it'd be more than enough to flatten any house, particularly in the absence of another living being in the house that night.
So, my breakup of events is as follows:
1) Voldemort, after killing Lily Potter, turns his wand on Harry and performs the Killing Curse.
2)The curse fails to kill Harry, since his mother, moments before, had tried to stop Voldemort from killing her son and died defending him, activating a protection that extended far beyond her death.
3)It then rebounds onto its originator, separating him from his body and powers: however, it fails to kill him.
4)In the absence of another living being, the curse (which would've probably killed anything alive in the house after it couldn't kill Voldemort-after all it's supposed to kill) rebounds onto the Potter's house. Combined with this,we have all the destructive energy from Voldemort's assorted evil powers, and on its own the rebounded curse would've done a fair bit of damage, but combined with the separated powers, it destroys the house-Harry doesn't die as a result of this, he's well protected by the ordinary-accident-immunity all magic-capable children seem to have.

That's it, really. Sorry if the language isn't the greatest, I'm just dead tired. But I got a post in on the first page of a Layers thread, so yay!

[whizbang121]

Hai I'm new studies in Gryffindor. Could you tell me when the book of six realised? thank u.:( We would dearly love to know. Ms Rowling is expecting another baby and is at least half way through book six. So no hint yet for a release date.

I don't think it was Harry who made the house blow up-I've always thought that the collapse of the Potters' house was caused by Voldemort's separation from his powers. ... all that negative energy from the Dark Magic he possessed, getting loose as a result of the failed curse that hit him-it'd be more than enough to flatten any house, ...
So, my breakup of events is as follows:
1) Voldemort, after killing Lily Potter, turns his wand on Harry and performs the Killing Curse.
2)The curse fails to kill Harry, since his mother, moments before, had tried to stop Voldemort from killing her son and died defending him, activating a protection that extended far beyond her death.
3)It then rebounds onto its originator, separating him from his body and powers: however, it fails to kill him.
4)In the absence of another living being, the curse (which would've probably killed anything alive in the house after it couldn't kill Voldemort-after all it's supposed to kill) rebounds onto the Potter's house. Combined with this,we have all the destructive energy from Voldemort's assorted evil powers, and on its own the rebounded curse would've done a fair bit of damage, but combined with the separated powers, it destroys the house-Harry doesn't die as a result of this, he's well protected by the ordinary-accident-immunity all magic-capable children seem to have.

I got a post in on the first page of a Layers thread, so yay!
:clap:
That would seem to be the most accepted explanation. But we still have the question of why nothing of this curse came out of Voldemort's wand in the graveyard.
As for Lily's protection, Puplehawk pointed out that Voldemort couldn't touch Harry. He mentions that this was true even in Godric's Hollow. And back in the graveyard, he makes a big deal out of the fact that he can touch Harry.
I'm not sure if Lily's protection would even protect Harry from the AK. I think there's more to Harry himself than we understand, yet.

Of course, there's the possibility that Lily did get a dose of Elixir of Life into him at some point. There seem to be some hints from JKR's website that might suggest this possibility.

[Machiavelli]

It only worked against Voldemort and only under Petunia's roof, if we have been correctly informed. Numerous owls to stay in the house after the dementor attack suggest this may be the case. So it's my guess that Voldemort could have touched Harry in the graveyard even without his blood.
Hmmm... I sort of thought there were two protections at work - because in PS Quirell couldn't touch Harry at Hogwarts since he was sharing his body with Voldemort and was personally so nasty. Dumbledore's statement at the end of GOF seems to confirm that when he says that Voldemort has overcome that particular obstacle. The Dursley's house protection seems to be different and still functional, and non-specific against Voldemort since he says "even I" cannot attacke Harry at the Dursley's house. Also, Dumbledore says he performed that charm because he was concerned about active DE, not necessarily the incapacitated Voldemort. However, don't ask me how that's supposed to work since it seemed to me that both protections should be broken as they are both blood connected!

It was allegory Tolkien disliked, at least according to his foreword in my copy of Lord of the Rings. If you share his view maybe you can explain his reasons. I've always been puzzled by it and wondered whether to take him at his word, since he was a scholar of medieval literature and allegory is a big feature of it.
You're absolutely right, and I can only plead that I meant allegory and typed analogy in a fit of insanity. I can't speak for JRRT of course, but what I understand of his writing, and what he says about allegory, is that he disliked the dictation of allegory - everything in the story has a one-to-one relationship and the meaning is strictly defined. Actually, he was a philologist - he was an expert in the history and development of language - and his area of expertise was not medieval literature as it is often understood, but very early literature of what is sometimes termed the Dark Ages. He studied Beowulf, the Ancrene Wisse, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and other texts. He felt that often the elements we as modern readers take as allegorical - elves, dragons, monsters etc - were to the people of the time anything but. He felt that at the time those works were written there was a very practical, cultural meaning to those words that all the listeners would understand, and that none of them would be sitting at the fireside thinking "Ah, he said dragon which means uncontrolled bestiality" or whatever, instead they would think of an enormous beast and the underlying sense of terror, uncontrolled power etc would be part of that thought but not dominant. Allegorical writing - such as the Romance of the Rose and later Spencer's Fairy Queen he actually disliked quite a bit. In his view those works are fairly late, nearly modern and beyond what to him was the most exciting time of literature. Now, to be fair it has to be pointed out that he himself wrote an allegorical story called Leaf by Niggle!

When I said the stag was a Christian symbol I did not mean it in an absolute sense. Of course it has broader references and those all may resonate in the reader's mind. The stag, like the basilisk, the unicorn, the bezoar, etc are medieval images, and being so combine magic and Christianity -a useful thing for a story of magic that is also a moral tale, as Ms Rowling has said it is. I think you underestimate her. In my opinion her presenting the stag, the patronus, and James in relation to Harry is quite deliberate, is very relevant to the story, and has little to do with your camping trip, although you are fortunate to have that impression to bring to your reading.
Yes, they are all medieval, but they are not being used the way a medieval writer would - with a deliberate and overt allegorical reference. Again, I am not underestimating JKR, I'm admiring her skills. I enjoy the fact that there are layers to her writing, and that she is subtle enough in her use that different meanings can be found by different people. If I thought she was saying stag=christ, basilisk=devil then I would be less impressed since in my opinion allegory is a fairly limited method of writing. And of course I know that my personal impression of stags is irrelevent to anyone else (well, anyone who wasn't there with me) - that is my point! We all have acquired through experience different impressions, often multiple impressions, of many of these things and therefore our reading of "stag" or "snake" will be enhanced by those impressions in a unique way (while still sharing the overall cultural ideas that we often share). So yes, she could be deliberately relating the stag and Harry with a Christian intention - but she isn't so crude as to make it absolute. A tale can be moral without having the moral be the dominant factor - in fact it's better if it isn't.
Once again, in my opinion, you are underestimating the author. Jane Austen's novels, for example, are devoid of symbols. In contrast, it's readily apparent they abound in Harry Potter. They are part of Ms Rowlings vocabulary and she is a careful writer who will rewrite a chapter several times to get it the way she wants.
Actually, Austen uses symbols all the time, but they aren't the same kind of symbols. Austen uses things that anyone of her time would recognize as being symbolic of the types of people and places she is depicting. She is very subtle with them, but they are certainly there and make the enjoyment of the books much richer. Symbols don't have to be religious - they can be very modern and strictly secular and Austen's are. Take a look some time at the things around various characters - their settings, what they carry or have around them. It's very well done.

[Drusilla]

But we still have the question of why nothing of this curse came out of Voldemort's wand in the graveyard.
I thought it was because the curse failed. It didn't do what it was supposed to do, i.e. destroy completely the thing/person it was aimed at.
About Lily's protection-I thought Harry still has it-didn't Dumbledore say so in OotP? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have my copy here to check.

[offca]

Hmm… a new thread! I am so proud – I am a member of Layers for one full edition! Wonder how many to go ;-)

You were mentioning a few times Quirell who couldn't touch Harry. What is interesting, that he did touch him! When they first met in Leaky Cauldron – Quirell shakes Harry hand. I do not have my English PS, only Polish translation, but I am sure the translator wouldn't put whole new sentence!
Why Quirell couldn't touch – or rather that Harry's touch was lethal to him – only in the end?

About the Super Baby – we’ve heard about some stuff Harry did – nothing special.. but still – what Dudley saw during Dementors attack? Maybe some extremely powerful reaction of Harry, when they were toddlers?
But we see many times Harry is so angry, almost in rage – and nothing happens.
The idea of mixing powers makes a lot of sense – would explain why Harry now doesn't have such power.

Even if MoM is far from democracy (it is such strange way of governing! The minister can make a laws by himself, and no one seems to stop him! It is almost like an autocracy but over democratic society… strange) – I do not think Minister can see the prophecies. I believe the prophecies are under some strong spells, and truly no one but subject can touch them.
How do they get there btw? Maybe they just kind of appear there in moment when prophecy is being said?


there is definitely something special about the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore.
Fore sure there is – and I do not see anything special in it. DD knew parents, and knew the prophecy – and knew all the tragic childhood of Harry. About how many other students DD has so many information? What other kid has such special history? What other kid was observed by 11 years? From the very beginning DD makes this special relationship – which is more than just Headmaster and student – they have a few private, intimate talks, Harry talks his feelings, DD explains and worries :)
Remember the reaction of some first year kid during Xmas party, when DD address him asking if he wants some sausages? Most of the kids never had spoken a word with DD! And for sure Harry also cares about DD – just all this sad words in OotP – he feels he is abandoned, and if he had any feelings to DD – he wouldn't really care. There is strong relationship between them – maybe not like father-son, but at least grandson-grandfather.

[whizbang121]

The stag, like the basilisk, the unicorn, the bezoar, etc are medieval images, and being so combine magic and Christianity -a useful thing for a story of magic that is also a moral tale, as Ms Rowling has said it is. I think you underestimate her. In my opinion her presenting the stag, the patronus, and James in relation to Harry is quite deliberate, is very relevant to the story, and has little to do with your camping trip, although you are fortunate to have that impression to bring to your reading.
Good points, Barmy.

The many ways to interpret and enjoy HP is part of the wonder of it all. The first time through, I love to just read them for the story, and as I go, I find personal symbols and react to the books from my own reference points. James animagus' and Harry's patronus immediately brought my emotional memories of Bambi and his father to the surface of my awareness. (Salten, not Disney.) And maybe we could pick those symbols apart, too, even though I cherish Bambi on an emotional, almost nonverbal level. It's a book I prefer to experience and "live in" rather than analyse. So I understand that approach to HP. And I agree that it's a rich, valuable and valid way to internalize Rowling's work. :agree:

On the other hand, it's also interesting to try and read JKR's mind and look for the hints she says she has woven into the story. It's exactly as Barmy says about listening to Mozart.

My original intention for Layers was a thread to uncover JKR's reference points and study them on the various levels she presents. (I know a whole lot more about Alchemy and Egyptian mythology, for example, than I did before I joined CoS.) Topics in Layers do wander around, and that's just how it is. But the purpose is to try and see through the author's eyes, observe her process and try to imagine where she's leading us. A bit of legilimency. :eyebrows:
I don't want to guess the ending. That would just be sad. But it is also fun to read HP as methodically as Rowling writes it.

[Serpentine]

Wow, yet another Layers thread! Dear me, this is moving fast. :D

You were mentioning a few times Quirell who couldn't touch Harry. What is interesting, that he did touch him! When they first met in Leaky Cauldron – Quirell shakes Harry hand. I do not have my English PS, only Polish translation, but I am sure the translator wouldn't put whole new sentence!
Why Quirell couldn't touch – or rather that Harry's touch was lethal to him – only in the end?

Good question. It's here in my UK edition too - PS/SS, Bloomsbury, p.55:

'P-P-Potter,' stammered Professor Quirrell, grasping Harry's hand, 'c-can't t-tell you how p-pleased I am to meet you.'

Not only does he touch him, he even initiates it himself - it's not an accidental touch or Harry touching him. :huh:

As for the MoM, there's a good essay on MuggleNet about the wizarding political system: Ministry of Magic as the Authoritarian State (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-dave.shtml)
Definitely worth the read. :tu:

There's also an interesting British heraldic source which features HP-creatures like dragons, unicorns, griffins etc.
http://www.heraldryunlimited.com/world/monsters/dragons.htm
Features dragons, wyverns, basilisks, and salamanders.
http://www.heraldryunlimited.com/world/monsters/harmless_monsters.htm
Features the unicorn, the mermaid, and the centaur.
http://www.heraldryunlimited.com/world/monsters/winged.htm
Features the griffin, the phoenix, the pegasus, and "other winged creatures" (those attributed to the four Evangelists).

[Machiavelli]

On the other hand, it's also interesting to try and read JKR's mind and look for the hints she says she has woven into the story. It's exactly as Barmy says about listening to Mozart.
I agree, and that's why this thread is such fun. I just think we sometimes disagree on what the intention is! I mean, people have uncovered things that certainly have valid meanings in various myth cycles... but I don't always agree that that was JKR's intention when she mentioned that particular thing. I guess, I'm just asking for a little softness when these ideas are presented. I have sometimes been scolded (gently) for questioning "fact" when I would argue there isn't enough evidence to state that absolutely. I admit, I'm abitrary in what I do and do not agree with, as are we all. But let's keep room for everyone!

JKR has method, and her style of writing is just as important as what she writes. I like to look at the hints that have already been played out to see what kind of hint she likes to lay and how she lays it. She doesn't always use much outside information - she rather weaves hints into the plot that depend on internal evidence. The other stuff is great fun, and enhances the experience, but it's not always pertinent as far as hints go.... not always anyway... tricky woman that JKR!

[atherella]

You were mentioning a few times Quirell who couldn't touch Harry. What is interesting, that he did touch him! When they first met in Leaky Cauldron – Quirell shakes Harry hand. I do not have my English PS, only Polish translation, but I am sure the translator wouldn't put whole new sentence!
Why Quirell couldn't touch – or rather that Harry's touch was lethal to him – only in the end?

Perhaps it has to do with the intention of whomever it is that is touching Harry. At the time that Quirrell touched Harry in the LC, Voldemort wasn't yet attached to his head. (As Quirrell stated that LV didn't feel the need to 'watch him closer' until after he failed to steal the SS). So, at that point, even though Quirrell was definitely in service for LV, he didn't mean Harry any particular harm at that specific moment. I'm not sure I'm being clear. If someone means Harry specific harm, then they wouldn't be able to touch him, like when Vernon tried to strangle Harry and it mentions a jolt he got. Of course, that still doesn't explain why Voldemort was able to touch him in the graveyard, but it's all I can really come up with. I'm sure there had to be other times that Vernon was able to touch Harry without meaning him bodily harm. I doubt he went through 10 years with him in the house without ever touching him. (What amazes me so much is that Harry really turned out as well as he did without having any particular nurturing as a child.)

About the Super Baby – we’ve heard about some stuff Harry did – nothing special.. but still – what Dudley saw during Dementors attack? Maybe some extremely powerful reaction of Harry, when they were toddlers?

I can't WAIT to find out what Dudley 'saw' during the dementor attack. It has to be something significant since JKR wont' give us any hints other than saying 'you'll find out later' what it was. I like the idea that it has something to do with things Harry may have done as a small child. We know Harry doesn't always remember past events from his childhood. When he is having the Occlumency lessons with Snape, he mentions that he had to relive events that he didn't even recall until he 'saw' them when Snape entered his mind. (Kind of creepy really). I have a nasty suspicion it won't be until book 7 though. Same with all the unanswered Petunia questions.

Even if MoM is far from democracy (it is such strange way of governing! The minister can make a laws by himself, and no one seems to stop him! It is almost like an autocracy but over democratic society… strange) – I do not think Minister can see the prophecies. I believe the prophecies are under some strong spells, and truly no one but subject can touch them.
How do they get there btw? Maybe they just kind of appear there in moment when prophecy is being said?

Good point. We have an entire ministry, yet Fudge can pass all those ridiculous laws without anyone being able to do anything about it. Yikes! Remember we had 2 witches resign from the Wizengamot after Umbridge was appointed High Inquisiter in protest. I'm with them!!

I guess it makes sense really that Fudge isn't aware of the contents of the prophecy, or he might have behaved in a different manner, although one would think he should at least be aware of the existence of it. What a poor delusional man he really is. Sad almost, if he wasn't such a prat!! Good question how the prophecies get to the hall of prophecies. How is the keeper of the prophecies able to do his job, and s/he is aware of the contents, or just shoot up some little cleaning spells to dust them off? :lol:

I'm also curious if there is now another prophecy with Harry and LV's name on it - the one that Trelawney made during his exam in PoA. It seems there should be one, yet leads to the question of how they get there in the first place. Would it be up to Harry to report it as he was the one who overheard the prophecy being spoken, like when DD heard Trelawney's first prophecy?


From the very beginning DD makes this special relationship – which is more than just Headmaster and student – they have a few private, intimate talks, Harry talks his feelings, DD explains and worries :)
Remember the reaction of some first year kid during Xmas party, when DD address him asking if he wants some sausages? Most of the kids never had spoken a word with DD! And for sure Harry also cares about DD – just all this sad words in OotP – he feels he is abandoned, and if he had any feelings to DD – he wouldn't really care. There is strong relationship between them – maybe not like father-son, but at least grandson-grandfather.

I was so disappointed in OotP that we didn't see much of DD, and in particular interaction with Harry until the end. When he went to his trial and didn't even look at him, I just felt so sad. I adore DD, and hope we see a lot more interaction between him and Harry - and get to see him in action again. The visual images it presented when he was dueling with LV were pretty powerful. I can't wait to see that translated to the big screen. I just hope JKR has a trick up her sleeve to let him live - or at least if he dies, let it be in the epilogue of the last book and of old age. I hate the thought of him dying, although, I'm expecting it. Ever since reading about the possibility of Harry having a new pet, all I can picture is DD dying and Harry inheriting Fawkes. *sigh* :sad:

[whizbang121]

Hmmm... I sort of thought there were two protections at work - because in PS Quirell couldn't touch Harry at Hogwarts since he was sharing his body with Voldemort and was personally so nasty. Dumbledore's statement at the end of GOF seems to confirm that when he says that Voldemort has overcome that particular obstacle. The Dursley's house protection seems to be different and still functional, and non-specific against Voldemort since he says "even I" cannot attacke Harry at the Dursley's house. Also, Dumbledore says he performed that charm because he was concerned about active DE, not necessarily the incapacitated Voldemort. However, don't ask me how that's supposed to work since it seemed to me that both protections should be broken as they are both blood connected! Why Quirrell couldn't touch Harry at Hogwarts is still a mystery. This is how Dumbledore explained Harry's protection at the Dursleys.
"Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well - not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years."

... "You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so. Why could some wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honoured and delighted to raise you as a son.

"My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. Knowing what happened to the Longbottoms it's apparent why Dumbledore knew he had to get Harry out of the magical world. Wonder what safeguards Dumbledore took against DEs. Maybe something about the "put outer?" And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.

"I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power.

"But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative."

"She doesn't love me," ...

"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you."

... "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you. :huh: Maybe it would protect from an AK, as long as Harry was in the house.. Hmmm..... Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years."

... "I thought," said Dumbledore, inclining his head slightly, "that she might need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you. I suspected the Dementor attack might have awoken her to the dangers of having you as a surrogate son."

... "Five years ago, then," continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances.
The 'Blood Bond Shield" charm seems very specifically to protect Harry from Voldemort under Petunia's roof. So, why couldn't Quirrell touch Harry at Hogwarts? "But why couldn't Quirrell touch me?"
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves it 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. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good."
If we can take that at face value, why did Dumbledore do the Blood Bond Shield charm at all. Looks as if the protection in Harry's skin was working fairly well, though if Dumbledore hadn't arrived in time, Harry may well have perished anyway.
In GoF, Voldemort knew he had to seperate Harry from the Dursleys and from Dumbledore. Is there another charm at work that we haven't heard of yet, one that involves Dumbledore and Lily's sacrifice?


]

[Elder Granger]

I think the Blood Bond Sheild Charm (I love how we just name things, because they need a name) worked/works something like this... Initially the power in its basest for protected Harry from the inital AK... House blows up, Super Baby prevails over Ugly Baby and yada, yada, yada... Super Baby gets delivered to Dumbledore where the charm is solidified, and made permanent... At this point, Voldemort could neither touch, nor attack Harry AND he couldn't "get" him at the Dursley's either... (this is why Quirrel couldn't touch Harry, only when he was being possessed by LV) Once Harry's blood was used in the Volde-stew the touching (and possibly/probably attacking) part of the protection was negated... But, the safe at the Dursleys part remains... So, I think the question is... Now that Voldmort has protective Blood Bond Sheild Charmed Evans blood in him, if he were to go into the Dursleys house would HE be protected from himself? Hmmm... :rotfl: :eyebrows:

[swishandflick]

I've always considered the Blood Shield Charm to be more of a general thing. As in, not specifically relating to Harry being physically under Petunia's roof. Just that 'he calls that house home' not that he's actually in the house at all times for the charm to work. So it doesn't matter if Harry's at Hogwarts or at home because the protection is always with him.

[Machiavelli]

Why Quirrell couldn't touch Harry at Hogwarts is still a mystery.
Doesn't Dumbledore talk about that? He says that Quirrell couldn't bear to touch Harry because his mother's sacrifice was in his very blood - Quirrell was sharing his body with Vodlemort and couldnt' bear to touch Harry.

Wonder what safeguards Dumbledore took against DEs. Maybe something about the "put outer?" :huh: Maybe it would protect from an AK, as long as Harry was in the house.. Hmmm.....
I don't think so... it seemed to be a one-use instrument, and he loaned it to... was it Lupin or Moody?... in OotP who used it for the same purpose. I doubt it could "put out" a massive curse. And forgive me as I don't have the books near me, didn't Dumbledore say he acted to put the blood protection charm specifically because there were DE's running about still? I thought those were connected. He says while Harry can call the Dursley's house home, he cannot be harmed there - not that Voldemort alone can't hurt him, but that Harry cannot be harmed. I think it was more general than the Voldemort idea... but I don't have the quote so I can't back up my own assertions! If you have it - prove me wrong and I'll happily recant!

[Elder Granger]

Very true Machiavelli... I will adjust my statement accordingly...

AND he was safe at the Dursley's from harm in general...

[Masterfroggy]

I like the thought of Harry the Super Baby blowing up the house and Voldemort. The discussion so far has been about whether Harry, at 15 months old, could have the power to do something like that. I think it's more likely that Harry's power, combined with LV's, somehow reacted to blow up. Like a chemical reaction, I supposed, when two chemicals that shouldn't mix do. Harry's power and LV's power are incompatible in some way, and you get a massive explosion when they mix. (Could explain why Harry had the gut reaction that he shouldn't let the power beads - or whatever they were - from LV's wand get into his own wand in Priori Incantatem. He somehow knew that LV's power could not mix with his own.)

I just cannot see Harry as a super baby, he is powerful, and we understand that he is learning all the time, after the death of his parents he managed to perform lots of minor bits of magic, all unprompted, and to great effect. However making your hair grow or shrinking a horrid jumper/sweater, so it is too small to wear does not rank along side the power to obliterate a virtually immortal body. I mentioned this in one of the other layer threads, but the destruction of the house was down to Harry. His only part in it other than just being there was as a result of his old magic protection (given to him by his mother,)

If you fire a rifle, the tiny bullet leaves the end of the barrel with enough power to kill,
However, if you block the end of the barrel with a tiny cork, the energy from the rifle shell is trapped, and it is enough to destroy the hardened steel of the gun and destroy the person firing it as well.

Harry’s protection, afforded to him by his mothers willing sacrifice, was that cork, the power that The Dark Lord put into the killing spell (AK?) should have found some form of release as it touched the body of the intended victim (Harry) but it didn’t, it backfired and converted Voldemort in to energy. Some tiny bit of the ‘magical shrapnel’ gave Harry his scar, but the rest of the energy resulting from the mass to energy conversation, (Voldemort from living to almost dead) levelled the house, (due to the ballistic phenomenon known as the Bug-splat effect Harry was not harmed)

And as for the spell not showing up at the time of Priori Incantatem, does Priori Incantatem show all the spells or just the major or completed spells, I can not imagine Wormtail or the “Ugly child Voldemort :evil:” picking up a box of matches to light the fire at “Little Hangleron”, one of them would have used a wand, as it seems they only had one between them at the time, it would have been Voldemort’s. I prefer to think of Priori Incantatem showing all important spells, or such of them that have been completed successfully

[Machiavelli]

And as for the spell not showing up at the time of Priori Incantatem, does Priori Incantatem show all the spells or just the major or completed spells, I can not imagine Wormtail or the “Ugly child Voldemort :evil:” picking up a box of matches to light the fire at “Little Hangleron”, one of them would have used a wand, as it seems they only had one between them at the time, it would have been Voldemort’s. I prefer to think of Priori Incantatem showing all important spells, or such of them that have been completed successfully
I have to agree with you here - I think we know too little of how this spell works, or if you want to be precise, of how JKR envisions this spell working to base any major theories on the scene in the graveyard. I think it's just as likely that unsuccessful, or backfired spells don't show up as it is that the spell was never cast. That's why I assume, until more is known, that the statements by Dumbledore ... and I think others although I don't remember now ... that Voldemort's curse rebounded on him are true.

[offca]

Perhaps it has to do with the intention of whomever it is that is touching Harry. At the time that Quirrell touched Harry in the LC, Voldemort wasn't yet attached to his head. (As Quirrell stated that LV didn't feel the need to 'watch him closer' until after he failed to steal the SS). So, at that point, even though Quirrell was definitely in service for LV, he didn't mean Harry any particular harm at that specific moment. I'm not sure I'm being clear. If someone means Harry specific harm, then they wouldn't be able to touch him, like when Vernon tried to strangle Harry and it mentions a jolt he got. Of course, that still doesn't explain why Voldemort was able to touch him in the graveyard, but it's all I can really come up with. I'm sure there had to be other times that Vernon was able to touch Harry without meaning him bodily harm. I doubt he went through 10 years with him in the house without ever touching him. (What amazes me so much is that Harry really turned out as well as he did without having any particular nurturing as a child.)

Well, that's make a lot of sense. When I looked one more time – there is nothing about Quirell having a turban on his head in Leaky Cauldron! For sure Harry would say anything – it is very special and not typical. Quirell tried to steal the Stone same day in the evening – so in this moment he was still without his master.

I can't WAIT to find out what Dudley 'saw' during the dementor attack. It has to be something significant since JKR wont' give us any hints other than saying 'you'll find out later' what it was. I like the idea that it has something to do with things Harry may have done as a small child. We know Harry doesn't always remember past events from his childhood. When he is having the Occlumency lessons with Snape, he mentions that he had to relive events that he didn't even recall until he 'saw' them when Snape entered his mind. (Kind of creepy really). I have a nasty suspicion it won't be until book 7 though. Same with all the unanswered Petunia questions.

Most of ours memories from early childhood are pushed somewhere there, to the back of memory. Only something special makes them come back – like being in same place, or sometimes smell or occlumency lesson.


Remember we had 2 witches resign from the Wizengamot after Umbridge was appointed High Inquisiter in protest. I'm with them!!

But don't forget one of them was connected to some subversive goblin groups! :rotfl:


Good question how the prophecies get to the hall of prophecies. How is the keeper of the prophecies able to do his job, and s/he is aware of the contents, or just shoot up some little cleaning spells to dust them off? :lol:

I think they just keep everyone else out of this place. They cannot touch it, but what about "locomotor prophecy"?


I'm also curious if there is now another prophecy with Harry and LV's name on it - the one that Trelawney made during his exam in PoA. It seems there should be one, yet leads to the question of how they get there in the first place. Would it be up to Harry to report it as he was the one who overheard the prophecy being spoken, like when DD heard Trelawney's first prophecy?

I do not think there will be Harry's name on it… rather LV and Wormtail.

Now just remembered something… DD said that on the beginning the prophecy had a note "Dark Lord & ?" and only after Harry was attacked someone written down Harry's name – that would mean they must have know the meaning of prophecy! Maybe there are some spells put on them, that they cannot say a world about them? So they are "safe"?
I do not think Harry must report this prophecy – what if prophecy was made when no one was around? There must be some "objective" way of recording it.



I was so disappointed in OotP that we didn't see much of DD, and in particular interaction with Harry until the end. When he went to his trial and didn't even look at him, I just felt so sad. I adore DD, and hope we see a lot more interaction between him and Harry - and get to see him in action again.
I also couldn't believe the way DD was behaving in OotP – in such cynical way – without thinking about Harry's feeling, without any attempt to explain… anything – like an owl with :for our own safety we cannot see each other:
He was afraid that LV would feel Harry's warm feelings to him, but he could also feel Harry's anger, sorrow – and that kind of feelings say more about the deep appreciation and love! Ron's funny jealousy say more about his feelings to Hermione even if he doesn't know about them! We understand sometimes more thru negative describing that saying something straight.
DD in OotP behaves so much.. egocentric. He doesn't think about Harry's feelings, same as about Sirius's and Snape's – he seems to think everyone is like him, behaves same way, thinks same way…

[barmy codger]

On the other hand, it's also interesting to try and read JKR's mind and look for the hints she says she has woven into the story. It's exactly as Barmy says about listening to Mozart.
My reference to Mozart was in a post I deleted. What I pointed out was that Mozart's music could be enjoyed by most anyone as soon as it was heard, but a person with an understanding of composition would admire the music even more, and some of his work contained Masonic symbols which a knowledgeable person would enjoy at yet another level. And so it would be with Ms Rowling.

I'm still wondering about Jane Austen's symbols, whether or not they are anything more than props as opposed to the archetypes. So thanks, Machiavelli for the tip on what to study next.

The destruction of the Potter's house at Godric's Hollow easily could have been the result of the duelling. We saw all sorts of curses make a shambles of the Ministry of Magic and I don't see why it can't be the same from a duel between James and any Death Eater on hand and between James and Voldemort.

In the movie, if I remember right, Quirrell refrained from shaking hands with Harry when they first met. Maybe this is a correction that should have been applied to the book. But at the end of book 1 we had Quirrell say,'When I failed to steal the stone from Gringotts, he was most displeased. He punished me...decided he would have to keep a closer watch on me...' And immediately following we have 'Harry was remembering his trip to Diagon Alley ---how could he have been so stupid? He'd seen Quirrell there that very day, shaken hands with him in the Leaky Cauldron.' So the hand shaking wasn't an error. It's possible Voldemort wasn't fully possessing Quirrell somehow until after the break-in at Gringotts. It's also possible that Harry's protection is activated by Harry under duress and was not in effect when he first met Quirrell. Supposedly, Harry's blood in Voldemort negates that protection. Harry felt sure he would be killed in the graveyard in book 4. Dumbledore made an effort to deflect Voldemort's killing curse from Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Yet Voldemort was expelled when he possessed Harry

[Machiavelli]

My reference to Mozart was in a post I deleted. What I pointed out was that Mozart's music could be enjoyed by most anyone as soon as it was heard, but a person with an understanding of composition would admire the music even more, and some of his work contained Masonic symbols which a knowledgeable person would enjoy at yet another level. And so it would be with Ms Rowling.
True, as a musician I enjoy Mozart greatly, and my training has given me a deeper enjoyment. Although I am a string player, he isn't one of my favorite composers however because much of his work is fairly facile... brilliant, yes, but sometimes lacking depth. I exclude the Requiem obviously, Don Giovanni, and some other stuff.

I'm still wondering about Jane Austen's symbols, whether or not they are anything more than props as opposed to the archetypes. So thanks, Machiavelli for the tip on what to study next.
Really depends on what you mean my symbol. I mean "something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible" (not the best def, but close enough), rather than Symbol - something representing an important theme, idea, deity or religious concept, or even symbol as used in psychiatry i.e. an object a person uses to represent suppressed thoughts or feelings. So Austen is an excellent example of defenitions a. because she uses familiar objects as symbols of a person's character or social standing. She does not use them as major cultural references that draw the reader through layers of literary history. It may be a more trivial use of symbol than what you believe JKR is doing, but it is still valid symbology, and a rich literary tool.

In the movie, if I remember right, Quirrell refrained from shaking hands with Harry when they first met. Maybe this is a correction that should have been applied to the book. But at the end of book 1 we had Quirrell say,'When I failed to steal the stone from Gringotts, he was most displeased. He punished me...decided he would have to keep a closer watch on me...' And immediately following we have 'Harry was remembering his trip to Diagon Alley ---how could he have been so stupid? He'd seen Quirrell there that very day, shaken hands with him in the Leaky Cauldron.' So the hand shaking wasn't an error. It's possible Voldemort wasn't fully possessing Quirrell somehow until after the break-in at Gringotts. It's also possible that Harry's protection is activated by Harry under duress and was not in effect when he first met Quirrell. Supposedly, Harry's blood in Voldemort negates that protection. Harry felt sure he would be killed in the graveyard in book 4. Dumbledore made an effort to deflect Voldemort's killing curse from Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Yet Voldemort was expelled when he possessed Harry
Yes, in the movie Quirrell did refrain from the handshake, but he was also already wearing the turban which he did not do in the book. Harry remarks on the turban once he reaches Hogwarts, indicating that Quirrell has added this little number to his sartorial splendor. In the books Harry does shake hands with Quirrell and nothing happens because Volemort had not yet possessed him - that was Quirrell's punishment for failing at Gringotts. At least... that's what I read...

[barmy codger]

True, as a musician I enjoy Mozart greatly, and my training has given me a deeper enjoyment. Although I am a string player, he isn't one of my favorite composers however because much of his work is fairly facile... brilliant, yes, but sometimes lacking depth. I exclude the Requiem obviously, Don Giovanni, and some other stuff.
A lot of his music was just something to dance to and of course isn't going to be profound. The point of the reference isn't taste, for a similar thing could be said of Bach, it is to show that his major work succeeds on at least three different levels and the working at each level is deliberately done. And that is what I'm trying to say about Harry Potter, that the working at each level is deliberate.

[ornjbreezy]

The title 'unspeakable' is interesting simply in juxtaposition with Voldemort being known as 'he-who-must-not-be-named.' I understand that the title implies that they cannot speak of their work, but the unmentionable name is interesting.

Is it possible that any unspeakables are working for Voldemort? That would certainly give him an upper hand. Although, I suppose he doesn't really need one if he can use the Imperius Curse.

I wonder how much the unspeakables know...Do they work in specific areas, or do they all study everything (or a combination of things)? I would think there's some sort of protection guarding the information, or else knowledge of the prophecies could easily slip out.

It was the first day of school today. The thing that brightened my outlook on it the most is that it's Sep. 1st, the same day that Hogwarts starts! I kept imagining first years enjoying the train ride and feast...

So...tired. More....later...

[swishandflick]

I'm pretty sure Rookwood used to be an Unspeakable and he was a Death Eater. I think he escaped from Azkaban.

[Masterfroggy]

I'm pretty sure Rookwood used to be an Unspeakable and he was a Death Eater. I think he escaped from Azkaban.

GoF


"Rookwood?" said Mr. Crouch, nodding to a witch sitting in front of him, who began scribbling upon her piece of parchment. "Augustus Rookwood of the Department of Mysteries?"

Later on in OotP

'You are sure of your facts, Rookwood?' asked Harry.
'Yes, My Lord, yes . . . I used to work in the Department after — 'after all . . ."

Does that make him an unspeakable?

I know that Arthur tells Harry about unspeakables


... Arnold Peasegood, he's an Obliviator — member of the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, you know... and that's Bode and Croaker ... they're Unspeakables...."
"They're what?"
"From the Department of Mysteries, top secret…..

However, is everyone who works in the Department of Mysteries an Unspeakable?
he was a deatheater and did escape the Prison at Azkaban,

[whizbang121]

Very true Machiavelli... I will adjust my statement accordingly...

AND he was safe at the Dursley's from harm in general...Gee wiz, guys. It's in my last post. I even highlighted it.

... "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort.

[Machiavelli]

A lot of his music was just something to dance to and of course isn't going to be profound. The point of the reference isn't taste, for a similar thing could be said of Bach, it is to show that his major work succeeds on at least three different levels and the working at each level is deliberately done. And that is what I'm trying to say about Harry Potter, that the working at each level is deliberate.
Absolutely true - Mozart was the pop star of his day! Bach... I love Bach because his layers are so... musical! See, I know about some of the masonic stuff in Mozart, and don't find that it enhances my enjoyment of the music at all... doesn't detract, just musically it doesn't matter. It changes the way the plot of, say, The Magic Flute can be read, but the music itself isn't changed. Now, it changes the way I think of Mozart, it changes the way I think of the audiences of Mozart's music, so in that way, yes... Sorry, it's extremely late and I'm rambling. Anyway...

I think I am saying that I do not necessarily believe that all of the meanings that have been postulated are actually what Rowlings intended as being of primary importance to her plot or to the clues she laid. One of the reasons I have a hard time with it is that the creatures she mentions in her books are quite often given a different role in "Potterverse" than in the mythology from which they originate. The boggart is an excellent example. In the books the boggart is extremely different from the real world creature. If you wanted to say the boggart symbolized primal fear you could make that argument - but only within the reality of the books; the "real" boggart has no resemblance to the Potter boggart. The basilisk has a very different physical form from the medieval references for the animal, and even a slightly different method of generation. So is this creature the same as the Medieval basilisk - complete with all the mythology and symbolic reference that entails? I don't think you can answer that with a definitive yes. Rowlings uses names that have a heritage, but shows no qualms about giving very different characteriistic to her versions. I think that's fascinating - and very powerful in a way because she is NOT tied to the baggage that comes with some of the images she is evoking. This is her world and her rules, so to try and load a given character or creature, or even event with a large amount of background history external to the text seems to me to be a reach - IF you are using it to base theories on that have little or no other basis in the books. However, if you are using that history to enhance your appreciation of the books, or to expand your experience of them I think that's fantastic, or if you can demonstrate a significant chain of logic within the books, that's terrific too.

The thing is, they are great stories with or without the added symbolism that you find so attractive. I'm glad that you enjoy the symbols you have found, I just don't see that they are truly seminal to the plot. I could be wrong! But, I can also see that when 7 comes out both of us could easily still be convinced that we were right. That, in my opinion, is what makes the books great.

Gee wiz, guys. It's in my last post. I even highlighted it.
I know - I just don't think that means only Voldemort. I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure Dumbledore says somewhere that he placed the charm even though Voldemort is incapacitated because there were still DE's around who were nearly as dangerous and would want to take revenge. Give me time... I'll find it... if it exists... maybe....

Edit:
Duh! In the page right before your quote.

"You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent."

Now, he goes on to add that he was convinced that Voldemort would come back, but first he mentions those supporters. It seems to me that just taking Harry to his aunt's house and putting a charm on that would hold off Voldemort wouldn't really save him from the supporters who would, after all, have 11 years to get young Harry. So, either there is a third form of protection that we have never heard mentioned (in fact, I'll even give you as a bonus the idea that Harry was being guarded by members of the OotP... except that it had to re-form after V came back...) or we have to assume that the protection he enjoys at the Dursleys (if enjoy is the right word) is more general than just being against Voldemort.

[atherella]

Now, he goes on to add that he was convinced that Voldemort would come back, but first he mentions those supporters. It seems to me that just taking Harry to his aunt's house and putting a charm on that would hold off Voldemort wouldn't really save him from the supporters who would, after all, have 11 years to get young Harry. So, either there is a third form of protection that we have never heard mentioned (in fact, I'll even give you as a bonus the idea that Harry was being guarded by members of the OotP... except that it had to re-form after V came back...) or we have to assume that the protection he enjoys at the Dursleys (if enjoy is the right word) is more general than just being against Voldemort.

I can picture one of the members hiding out in the hidden tunnel behind the dartboard in the small bedroom!!! :D I'm still blown away that Whiz found that!!!!

[whizbang121]

And as for the spell not showing up at the time of Priori Incantatem, does Priori Incantatem show all the spells or just the major or completed spells, I can not imagine Wormtail or the “Ugly child Voldemort :evil:” picking up a box of matches to light the fire at “Little Hangleron”, one of them would have used a wand, as it seems they only had one between them at the time, it would have been Voldemort’s. I prefer to think of Priori Incantatem showing all important spells, or such of them that have been completed successfully
That's a good point. The priori incantatem did have screams coming out of it as well as shades of those killed by Voldemort's wand. And we know that it's the magic that's been done by an individual wand, rather than whoever used it, that comes out of it. So Cedric comes out of Voldemort's wand even though it was Wormtail who killed him. And that's all JKR shows us with Vodlemort's wand.
As for completed spells. If Voldemort cast the AK at Harry and it backfired, killed his body, transfered his powers and left a scar on Harry and left him less than the meanest ghost, then while it didn't do what it was intended to do, it sure accomplished something. If it blew up the house, then it must have discharged the energy it was cast with. Wouldn't something of all that have come out of the wand?
But to be fair, another possibility is that after Lily came out of the wand, it just stopped bringing up any further spells. I'm sure that wand did a lot of damage before it was taken to Godric's Hollow that didn't come out of it in the graveyard. JKR is leaving hanging out to dry ... again.

[Machiavelli]

I can picture one of the members hiding out in the hidden tunnel behind the dartboard in the small bedroom!!! :D I'm still blown away that Whiz found that!!!!
Probably wasn't Mundungus though... you would have smelled him. Hey, maybe that's how Petunia keeps her house so clean! They come out at night and while they're lurking, they do a bit of dusting as well!

[atherella]

Probably wasn't Mundungus though... you would have smelled him. Hey, maybe that's how Petunia keeps her house so clean! They come out at night and while they're lurking, they do a bit of dusting as well!

And we know it wasn't Hagrid - he wouldn't fit!! :rotfl:

I'm just getting silly now. Guess we'd better stop this though. :angel:

However, is everyone who works in the Department of Mysteries an Unspeakable?

That was always the impression I got from reading the books. Anyone?

[Machiavelli]

And we know it wasn't Hagrid - he wouldn't fit!! :rotfl:
I'm just getting silly now. Guess we'd better stop this though. :angel:
(RE: Dept of Mysteries = Unspeakable) That was always the impression I got from reading the books. Anyone?
That's pretty much what I thought too. Unless they have a "whisperable" category for file clerks and such. It's such an odd name... unspeakable. The phrase it's associated with for me is "unspeakable horror" and that doesn't sound too... well, friendly really!

BTW, quick thought about the locked room - it's interesting that wizards don't lock up death, but they do lock up whatever is behind that door...

[whizbang121]

I know - I just don't think that means only Voldemort. I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure Dumbledore says somewhere that he placed the charm even though Voldemort is incapacitated because there were still DE's around who were nearly as dangerous and would want to take revenge. Give me time... I'll find it... if it exists... maybe....

Edit:
Duh! In the page right before your quote.

"You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent."

Now, he goes on to add that he was convinced that Voldemort would come back, but first he mentions those supporters. It seems to me that just taking Harry to his aunt's house and putting a charm on that would hold off Voldemort wouldn't really save him from the supporters who would, after all, have 11 years to get young Harry. So, either there is a third form of protection that we have never heard mentioned (in fact, I'll even give you as a bonus the idea that Harry was being guarded by members of the OotP... except that it had to re-form after V came back...) or we have to assume that the protection he enjoys at the Dursleys (if enjoy is the right word) is more general than just being against Voldemort. I agree that there are other kinds of protection for Harry at the Dursleys. Mrs Figg, for example, seems to have been there for awhile. Dumbledore doesn't go into details about what's protecting Harry from DEs, though. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years."

... "You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so. Why could some wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honoured and delighted to raise you as a son.

"My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. Knowing what happened to the Longbottoms it's apparent why Dumbledore knew he had to get Harry out of the magical world. Wonder what safeguards Dumbledore took against DEs. Maybe something about the "put outer?" And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.

"I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power.

"But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative."

[atherella]

That's pretty much what I thought too. Unless they have a "whisperable" category for file clerks and such. It's such an odd name... unspeakable. The phrase it's associated with for me is "unspeakable horror" and that doesn't sound too... well, friendly really!

Uh oh, and I have down that I'm an unspeakable in my profile. :evil:
(I'm actually very friendly, honest. :angel: )

BTW, quick thought about the locked room - it's interesting that wizards don't lock up death, but they do lock up whatever is behind that door...

Actually you know, that is very interesting. Also, I know it was mentioned that the ministry has security, doesn't it seem odd that the Dept. of Mysteries doesn't have it's own guards? If the place is so mysteries that the employees are called 'unspeakables' and no one knows what they do, that seems to imply how important and secretive their work is -- why no security there? Same for the hall of prophecies - the security wizards all ought to be sacked for insubordination.

[Machiavelli]

(Okay, this isn't a direct quote, but you had quotes within quotes and I was too gosh darn lazy to... well copy and paste which would have been easier... anyway!) Something to do with the put-outer
Well... I said it in the other thread. I really think the put-outer is a one use thing. I mean, we saw Dumbledore using it to nick the lights from the lamps, and then we saw.. I think Lupin? doing the same at Grimould Place. Seems like that's pretty much what it does - there's no hinting there of other powers or anything. I guess I'm doing my Occam's Razor thing again. Unless there's some significant reason to believe otherwise, I think the simplest solution is that the protections Dumbledore put on Harry at the Dursleys are what are stopping both Voldemort and the DE's from attacking him there. Figg watching him, but she's not a whole lot of help - and since she can't do any magic it's going to be a while before she can get anyone else there to weigh in either. Harry does notice wizards when he meets them away from Privet Drive (Daedalus Diggle etc), but nothing is mentioned of anyone odd (other than Harry) actually there. I think JKR plays pretty fair with her hints and she would have dropped one if there were a whole set of folks doing Harry duty for 11 years.

Actually you know, that is very interesting. Also, I know it was mentioned that the ministry has security, doesn't it seem odd that the Dept. of Mysteries doesn't have it's own guards? If the place is so mysteries that the employees are called 'unspeakables' and no one knows what they do, that seems to imply how important and secretive their work is -- why no security there? Same for the hall of prophecies - the security wizards all ought to be sacked for insubordination.
Dereliction of duty - shot at dawn.

I figure the protections have to be magical. Like the ones on the prophecies. Or maybe other wizards just think the dept of mysteries is a bit odd and creepy and they don't mess about there much. OR... the DE's "took care" of the guards so Harry et al could have a clean run at the prophecy room. Still, lack of twitching corpses... I dunno - you've got me!

[Gwenog Jones]

BTW, quick thought about the locked room - it's interesting that wizards don't lock up death, but they do lock up whatever is behind that door...
Hmm, very interesting. Well death is just the next adventure, to the well organized mind, of course. So, whatever is behind the door is obviously something very powerful, more powerful than death, and something that not just any wizard could handle.

[Machiavelli]

Hmm, very interesting. Well death is just the next adventure, to the well organized mind, of course. So, whatever is behind the door is obviously something very powerful, more powerful than death, and something that not just any wizard could handle.
yes - and the question is, is it locked up because it could harm the innocent who wandered into it, or is it locked up because it could be misused? I've been pondering this one for days now and haven't yet come up with an acceptable answer as to what fits all the known criteria for what's behind that darn door.

[whizbang121]

Hmm… a new thread! I am so proud – I am a member of Layers for one full edition! Wonder how many to go ;-) The love thread is on version 30! :whistle: :)

You were mentioning a few times Quirell who couldn't touch Harry. What is interesting, that he did touch him! When they first met in Leaky Cauldron – Quirell shakes Harry hand. I do not have my English PS, only Polish translation, but I am sure the translator wouldn't put whole new sentence!
Why Quirell couldn't touch – or rather that Harry's touch was lethal to him – only in the end? Apparently, Voldemort wasn't possessing Quirrell when he shook Harry's hand in the Leaky Cauldron. Wonder where he was? :huh:
About the Super Baby – we’ve heard about some stuff Harry did – nothing special.. but still – what Dudley saw during Dementors attack? Maybe some extremely powerful reaction of Harry, when they were toddlers?
But we see many times Harry is so angry, almost in rage – and nothing happens. Interesting thought. :agree: Hmmm...... I believe the prophecies are under some strong spells, and truly no one but subject can touch them.
How do they get there btw? Maybe they just kind of appear there in moment when prophecy is being said? Good point. There is someone who tends the Hall of Porphesy. "The official record was re-labelled after Voldemort's attack on you as a child," said Dumbledore. "It seemed plain to the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy that Voldemort could only have tried to kill you because he knew you to be the one to whom Sybill was referring."
Fore sure there is – and I do not see anything special in it. DD knew parents, and knew the prophecy – and knew all the tragic childhood of Harry. ... What other kid has such special history? What other kid was observed by 11 years? From the very beginning DD makes this special relationship
Remember the reaction of some first year kid during Xmas party, when DD address him asking if he wants some sausages? Most of the kids never had spoken a word with DD! And for sure Harry also cares about DD – just all this sad words in OotP – he feels he is abandoned, and if he had any feelings to DD – he wouldn't really care. There is strong relationship between them – maybe not like father-son, but at least grandson-grandfather.[/QUOTE]I was sure that if he realised that our relationship was - or had ever been - closer than that of headmaster and pupil, he would seize his chance to use you as a means to spy on me. I feared the uses to which he would put you, the possibility that he might try and possess you.

[Gwenog Jones]

yes - and the question is, is it locked up because it could harm the innocent who wandered into it, or is it locked up because it could be misused? I've been pondering this one for days now and haven't yet come up with an acceptable answer as to what fits all the known criteria for what's behind that darn door.
It could be either. I feel like it is something that could be misused though. Different emotions could harm different people, like how love harmed Voldemort. So, I can't think of one single power that could harm many people. But, what kind of power or emotion could be misused?

[whizbang121]

I also couldn't believe the way DD was behaving in OotP – in such cynical way – without thinking about Harry's feeling, without any attempt to explain… anything – like an owl with :for our own safety we cannot see each other:
I think Dumbledore was concerned that that if Voldemort broke into Harry's mind, anything Harry knew, Voldemort would know. So keeping Harry uninformed, or misinformed, was a way to feed misinformation to the Dark Lord.
It's too bad someone couldn't say that up front to Harry. "We can't tell you because we don't want Vodlemort to read your mind."

[Machiavelli]

It could be either. I feel like it is something that could be misused though. Different emotions could harm different people, like how love harmed Voldemort. So, I can't think of one single power that could harm many people. But, what kind of power or emotion could be misused?
Specifically, how do you store such a power or emotion in such a way in a room that someone external to that emotion or power could either be harmed by it or use it against someone else? Because if it's locked... that seems like whatever it is can be wielded by someone who doesn't have the power themselves (if it's strictly a magical power) or isn't feeling the emotion (if it's an emotion). It's a puzzle.

I think Dumbledore was concerned that that if Voldemort broke into Harry's mind, anything Harry knew, Voldemort would know. So keeping Harry uninformed, or misinformed, was a way to feed misinformation to the Dark Lord.
It's too bad someone couldn't say that up front to Harry. "We can't tell you because we don't want Vodlemort to read your mind."
It does sound nuts - but actually it's very close to the way the intelligence community actually works! I mean, it seems like part of the plan was to have Harry resent Dumbledore for not caring (or showing enough caring) for him...

So do you think that when Harry does meet Dumbledore's eyes, and he feels that hatred rising up that makes him want to strike out (like a snake) he is feeling Voldemort's actual emotion about Dumbledore? Or is it Voldemort making Harry feel hatred for Dumbledore? I'm going for #1, but partly because I'm intrigued by the idea that Voldemort actually hates Dumbledore that intensely - as well as fearing him.

[whizbang121]

I can picture one of the members hiding out in the hidden tunnel behind the dartboard in the small bedroom!!! :D I'm still blown away that Whiz found that!!!!:rotfl: That Beneath the Surface stuff is some of my all time favorite discussions in Layers. The Dartboard sure was the frosting on the cake. ;)

Masterfroggy came up with some great material in those discussions. Love the new avatar, Froggy. :tu: I've requested that Rainbow Connection be played at my funeral. :agree:

[atherella]

I think Dumbledore was concerned that that if Voldemort broke into Harry's mind, anything Harry knew, Voldemort would know. So keeping Harry uninformed, or misinformed, was a way to feed misinformation to the Dark Lord.
It's too bad someone couldn't say that up front to Harry. "We can't tell you because we don't want Vodlemort to read your mind."


I agree that was the reasoning behind DD's actions as well, it was still so sad for Harry, who, at the time had no idea of the reasoning. We saw Phineas try to explain that to Harry over Christmas time when he was at #12 GP, when he told Harry:

"You know," said Phineas Nigellus, even more loudly than Harry, "this is precisely why I loathed being a teacher! Young people are so infernally convinced that they are absolutely right about everything. Has it not occurred to you, my poor puffed-up popinjay, that there might be an excellent reason why the headmaster of Hogwarts is not confiding every detail of his plans to you? Have you never paused, while feeling hard-done-by, to note that following Dumbledore's orders has never led you into harm? No, No, like all young people, you are quite sure that you alone feel and think, you alone recognize danger, you alone are the only one clever enough to realize what the Dark Lord may be planning..."

Not exactly said in the nicest manner, and it certainly didn't make Harry feel less hurt. Even knowing there was a reason and it was hard not to feel sorry for Harry. (Plus, I missed seeing DD much in the book until the end.)

[whizbang121]

So, I can't think of one single power that could harm many people. But, what kind of power or emotion could be misused?Why limit it to one? Couldn't it be emotion? Period?
But Voldemort has emotions. Creepy emotions, but he has them. JKR did make a point of answering a question about whether Voldemort had ever loved to which she emphatically replied no.
And Dumbldore tells Harry that the pain he feels when Sirius died proves that he is still a man, still human. :huh:

Emotions. Hmmmmm.......

I lean towards Life, but the idea of the temperament required to produce a Sorcerer's Stone is very appealing.

[Gwenog Jones]

Why limit it to one? Couldn't it be emotion? Period?
Good point. I take that sentence back :)

[whizbang121]

So do you think that when Harry does meet Dumbledore's eyes, and he feels that hatred rising up that makes him want to strike out (like a snake) he is feeling Voldemort's actual emotion about Dumbledore? Or is it Voldemort making Harry feel hatred for Dumbledore? I'm going for #1, but partly because I'm intrigued by the idea that Voldemort actually hates Dumbledore that intensely - as well as fearing him.What does Voldemort not hate? Besides himself? :rolleyes:

When Harry saw Mr Weasley being attacked, and when Voldemort possessed him in the MoM, he is aware of his own thoughts, his own consciousness. But at the same time, he can't tell where he ends and the snake or Voldemort begins. They are one, but with two consciousnesses.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure that it's an either/or situation. I think both are true. Does that make sense? :shrug:

[atherella]

When Harry saw Mr Weasley being attacked, and when Voldemort possessed him in the MoM, he is aware of his own thoughts, his own consciousness. But at the same time, he can't tell where he ends and the snake or Voldemort begins. They are one, but with two consciousnesses.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure that it's an either/or situation. I think both are true. Does that make sense? :shrug:

It is very scary, but yes, it does make sense. :scared:

[dcv]

Whizbang121 wrote: What does Voldemort not hate? Besides himself?

I have absolutely no doubt that LV hates himself. He hates everything about himself, his mixed heritage, probably his Slytherin heritage because he won't feel he deserves it because of his Muggle blood, I'm sure he hates the way he was raised, he just acts like someone who hates himself to the core.

Of course, you may have meant that, I'm still pre-coffee this morning, which is a dangerous state.

[Machiavelli]

I have absolutely no doubt that LV hates himself. He hates everything about himself, his mixed heritage, probably his Slytherin heritage because he won't feel he deserves it because of his Muggle blood, I'm sure he hates the way he was raised, he just acts like someone who hates himself to the core.

Of course, you may have meant that, I'm still pre-coffee this morning, which is a dangerous state.
I agree that he hates himself... and loves himself. I doubt however that he is aware of his self-hatred.

As far as the Dumbledore thing goes I draw a distinction between "despises" and "hates", and I think that for most of humanity despises more closely describes what Voldemort feels. I don't think that he has an active, burning hatred for the rest of the world necessarily, just feels that they are nothing - valuable only as tools and as easily discarded. I think he saves strong emotions for those who truly challenge him or threaten him, which is why I'm interested in the power of the emotion when Harry is looking at Dumbledore. I know that Harry resents D at this point, but I don't know how I feel about Voldemort being able to force a powerful emotion that isn't seeded in what Harry actually feels. We don't see any evidence of him directly producing an emotion in Harry other than this event, and that's why I think it's Voldemort's hate not Harry's.

[whizbang121]

I have absolutely no doubt that LV hates himself. He hates everything about himself, his mixed heritage, probably his Slytherin heritage because he won't feel he deserves it because of his Muggle blood, I'm sure he hates the way he was raised, he just acts like someone who hates himself to the core.

Of course, you may have meant that, I'm still pre-coffee this morning, which is a dangerous state.
You're right. I didn't think about it that way, but that explains a lot.

He does seem awful proud of his accomplishments, though. But pride and ego coexist with self hatred. One must have a pretty high opinion of oneself to hate the parts that don't come up to snuff.

[lineon12]

youve got a point, LV prabably also hates the fact that he was not good enough to survie through the years, so now he prabably hate himself more, like hes not good enough .

[whizbang121]

We don't see any evidence of him directly producing an emotion in Harry other than this event, and that's why I think it's Voldemort's hate not Harry's.
Hmmm....
It is Voldemort's hate. Harry is angry and hurt, but he doesn't hate Dumbledore.
However, when Harry and Voldemort are present to each other, Harry doesn't seem to experience the feelings towards Dumbledore as not his own. He can mentally analyse the feelings as being "not his own". But he experiences the emotions as though they are. No?

Weird.

[Machiavelli]

Hmmm....
It is Voldemort's hate. Harry is angry and hurt, but he doesn't hate Dumbledore.
However, when Harry and Voldemort are present to each other, Harry doesn't seem to experience the feelings towards Dumbledore as not his own. He can mentally analyse the feelings as being "not his own". But he experiences the emotions as though they are. No?

Weird.
Yes... and quite frightening. Maybe that will have to be part of Occlumency? Learning to recognize and then excise emotions and ideas that are not his own. Ugh - it's really a horrid idea when I think about it!

[Dedalus Diggle]

youve got a point, LV prabably also hates the fact that he was not good enough to survie through the years, so now he prabably hate himself more, like hes not good enough .
Ah, so what he needs is some 'self-image' sessions - I'd love to pair him up with Stuart Smalley :rotfl:

[whizbang121]

:huh: Whiz rushes off to google Stuart Smalley. Yes, I do live under a rock. And pbskids.

:rotfl: I should have known. :lol:

[Dedalus Diggle]

:huh: Whiz rushes off to google Stuart Smalley. Yes, I do live under a rock. And pbskids.

:rotfl: I should have known. :lol:
Oh, good, glad you found it, I was going to type up a tedious explanation.

"Now, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to look at yourself in the mirror and repeat after me 'I WILL kill Harry Potter, ... because I'm good enough,... I'm smart enough, ... and doggone it, people LIKE me.' Very nice, now let's hug!" :elaugh:

[Liselle]

I'm catching up (yet again!)....but on the question of Harry needing to go back to the Dursley's each summer....I wonder if there isn't something in that charm that is to protect Harry from himself? Maybe this power of his is "capped" in some way by the charm until it is needed.

As for Godric's Hollow being blown up by the rebounded curse, I'm vascilating between two schools of thought
1: It was the rebounded AK, in which case there couldn't be an echo of it from Voldemort's wand in GOF as it didn't do what it was meant to (ie kill Harry, plus I'm not sure how you would depict a house being blown up as a spell side affect)

2:It was something by baby Harry...instinct or not which ripped Voldemort from his body and in turn deystroyed the house.

Although now I think of it, its likely that there is a third option which is a combination of the above ~ Voldemort spits out AK, Harry some how absorbs it/reflects it. This is maybe more probable if you view Harry's remarkable recovery from "accidents" through out his life, starting that night at Godrics Hollow ~ he escaped with only a small scar on his forehead while his home literally fell around his ears.....then there are the various poisons and scrapes and scratches he's had.....

...more to come later

[atherella]

"Now, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to look at yourself in the mirror and repeat after me 'I WILL kill Harry Potter, ... because I'm good enough,... I'm smart enough, ... and doggone it, people LIKE me.' Very nice, now let's hug!" :elaugh:

Maybe Snape should see him after for some image lessons also. :lol:

About the house falling down around Harry. It's weird enough that Harry survived the AK, for whatever reason. But, how did the house fall down around him while he was laying in his crib, and NOTHING happened to him? I mean, falling wood/brick or whatever material it was, a roof caving in, just seems like he should have been buried alive. Wasn't the house supposed to be leveled and TOTALLY destroyed?

[whizbang121]

I believe so.
I was thinking about baby Harry. If the spell did originate from Harry, maybe it didn't have to be very powerful at all. It could have been any emotional magic burst aimed at Voldemort, and one or more of the immortality spells protecting him that destroyed the house. But that wouldn't explain all the references about Harry exploding things, blowing things up and being looked at like he was a bomb that could go off at any moment.

[atherella]

I read recently somewhere (maybe in the last layers thread??) that perhaps Lily & James had fed Harry some of the elixer of life from a sorcerer's stone. We know that in one of the first drafts that in Harry's vault there was to be a stone, although Jo didn't follow through with that idea. We also know that on DD's Chocolate Frog Card that it says Flamel is the maker of the 'only KNOWN stone'. That always gave me a 'hinky' wondering if there were an unknown one floating around somewhere. Now, I'm not sure if this idea holds any weight at all, but I'm curious to know what people think of the idea.

I'm also curious about the house falling around Harry and not being hurt. Now, granted, I did watch one of those reality shows last night where the house was totally torn down, right to the foundation. Yet, watching the roof falling in, all I could think of was a baby in his crib in the midst of all that falling debris. How in the world could he have lived through that.

All these unanswered questions.... so longgggggggg to wait for answers!!! Impatient!

Ok, I'm pulling some of the stuff from the Peter Pettigrew at Godric's Hollow thread over here, since a really interesting idea came up over there.

Regarding Sirius's manic laughter when he was arrested for killing PP and all the muggles.
This was posted:
Also, when the DOM arrived on the scene and arrested Sirius, didn't it say that he was laughing uncontrollably or something. That doesn't sound like Sirius. It sounds like he was under the what-cha-ma-call-it spell (impetimus or something) and I don't think that Peter is capable of doing that to Sirius, unless he caught him off-guard.

And Blacks Beauty posted this:
Yikes, maybe Peter did snatch up Vapormort (along with the wand and robe), and Sirius was the first body he inhabited! Sirius was weakened by emotion and vulnerable, Vapormort snuck in for a moment -- laughing because he survived -- and then quickly ditched him when it was apparent Sirius' body would be useless, given that he was headed straight to Azkaban anyway. Just a thought. I've always wondered about the laughing too...

So, there is the suggestion that either Sirius was under the Imperius Curse (or a Cheering Charm via Whizbang) or perhaps had even been possessed temporarily by LV, and that might explain the crazy laughter.

Now, the idea of Sirius being possessed is extremely interesting. I've always been BAFFLED by that laughter. It always makes him sound like a real psychopath. Connected to that, remember how Harry often hears that high pitched laughter in his head of Voldemort's, and even once it said the laughter was coming out of his own mouth (yet we know it was LV's actual laughter, because it was when Harry was in LV's mind --seeing him punish Avery (?)) So, does anyone think that's possible? If not, why would Sirius be laughing like he was, it does seem a bit odd. Ok, REALLY odd!!!

[Machiavelli]

So, there is the suggestion that either Sirius was under the Imperius Curse (or a Cheering Charm via Whizbang) or perhaps had even been possessed temporarily by LV, and that might explain the crazy laughter.

Now, the idea of Sirius being possessed is extremely interesting. I've always been BAFFLED by that laughter. It always makes him sound like a real psychopath. Connected to that, remember how Harry often hears that high pitched laughter in his head of Voldemort's, and even once it said the laughter was coming out of his own mouth (yet we know it was LV's actual laughter, because it was when Harry was in LV's mind --seeing him punish Avery (?)) So, does anyone think that's possible? If not, why would Sirius be laughing like he was, it does seem a bit odd. Ok, REALLY odd!!!
I suppose that's possible... and it's an interesting idea. I actually never was bothered by Sirius laughing at that point. He has just lost everything most important to him - and now he's going to be blamed for the murder of the man who betrayed him. I have faced some fairly horrible things, things that piled up to the point where I did laugh - out of disbelief or horror or stress... I don't know why, just that it was a legitimate reaction. Laughter is one of the body's methods of expressing extreme emotion...

[atherella]

I suppose that's possible... and it's an interesting idea. I actually never was bothered by Sirius laughing at that point. He has just lost everything most important to him - and now he's going to be blamed for the murder of the man who betrayed him. I have faced some fairly horrible things, things that piled up to the point where I did laugh - out of disbelief or horror or stress... I don't know why, just that it was a legitimate reaction. Laughter is one of the body's methods of expressing extreme emotion...

That's very true also. I know when I am in court sometimes, there will be parents on the witness stand who have abused their children, and they laugh as they are talking. Not necessarily because they find the situation itself funny, but it is used as a defense mechanism. Or a 'nervous laughter', not knowing how else to react. The thing with JKR's writing is the characters all have personality traits that are so real, that it makes it easy for us to relate. Yet, that also means that everything can always be interpreted in a number of ways, and it's hard to know what is the 'correct' analysis until further books and we learn more and uncover the 'layers'. :D

I can't help but wonder though if the laughter really was pointing towards something more than just Sirius being overwhelmed by the situation. That explaination seems to make a lot of sense and am surprised it hasn't come up before now, with the Sirius love flowing so rapantly. :)

[Machiavelli]

I can't help but wonder though if the laughter really was pointing towards something more than just Sirius being overwhelmed by the situation. That explaination seems to make a lot of sense and am surprised it hasn't come up before now, with the Sirius love flowing so rapantly. :)
Yes, and the anti-Sirius feeling as well!

Okay, I don't see that Pettigrew would hang about to throw an Imperious curse at Sirius - do you? I mean, doesn't the person then have to be actively controlled for anything to happen? I thought that Pettigrew dropped his finger and bolted. He certainly had to transfigure immediately so no one would see him alive after the explosion... can one do magic that requires a wand when one is transfigured?

[atherella]

What about the idea that Sirius was temporarily possessed by LV? I don't know if I buy any of this, but it does raise some interesting questions.

I agree that I can't picture PP sticking around a moment longer than he has to, especially to throw a curse at Sirius, since he seemed to be so intimidated by him.

[Machiavelli]

What about the idea that Sirius was temporarily possessed by LV? I don't know if I buy any of this, but it does raise some interesting questions.

I agree that I can't picture PP sticking around a moment longer than he has to, especially to throw a curse at Sirius, since he seemed to be so intimidated by him.
I guess it's possible. Maybe it depends on what kind of possession you mean - the Ginny type where he wouldn't know what he had done until afterwards, or the Harry type where he's aware the whole time (I know, it's not exactly possession according to text... maybe...). If it's the Harry type I would have to think that's important enough he would have mentioned it... if it's the Ginny type he'd just wake up in Azkaban with a Voldemort hangover. I would buy that, but I would have to include the Wormtail possession theory as well (which has been brought up to explain Peter's strength in blowin up the street) to get LV from the Potter's house to Sirius... I just don't know that I think Lord Voldemort was in any state to be planning and controlling on that level at that point. It seems like a lot of postulation though just to explain a laugh. I also don't see why Voldemort would do that to save Pettigrew and then allow Pettigrew to abandon him. If he has the strength to do the possession and control I assume he would have the strength to stick with Pettigrew as rat, human or whatever.

[barmy codger]

We don't see any evidence of him directly producing an emotion in Harry other than this event, and that's why I think it's Voldemort's hate not Harry's.
Not disagreeing about Voldemort's hatred, but from book 5:
'Maniacal laughter was ringing in his ears....He was happier than he had been in a very long time...Jubilant, ecstatic, triumphant...A wonderful, wonderful thing had happened...' This was when the Death Eaters escaped Azkeban and Harry knew these emotions were Voldemort's

And I'd like to thank you for the reference to 'The VIsion of St Eustace'. I didn't know about this painting and some research has yielded interesting results. One aspect involves the 'Transformative Vision' and another discussion considers the image as hunter vs. nature. The latter shows how much can be said by a symbolic image. In case anyone is interested:
http://www.wsu.edu/~hughesc/shepard_deer.htm

[Machiavelli]

Not disagreeing about Voldemort's hatred, but from book 5:
'Maniacal laughter was ringing in his ears....He was happier than he had been in a very long time...Jubilant, ecstatic, triumphant...A wonderful, wonderful thing had happened...' This was when the Death Eaters escaped Azkeban and Harry knew these emotions were Voldemort's
Hey good one! That's an excellent catch! It helps prove the point too, because the emotion was strictly Voldemort's and not Harry's. Nice balance as well, with the elation and the hatred...

And I'd like to thank you for the reference to 'The VIsion of St Eustace'. I didn't know about this painting and some research has yielded interesting results. One aspect involves the 'Transformative Vision' and another discussion considers the image as hunter vs. nature. The latter shows how much can be said by a symbolic image. In case anyone is interested:
http://www.wsu.edu/~hughesc/shepard_deer.htm
No problem - have you found a copy of the Pisanello painting? It is right in step with what you're talking about - symbols galore! You can see it here:
http://keptar.demasz.hu/arthp/art/p/pisanell/vision.jpg

Eustace even sports a nice turban - but it's blue so no luck with the Quirrell link!

[ornjbreezy]

....then there are the various poisons and scrapes and scratches he's had.....
Actually, Harry's never actually been poisoned that we can confirm. And Snape said something like (don't have my copy with me,) "Unless you wish to poison Potter, in which case I would have the upmost sympathy with you [Umbridge]."
This seems to imply that something bad would happen to the person who poisons Harry, which leads me to assume that some sort of protective measures have been taken to protect Harry from poison.

On Sirius's maniacal laughter- I like the idea that he was possessed. But I have a hypothesis (ill-supported, but a hypothesis nonetheless.) I think that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius curse. He was the first on the scene. It would be the perfect chance to get himself elected Minister. And my final bit: In the PoA movie, Fudge says "Black didn't kill Pettigrew! He destroyed him!" I think this is very interesting indeed. The first sentence catches the viewer off guard- but then they think 'oh, that's why, he still did kill Pettigrew' But what if the Minister knew all along that Black was innocent? I think it's very possible that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius Curse for his own benefit. Any thoughts?

[Machiavelli]

Actually, Harry's never actually been poisoned that we can confirm. And Snape said something like (don't have my copy with me,) "Unless you wish to poison Potter, in which case I would have the upmost sympathy with you [Umbridge]."
This seems to imply that something bad would happen to the person who poisons Harry, which leads me to assume that some sort of protective measures have been taken to protect Harry from poison.

On Sirius's maniacal laughter- I like the idea that he was possessed. But I have a hypothesis (ill-supported, but a hypothesis nonetheless.) I think that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius curse. He was the first on the scene. It would be the perfect chance to get himself elected Minister. And my final bit: In the PoA movie, Fudge says "Black didn't kill Pettigrew! He destroyed him!" I think this is very interesting indeed. The first sentence catches the viewer off guard- but then they think 'oh, that's why, he still did kill Pettigrew' But what if the Minister knew all along that Black was innocent? I think it's very possible that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius Curse for his own benefit. Any thoughts?
I don't know. .. I'd rather just think that Fudge is an idiot because I like a world that's a bit complicated; where bad people do good things sometimes and good people do bad ones. I think Fudge is weak and easily corrupted, but not evil. If he did use a curse on Sirius - how did he know where to find both Sirius and Pettigrew? Or are we assuming that he was also at Godric's Hollow?

[dcv]

Dedalus Diggle wrote: "Now, Mr. Voldemort, I want you to look at yourself in the mirror and repeat after me 'I WILL kill Harry Potter, ... because I'm good enough,... I'm smart enough, ... and doggone it, people LIKE me.' Very nice, now let's hug!"

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Ok, back to serious (and Sirius)... I can see Fudge controlling Black to make it look like Black was a maniac after Pettigrew escaped. Fudge said he was first on the scene in his capacity in magical law enforcement of some sort (can't recall the department). It's possible he saw something that made him realize Black was innocent of killing Peter. I don't know what kind of dueling took place first, if there was magic flying before Peter blew up the street, it's possible that he saw the whole explosion-rat-escape thing. We definitely know that Fudge was (and is) power-hungry enough to use nearly anything for his own political gain.

Personally, I always thought that Sirius was laughing because he truly thought it was funny that Peter was able to bamboozle him with such a simple, stupid trick, and get away with it. The description of the laughter being maniacal may have just been Fudge embellishing. But, it's fun to try to create far-fetched theories...

[whizbang121]

Eustace even sports a nice turban - but it's blue so no luck with the Quirrell link!
:upset: Bambi!
Very Da Vinci Code.

Universal symbols are understood regardless of literacy.

Actually, Harry's never actually been poisoned that we can confirm. And Snape said something like (don't have my copy with me,) "Unless you wish to poison Potter, in which case I would have the upmost sympathy with you [Umbridge]."
This seems to imply that something bad would happen to the person who poisons Harry, which leads me to assume that some sort of protective measures have been taken to protect Harry from poison. :lightbulb:
In Harry's first Potions class, Snape asked him about the bezoar stone!

I think that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius curse. He was the first on the scene. It would be the perfect chance to get himself elected Minister. Wow! Good thought! I am suspicious of Fudge, too!

...
I think Fudge is weak and easily corrupted, but not evil. If he did use a curse on Sirius - how did he know where to find both Sirius and Pettigrew? Or are we assuming that he was also at Godric's Hollow?This happened on Nov 1st. If Dumbledore and company believed that Sirius had been the secret keeper, Fudge may have already been looking for him and caught up with him just after he caught up with Wormtail.

[ravenfeather]

2 opinions:

*black didn't kill pettigrew... he destroyed him: doesn't that indicate that fudge does believe black's guilt? after all, it wasn't really peter who was destroyed by peter's treachery. it was sirius. sure, peter had to go into hiding for a dozen years, but can that really be termed 'destruction'? i think he was referring to peter being blown to smithereens. it's an interesting idea, but i don't think it stands with fudge's general character. i'm not an evil-fudge believer. i think fudge is exactly what he seems to be. his behavior in the first three books is consistant and there's a believable progression from fudge-the-bumbler to fudge-the-power-mad-minister.

*sirius' laughter: i don't think it was maniacal laughter, i think it was hysterical laughter, which would be easy for fudge to misconstrue if he didn't know the full back story. if you imagine yourself standing in the middle of a blasted muggle street, surrounded by smoke and wreckage and body parts, people screaming, please-men swarming in, obliviators arriving, the day after your best friend and his wife were betrayed to death by the last person you'd ever suspect of treachery, who, as far as you know is now dead and beyond revenge... well, i think i might be game for a good round of hysteria.
(note to students: this is an excellent example of poor grammar in the form of a run-on sentence, complete with fragments!)

[Masterfroggy]

2 opinions:

*black didn't kill pettigrew... he destroyed him: doesn't that indicate that fudge does believe black's guilt? after all, it wasn't really peter who was destroyed by peter's treachery. it was sirius. sure, peter had to go into hiding for a dozen years, but can that really be termed 'destruction'? i think he was referring to peter being blown to smithereens. it's an interesting idea, but i don't think it stands with fudge's general character. i'm not an evil-fudge believer. i think fudge is exactly what he seems to be. his behavior in the first three books is consistant and there's a believable progression from fudge-the-bumbler to fudge-the-power-mad-minister.

*sirius' laughter: i don't think it was maniacal laughter, i think it was hysterical laughter, which would be easy for fudge to misconstrue if he didn't know the full back story. if you imagine yourself standing in the middle of a blasted muggle street, surrounded by smoke and wreckage and body parts, people screaming, please-men swarming in, obliviators arriving, the day after your best friend and his wife were betrayed to death by the last person you'd ever suspect of treachery, who, as far as you know is now dead and beyond revenge... well, i think i might be game for a good round of hysteria.
(note to students: this is an excellent example of poor grammar in the form of a run-on sentence, complete with fragments!)


I think Sirius is laughing because even though he has been arrested, he did what he had set out to do, he had killed the person who betrayed his friends, so even though he was locked up, He had his revenge, paid his due to the friends who had been killed and betrayed by Wormtail, Sirius felt it was his fault that Peter was picked as the secret keeper, but with Peter dead, the mistake was corrected (to some small degree),

[ornjbreezy]

:lightbulb:
In Harry's first Potions class, Snape asked him about the bezoar stone!Which is found in the stomach of a goat!! *cough aberforth cough* Interesting indeed...

And just for the record, I don't neccessarily (sp?) believe all of the hypotheses that I put out there. I just like putting them out there to have a nice discussion- and nice discussions we do have!

[ravenfeather]

I think Sirius is laughing because even though he has been arrested, he did what he had set out to do, he had killed the person who betrayed his friends,

well, while i agree that sirius probably believed peter to be dead which must have been some consolation, he couldn't have believed that he, sirius, had killed peter. if i remember correctly (and i may not be), peter's spell was the only one cast on that occasion. i believe peter had the fastest draw. so, perhaps he thought that peter had killed himself, but i can't see that being a huge consolation to someone as bent on revenge as sirius was at that moment. i got the impression that sirius wanted to make peter pay and he wanted to be the one to do it. having peter seemingly explode into a mazillion smithereens before he had a chance to attack must have been a little disappointing!

[winter snow]

Actually, Harry's never actually been poisoned that we can confirm. And Snape said something like (don't have my copy with me,) "Unless you wish to poison Potter, in which case I would have the upmost sympathy with you [Umbridge]."
This seems to imply that something bad would happen to the person who poisons Harry, which leads me to assume that some sort of protective measures have been taken to protect Harry from poison.

On Sirius's maniacal laughter- I like the idea that he was possessed. But I have a hypothesis (ill-supported, but a hypothesis nonetheless.) I think that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius curse. He was the first on the scene. It would be the perfect chance to get himself elected Minister. And my final bit: In the PoA movie, Fudge says "Black didn't kill Pettigrew! He destroyed him!" I think this is very interesting indeed. The first sentence catches the viewer off guard- but then they think 'oh, that's why, he still did kill Pettigrew' But what if the Minister knew all along that Black was innocent? I think it's very possible that Fudge put Sirius under the Imperius Curse for his own benefit. Any thoughts?

In CoS, Harry was poisoned by the Basilisk's fang. Fawkes tears neutralized the poison in his system.

[tjrih]

I agree with Raven in that Sirius could not have known without a doubt that Peter was dead. I also agree with others that the laughing was hysteria, and that Cornelius Fudge is an idiot. I do not think that he is 'corrupt' as Ornjbreezy stated because I do not believe Fudge to be an evil wizard. I believe that Fudge is blinded by his own ambition & greed (a la Percy). He is probably quite easily persuaded into decisions by Lucius Malfoy, whether gold changes hands or not as many wizards have stated in the books, simply by the mere suggestion of advancing his (Fudge) own name & control within the MoM.

[whizbang121]

The crater exposed a sewer pipe. Sirius must have seen Peter transform. He must have known that rat Peter escaped. I wonder why they snapped his wand without doing a priori?

And I think Luna may be closer to the mark in her assessment of Fudge. Heliopaths. Oh, yeah.

He's after control of Gringott's.
Remember when two members of the Wiezengamut(sp) resigned in protest of Umbridge being made High Inquisitor, the Daily Prophet linked them to subversive Goblin groups. :huh:

[barmy codger]

Good point about Sirius wand not being examined.

From book 3 (is it in the movie? -I don't remember): "Just before he transformed," said Black. "When I cornered him, he yelled for the whole street to hear that I'd betrayed Lily and James. Then, before I could curse him, he blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty feet of himself ---and sped down into the sewer with the other rats.."

Poison, one more thing Harry's protection doesn't protect him from. Along with the bezoar, the horn of the unicorn was used to neutralize poison. They worked by just sitting there on the dining table radiating anti-poison waves, it seems. I've been thinking recently of the similarity of action between the bezoar and the philosopher's stone, both altering other substances. The bezoar was also found in deer: "Hunters and plainsmen of the western United States still believe in the magical properties of the 'mad-stone', an object of the same kind found in deer a put to similar uses...' (from 'The Lore of the Unicorn' by Odell Shepard)

[offca]

don't forget it was Crouch, not Fudge, who sent Sirius to Azkaban without trial.
why they didn't check Sirius's wand? because of same reason why not giving him veritaserum, or making just trial - there was no expectation for just trials, but for punishment, for revenge, people were behaving closely to DE - wanted same to DE what they were doing to them - we are lucky they didn't kill Sirius - no one would object these days...

[Liselle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liselle....then there are the various poisons and scrapes and scratches he's had.....
Actually, Harry's never actually been poisoned that we can confirm. And Snape said something like (don't have my copy with me,) "Unless you wish to poison Potter, in which case I would have the upmost sympathy with you [Umbridge]."
This seems to imply that something bad would happen to the person who poisons Harry, which leads me to assume that some sort of protective measures have been taken to protect Harry from poison.

I think that line means that he would have sympathy (ie agree) with someone who wanted to poison Harry. Harry was poisoned in the chamber of secrets by the basilisk venom and again in the maze in GOF by the acromptula’s secretion.

I like the idea expressed that possibly Voldemort inhabited Sirius briefly and was behind the manical laughted, nervous laughter would be almost expected in such a situation but “manical” is an interesting turn of phrase

:lightbulb:
In Harry's first Potions class, Snape asked him about the bezoar stone!
That’s interesting now…..his very first class and he’s asked about antidotes to poison….

On Peter, does anyone else see it as foreshadowing that he lost a finger and then lost a whole hand to further his master’s return to power?? Creepy isn’t it


edit: The nine fingers thing has intreagued me....so I did a wee bit of digging!

"He [Hephaestion] says that ... Heracles, after the Nemean lion had bitten off one of his fingers had only nine and that there exists a tomb erected for this detached finger; other authors say that he lost his finger following a blow by a dart of a stingray and one can see at Sparta a stone lion erected on the tomb of the finger and which is the symbol of the power of the hero. It is since then that stone lions have likewise been erected on the tombs of other important people; other authors give different explications of the lion statues." - Ptolemy Hephaestion Bk2 (as summarized in Photius, Myriobiblon 190)
From here (http://www.theoi.com/Tartaros/Nemeian.html).......Interesting that Heracles had only 9 fingers


and a list of literary figures with only 9 fingers


# Frodo Baggins
# Margo Tenenbaum (played in the film version by Gwyneth Paltrow
# Nadia Cherneschevsky,
# Rosie, in Rosie and the dance of the dinosaurs - a children's book about a child with nine fingers
# Sauron
# Tim, from Eric Bogosian
# The narrator in A Prayer for Owen Meany

[Machiavelli]

On Peter, does anyone else see it as foreshadowing that he lost a finger and then lost a whole hand to further his master’s return to power?? Creepy isn’t it
Whole new meaning to giving someone the finger isn't it...

Universal symbols are understood regardless of literacy.
Yes - but I don't like the term universal. Symbols are only understood within the context of their culture. Those Christian symbols in Pisanello's work would not mean the same thing to a Hindu or Buddhist etc. They would still have meaning, because animal symbols are used by every culture, but the meaning wouldn't be the same.
Personally, I always thought that Sirius was laughing because he truly thought it was funny that Peter was able to bamboozle him with such a simple, stupid trick, and get away with it. The description of the laughter being maniacal may have just been Fudge embellishing. But, it's fun to try to create far-fetched theories...
The crater exposed a sewer pipe. Sirius must have seen Peter transform. He must have known that rat Peter escaped. I wonder why they snapped his wand without doing a priori?
Hmmm... I had assumed that Sirius also thought that Pettigrew had died - but that he had killed himself. I'll have to re-read and see exactly what he says about learning from the paper where Pettigrew was. Do you mean you think Sirius knew Pettigrew was alive all that time, but acted only when he found out Pettigrew was at Hogwarts with Harry?

If that blast was massive enough to blow up all those people I should think that Sirius would easily have missed seeing Pettigerw transform and nip off down the sewer - but I think you're right and the text can be read both ways.

[ravenfeather]

From book 3 (is it in the movie? -I don't remember): "Just before he transformed," said Black. "When I cornered him, he yelled for the whole street to hear that I'd betrayed Lily and James. Then, before I could curse him, he blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty feet of himself ---and sped down into the sewer with the other rats.."

is that information sirius knew at the time or is that 20/20 hindsight, though? my impression (and, of course, i'm so often ahead of myself that i miss things sometimes) was that sirius didn't know peter had escaped until he saw the picture in fudge's newspaper.

[dcv]

Here's the quote from PoA, p. 362-363 American paperback:

Ron clutched Scabbers closer to his chest.

"Come off it," he said weakly. "Are you trying to say he broke out of Azkaban just to get his hands on Scabbers? I mean..." He looked up at Harry and Hermione for support, "Okay, say Pettigrew could turn into a rat - there are millions of rats - how's he supposed to know which one he's after if he was locked up in Azkaban?"

"You know, Sirius, that's a fair question," said Lupin, turning to Black and frowning slightly. "How did you find out where he was?"

Black put one of his clawlike hands inside his robes and took out a crumpled piece of paper, which he smoothed flat and held out to show the others.

It was the photograph of Ron and his family that had appeared in the Daily Prophet the previous summer, and there, on Ron's shoulder, was Scabbers.

"How did you get this?" Lupin asked Black, thunderstruck.

"Fudge," said Black. "When he came to inspect Azkaban last year, he gave me his paper. And there was Peter, on the front page...on this boy's shoulder...I knew him at once...how many times had I seen him transform? The caption said the boy would be going back to Hogwarts...to where Harry was..."

"My God," said Lupin softly, staring from Scabbers to the picture in the paper and back again. "His front paw..."

"What about it?" said Ron defiantly.

"He's got a toe missing," said Black.

"Of course," Lupin breathed. "So simple...so brilliant...he cut it off himself?"

"Just before he transformed," said Black. "When I cornered him, he yelled for the whole street to hear that I'd betrayed Lily and James. Then, before I could curse him, he blew apart the street with the wand behind his back, killed everyone within twenty feet of himself - and sped down into the sewer with the other rats..."

The way I read all this, Sirius knew before he saw the picture of Scabbers in the paper that Pettigrew had cut off one of his fingers before blowing the street to bits and escaping. It's pretty clear that Sirius says he saw Pettigrew turn into a rat and escape. Couple that with the discussion a few pages later (p. 371 American paperback, since I have the book open) about how Sirius knew he was innocent and that's how he kept his sanity in Azkaban, it seems apparent that Sirius knew all along that Pettigrew was not dead.

By the way, all Fudge has to say about Sirius laughing at the scene is "And Black standing there laughing, with all that was left of Pettigrew in front of him...a heap of bloodstained robes and a few - a few fragments -" (PoA p. 208, same version.) So, for what it's worth, Sirius wasn't laughing maniacly or anything else, he was just laughing. Jo didn't attribute an emotion to the laugh.

[Katieo]

.nods.
DCV is 100% correct here

Its perfectly clear that Sirius knew that Peter was not dead all along...
for all the reasons DCV said...
plus the fact he wouldnt just look at a peter as a rat and say "oh wait a minute-thats Peter! not seen him in a while."

Dont you think hed be a bit freaked out that he'd just found a guy he had supposed dead for years...the guy who incidently caused the death of his best mate and his wife.

[Liselle]

I've no doubt that Sirius knew all along that Peter wasn't dead....I suppose the laugh could have been one of dispair *shrugs*....

[whizbang121]

is that information sirius knew at the time or is that 20/20 hindsight, though? my impression (and, of course, i'm so often ahead of myself that i miss things sometimes) was that sirius didn't know peter had escaped until he saw the picture in fudge's newspaper.
It has the sound of an eyewitness account.

[Liselle]

There could be dozens of rats missing a toe/finger. I'm sure Sirius knew all the time that he hadn't killed Peter, didn't he explain to Harry that he knew he was innocent (of betraying the Potters) and it wasnt' a happy thought. THis precented him from going insane. Lupin for some reason was out of the loop at this time, Sirius knew he was innocent, Lupin wasn't an issue for some reason, Dumbledore wasn't the secret keeper....so that only left one person they could have used. Peter.

So Sirius went after Peter, Peter framed Sirius for his death and the murder of 12/13 muggles present at the scene.

Sirius was put in prison for a crime he knew he didn't commit and he knew who did. He knew he didn't kill Peter, he just didn't know for a long time where Peter was

[Machiavelli]

.nods.
DCV is 100% correct here

Its perfectly clear that Sirius knew that Peter was not dead all along...
for all the reasons DCV said...
plus the fact he wouldnt just look at a peter as a rat and say "oh wait a minute-thats Peter! not seen him in a while."

Dont you think hed be a bit freaked out that he'd just found a guy he had supposed dead for years...the guy who incidently caused the death of his best mate and his wife.
Cool - I never read it this way before. I don't agree that it's %100 clear that Sirius knew Peter was not dead all along (I mean, it was pretty well known that all they found of poor Peter was his finger, I have no doubt Sirius was told this as well, so he could have thought Pettigrew was truly dead... not saying that's what I think anymore though... read on)

Actually it makes sense that Sirius would have thought Peter was alive even if he hadn't actually seen him transform, because Sirius knew Pettigrew so well. One of Pettigrew's major motivations is self preservation. Sirius probably knew that Pettigrew would not kill himself - or at least suspect it. I still think it works both ways, but it's an interesting little point!

[ravenfeather]

well, it's not as clear to me as it is to you folks, i guess. to me, it could just as easily have been the pieces that sirius put together from the time he saw peter's picture to that moment in the shrieking shack when he tells what he knows. i think if sirius knew for a fact that peter was out there somewhere, he would have escaped azkaban long before. just because he didn't know where peter was, wouldn't preclude him from breaking out and finding him. no, i think sirius knew he, himself, was innocent, but didn't know that peter was still alive out there. i believe that he thought, by whatever means, that peter had been killed that day on the muggle street. it wasn't until he knew without a doubt that peter was alive and near harry that he got up the angry energy to break free of the dementors and hunt peter down.

[Machiavelli]

well, it's not as clear to me as it is to you folks, i guess. to me, it could just as easily have been the pieces that sirius put together from the time he saw peter's picture to that moment in the shrieking shack when he tells what he knows. i think if sirius knew for a fact that peter was out there somewhere, he would have escaped azkaban long before. just because he didn't know where peter was, wouldn't preclude him from breaking out and finding him. no, i think sirius knew he, himself, was innocent, but didn't know that peter was still alive out there. i believe that he thought, by whatever means, that peter had been killed that day on the muggle street. it wasn't until he knew without a doubt that peter was alive and near harry that he got up the angry energy to break free of the dementors and hunt peter down.
Yeah - that's why I say that it can be read either way. I also was thinking while I typed the above that Sirius could have felt Pettigrew killed himself because he was too cowardly to face what he had done... that too could be in character. Also, Sirius could have been laughing because the extent of the blast showed him how deeply he had underestimated Pettigrew... sorry for the free-flow thoughts here!

[Liselle]

Hmm I disagree with that Machiavelli, I don't think that it would be in Peter's nature to kill himself. He's just too weak to do it, if he's weak enough not to stand up for his best friends then I don't think he has the capability to kill himself.

I think that Sirius knew

[Machiavelli]

Hmm I disagree with that Machiavelli, I don't think that it would be in Peter's nature to kill himself. He's just too weak to do it, if he's weak enough not to stand up for his best friends then I don't think he has the capability to kill himself.

I think that Sirius knew
Well... maybe. I'm the original fence sitter! But I would say that Sirius might believe that Pettigrew, unable to face the consequences and failure of what he had done - and seeing Sirius steaming down at him - panicked and blew everything up. Personally I think suicide is an act of cowardice which is why I'm willing to at least contemplate the possiblity that Sirius could contemplate the possibility that Pettigrew would... that gets too convoluted! It's all based on the assumption that Sirius did see Pettigrew transform, and the text could be read either way - that he is talking about what he actually saw, or that he is talking about what he was able to infer from what he now knows. After all, he infers why Pettigrew found a wizarding family, and why he didn't attack Harry... I'm not convinced either way... and frankly I don't think it's totally vital - just interesting!

[barmy codger]

Yes - but I don't like the term universal. Symbols are only understood within the context of their culture. Those Christian symbols in Pisanello's work would not mean the same thing to a Hindu or Buddhist etc. They would still have meaning, because animal symbols are used by every culture, but the meaning wouldn't be the same.
We're back to the original thing that this view is limiting -in my view. Some symbols are more widely recognised and some are indeed universal. The bezoar mentioned recently was known in medieval times and in North America as well. The stone from a deer was directly used to cure bites from rabid animals. Therefore, this healing property was known to more than one culture. I have a book, 'Navajo and TIbetan Sacred Wisdom -The Circle of the Spirit- (by Peter Gold) which demonstrates many similarities in thought and symbols of two disparate cultures. Many symbols which may appear unique to a culture are actually derived from basic symbols that are found around the world. There are common elements to myths of all cultures and there are at least four related reasons for this. First, recent study ("Hamlet's Mill. et. al.) have shown that myths from a number of cultures are describing celestial bodies and events which were observed world-wide. Second, the shamanistic experience is world-wide, and the visit to the spirit worlds is expressed in similar ways across cultures. Third, there is much evidence that in the distant past there was world wide communication and commerce, and perhaps a world- dominating civilisation. Fourth, Jung and others believe that some symbols are produced from a consciousness that we all share as being humans -therefore, though perhaps varied in expression point to core ideas that are universal.

Of course a symbol needs context, but I think the context is larger than you think it is. I think it is humanity as a whole.

If I were more familiar with mythology, I'm sure I could provide a parallel from India to the basic idea in 'The Vision of St Eustace'. It would involve either sacrifice or a visionary experience that transforms. I have a vague memory of an Indian scene with a deer in it. I may be wrong, and it will take some research to find out.

I didn't realise the extent of the idea of the nine-fingered hero. Here possibly we have something that refers to celestial events in the past -I'll have to investigate that, too. But the fact that this was used for Frodo shows me that Tolkien was not, after all, above the use of allegory. I feel that his use of familiar mythic ideas is what gives 'Lord of the Rings' it's wide appeal, and the same may be said for 'Harry Potter". And as far as I know, myths are allegories.

[Liselle]

Not only is the 9 fingered man used once by Tolkein but twice ~ Sauron and Frodo, something which I found interesting if not curious for the reasons you meantioned Barmy.


Well... maybe. I'm the original fence sitter! But I would say that Sirius might believe that Pettigrew, unable to face the consequences and failure of what he had done - and seeing Sirius steaming down at him - panicked and blew everything up. Personally I think suicide is an act of cowardice which is why I'm willing to at least contemplate the possiblity that Sirius could contemplate the possibility that Pettigrew would... that gets too convoluted! It's all based on the assumption that Sirius did see Pettigrew transform, and the text could be read either way - that he is talking about what he actually saw, or that he is talking about what he was able to infer from what he now knows. After all, he infers why Pettigrew found a wizarding family, and why he didn't attack Harry... I'm not convinced either way... and frankly I don't think it's totally vital - just interesting!

I see where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. I just think that Wormtail's preservation instints are stronger than maybe we give them credit for. I don't think its vital to the plot either, I agree with you that it is curious though.

[Machiavelli]

We're back to the original thing that this view is limiting -in my view. Some symbols are more widely recognised and some are indeed universal. The bezoar mentioned recently was known in medieval times and in North America as well. The stone from a deer was directly used to cure bites from rabid animals. Therefore, this healing property was known to more than one culture.
Nope, a healing property was inferred in at least two cultures for a physical object taken from two entirely different species. I would point out, for example, that the goat is a domestic animal and the deer is a wild animal and that they definitely occupy very different positions in the symbolism of their respective cultures. It is, I would argue, not a reflection of a universal "truth" that these two cultures are drawing from, but a coincidental use of healing magic which is completely understandable within the context of each culture.
There are common elements to myths of all cultures and there are at least four related reasons for this. First, recent study ("Hamlet's Mill. et. al.) have shown that myths from a number of cultures are describing celestial bodies and events which were observed world-wide. Second, the shamanistic experience is world-wide, and the visit to the spirit worlds in similar ways across cultures. Third, there is much evidence that in the distant past there was world wide communication and commerce, and perhaps a world- dominating civilisation.
Absolutely - because every culture consists of humans, who all have certain very basic needs and wants. The desire to understand death, the need to explain natural events, the desire to "control" uncontrollable things through magic, prayer, science... whatever. However, all of those things that are "universal" are also very basic, fundamental things. And how they are symbolized in different cultures and religions is often quite different. So to take specific symbols that have multiple meanings across cultures and append to them a single meaning from one culture and claim it as absolute is limiting and, I think, mistaken. The stag is only one example of that.

Jung and others believe that some symbols are produced from a consciousness that we all share as being humans -therefore, though perhaps varied in expression point to core ideas that are universal.
See, there you lose me because I disagree with Jung, and don't feel that that theory is "truth". I do not accept a universal consciousness, and never have. I don't find that limiting, nor do I find it lonely - I find it logical.

Of course a symbol needs context, but I think the context is larger than you think it is. I think it is humanity as a whole.
Again, not for every symbol. The snake is a symbol of evil to many Christians, a symbol of fertility to many Indians. Those two images do not contradict eachother - but they also do not represent a human awareness of "snake".

If I were more familiar with mythology, I'm sure I could provide a parallel from India to the basic idea in 'The Vision of St Eustace'. It would involve either sacrifice or a visionary experience that transforms. I have a vague memory of an Indian scene with a deer in it. I may be wrong, and it will take some research to find out.
Go for it! If you find it that's terrific. Please also find primary source for it, and dates if possible. I would love to hear it.

But the fact that this was used for Frodo shows me that Tolkien was not, after all, above the use of allegory. I feel that his use of familiar mythic ideas is what gives 'Lord of the Rings' it's wide appeal, and the same may be said for 'Harry Potter". And as far as I know, myths are allegories.
The fact that Frodo lost a finger is not an allegory. Tolkein, as I mentioned, only wrote one allegorical story. Allegory means a one-to-one relationship between each element of the story with the thing it is representing. Tolkein felt that doing this was limiting both to the writer and the reader. He used many, many symbols in his writing - but that does not make it allegorical! I'm not sure that I'm making the difference clear... for example, the lembas bread the elves give the Fellowship can be taken as a reference to sacramental wafers. It is intended to do so. Tolkein was Catholic and devoutly so, and his works are woven throughout with very subtle symbols and references to his religious beliefs. However, when he wrote the lembas bread idea he was simply in need of a good method to carry large amounts of food easily (this is according to JRRT himself) - the symbolism was not the driving force behind the creation of the item. Instead, it gave a second layer of meaning that was not necessary to the plot, but would speak to someone who understood it. He did not think it was good literature to think "okay, now I'm going to introduce fear so I will put in a _____" instead he describes something that refers to emotions, experiences and, yes often cultural symbols that most people can understand... Again, I hope I'm being clear. It's a difference between covert and overt symbolism. Allegory is overt, what JRRT and (in my belief JKR) are doing is covert.

[Lupins Ladee]

ornjbreezy, your Fudge theory is interesting, and I have a theory that is close to that. I agree that Fudge is to stupid to think of that, but I think after Voldi fell it was a political freinze. I think Sirius was railroaded by Crouch and Fudge used Sirius' capture as the corner stone in his campagin for MoM.

In GoF, it is said that Crouch would have been MoM had not the Barty thing happened. So assuming that the MoM is elected than, the canidates must have campains and such. That is assuming that the English WW has campains and such. I think Sirius was railroaded b/c he was a Black. Sirius' family was rich, powerful, pureblood, and openly racist. People must have hated them and for one of them to be sent to Azkaban the public must have ate it up. Just think how happy some people are the Martha Stuart was convicted. People love seeing powerful rich peopla fall. To be the one that caught this person or put him away would be a political canidate's dream come true. So those people were Fudge and Crouch. Plus Sirius was put away also for the betrayal of the Potters. So if my thoery that the Potters (Jame's Family) were rich and powerful as well only kind and helpful to people not cruel or racist than the murder of the younger Potters plus the fact that Harry stopped Voldi would make Sirius' case even more of a media freinze.

I also feel Barty was railroaded. I don't think that he was on of the Longbottom's torturers. He MAY have been a deatheater, and he did inpersonate Moody and cause all kinds of chaos in GoF, but I think that is because he had gone mad from wrongful inprisionment and emotional cruelty. Anyway, I think Lucius was the other person present at the Longbottom's house and he some how framed Barty. Think about it, Crouch WAS going to be MoM. The only thing that stopped him was Barty's conviction. And Lucius is a big supporter of Fudge and Fudge is a big supporter of Lucius as illustrated in CoS and OotP. So maybe they cut a deal Lucius would get off and in return he would help Fudge get elected MoM. I don't think Barty at 19 had the stomach to torture the Longbottoms to insanity. At his trial he seemed honestly terrified and pathetic. I don't think someone who would lose it like that at their trial would be able to commit a horrific crime. Unless, of course, they were acting but I don't think Barty was. Maybe Barty knew that it was Lucius at the Longbottoms b/c maybe Bella or someone told him while they were in Azkaban togeather. Remember, the the Quiditch World Cup Barty was sitting in the top box with his cloak on. He would have seen Lucius and maybe he freaked out knowing that he suffered for a crime that Lucius commited. He is forced to hide under a cloak and be babsat by a house elf while Lucius roams free. That may have been the incitment that Barty needed to go along with Voldi's plan. The worst thing Barty could do to Lucius is bring back his old master.

Plus if Lucius was involved in the Longbottoms torture that could be another reason Snape is so aweful to Nevile. Snape might suspect or even know that Lucius was there so he is showing his "support" of Lucius by being cruel to Nevile. Does that make any sense?

[Liselle]

Thats an interesting view of what happened to Sirius, he had enemies....Crouch was in an influencial position at the time....he hated Dark wizards and dark magic. THe Black Family (Sirius aside) were part of the pure blooded mania sweeping the wizarding world ~ thus Sirius was seen as a plausible scape goat......hmmmm interesting

[Blacks Beauty]

Sorry to jump back a bit but I've just noticed something intriguing. While I am inclined to agree that Fudge is just a power-hungry idiot as opposed to evil -- isn't it interesting that Fudge was the first on the scene when the rat disappeared, and just happened to show up at Azkaban for an annual inspection on the day a newspaper bearing Peter's picture appears? Does he always carry newspapers to prison inspections? And does he routinely hand them over to notorious mass murderers to help them pass the time? :huh:

Perhaps he was there early enough to see Peter disappear through the sewer. Even if he did, he probably would have locked Sirus up anyway to uphold his image rather than scramble around looking for a rat, especially given that nobody would believe Peter was powerful enough to blow up a street or become a rat. Which would give ample reason why he wouldn't want a trial, veritaserum or priori, either.

But if these two facts are not coincidence, why would Fudge want Sirius to have the newspaper? JKR could have given Sirius the newspaper from anyone -- it sounds like it wasn't the first newspaper he's gotten in 12 years -- but it came from Fudge. Perhaps he was in league with the DEs and this was his way of rubbing salt in the wound, that the little rat is livin' it up and Sirius is rotting in Azkaban. If he was a closet DE, he could have been the one who "placed" Peter with the Weasleys too (he knew them from work, they had a son who was old enough for a pet and one who would go to school with Harry someday, and they weren't likely able to afford a "proper" pet).

Or if he's not a DE -- remember how he said he still has dreams about the scene -- the image of the rat could have been burned in his mind such that he suspected the rat was Peter, and he gave it to Sirius to see if Sirius would react to it to confirm his suspicions.

(Just looking for an new conspiracy theory) :D

Edit: Oops, sorry about posting this over Lupins Ladees idea. I think its very interesting, the idea of being caught in a political struggle between Crouch and Fudge; I've wondering about Crouch Jr, too because he does seem so distraught at trial. Hmmm...

[dcv]

Lupins Ladee, you have lots of interesting ideas there, and politically it makes a lot of sense. I can even see Crouch thinking he'll gain political capital by prosecuting his own son; can't you just see Crouch thinking, "Since Fudge got Black, I'll get a Black, her husband and brother-in-law and my son too!" He was probably genuinely shocked by the backlash.

But, I'm pretty sure that Crouch Jr. was guilty, a death eater, and acting at the trial. First, we know he was in league with LV, and had been before he was sent to Azkaban (or else LV and Wormtail would not have cared when Bertha told them where he was.) He was an integral part of the plot to get Harry to the graveyard for LV's rebirthing party. (Why, oh why did I just get an image of Frosty the Snowman yelling "Happy Birthday!" when he puts on his magic hat every time. Now I see LV popping up out of the cauldron yelling "Happy Birthday!" :birthday: ) Plus, we know Crouch Jr. was a good actor, because he was able to convince even Dumbledore that he was Moody all year long.

I think you do have something with your Fudge-in-Lucius'-pocket idea, though. When Fudge was talking about catching Black in PoA, he said he was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes when the Black-Pettigrew explosion happened. So, within a very, very short time span he went from Junior Minister of a relatively unimportant department to Minister of Magic? In US politics, that would be like the Undersecretary of Commerce being elected the next President! It just doesn't happen. I know the British system is substantially different than the US one, but I'm sure it's just as uncommon there for a politician to jump ranks. You'd expect Fudge to go from Junior Minister to Minister in his own department, then become Minister of a more prestigious department, then finally be in line to be Minister of Magic. There just wasn't time for all that to happen. So, something else happened, and it's highly likely whatever it was happened with Lucius' help. Does that make Fudge evil, or even a DE? No. But it does make him a politician in bed with the devil (gee, that never happens, does it.)

Edit: Blacks Beauty was posting while I was. His (?) ideas about Fudge giving Black the newspaper is interesting as well. Whether Fudge was in league with the DEs or not, I could see him being that cruel.

One more comment. I'm re-reading OotP right now, and among other weird conspiracies that Luna Lovegood thinks Fudge is involved with is using the DoM to create some kind of terrible poison. Now, most of her ideas are batty, but a few seem to hold some sort of truth (I too tend to think Fudge wants control of Gringotts.) Any thoughts on the poison? Could that be what they're working on behind the locked door? Could that be the weapon the OotP thinks LV is seeking?

[Machiavelli]

Sorry to jump back a bit but I've just noticed something intriguing. While I am inclined to agree that Fudge is just a power-hungry idiot as opposed to evil -- isn't it interesting that Fudge was the first on the scene when the rat disappeared, and just happened to show up at Azkaban for an annual inspection on the day a newspaper bearing Peter's picture appears? Does he always carry newspapers to prison inspections? And does he routinely hand them over to notorious mass murderers to help them pass the time? :huh:
Coincidence is the mother of conspiracy theories!

Perhaps he was there early enough to see Peter disappear through the sewer. Even if he did, he probably would have locked Sirus up anyway to uphold his image rather than scramble around looking for a rat, especially given that nobody would believe Peter was powerful enough to blow up a street or become a rat. Which would give ample reason why he wouldn't want a trial, veritaserum or priori, either.
Well... except that he was at the time a rather minor minister wasn't he? Do we know whether he gained political clout at this time? Or was he just a member of the clean-up squad sent with memory charms and large sponges to deal with the situation.
But if these two facts are not coincidence, why would Fudge want Sirius to have the newspaper? JKR could have given Sirius the newspaper from anyone -- it sounds like it wasn't the first newspaper he's gotten in 12 years -- but it came from Fudge. Perhaps he was in league with the DEs and this was his way of rubbing salt in the wound, that the little rat is livin' it up and Sirius is rotting in Azkaban.
well... I still think he's an idiot, but for the sake of another conspiracy theory.. Yes!! Evil evil Fudge... he probably already had done the crossword too! Now, please work in a time-turner and some polyjuice potion and you've got it!

Or if he's not a DE -- remember how he said he still has dreams about the scene -- the image of the rat could have been burned in his mind such that he suspected the rat was Peter, and he gave it to Sirius to see if Sirius would react to it to confirm his suspicions.

(Just looking for an new conspiracy theory) :D
Rat dreams - enough to make anyone an incompetent power-mad fool.

Note of sanity - I think he showed up at the scene with other members of his department. At least that's what is implied. Could easily be wrong though!

[whizbang121]

Wormtail's instinct is to take cover, protect himself by finding someone stronger to protect him. Which brings me back to: Why and how did he end up at the Weasleys?

Was that prearranged? Is that where he was hiding before he betrayed the Potters? And is that where Sirius was heading to look for him?

[Blacks Beauty]

Well... except that he was at the time a rather minor minister wasn't he? Do we know whether he gained political clout at this time? Or was he just a member of the clean-up squad sent with memory charms and large sponges to deal with the situation. Well, as dcv pointed out, he seems to have climbed the political ladder rather quickly. If he was the first on the scene and someone powerful had a reason to want Sirius blamed for it with no questions asked, Fudge seems just the type to go along with it even if he knew differently. Perhaps it paid off handsomely in the political stuggle that Lupins Ladee was discussing -- it could have well been the same sort of deal she's speculating about regarding Lucius. well... I still think he's an idiot, but for the sake of another conspiracy theory.. Yes!! Evil evil Fudge... he probably already had done the crossword too! Now, please work in a time-turner and some polyjuice potion and you've got it! No need to get snippy. I'm just throwing out some ideas. I only thought it was an interesting coincidence.

[Lupins Ladee]

I think Peter ended up at the Weasleys because they were a pureblood family but they were neither Deatheaters nor Order members during the first war. So, he was safe, and he was able to learn info as it came available due to Arthur working at the Ministry. It was a win win sit at the Weasleys plus their were plenty of children for him to be passed down to.

[Liselle]

Wormtail's instinct is to take cover, protect himself by finding someone stronger to protect him. Which brings me back to: Why and how did he end up at the Weasleys?

Was that prearranged? Is that where he was hiding before he betrayed the Potters? And is that where Sirius was heading to look for him?


Was Pettigrew in hiding before what happened in Godric's hollow? If he was in hiding it wasn't necessarily in his animagus form either.

As for why hd came to the Weasley's I'm not quite sure, that is something to ponder alright. Magically the Weasley's were possibly more able but in terms of power they'd be limited....yes Arthur is well liked by many wizards/witches but he doesn't have the clout that someone like Malfoy has.


Fudge has indeed climbed the political ladder extremely quickly....for one who's not so able. No doubt alot of it is down to his "influencial" friends *cough*Malfoy*cough* I wonder what happened to the other heads of departments around that time, where are they now???The only ones we've heard of really are Crouch who's now dead and Ludo Bagman who is inept, corrupt and has a charming gambling problem to boot.

[Machiavelli]

No need to get snippy. I'm just throwing out some ideas. I only thought it was an interesting coincidence.
Humble appologies - I wasn't being snippy, I was trying to make a joke. Obviously it wasn't a good one. I like coincidence, and I was NOT trying to put down your ideas. Once I have a good one of my own then maybe I'll feel like I can put down someone else's but until then, everyone gets my respect just for throwing their theories out there.

It does seem like a large set of coincidences colliding here - although one of them has to be taken as coincidence: the fact that Harry and Ron became best friends. Let's see.... Ron is older than Harry, right? So Pettigrew might have chosen them because they had a son of around Harry's age... but I don't see how he could count on being taken to school with the right kid... maybe... anyway, I'm not sure how he would know a great deal about the Weasley's as they weren't of his generation, and they don't seem to have been in the same circle. But the wizarding world is small!

Was Pettigrew in hiding before what happened in Godric's hollow? If he was in hiding it wasn't necessarily in his animagus form either.
I don't think he was in hiding since he hadn't been exposed to the good guys yet, and the bad guys still liked him.

As for why hd came to the Weasley's I'm not quite sure, that is something to ponder alright. Magically the Weasley's were possibly more able but in terms of power they'd be limited....yes Arthur is well liked by many wizards/witches but he doesn't have the clout that someone like Malfoy has.
But if he was hiding from the DE's maybe he was afraid they'd recognize him?


Fudge has indeed climbed the political ladder extremely quickly....for one who's not so able. No doubt alot of it is down to his "influencial" friends *cough*Malfoy*cough* I wonder what happened to the other heads of departments around that time, where are they now???The only ones we've heard of really are Crouch who's now dead and Ludo Bagman who is inept, corrupt and has a charming gambling problem to boot.
Maybe there were so many deaths and so much chaos people just did climb the ladder more quickly. Or maybe he's just a Percy... or evil.

[dcv]

Maybe there were so many deaths and so much chaos people just did climb the ladder more quickly. Or maybe he's just a Percy... or evil.

I don't know about evil. Ambitious, yes. But then, didn't Quirrell say in SS/PS that there is no good or evil, only power and those too weak to claim it (or something like this; I want to say LV said it in the movie, from the back of Quirrell's head...)

You're right, Percy is also moving up the ladder quickly. It's an interesting parallel, because Percy is also being used by someone more powerful: Fudge, who promoted Percy knowing that Percy could spy on his own family for Fudge. (Boy, a bunch of evil a/o ambitious people. :evil:)

[Machiavelli]

I don't know about evil. Ambitious, yes. But then, didn't Quirrell say in SS/PS that there is no good or evil, only power and those too weak to claim it (or something like this; I want to say LV said it in the movie, from the back of Quirrell's head...)

You're right, Percy is also moving up the ladder quickly. It's an interesting parallel, because Percy is also being used by someone more powerful: Fudge, who promoted Percy knowing that Percy could spy on his own family for Fudge. (Boy, a bunch of evil a/o ambitious people. :evil:)
I think he said it in both - but don't quote me on that! I agree with ambitious. But I also agree that he's probably not evil. Okay, I agree that his intentions are not evil, but the results are not exactly nice.

I wonder what house Fudge was in. He seems like a Hufflepuff type to me somehow.

In the Percy thing, it certainly seems that Fudge knows what a good tool Percy will make! I wonder who was making use of Fudge when he was a young, eager minister.

[ornjbreezy]

Points taken on the poison issue- forgot about those! Sorry. Thanks for pointing them out. But I still think there's something about Snape saying that besides sympathizing with Umbridge for hating Harry... Perhaps Snape was thinking about what Dumbledore would do if a student was harmed (remember Marietta?). Or not, I dunno. The wording of that just makes me think something weird's going on...

I think the similarities between Fudge and Percy are interesting. Or rather, the fact that they are similar is interesting. I think it's very probably that we will see another instance of choice- I believe Percy will choose to redeem himself. In juxtaposition with Fudge, who I very much doubt will even try to reconcile what he's done, they could turn out very differently.

Percy, Percy, Percy....Why? Why oh why have you shamed yourself like this? I hope that he turns out to not be the world's biggest prat in the end.

[Blacks Beauty]

Humble appologies - I wasn't being snippy, I was trying to make a joke. Sorry, I wasn't sure; no offense taken. :) I tend to throw out my oddball observations and theories because every once in a while someone will make a connection to it that makes sense; apologies if it bugs people. It does seem like a large set of coincidences colliding here - although one of them has to be taken as coincidence: the fact that Harry and Ron became best friends. Agree. But just the fact that JKR told us twice where Sirius got the paper piqued my interest as to whether it's important. (Actually, Sirius says Fudge gave it to him, where Fudge says he asked for it. Not that that is necessarily contradictory but it could be.) And was it really that easy for a weak, emaciated Sirius to swim away to safety or did they let him? Whether the newspaper was coincidence or not, I'm still suspicious of Fudge; I wouldn't put it past him to know about Peter the rat and hide it for political gain.

It also struck me as strange how eerily similar his words at Hogsmeade were to Trelawney's prophecy at the end of the book. Fudge: You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing...but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again."
Trelawney: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers....The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was." Not only oddly coincidental, but interesting coming from a guy who refused to believe Voldemort was a serious threat in GoF. And what to make of the smile at hearing of Voldemort's return ("The Parting of the Ways") -- strictly political? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. In the Percy thing, it certainly seems that Fudge knows what a good tool Percy will make! I wonder who was making use of Fudge when he was a young, eager minister. Indeed! Lucius may have had the gold, but I'd guess he didn't have the political clout yet. He'd be 27 or so when the Potters were killed. Unless lineage has a lot more clout than I imagine, it seems like it would be an older generation pulling the strings.

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, I wasn't sure; no offense taken. :) I tend to throw out my oddball observations and theories because every once in a while someone will make a connection to it that makes sense; apologies if it bugs people.
It certainly doesn't bug me!

Lucius may have had the gold, but I'd guess he didn't have the political clout yet. He'd be 27 or so when the Potters were killed. Unless lineage has a lot more clout than I imagine, it seems like it would be an older generation pulling the strings.
Maybe there's a family history there. Draco is certainly following in the famiy tradition... let's see - the Malfoys weren't mentioned as directly related to the Blacks except by marriage through Narcissa - right? I wonder who Grandfather Malfoy was.

[dcv]

BlacksBeauty wrote: It also struck me as strange how eerily similar his words at Hogsmeade were to Trelawney's prophecy at the end of the book.
Quote:
Fudge: You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing...but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again."
Trelawney: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers....The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was."

I was involved in a thread recently about whether Black could have been the one who fulfilled Trelawney's second prophesy rather than Pettigrew. There's actually a lot of canon supporting it (he was in prison for 12 years, he escaped the night Trelawney predicted he would...), and also inference that can be drawn from canon (like, we know Sirius went somewhere where there are tropical birds, and we know LV was in Albania, and lo and behold there are tropical birds in Albania!) This language cemented for me that it wasn't just coincidence, Jo wanted us to see that Sirius could also be the one who fulfilled the second prophesy. (I'm not posting this there, though, the Black supporters would lynch me.)

[Machiavelli]

I was involved in a thread recently about whether Black could have been the one who fulfilled Trelawney's second prophesy rather than Pettigrew. There's actually a lot of canon supporting it (he was in prison for 12 years, he escaped the night Trelawney predicted he would...), and also inference that can be drawn from canon (like, we know Sirius went somewhere where there are tropical birds, and we know LV was in Albania, and lo and behold there are tropical birds in Albania!) This language cemented for me that it wasn't just coincidence, Jo wanted us to see that Sirius could also be the one who fulfilled the second prophesy. (I'm not posting this there, though, the Black supporters would lynch me.)
Too late! you just did post it! Well, you said enough to get tempers flaring if they want to.

Actually, although I don't really believe that Sirius is the most loyal supporter (or whatever the phrase is), it is interesting that there is that ambiguity there as well as in the other prophecy. In both cases it seems completely clear who the individual is, and in both cases there can at least be some question...

[dcv]

Too late! you just did post it! Well, you said enough to get tempers flaring if they want to

I meant to post this here but I will not post it on that other thread. The people here have their disagreements, but generally it's civil and well-reasoned. There was a fair amount of reason on the other thread, but a large, large number of posts that basically asked how dare I even think such a thing. But, just in case, my son had a tornado drill in school today, so if I have to he can coach me in the right position: kneeling, head down and covered...

[Machiavelli]

I meant to post this here but I will not post it on that other thread. The people here have their disagreements, but generally it's civil and well-reasoned. There was a fair amount of reason on the other thread, but a large, large number of posts that basically asked how dare I even think such a thing. But, just in case, my son had a tornado drill in school today, so if I have to he can coach me in the right position: kneeling, head down and covered...
Ah. Yes, duck and cover - quite good idea. I had moose training once, believe it or not... not sure if that helps in this situation though.

So does the Sirius theory have anything to say about the way things went down in the MoM? He didn't seem to be on the DE side at that point. Just curious - oh, and which side of the issue do you come down on? Sirius good, or Siriusly evil?

[whizbang121]

I was involved in a thread recently about whether Black could have been the one who fulfilled Trelawney's second prophesy rather than Pettigrew. I must have missed something. Did we talk about it possibly being Crouch Jr that Trelawney meant? Although the prophesy did say that the servant would "return to the master." Neither Sirius nor Crouch Jr actually "went" to Voldemort. Seems like it was Pettigrew in terms of physically and ideologically returning to Voldemort.

As for why PP was in the Weasley household for 12 years, I guess I'm the only one who thinks it has something to do with "evil Molly." :eyebrows:

There are tropical birds in Albania????
Really?
I was thinking Indonesia or South America.
But Eastern Europe?

I meant to post this here but I will not post it on that other thread. The people here have their disagreements, but generally it's civil and well-reasoned. And hopefully we have a sense of humor and are secure enough not to be oversensitive. :)
There was a fair amount of reason on the other thread, but a large, large number of posts that basically asked how dare I even think such a thing. But, just in case, my son had a tornado drill in school today, so if I have to he can coach me in the right position: kneeling, head down and covered...I know how you feel. I had to go to Bolivia with JKR after I suggested that Molly was Vodlemort's most faithful servant. :D

[Scarlet Tears]

Hooray for version VI! :) Sorry I haven't been very active here in a while (my homework load has been pretty heavy lately). I've missed talking with all of you!

Fudge: You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing...but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again."
Trelawney: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers....The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was."

Wow, that is definitely an eerie coincidence. It could simply be attributed to the fact that sometimes people tend to repeat their own phrases when they write (I've done it numerous times before), but that's just the skeptical side of me talking.

I must have missed something. Did we talk about it possibly being Crouch Jr that Trelawney meant? Although the prophesy did say that the servant would "return to the master." Neither Sirius nor Crouch Jr actually "went" to Voldemort. Seems like it was Pettigrew in terms of physically and ideologically returning to Voldemort.

I agree. Sirius has pretty much proved himself innocent in my opinion, and Crouch Jr. specifically said that it was Voldemort who came to him, not the other way around. Pettigrew, on the other hand, went directly to Voldemort after escaping (or as far as we know...) so he fulfills that requirement of the prophecy more than the others. Both theories are definitely interesting and are drawn from some very skilled observations, but I have my doubts about either of them being true.

Though I have to say, it would be strange if Sirius turned out to be evil, considering the fact that everyone thought he was evil in the beginning of PoA, then we found out that he was on Dumbledore's side. To be led right back to what we were made to believe at the beginning would be very bizarre indeed.

[ornjbreezy]

Though I have to say, it would be strange if Sirius turned out to be evil, considering the fact that everyone thought he was evil in the beginning of PoA, then we found out that he was on Dumbledore's side. To be led right back to what we were made to believe at the beginning would be very bizarre indeed.
It's funny how JK leads us all off so easily, isn't it? Fake Moody, Sirius and Pettigrew, Percy (in a way.) I think we'll have more identity surprises later in the series, too. I have a gut feeling that she's doing this to blur the lines between evil and good, and to remind us that perceptions aren't always accurate.

That's a weird coincidence (or not) between the second prophecy and Fudge's statement. Could be important.

About how Wormtail got into the Weasley family, I think it very well could be unimportant. It was an obviously necessary plot device to have Scabbers appear before and through PoA, so I wouldn't blame JK if she didn't connect it to another idea. And it can be simply explained- Scabbers was a rat running around some magical place, and got picked up by either a Weasley (who would be happy to have a free pet) or a petstore owner. The end. I'm not saying that it couldn't be more complicated than that, but rather that it could be simple and unimportant.

[Liselle]

Quote:
Fudge: You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing...but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again." Trelawney: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers....The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was."
Not only oddly coincidental, but interesting coming from a guy who refused to believe Voldemort was a serious threat in GoF.



That is quite scary and something I never noticed :wow: Course there is a whole school of thought that Fudge is a death eater or at least a sympathiser, when Dumbledore told him at the end of GOF that Voldemort was back his reaction was a bit “strange”. Regardless though I don’t like Fudge, he’s weak willed, pompus, has an awful sense of dress and takes really bad advice from Malfoy

[dcv]

Whiz wrote:
There are tropical birds in Albania????
Really?
I was thinking Indonesia or South America.
But Eastern Europe?

Albania is on the Mediterranean, more specifically the Adriatic Sea (about 100 miles across from Italy). It has coastal (beach) resorts that actually look quite nice in the pictures. And someone found a link to Albanian bird stamps, and a few looked quite tropical to my eye. The weakest point to my argument was there is no canon proof of where Sirius went when he escaped Hogwarts, other than he went somewhere that he used a tropical bird to "owl" Harry. Given that there are tropical birds in Albania, it could not be ruled out looking at canon that Sirius went to Albania, and if he went to Albania it's a reasonable inference that he also sought out LV. There is no canon proof of this, but there is no canon to dispute the possibility either.

[atherella]

Albania is on the Mediterranean, more specifically the Adriatic Sea (about 100 miles across from Italy). It has coastal (beach) resorts that actually look quite nice in the pictures. And someone found a link to Albanian bird stamps, and a few looked quite tropical to my eye. The weakest point to my argument was there is no canon proof of where Sirius went when he escaped Hogwarts, other than he went somewhere that he used a tropical bird to "owl" Harry. Given that there are tropical birds in Albania, it could not be ruled out looking at canon that Sirius went to Albania, and if he went to Albania it's a reasonable inference that he also sought out LV. There is no canon proof of this, but there is no canon to dispute the possibility either.

There's a thread all about Albania, which has some pretty interesting discussion in it. I looked up Albania myself while playing around in the thread asking if the second prophecy referred to Sirius, but that thread was pretty scary. People got REALLY upset even discussing the possibility, and angry that anyone would even consider it. The person who posted the thread said he was getting really hateful owls. I stopped posting in there!! In any case, the weather in Albania seems to be nice and warm. I believe the average temp was in the 80s. (And remember when asked in an interview where Sirius went, JKR said 'somewhere nice and warm', and left it at that.) And there are some tropical birds. I think some pictures were posted in the thread about Sirius.

There's also a thread discussing if the second prophecy related to Crouch, Jr, also, but I haven't seen that around in a bit.

[Blacks Beauty]

dcv,I thought you brought up a good question in that thread, and I agree it could just as well have meant Sirius as Peter. Nothing is ever that clean cut in the Potterverse. In the end, I think Scarlet Tears is right, that it would be too twisted from a literary standpoint to have him go back to being a bad guy. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been in Albania looking for Voldemort and/or Peter to take him down though. (And for what it's worth, I've learned the hard way not to question Snape in some threads, so I can sympathize with your decision not to go back there. :lol:)As for why PP was in the Weasley household for 12 years, I guess I'm the only one who thinks it has something to do with "evil Molly." Interesting. Do you have a theory? The jury's still out with me on a couple of people, Molly being one. I had my nutty theory I posted a few messages back, about my buddy Fudge arranging it after he watched Peter zip down the sewer and pinned the blame on Sirius -- it would work even better if Molly were in on it too. (Sorry, I am just currently so obsessed with Fudge I was even trying to figure out if he was the subject of Trelawney's second prophecy...)

[Liselle]

...and we argue ourselves around in a circle. For ages I was trying to convince people that Fudge was one of the death eaters mentioned by Voldemort in the graveyard scene in GOF. The whole second prophecy is tricky and can be taken numerous ways depending on your view point....much like everything else can be taken different ways. What gets me personally the most about that prophecy is the way its phrased in the POA movie (yes I know technically not canon......the whole issue of innocent blood being spilt. I'm curious to say the least.


No doubt about it though Fudge is hardly the straightest of leaders or the best leader the wizarding world has had....corrupt springs to mind quite readily

[whizbang121]

Albania is on the Mediterranean, more specifically the Adriatic Sea (about 100 miles across from Italy). It has coastal (beach) resorts that actually look quite nice in the pictures. And someone found a link to Albanian bird stamps, and a few looked quite tropical to my eye. The weakest point to my argument was there is no canon proof of where Sirius went when he escaped Hogwarts, other than he went somewhere that he used a tropical bird to "owl" Harry. Given that there are tropical birds in Albania, it could not be ruled out looking at canon that Sirius went to Albania, and if he went to Albania it's a reasonable inference that he also sought out LV. There is no canon proof of this, but there is no canon to dispute the possibility either.I've checked the birdlists for albania, and the birds listed seem to be consistent with the lattitude. Tropical birds are from the tropics or the equatorial zone. Albania is too far north despite the mild climate. So while it's possible that Sirius went there he would have had to bring the tropical birds with him.

As I catch up reading, I'm wondering if Fudge is the most trusted servant. That line about "alone and friendless," is too weird.

Either that, or he's Trelawney moonlighting.

[Dedalus Diggle]

I've checked the birdlists for albania, and the birds listed seem to be consistent with the lattitude. Tropical birds are from the tropics or the equatorial zone. Albania is too far north despite the mild climate. So while it's possible that Sirius went there he would have had to bring the tropical birds with him.

No doubt they would get the occasional straggler, just as the soutehrn U.S. does, but still, they would not be typical, particularly the large colorful birds Sirius was using for messages.

As I catch up reading, I'm wondering if Fudge is the most trusted servant. That line about "alone and friendless," is too weird.

Either that, or he's Trelawney moonlighting.
Come to think of it - we've never seen the two of them in the same place - Hmmm!

[ravenfeather]

:backtracking: Machiavelli, i just wanted to let you know that i absolutely agree with you re: universal symbols vs. what the reader brings to the table.
when i was a child, my favorite books were c.s. lewis' narnia series. i started reading them in second grade and reread them yearly. now, maybe because i was immersed in them so early, before literary criticism was really part of my mindset or maybe because i'm a bit dim, but when i was in my late teens, someone startled the pants off me by telling me that the narnia books were a treatise on christianity. i thought that person was really disturbed. when i went back and reread them (in a weekend) i went "OHHHHHHH! i get it!" but because the christian tradition wasn't really a part of my experience, i found that i still enjoyed them in the way that i'd come to think of them as a child. author's intent aside, everyone brings their own experiences, biases, and thought processes to literature. as we mature and are exposed to a greater variety of data, we might view what we're reading a bit differently, but we're still functioning on what we know about our individual worlds.

[whizbang121]

Allegory is overt, what JRRT and (in my belief JKR) are doing is covert.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think she knows exactly what she's doing, but she may be using symbols we're less accustomed to seeing.
In the Sgt Potter and the Mad Marauder's Band (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=31992) thread, we can see the Beatles easily and apparently intentionally represented by the Marauders. Even Lily is a composite of Paul McCartney's redheaded actress girlfriend Jane Asher and his first wife, Linda Eastman. (Note the initials.) And some may know that Paul McCartney's first name is actually James. Paul is his middle name. Somewhere along the way, someone posted a link to an interview with Oldman where he mentioned that Cuaron had also seen Marauders as the Beatles. :agree:

I think she knows exactly what she's doing. But she doesn't always use religious or classical symbols. A lot of it is simply local British culture. We wonder what "tapping her nose" when she answers a question means. And a member who lives near the town JKR grew up in, understood immediately. It means that a secret is being shared. Local culture. So to see through JKR's eyes, to "read her mind," we need to immerse ourselves in her culture and education. :) We have to peel back her layers, rather than our own. :D

[offca]

I read your thoughts on Fudge with real pleasure. This character is so … repulsive, but not as awful as for example Umbridge, that the reader just doesn't pay too much attention on him – he seems to be unworthy of it. That's why there can much more about him ;-)
I do not think of him as a DE – rather power-hungry, pathetic figure. He wants power so much, that is blind on where he got it from. He wants "friends" so much, that it can be even Malfoy, and for sure he made himself believe Malfoy is a good guy, and Harry is stupid little git. This same is with Percy – for power and position he can explain himself easily, that his parents are wrong, DD is wrong and the one who has the power and position (Fudge, Ministry) is right.
This what Fudge said:

Fudge: You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing...but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again."
Trelawney: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers....The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was."


I think he said it than, because he would never believe it could become true – he was saying what looked good in the eyes of his listeners, so he seems to be such clever, knowing everything, strong and powerful man. There are some people who will scream aloud that they can beat up every box champion – because they know that probability that they real meet with box champion is very low. But if just one show up – they will start Lockhart's talk – just kidding, it was a joke etc. – such people are cowards, try to get attention and seem to be powerful and strong. Always need someone to back up (like Malfoy) – they think they are the boss, that the supporters are their loyal friends, without noticing that the "supporters" do it only for personal profit, that actually it is them who rule over the "boss".
That's why I think Fudge is not evil – just stupid and short-sighted. His coward, that's why he is terrified of the real possibility that LV raised again. He somewhere in the back of his mind believed it would be possible – even was talking about that, but when this moment came – was too terrified to admit it happened.

And about the coincidence of wording – I think this phrases were common in use among people. "LV faithful servants" – they had to make distinction between these ones and these under imperio. "alone and friendless" – also could be a phrase common when commenting the events…

[whizbang121]

dcv, (And for what it's worth, I've learned the hard way not to question Snape in some threads, so I can sympathize with your decision not to go back there. :lol:) In the world of CoSers, there are two main camps: Sevages and Maudies. The Sevages feel severely outnumbered and outgunned, so they have a tendency to respond with frightening vehemence when their "god" is maligned in any way, or Maudies behaviour towards him is explained away. It should be all in good fun, or at least it used to be. If it's not, we have a Serius problem here. Interesting. Do you have a theory? The jury's still out with me on a couple of people, Molly being one. Evil Molly. (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=963413&postcount=133)
More of the same. (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=966495&postcount=151) I also think Molly is too close to Percy. She probably went to his flat, had a lovely cup of tea with him, told him to write the letter to Ron, and went home weeping. :rolleyes:

I read your thoughts on Fudge with real pleasure. This character is so … repulsive, but not as awful as for example Umbridge, that the reader just doesn't pay too much attention on him – he seems to be unworthy of it. That's why there can much more about him ;-)
You're probably right. But we should keep an eye on Fudge. We know he's a racist, at the very least.
"Or else - well ..." Fudge sounded embarrassed. "Well, I'll reserve judgment until after I've seen the place where he was found, but you say it was just past the Beauxbatons carriage? Dumbledore, you know what that woman is?"

For ages I was trying to convince people that Fudge was one of the death eaters mentioned by Voldemort in the graveyard scene in GOF. You convinced me. Purplehawk didn't like him, either. And remember Luna's belief that Fudge was subversive and after control of Gringotts with his army of heliopaths. Bet they get hot. Good thing Harry did that essay on Wendelin the Weird and knows how to go into fire without being burned. Was it a Flame Tickling Charm?
No doubt about it though Fudge is hardly the straightest of leaders or the best leader the wizarding world has had....corrupt springs to mind quite readily
At the least. Bet he was a slytherin. Always with the bottle green robes. Of course, McGonagall wears emerald often. :whistle:

I love McGonagall. I have a theory about her and Hermione, too. She's safe in my book so please don't send hate owls. :tu: Professor McGonagall! :D
:lol:

[barmy codger]

I think she knows exactly what she's doing.
My impression was that Machiavelli confused the two things of overt/covert and intent of author/perception of reader.

According to Tolkien: "I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." (from his foreword to "The Lord of the Rings")

Thus, it would be allegory if the author meant it to be so, and overt/covert is not the defining factor.

According to my dictionary, allegory is: "1. The representation of a subject in a story, play, or picture, using the people or events portrayed to illustrate deeper or more general truths: The story of the Holy Grail is an allegory of man's spiritual quest. 2. An instance of such representation. 3. Any symbolic representation. [from Greek, from allegorein, to speak figuratively, 'speak in other terms'."

So once again, allegory can be overt or covert. Whether it is allegory or not supposedly rests on what the author means the story to be.

Machiavelli pointed out Tolkien's use of lembas bread was a plot device and that its similarity to the communion wafer was incidental. I say that this similarity was a reason for Tolkien's choice of lembas, therefore it would be allegory. If Tolkien were simply telling a story, that is one thing, but if he uses an object deliberately because it suggests something more, then that is allegory. But Tolkien denied his story was allegorical. So my compromise is to accept that Tolkien did not intend allegory, and that something like the lembas bread, while allegorical, had no function in the story as allegory. What I mean is, lembas suggested communion wafer but that idea doesn't contribute to the themes of the story.

One of the difficulties with the Jungian view of archetypal symbols is that it maintains that the symbols manifest themselves whether the author intended them or not. I have mentioned the Jungian idea of symbols being universal to humankind, but I refrained from saying they could appear despite the author's intentions. In my youth I had great difficulty with this idea when I first encountered it, and obviously someone with a view like Machiavelli's is not going to accept it. He already thinks that taking a symbol to its basic universal meaning is limiting. As I understand it, he feels that the more a reader brings to a symbol the better. But as Tolkien mentioned, that is 'applicability' which is at the discretion of the reader. Yet if, as Machiavelli maintains, symbols have different significance in different cultural contexts, then it behooves the reader to try to understand the author's context in order to understand the author's use of imagery.

Ms Rowling is using symbols deliberately and abundantly. They are overt and have a lot to do with the themes of her story, if not the entire story itself. Even if their meaning is covert, the use is deliberate and therefore is allegory. They do not have to be perceived to enjoy the story, but, as I originally maintained, to ignore the symbols, or to be ignorant of what they might suggest, is a limitation. Understanding what her imagery is about brings a richer understanding of what the story is about.

[whizbang121]

That makes sense. As for unintended use of symbols, the author may use them unconsciously because they have internalized an interpretation of one symbol or another.
JKR was upset with an Italian version of one of the books. On the front cover was a picture of Harry without his glasses. The glasses, she said, represented his vulnerability. (I should look it up and get it right ... first thing in the morning. :) )

But, thank the stars she's not as heavy handed as Hawthorne or other authors who practically smack the reader upside the head with their symbols. ;)

[barmy codger]

But, thank the stars she's not as heavy handed as Hawthorne or other authors who practically smack the reader upside the head with their symbols. ;)
Actually, "Moby Dick" is great!

[Liselle]

You convinced me. Purplehawk didn't like him, either. And remember Luna's belief that Fudge was subversive and after control of Gringotts with his army of heliopaths. Bet they get hot. Good thing Harry did that essay on Wendelin the Weird and knows how to go into fire without being burned. Was it a Flame Tickling Charm?
I did?

By the by that an interesting catch about Wendelin the weird too…..

I also think Molly is too close to Percy. She probably went to his flat, had a lovely cup of tea with him, told him to write the letter to Ron, and went home weeping
Do you really think that??

n the world of CoSers, there are two main camps: Sevages and Maudies. The Sevages feel severely outnumbered and outgunned, so they have a tendency to respond with frightening vehemence when their "god" is maligned in any way, or Maudies behaviour towards him is explained away. It should be all in good fun, or at least it used to be. If it's not, we have a Serius problem here.
:rotfl: I’m not sure which camp I belong to but I more or less agree with you on that!!

[whizbang121]

Remember Fredrocksmysocks (and Harry's) birthday party last summer in AASS (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=11228&page=66&pp=30&highlight=Snivellus)? :rotfl:
And don't forget "remedial wand polishing." :elaugh: :lol:

The "good old days" at CoS. :D

[Dedalus Diggle]

In the world of CoSers, there are two main camps: Sevages and Maudies. The Sevages feel severely outnumbered and outgunned, so they have a tendency to respond with frightening vehemence when their "god" is maligned in any way, or Maudies behaviour towards him is explained away. It should be all in good fun, or at least it used to be. If it's not, we have a Serius problem here.

Sorry, Whiz, but I still don't understand what the different positions are between 'Sevages' and 'Maudies' - We had been talking about evil Sirius: does it have to do with that theory? Or is it about Snape, Sevage being a derivation from Severus? Other than that possibility, the names don't immediately suggest anythings to me.

[whizbang121]

It started here.dcv, (And for what it's worth, I've learned the hard way not to question Snape in some threads, so I can sympathize with your decision not to go back there. :lol:)

But sometimes things can get out of hand. We need to keep a sense of humor and avoid personal attacks at all costs. We used to do this with virtual junk food and an occasional birthday party, but .......

Personally, I avoid the "love" threads. :scared: Frightening. :agree:

Sevages maintain that James was evil and tortured Snape who was a sweet innocent greaceball minding his own business.

Maudies insist that Snape was a slimey git who was always trying to get the Marauders into trouble and just because on this one occasion they struck first doesn't mean that Snape didn't get his in, too.

Threats of violence usually follow.

Coffee? Cranberry muffins fresh from the oven. :D

[offca]

Personally, I avoid the "love" threads. :scared: Frightening. :agree:

isn't it ironic? a love thread? :evil:
anyone still has any doubt about love being powerful and dangerous? ;)

I think I missing a lot posting almost only in this thread. but... do you people sleep at all???
and it is so hard to jump into a thread which is in its 5th version ... I menaged with this one, but still...


I made a new thread on question I put here - about Patrick Suskind book, but it seems that noone on this forums read it! I cannot believe it... there are thousands of people on CoS! And I thought that people here read and know everything ;) I hope still someone will post on that thread - I was so exited to disscuss similarities. It is such a good book!


whiz - Fudge being a rasist - I think he is just prejudiced. He takes all this prejudices, without any deeper thought. if you take it this way Ron is also a rasist! I think it is just taking the prejudices as a fact and not thinking about that. it can be sometimes much stronger than logical argument against - because prejudices are things people believe in, and not what is a result of studies, thinking, learning. that is why it is so hard to fight with rasism, antysemitism etc. - it is deep in people's believes, and sometimes we see that even very inteligent and educated people are for example rasists - how could be? because it is more like a feeling, instinct, natural reaction - and not something studied independently. some people are more into believing it - who rather "feel" than "think" in life. Others (like Hermione) are more logical, more think, less feel. Fudge is short-sighted, he jumps from one spot to antother, without ability to look on things from distance, to understand similarities, allegories, possible consequences and causes (what DD is perfect in). he wants answers fast and with no work - that's why he wants to blame fast on anyone - and Madam Maxime is a great person for that.

btw - as I now study hebrew = maxime in Hebrew meens "charming" :)

[Blacks Beauty]

Either that, or he's Trelawney moonlightingOoh, there ya go! Fudge is a metamorphmagus. Tonks will turn out to be Fudge too. :rotfl: Seriously, that "alone and friendless" and "rise again" is puzzling to me. Guess I'm going to have to spend some time reading the "Fudge Good or Bad" thread, given my current obsession... along with the Evil Molly threads. In the world of CoSers, there are two main camps: Sevages and Maudies. The Sevages feel severely outnumbered and outgunned, so they have a tendency to respond with frightening vehemence when their "god" is maligned in any way, or Maudies behaviour towards him is explained away. It should be all in good fun, or at least it used to be. If it's not, we have a Serius problem here.Yes, it was the frightening vehemence that took me aback! :wow: I find Sirius and Snape the two most intriguing characters in the series, though I'd rather have a bubble bath with Sirius than peel grapes for Snape. I guess that makes me a Maudie. But I hope it was all in good fun, I think the Sevages are a smart and interesting bunch and I often read what they have to say even if I'm somewhat skittish about to participating.

But regardless of what I think about a character at first blush, JKR's style is that nothing is black or white, and I feel like you're missing something if you are not willing to look for other possibilities.

Thanks for the cranberry muffins and coffee! I've got broccoli salad for lunch -- Sevages and Maudies alike are welcome! :D

[Machiavelli]

:backtracking: Machiavelli, i just wanted to let you know that i absolutely agree with you re: universal symbols vs. what the reader brings to the table.
when i was a child, my favorite books were c.s. lewis' narnia series. i started reading them in second grade and reread them yearly. now, maybe because i was immersed in them so early, before literary criticism was really part of my mindset or maybe because i'm a bit dim, but when i was in my late teens, someone startled the pants off me by telling me that the narnia books were a treatise on christianity. i thought that person was really disturbed. when i went back and reread them (in a weekend) i went "OHHHHHHH! i get it!" but because the christian tradition wasn't really a part of my experience, i found that i still enjoyed them in the way that i'd come to think of them as a child. author's intent aside, everyone brings their own experiences, biases, and thought processes to literature. as we mature and are exposed to a greater variety of data, we might view what we're reading a bit differently, but we're still functioning on what we know about our individual worlds.
It's funny - I was raised in a heavily Christian (although slightly whacky) household, and loved the Narnia books as a child and I totally missed the symbolism too! As an adult I find the books have lost much of their immediate power for me - not because of the symbolism, but because the literary style breaks down too often. It was the story that captured me as a child, the symbols were beneath my radar so I can't answer how much or little they changed my appreciation of the books. Now I think I have lost the "willing suspension of disbelief" that I had as a kid. That's probably because the world Lewis built is incomplete - it contradicts itself and has a few holes here and there. As a child I didn't see those problems, now I do and so some of the glamour has worn off.

Barmy Codger:

I think I'm not being clear enough in what I'm saying. My point is that in literary terms, as a literary critic, an allegorical tale is one that is written with the symbols as the driving force of the story. The plot, the characters, the setting are all dicated by the allegory the author has in mind. Reading such an allegory requires of the audience a knowledge of the cultural background from which those symbols are drawn - for example if one does not know the Christian story and it's associated myths one does not understand the Romance of the Rose and as a story it does not succeed. This is, in my terms, limiting as it dictates to the audience what the symbols mean. This is what I am calling overt symbolism - the symbolism is the top layer, the primary function, the main purpose. There is only one way to read an allegorical tale. It is a useful method for getting a specific point across - used recently in the "Where's my Cheese" book that so many American firms have been taken by.

I am simply saying that when you tell me there is one, aboslute, and only way to read any given character, item or being in Harry Potter you are applying that sort of allegorical limitation and I do not agree with that. I absolutely agree that JKR has put all sorts of symbols and references into her books. That is what makes them so rich and appealing - but those references often are subtle, and their meaning is covert - not necessary to the appreciation of the book, or the movement of the plot, but adding layers of meaning and hints of intention that different readers can interpret in different ways. So, while others might be taken by the Beatles references, to me they don't matter much - I'm not a Beatles fan, and I know very little about them. That hasn't stopped me from enjoying the Marauders though! And to my mind came, not the Beatles, but the Musketeers.

Again, to make this quite clear. I do believe there are all sorts of sybols, private jokes and other references throughout the books. I think that the use of these things has been done with great subtlety and genius because they are interlaced throughout a story that can be read on the surface with great enjoyment. I would imagine that there are a number of jokes, for example, that the vast majority of us will never get because they are personal and private to JKR and her intimate circle. It is not necessary for a reader to know all of JKR's personal context to understand the book because the important symbols she uses are general enough, universal is your term, that the slightly different interpretations that different cultures have given them will not damage the overall impression received.

This is going to be a monster post, but I can't resist using a small example. Much has been made of the basilisk and serpents as they are used in HP. I've pointed out that JKR uses a unique basilisk in her books, physically and in some ways mythically different from the historic beast. I've also pointed out that different cultures have different views of serpents, so one cannot say that universally serpents represent evil or even death. However, we have all encountered snakes in some way, and in our different readings we have absorbed other people's concepts of what a snake is and means and so as we read JKR's books, those impressions form a backdrop for the use she makes of this animal in her books, and those impressions are possibly changed silghtly by how we encounter them and how we react to them in those passages. But I'll give you symbolists a gift here - the rooster. It is totally doctrinal (mythologically doctrinal) to have the cry of the rooster be fatal to the basilisk. But why is it? The answer, for the medieval Christians, was because the cry of the rooster was a symbol of the resurrection - a symbol of life. The basilisk = death, the rooster = life. I do not believe the rooster in HP was used allegorically, so I do not believe that in the last two books death will triumph over life, but if you like, you could certainly argue that Tom Riddle killing the rooster to save the basilik is simply dripping with meaning. Go for it!

My point is intention. JKR, JRRT, any so many other great authors intend to tell a wonderful story - that is the purpose. Wonderful stories are part of being human, and carry with them eons of past stories that enrich each great book as it is made because they have that heritage. An allegorist intends to make a point - a specific point and often moral. I do not believe that is the primary intention of JKR. All I am asking, is that you recognize that what to you seem to be absolutes - where you are saying "JKR meant this to be this" I am sometimes seeing something different. There is room in my philosophy for your readings of HP, there seems to be no room in yours for mine.

[ravenfeather]

i would like to add to Machiavelli's excellent post (excellent, in that i agree with you completely!) that it is easy for one person with a particular set of symbols in residence to take one view of a literary work, while another individual with a differing symbol base will take another view. neither of these readers is wrong unless the author intended the reader to take only one set of symbols to his work (which i would argue to be impossible. in such a case, i believe the author would be the only person to appreciate his own work since he is the only individual with that exact set of symbols and experience). that is not to deny the richness of any work which incorporates symbolism or cultural references. let's take the instance of marauders=beatles, for instance. i haven't read that particular thread at all, so i can't speak to what anyone has said. however, in my view, that comparison is a bit trivial and, even if JKR intended a parallel, it wouldn't enrich the books to me one iota. actually, it reminds me a bit of the cover art for 'abbey road' in which paul is walking a bit behind and not wearing shoes. clearly, that indicated that paul was dead, right? and yet, strangely enough, he still lives. to read a meaning into every detail, every coincidence, every small thing which doesn't exactly correspond is to lose sight of the big picture. and to say, well, 'x' character stands exactly for 'y' mythological or historical figure and anyone who doesn't think so is wrong and not adequately appreciating this work, is tremendously limiting.

[Machiavelli]

i would like to add to Machiavelli's excellent post (excellent, in that i agree with you completely!) that it is easy for one person with a particular set of symbols in residence to take one view of a literary work, while another individual with a differing symbol base will take another view. neither of these readers is wrong unless the author intended the reader to take only one set of symbols to his work (which i would argue to be impossible. in such a case, i believe the author would be the only person to appreciate his own work since he is the only individual with that exact set of symbols and experience). that is not to deny the richness of any work which incorporates symbolism or cultural references. let's take the instance of marauders=beatles, for instance. i haven't read that particular thread at all, so i can't speak to what anyone has said. however, in my view, that comparison is a bit trivial and, even if JKR intended a parallel, it wouldn't enrich the books to me one iota. actually, it reminds me a bit of the cover art for 'abbey road' in which paul is walking a bit behind and not wearing shoes. clearly, that indicated that paul was dead, right? and yet, strangely enough, he still lives. to read a meaning into every detail, every coincidence, every small thing which doesn't exactly correspond is to lose sight of the big picture. and to say, well, 'x' character stands exactly for 'y' mythological or historical figure and anyone who doesn't think so is wrong and not adequately appreciating this work, is tremendously limiting.
Ah - an excellent post also (meaning I agree with you too!). The thing is that JKR has done such an excellent job of weaving her hints into the plot that sometimes it's tempting to turn absolutely everything into a tremendously meaningful thing! While I am happy to grant that something may be deeply meaningful to one person, or even lots of people, I don't necessarily think it has to be meaningful to everyone!

For example. Harry has glasses, and they are important to the image of him in part because they show that he has weaknesses, or is vulnerable. But although he's a teenager, we don't ever hear mention of him struggling with acne! Obviously this means that while Harry might have weaknesses, he is essentially unblemished. The scar is merely an externally imposed artifact and represents the mark that evil can leave on an essentially pure individual. The final word of the books is reported to be "scar" so clearly when Harry has vanquished evil, he will lose his scar and return to his pre-fall, pristine condition.... nice theory? Well, no. Complete bollocks actually, but easy to do!

On a completely different topic... I was just reading the "why didn't Harry's scar hurt in COS" thread, and it started me thinking about Voldemort's efforts for immortality. I'm sure this has been mentioned in threads elsewhere, but I'm a relative newcomer and bone lazy and therefore unwilling to read all the threads and posts from ages past so... I was thinking how interesting it is that COS basically means that Riddle was thinking about immortality as early as 17 - and taking steps to ensure his own. There's really nothing else that the diary can be, can it? At that time the prophecy hadn't been made, he wasn't Voldemort yet, so there was no reason for him to anticipate needing to face off with a young Harry Potter 50 years down the line. So as the diary was his first, or one of his first efforts to attain immortality, it's an interesting starting point to contemplate what other methods he would try. I mean, the diary is essentially a mechanical or external device. It is one more way of pointing out that Voldemort's physical body was unimportant to him - so what he is trying to preserve for want of a better word - is his soul? Just found it interesting...

[barmy codger]

My point is intention. JKR, JRRT, any so many other great authors intend to tell a wonderful story - that is the purpose. Wonderful stories are part of being human, and carry with them eons of past stories that enrich each great book as it is made because they have that heritage. An allegorist intends to make a point - a specific point and often moral. I do not believe that is the primary intention of JKR. All I am asking, is that you recognize that what to you seem to be absolutes - where you are saying "JKR meant this to be this" I am sometimes seeing something different. There is room in my philosophy for your readings of HP, there seems to be no room in yours for mine.
Ms. Rowling stated in her interview with Larry King that the story was about good and evil. So do we find good and evil in 'Harry Potter' simply from what happens in the story? Are we not to think Voldemort represents evil and Harry good? No character is labelled 'Death', or such, as in Terry Pratchett's stories, but does that mean no allegory?

Since I have no material at home, I had to resort to the internet and found some things that helped me understand better your thinking about the limitations of allegory.

http://www.systers.com/rdimon/herbert.html
This site compares George Herbert and John Bunyan, and quotes Rev. George B. Cheever:

'Bunyan was as great a master of Allegory as Edwards was of Logic and Metaphysics; but not artificially so, not designedly so, not as a a matter of study....It is not like the allegorical friezes of Spenser or of Dante, or like those on a Grecian Temple....Bunyan's Allegory is a universal language.'

So I'm concluding that the general use of allegory, especially during its height of popularity, was indeed very limiting, but that the limiting isn't an inherent quality of allegory -since someone actually regards Bunyan's as a universal language.

I am grateful your philosophy allows room for my readings, but I think you mistake me, because I have maintained from the start that I thought your view was limiting. That did not mean I thought it was to be excluded. I think our difference lies in our views of what is limiting.

I'm also grateful for your gift of the rooster. In addition to the significance of Tom Riddle, Jr. killing the rooster, I would point out that it was Fawkes, not the rooster, who helped kill the basilisk and it was Harry who actually did it -putting Harry in the place of the rooster, but not allegorically, I guess.

Another item- while I found no image I remembered of deer in India, I found this story, which has some similarities to things in 'Harry Potter'. One of the curious things is that it wasn't good for someone to ride on the deer's back -which relates to the attitudes of the centaurs in 'Harry Potter'.
http://www.ignca.nic.in/jatak001.htm

[Machiavelli]

Ms. Rowling stated in her interview with Larry King that the story was about good and evil. So do we find good and evil in 'Harry Potter' simply from what happens in the story? Are we not to think Voldemort represents evil and Harry good? No character is labelled 'Death', or such, as in Terry Pratchett's stories, but does that mean no allegory?
Yup! Well, as far as the literary term goes. Does it mean no symbolism? No.

'Bunyan was as great a master of Allegory as Edwards was of Logic and Metaphysics; but not artificially so, not designedly so, not as a a matter of study....It is not like the allegorical friezes of Spenser or of Dante, or like those on a Grecian Temple....Bunyan's Allegory is a universal language.'
Afraid I dislike Bunyon extremely... because of his heavy handed use of allegory! It's a matter of taste though - and Bunyan's allegory is not universal, it's Christian.

So I'm concluding that the general use of allegory, especially during its height of popularity, was indeed very limiting, but that the limiting isn't an inherent quality of allegory -since someone actually regards Bunyan's as a universal language.
Have you read Bunyan? I did a quick search and found a link to the first part of Pilgrim's Progress: http://www.johnbunyan.org/text/bun-pilgrim.htm.

I am grateful your philosophy allows room for my readings, but I think you mistake me, because I have maintained from the start that I thought your view was limiting. That did not mean I thought it was to be excluded. I think our difference lies in our views of what is limiting.
Probably. I don't really see how my view is limiting since it includes just about everything. I accept that you are finding symbols that I am not, and I'm accepting that those are important to your reading of the books. I simply don't accept that all of those symbols (note I say all!) are essential to the meaning and essence of th book. I think they richen your experience. I think my experience is just as rich with my slightly different views and backgrounds. I don't see the limitation there.

I'm also grateful for your gift of the rooster. In addition to the significance of Tom Riddle, Jr. killing the rooster, I would point out that it was Fawkes, not the rooster, who helped kill the basilisk and it was Harry who actually did it -putting Harry in the place of the rooster, but not allegorically, I guess.
You're welcome! Chicken salad anyone? Traditionally the importance of the rooster is in its apposition to the basilisk. And it is more important in the traditional myth because it is a rooster egg that hatches into the basilisk - so the rooster (a symbol of ressurection and life) produces death, and yet can overcome it. It's a very neat little cycle and typical of the medieval minds that produced it. However, since the rooster doesn't produce the basilisk in the Harry version, the cycle is broken and the allegory does not apply. And no, I don't quite see Harry as a rooster you're right!

Another item- while I found no image I remembered of deer in India, I found this story, which has some similarities to things in 'Harry Potter'. One of the curious things is that it wasn't good for someone to ride on the deer's back -which relates to the attitudes of the centaurs in 'Harry Potter'.
http://www.ignca.nic.in/jatak001.htm
Darn... I was hoping you could track that down. Well, maybe one of us will come across it sometime. The other story is quite interesting so thanks for the link. I don't quite equate it with the centaurs... the deer seems to have a rather nicer temperament! Do you have any idea what the original source is? Or the date?

[barmy codger]

Darn... I was hoping you could track that down. Well, maybe one of us will come across it sometime. The other story is quite interesting so thanks for the link. I don't quite equate it with the centaurs... the deer seems to have a rather nicer temperament! Do you have any idea what the original source is? Or the date?
The actions of the deer seem similar to Firenze's rescue of Harry. There are links on the page, the Introduction tells about the sources of the the stories, and there is a link to a Bibliography.

[Machiavelli]

The actions of the deer seem similar to Firenze's rescue of Harry. There are links on the page, the Introduction tells about the sources of the the stories, and there is a link to a Bibliography.
Really? They don't seem terribly similar to me, beyond the very basic concept of a rescue. Could you go into more detail? And thanks - I see the sources now. I know so little about Buddhist literature, and I find much of it well beyond my experience so it's always interesting to be broadened a bit! I'll have to track this down in university library...

[ravenfeather]

it is a rooster egg that hatches into the basilisk

wow. i never knew that roosters layed eggs... :evil: :D
this will bring the members of the local hen union up in arms!

okay, i'm done picking on you.
i don't remember seeing this concept on the forums before, so if it's old news, sorry 'bout that. just rap me on the knuckles and move on.
does anyone else think it's a little wacky that a basilisk is hatched from a chicken's egg and the cry of the rooster is fatal to it? isn't that a bit oedipal? (lol, is 'oedipal' a word? it looks crazy.)

[Machiavelli]

wow. i never knew that roosters layed eggs... :evil: :D
this will bring the members of the local hen union up in arms!

okay, i'm done picking on you.
i don't remember seeing this concept on the forums before, so if it's old news, sorry 'bout that. just rap me on the knuckles and move on.
does anyone else think it's a little wacky that a basilisk is hatched from a chicken's egg and the cry of the rooster is fatal to it? isn't that a bit oedipal? (lol, is 'oedipal' a word? it looks crazy.)
It's a beautiful word! Oedipal.... ah....

There was mention... gosh a while back now... by someone that the rooster has been known to lay an infertile egg. Supposedly it's sort of like men having nipples and the ability to lactate (with a little hormonal encouragement or something). It's all a bit... disturbing, but apparently genuine.

This has been covered I know, but the quick rundown on the basilisk is that it is a lizard (not a snake) that is hatched from a rooster's egg under a toad. Sometimes the egg has to be hatched on a dung hill, sometimes there's mention of a full moon just to get all the occult stuff in there! Anyway, it's a series of impossibilities that create an impossible creature who nevertheless is found in various stories and myths in the West. The weasel is immune to it's venom (I think?) and the rooster's crow kills it. The last item is probably a Christian addendum to an existing, pre-Christian concept. The basilisk was taken by Christians to represent death, while the crow of the rooster represents ressurection (from the way the rooster hails the coming of dawn). Yes, it's a bit odd - but you should see some of the other stuff they came up with!

[whizbang121]

On a completely different topic... I was just reading the "why didn't Harry's scar hurt in COS" thread, and it started me thinking about Voldemort's efforts for immortality. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Harry's scar didn't hurt because he didn't face Voldemort. He was back to looking for snakes to possess, struggling to keep himself alive. He was in worse shape than when Quirrell had found him.

Harry faced a memory of Tom Riddle who was already Lord Voldemort, because he was using the name, and JKR has said they are the same person. He preserved the memory of his sixteen year old self in the Diary to assure the continuation of Salazar Slytherin's noble work, that is, purging mudbloods. I'm not sure it was an attempt at immortality, at all. But it does again raise the question of whether Slytherin or someone who followed him, (perhaps Tom's mother?) also left behind such a diary. How did Tom come to know as much as he did at such an early age?

[Machiavelli]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Harry's scar didn't hurt because he didn't face Voldemort. He was back to looking for snakes to possess, struggling to keep himself alive. He was in worse shape than when Quirrell had found him.

Harry faced a memory of Tom Riddle who was already Lord Voldemort, because he was using the name, and JKR has said they are the same person. He preserved the memory of his sixteen year old self in the Diary to assure the continuation of Salazar Slytherin's noble work, that is, purging mudbloods. I'm not sure it was an attempt at immortality, at all. But it does again raise the question of whether Slytherin or someone who followed him, (perhaps Tom's mother?) also left behind such a diary. How did Tom come to know as much as he did at such an early age?
That's pretty much what I think too - I mean about why the scar didn't hurt.

I'm not sure that I totally agree that the only reason for the diary was to purge the school of mudbloods. Whether it was overt or not, the fact that he did put part of himself into a book with the idea that it would resurrect him seems to me like a pretty clear bid for immortality, or at least another shot at life. Yes, he also probably wanted to do the Slytherin thing, but he clearly felt that HE needed to do so - he didn't tell someone else the secret of the chamber, or try to make another person able to get there.

I hadn't thought about another diary... not sure about that. He did know a great deal, but the Marauders also learned enough at a young age to preserve something of themselves in the Map. Dumbledore did say that Riddle was the most talented student the school had ever seen - didn't he? I think a repeat of the diary thing might be overkill really, and not necessary.

[whizbang121]

http://www.ignca.nic.in/jatak001.htm
Barmy! What a cool story. Did James tell Snape not to tell anyone that James had rescued him from the werewolf? It would seem logical if, as I believe, James real intention was to protect Lupin rather than Snape. And if we take that a step further, was Snape involved with betraying the Potters? :huh: Interesting.
If Snape and Pettigrew were both working for the DL at about the same time...........
Hmmmmmm.........
Back to the timeline. http://websmileys.com/sm/animal/527.gif

[ravenfeather]

It's a beautiful word! Oedipal.... ah....

There was mention... gosh a while back now... by someone that the rooster has been known to lay an infertile egg. Supposedly it's sort of like men having nipples and the ability to lactate (with a little hormonal encouragement or something). It's all a bit... disturbing, but apparently genuine.

This has been covered I know, but the quick rundown on the basilisk is that it is a lizard (not a snake) that is hatched from a rooster's egg under a toad. Sometimes the egg has to be hatched on a dung hill, sometimes there's mention of a full moon just to get all the occult stuff in there! Anyway, it's a series of impossibilities that create an impossible creature who nevertheless is found in various stories and myths in the West. The weasel is immune to it's venom (I think?) and the rooster's crow kills it. The last item is probably a Christian addendum to an existing, pre-Christian concept. The basilisk was taken by Christians to represent death, while the crow of the rooster represents ressurection (from the way the rooster hails the coming of dawn). Yes, it's a bit odd - but you should see some of the other stuff they came up with!

fascinating. after that, i had to go and do some research and found this lovely website:
Basilisk (http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Basilisk.htm)

i highly recommend it. however, i have two points to make. firstly, JKR's basilisk is hatched from a chicken's egg, not that of a seven year old rooster. (CoS p. 290 AmPBEd.) which brings up the oedipus snake thing again. and from the information i looked at, the basilisk is a snake (of monstrous form), although there is a south american lizard called a basilisk. funnily enough, my mom and i always called these little dudes 'jesus lizards' because they can run on water. i just learned that the local name for them is 'jesus christ lizard'. :lol:

[barmy codger]

Really? They don't seem terribly similar to me, beyond the very basic concept of a rescue. Could you go into more detail? And thanks - I see the sources now. I know so little about Buddhist literature, and I find much of it well beyond my experience so it's always interesting to be broadened a bit! I'll have to track this down in university library...
Only in three respects: The deer lives in a dense forest and avoids humans, as the centaurs do. The deer rescues a man in danger, as Firenze did. The rescued man climbs on the back of the deer, which in the story is inconsiderate but forgiven, but with the centaurs is an issue about their dignity -whether or not to bear humans on their backs like beasts of burden. Firenze overlooks this in his compassion for Harry. That's all.

Whizbang, Snape betraying the Potters and then working with Dumbledore is a bit hard to handle. Sometimes I get the strong feeling Dumbledore has allowed all this to happen, from Godric's Hollow till now, knowing it was all necessary for the defeat of Voldemort, throwing in a few well judged adjustments from time to time to help things along. He even thinks Harry's sparing Pettigrew's life will play a part in the outcome.

ravenfeather, that site about the basilisk was great. I enjoyed reading it and thank you.

[Machiavelli]

fascinating. after that, i had to go and do some research and found this lovely website:
Basilisk (http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Basilisk.htm)

i highly recommend it. however, i have two points to make. firstly, JKR's basilisk is hatched from a chicken's egg, not that of a seven year old rooster. (CoS p. 290 AmPBEd.) which brings up the oedipus snake thing again. and from the information i looked at, the basilisk is a snake (of monstrous form), although there is a south american lizard called a basilisk. funnily enough, my mom and i always called these little dudes 'jesus lizards' because they can run on water. i just learned that the local name for them is 'jesus christ lizard'. :lol:
Thanks! I'll have to rake through my memory and figure out where I saw a reference to a basilisk that was a lizard... could have been modern in which case it's useless! I do think, however that there is always a certain amount of leeway in many old bestiaries, and one source will have one set of characteristics, while another might deviate slightly.

Yes, JKR did change some basic things about her basilisk - one of the reasons that I feel she doesn't use all creatures in her books as symbols in the way they were traditionally used. In fact, as I mentioned above (I think) having it be a chicken egg rather than a rooster egg breaks one of the most essential parts of the basilisk symbolism - the connection between the rooster and the basilisk becomes merely anecdotal and not allegorical. It also now that I think about it makes the basilisk slightly less mythical simply because its genesis is less impossible (I reailze that's an oxymoron!). Chickens lay fertile eggs all the time - not that they produce virulent reptiles, but it's certainly a more common occurance than a rooster suddenly going in for motherhood!

Barmy, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that having Snape betray the marauders doesn't seem logical. I don't know that I like the idea of Dumbledore knowing about Godric's Hollow on, and actually colluding in some way (not actively producing the acts, just not acting to prevent them). Although as a leader it is the right and proper thing to do - acting on behalf of the majority and sacrificing the minority - it doesn't quite work with what he said of himself to Harry at the end of OotP. I see your argument though, and I think it's very powerful. I'll have to think about it!

[crumseekerlynch]

I like layers!

[ravenfeather]

yup, chickens lay eggs all the time, but how many of them are brooded by toads?
here's another piece of useless egg information. when my mom was a girl, they had a lot of chickens on the farm. when the laying hens first started laying eggs, they were very small and more spherical than ovoid. i don't know whether they were fertile or not. but she said they were traditionally called 'rooster eggs' because they were so weird. i thought that was interesting in relation to the link i posted earlier, which described the basilisk egg as spherical!
anyone who hasn't checked out that link, i'm going to highly recommend it again. it has a few interesting tie-backs to HP (alchemy, etc.) plus, it cites numerous origins for the legend of the basilisk.

[Machiavelli]

yup, chickens lay eggs all the time, but how many of them are brooded by toads?
here's another piece of useless egg information. when my mom was a girl, they had a lot of chickens on the farm. when the laying hens first started laying eggs, they were very small and more spherical than ovoid. i don't know whether they were fertile or not. but she said they were traditionally called 'rooster eggs' because they were so weird. i thought that was interesting in relation to the link i posted earlier, which described the basilisk egg as spherical!
anyone who hasn't checked out that link, i'm going to highly recommend it again. it has a few interesting tie-backs to HP (alchemy, etc.) plus, it cites numerous origins for the legend of the basilisk.
How very odd. I think I shall have to go on an egg-free diet for a while. We did discuss the issue with getting the darn toad to sit still long enough to hatch an egg- but I don't think we got beyond spello-tape. You'll notice that a toad is cold-blooded and therefore the egg is not technically incubated.

[DHobbit]

I think that maybe some here may not have seen the TV interview of Jo a couple of years ago.

She tells about changing some traditional things of legends to fit her plot.

I believe that the basilisk is one of those.
As some of you have mentioned, the basilisk (traditionally) is a lizard type of reptile.

A lizard type of reptile would not slide through the PIPES as well as a SNAKE would.
Harry heard the voice of the basilisk through the PIPES.
Also since the symbol of Slytheran is a SNAKE . . . that would work better for the plot.

[barmy codger]

Thanks! Yes, JKR did change some basic things about her basilisk - one of the reasons that I feel she doesn't use all creatures in her books as symbols in the way they were traditionally used.
But I, on the other hand of course, feel that the changes are done mostly to make the creatures useful in the story -without altering their meanings as symbols. The basilisk, for example, could be killed by using a mirror to reflect its gaze back to it. If that were true in 'Harry Potter', all the victims would have been killed.by seeing its eyes indirectly In the story the reflected gaze of the basilisk only petrified the victims. I felt that this allowed the story to work without compromising the power of the basilisk symbolism. If it can be shown that something significant was lost by this change, as it was with the rooster/chicken, then I would begin looking for reasons beyond plot convenience.

[Machiavelli]

But I, on the other hand of course, feel that the changes are done mostly to make the creatures useful in the story -without altering their meanings as symbols. The basilisk, for example, could be killed by using a mirror to reflect its gaze back to it. If that were true in 'Harry Potter', all the victims would have been killed.by seeing its eyes indirectly In the story the reflected gaze of the basilisk only petrified the victims. I felt that this allowed the story to work without compromising the power of the basilisk symbolism. If it can be shown that something significant was lost by this change, as it was with the rooster/chicken, then I would begin looking for reasons beyond plot convenience.
I agree that the changes were done to make the creatures useful in the story - without losing their significance as historic and mythic creatures. I just think it also demonstrates that JKR is not tied any conventional view of these things, and that she uses them as she sees fit. Therefore, the significance of the creatuers is what the text gives them, and their background merely establishes them within an historic context. These are essentially modern stories, and the creatures within them are written by a modern writer with a modern viewpoint. I think her style, her characters and her plot all establish that absolutely. They're fantastic books - and her flexibility within the context she has chosen is one of their strengths. I don't think she would allow herself to be dictated to by the confines of a creature she has already changed to suit her needs. In other words, I doubt that the basilisk's role is dictated absolutely by a strict interpretation of his historic role. I think it has a rich background that does not need to be articulated to be appreciated.

[barmy codger]

How very odd. I think I shall have to go on an egg-free diet for a while. We did discuss the issue with getting the darn toad to sit still long enough to hatch an egg- but I don't think we got beyond spello-tape. You'll notice that a toad is cold-blooded and therefore the egg is not technically incubated.
Of all the qualities suggested by the magical creatures such as the basilisk, hippogryph, and sphinx, the obvious and primary one is that they are impossible. Contradictory creatures combined. So a toad hatching an egg is probably meant to be an impossibility. Another aspect is that they can represent constellations of stars. The sphinx in particular combines four animals that are the four key signs in the zodiac, the ones that form the corners of a square within the circle of signs -a figure in sacred geometry.

Edit: I was a bit misleading about the impossible creatures. They are not invented for the sake of impossibility, rather, since they are impossible as such in physical form, their significance is meant to lie elsewhere: in the realm of ideas.

I was thinking just a bit more about the sphinx. Everyone can relate to its appearance in the third task because we know of the Riddle of the Sphinx. But there is another aspect. Since the animals combined in the sphinx represents the four corner signs of the zodiac, and these are the ones appearing at the two solstices and two equinoxes, they form the four corners of the world. So it is appropriate to have a sphinx in a maze where Harry is finding his way using his wand as a compass.

[ravenfeather]

Since the animals combined in the sphinx represents the four corner signs of the zodiac, and these are the ones appearing at the two solstices and two equinoxes, they form the four corners of the world. So it is appropriate to have a sphinx in a maze where Harry is finding his way using his wand as a compass.

good find!
i think that one of the reasons that JKR changes some aspects of her beasts and monsters is for the sake of whimsy. i agree that it is partly to create a tighter plot, but given her sense of humor, i'm betting that some of the tinkering is just for fun.
i'm going to be stubborn on insisting that the mythical basilisk was a serpent and not a lizard, unless you fast forward in time to the middle ages when it was represented as a part serpent/part rooster. so i don't give JKR too much grief on that count. and she may have made a basilisk hatch from a chicken's egg instead of a rooster's egg because, inevitably, that little gem would've popped up over and over as a book mistake! :p

[Machiavelli]

Of all the qualities suggested by the magical creatures such as the basilisk, hippogryph, and sphinx, the obvious and primary one is that they are impossible. Contradictory creatures combined. So a toad hatching an egg is probably meant to be an impossibility.
Exactly! I think I said something like that above. And the rooster egg adds to the impossibilities - the ridiculous taken to the absurd. As you say, it's not for the sake of impossibility, but it places them firmly in the realm of myth. The nice thing about our ancestors though: classical, dark age and medieval, was their ability to live in a world that embraced the mythic and breathed it every day. There basilisk was an impossible creature that they never met, and yet would not have been suprised to meet. Charming. There was a practicality to mythic thinking that we generally no longer share. Those who wish to believe usually find they have to willingly suspend their disbelief first, and it is a conscious thing.

I was thinking just a bit more about the sphinx. Everyone can relate to its appearance in the third task because we know of the Riddle of the Sphinx. But there is another aspect. Since the animals combined in the sphinx represents the four corner signs of the zodiac, and these are the ones appearing at the two solstices and two equinoxes, they form the four corners of the world. So it is appropriate to have a sphinx in a maze where Harry is finding his way using his wand as a compass.
The sphinx is also, like the centaur, a creature that has a human component and therefore an intelligence that humans can relate to. This sphinx seems to happily not share its relative's violent impulses - Harry gets the answer right and can go forward, but the sphinx does not commit suicide. Maybe time has mellowed it...

[whizbang121]

Three cheers for our fearless leader, Mighty Morgoth! Mugglenet wins site of the month at JKRowling.com (http://www.cosforums.com/announcement.php?f=5) and the good people at mugglenet.

[Drusilla]

I second that!

[barmy codger]

Three cheers for our fearless leader, Mighty Morgoth! Mugglenet wins site of the month at JKRowling.com (http://www.cosforums.com/announcement.php?f=5) and the good people at mugglenet.
Well deserved!

I've been thinking about Dumbledore and Godric's Hollow. The question is why would they want to hide from Voldemort? It appears the Potters wanted to prevent Voldemort from trying to kill Harry. But this is trying to thwart the Prophecy. I would think Dumbledore wanted to allow the Prophecy to be fulfilled. The One, either Harry or Neville, first has to be marked by the Dark Lord as his equal, and it can't happen if the boys can't be found. So while there is a risk that the killing of either the One or the Dark Lord would follow immediately, having all this happen is the only hope there is of defeating Voldemort.

My only answer to this is that they knew Voldemort was out to kill, and if he got to the boy who was not the One first, that boy would die. All the same, I still have a feeling the betrayal of the Potter's whereabouts was allowed to happen. This would be done to lure Voldemort into action. I think in this case, knowing Voldemort would want to kill Harry, Lily would have devised the protecting charm in advance and would have sacrificed herself to enable the protection for Harry. The main point against this is that Dumbledore offered to be secret keeper, and Sirius and Lupin did not talk as though they knew the betrayal would be allowed to happen. So possibly the Potters, without telling anyone -except perhaps Dumbledore, took it upon themselves to precipitate this confrontation by allowing themselves to be revealed to Voldemort. It still doesn't add up, but the hiding doesn't really add up either.

[whizbang121]

I still haven't figured out why they all thought Lupin was the mole. Was Pettigrew polyjuicing into Remus from time to time?

[Machiavelli]

I still haven't figured out why they all thought Lupin was the mole. Was Pettigrew polyjuicing into Remus from time to time?
It does seem a bit odd... although there has been a fair amount of speculation that Pettigrew was spreading rumours. I think he's quite clever - much more so than anyone gave him credit for. Sirius took blame for deciding on his own to get the Potters to change secret keeper; I think more likely Pettigrew worked him around to it so subtly Sirius didn't even notice. It's difficult to know where Lupin was at this point too - he had to have somewhere fairly safe to transform where he wouldn't hurt anyone else. If he wasn't there all the time it would be even easier for Pettigrew to spread his mischief.

[ravenfeather]

It does seem a bit odd... although there has been a fair amount of speculation that Pettigrew was spreading rumours. I think he's quite clever - much more so than anyone gave him credit for. Sirius took blame for deciding on his own to get the Potters to change secret keeper; I think more likely Pettigrew worked him around to it so subtly Sirius didn't even notice. It's difficult to know where Lupin was at this point too - he had to have somewhere fairly safe to transform where he wouldn't hurt anyone else. If he wasn't there all the time it would be even easier for Pettigrew to spread his mischief.

there's a bit of speculation on this point on the thread... hold up, let me think... something like 'where was remus that night at godric's hollow'. forgive the vagueness, i subscribed to that thread, but it hasn't gotten any traffic lately, so... anyway, there are some good points over there, but i, personally, haven't found a theory that i really like.
i figure that james trusted sirius not to be the spy by virtue of the fact that they were best friends (which wasn't necessarily the best choice, but it seems that it all worked out, so i won't give james too much grief). sirius knew that he, himself, wasn't the spy and didn't figure that peter was smart enough to be the spy, which left remus. of course, remus knew that he, himself, wasn't the spy, either, which may mean that he suspected sirius, but not peter, who he also believed was too weak. we know that dumbledore didn't trust anyone and campaigned to have himself made the secret-keeper. i never can figure out why james and lily didn't take him up on that offer. if you can't trust dumbledore, who can you trust??

[Machiavelli]

there's a bit of speculation on this point on the thread... hold up, let me think... something like 'where was remus that night at godric's hollow'. forgive the vagueness, i subscribed to that thread, but it hasn't gotten any traffic lately, so... anyway, there are some good points over there, but i, personally, haven't found a theory that i really like.
i figure that james trusted sirius not to be the spy by virtue of the fact that they were best friends (which wasn't necessarily the best choice, but it seems that it all worked out, so i won't give james too much grief). sirius knew that he, himself, wasn't the spy and didn't figure that peter was smart enough to be the spy, which left remus. of course, remus knew that he, himself, wasn't the spy, either, which may mean that he suspected sirius, but not peter, who he also believed was too weak. we know that dumbledore didn't trust anyone and campaigned to have himself made the secret-keeper. i never can figure out why james and lily didn't take him up on that offer. if you can't trust dumbledore, who can you trust??
I don't quite get that one either. Maybe they figured he had enough on his plate with Voldemort running amok and Hogwarts to run... maybe they wanted someone close to them... maybe it would have ruined the plot. Not sure. I think you've got the right track on why Lupin was blamed, but I can also see Pettigrew weasling 'round and stirring the pot. Sorry, not Weasling, ratting!

[barmy codger]

i never can figure out why james and lily didn't take him up on that offer. if you can't trust dumbledore, who can you trust??
Doesn't this leave the possibility James and Lily worked something out without Dumbledore's participation? And still, why hide? Not only is it impossible to do in the long term, these were two people who had thrice defied the Dark Lord and hiding wouldn't be in character, would it?

[ravenfeather]

Doesn't this leave the possibility James and Lily worked something out without Dumbledore's participation? And still, why hide? Not only is it impossible to do in the long term, these were two people who had thrice defied the Dark Lord and hiding wouldn't be in character, would it?

well, i think some people would answer that they were trying to fulfill the prophecy, but i'm going to be a little subversive in my response that it is parental instinct to protect your child at all costs. in my opinion, not hiding would have been frankly irresponsible parenting! if you knew voldemort was after your child, wouldn't you move heaven and earth to protect him? (rhetorical and hypothetical use of 'you', since i don't know if you have children!) this ties in really nicely with lily's sacrifice, which i believe to have been not only purposeful but also premeditated.
i also agree that peter was probably instrumental in the mounting distrust between the marauders. i think he was catalyzing an already bad situation with his ratty whispers. but i don't think he started it by any means.

p.s. i'm writing this response at 4:50 AM after being up most of the night with a sick child, so maybe i just have parenting on the brain at this point!

[offca]

Sometimes, thinking too much isn't good at all ;)
What I mean – most of the cases the most simple answer is the best one. But sometimes we tend to think, that simple=stupid. So build on it, and change decisions, twist and turn – and the result is – we do something really stupid. I think that was the case – they didn't do something simple and just good – like chose DD to be a secret keeper, but they started to twist, change decisions, thinking that it would be a great way to full the enemy. The result is – they choose so wrongly. It happens so often! We stand long in one queue, watching nervously other ones, and in just the last moment suddenly jump to other one – because everything else seems to be better choice that the one made before. And mostly the suddenly chosen queue is the slowest one ;)

We see the sin of underestimating quite often in HP books. Firstly is of course LV underestimating Harry, but also in case of Peter, Neville… I think we will se also a rebellion of Crable and Goyle – how long they will let Malfoy make fun of them and only abuse? Just look what happens when someone underestimate Hermione ;)

The idea of letting LV attack Potters is possible, but just too hard to believe into.
It is normal in absolute political systems, that the life of individual is nothing comparing to the interest of the state/revolution/party/… But DD? He is the just one, the righteous one… the righteous do not make deals like that! It would be like selling them to get LV! Especially than no one really was sure what could happened – if Lily hadn't manage to save Harry (was killed first far from Harry) all the three could be killed and LV could be stronger then ever! (I know about the prophecy – but he could "mark" him as equal by choosing to go the Godrick's Hollow, and then kill Harry – DD couldn't know in what way the "marking" should be fulfilled). I do not want to think about DD as some kind of cruel, cold-blooded figure, who would watch innocent people being killed, just because of the benefit of others.
Especially that he said to Harry (in OotP) that his life was more important to him, even if some tens of unnamed people could die – this is natural, we care more about family, about friends, and if others die – it is sad, awful, but deep in heart we are happy they were not "ours".

I was also wondering why Lupin was not trusted. He was set aside, we do not hear about him, he is not on the family picture… I guess he is this kind of personality, that if feels he is not welcomed – he goes away. Or maybe there was a little bit of subconscious prejudices against werewolves? Or maybe Peter in clever way was giving reasons to mistrust Lupin? It would be enough to say some small things like "wonder what Moony was doing on the road from Malfoys mansion", once in some time. That could sow anxiety in the rest…


oh, and of course:


Three cheers for our fearless leader, Mighty Morgoth! Mugglenet wins site of the month at JKRowling.com and the good people at mugglenet.

congratulation! well deserved.

[Machiavelli]

The idea of letting LV attack Potters is possible, but just too hard to believe into. It is normal in absolute political systems, that the life of individual is nothing comparing to the interest of the state/revolution/party/… But DD? He is the just one, the righteous one… the righteous do not make deals like that! It would be like selling them to get LV! True - it's an age old dilemma. Horrible decisions sometimes have to be made, and sacrifices must happen to save others, but there are two sacrifices made, and one of them is the person who has to make the decision. I don't think JKR has made a simplistic black and white world where all the good choices are absolutely good and all the bad one's equally clear. Dumbledore has to make a number of choices where the outcome has dire consequences no matter how he decides.

Remember too that Sirius told Fred and George that they proved they were too young to be in the Order when they were willing to sacrifice the safety of the Order so they could be with their father. They didn't understand, he said, that "some things were worth dying for". Every member of the Order joins knowing that death is a possible outcome, and accepting that fate for themselves if need be. The Potters would be included in this. They went into hiding because now they had to make that decision for someone else - for Harry, and so they now had to act to protect him. I think that's where Dumbldore's dilemma (if he had one) came in. The Potters were capable of choosing for themselves, choosing to make the sacrifice for the safety of others if that is what had to happen; Harry was not.

This is an important point in the books because JKR visits it again and again. The Potters had already put their lives on the line. They both die while defending Harry (sacrifice for innocence). In PoA Sirius tells Pettigrew he should have died for his friends as they would have died for him. And of course Voldemort has no such willingness - he has sacrificed his health, his looks, his honour... and a huge number of other people... but will not and cannot sacrifice himself. One of his greatest weaknesses is that there is nothing he is willing to die for.

[offca]

I know there are things worth dieing for – but it is something different to put oneself in such situation, and to put someone else's life. If it was Potter's decision – and they wanted to lure LV in – why to choose secret keeper anyway? Why choose someone they thought was not a traitor? No one knew then what would be the consequences of LV attack on Harry – so it would be very hard to plan anything. Even if I fully understand their choice to sacrifice themselves to save Harry (or hypothetically their friends in need) I cannot even think about situation, that DD planned sacrifice Potters (just two persons) to get LV… And he was so calm when met McGonogall after this night! And said he joined a few parties on the way… would you behave like that, if you just let two of your friends die??? I do not think he had anything more to do with this, than offering his help to save them (I guess he wanted to be their secret keeper to save them, not to betray them!). for sure every member of Order must realize that there are situations that must be ready to die for – but not to plan to sacrifice friend …

[Machiavelli]

I know there are things worth dieing for – but it is something different to put oneself in such situation, and to put someone else's life. If it was Potter's decision – and they wanted to lure LV in – why to choose secret keeper anyway? Why choose someone they thought was not a traitor? No one knew then what would be the consequences of LV attack on Harry – so it would be very hard to plan anything. Even if I fully understand their choice to sacrifice themselves to save Harry (or hypothetically their friends in need) I cannot even think about situation, that DD planned sacrifice Potters (just two persons) to get LV… And he was so calm when met McGonogall after this night! And said he joined a few parties on the way… would you behave like that, if you just let two of your friends die??? I do not think he had anything more to do with this, than offering his help to save them (I guess he wanted to be their secret keeper to save them, not to betray them!). for sure every member of Order must realize that there are situations that must be ready to die for – but not to plan to sacrifice friend …You didn't quite get my point. The point was that I agree, I don't think that Godric's Hollow was a trap for Voldemort, I don't think the Potters sacrificed themselves to get him, and I don't think Dumbledore would have colluded in such a plan.

What I was saying was that although the Potters had the right to risk their own lives, they would not have done so with Harry and that's why they went into hiding with a secret keeper. The decision on who that was to be was flawed, but the choice was to hide rather than fight.

Again, what I read from the books is that each person may choose for themselves to sacrifice their lives, but no one has the right to make that choice for another.