Mary Beth’s blog

A vampire with a soul? I've heard that one before.

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:08:51 -0700

    I’ve recently become aware of and been reading Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. As a high school English teacher, a pop culture addict, and a fan of all things vampire, it’s almost inexcusable that I’ve only become aware of these novels in the past few months. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock for the last three years, or maybe last summer’s release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows consumed all my brain space. Nevertheless, to say I am “obsessed” with Twilight would be much too passive a term to describe the amount of thought I have put in to these novels in the past few weeks.
    One of the issues I find central to the upcoming fourth novel and the series as a whole (as well as deliciously interesting to contemplate) is the morality of vampires. Do Stephenie Meyer’s vampires possess souls? Is redemption possible for them? Carlisle, father figure of the Cullen coven, has hope. When protagonist Bella asks why he abstains from drinking human blood like the rest of his kind, he responds, “I’m hoping that there is still a point to this life, even for us. It’s a long shot, I’ll admit . . . By all accounts, we’re damned regardless. But I hope, maybe foolishly, that we’ll get some measure of credit for trying” (New Moon 36-37). Bella agrees, but the love of her life does not.   Carlisle says, “Edward’s with me up to a point. God and heaven exist . . . and so does hell. But he doesn’t believe there is an afterlife for our kind . . . you see, he thinks we’ve lost our souls” (New Moon 37). The idea of whether vampires have souls and thus can be redeemed in some sort of afterlife is central to Meyer’s novels. It fuels Edward’s extreme self-loathing and self-sacrifice and drives him to insecurity in his relationship with Bella, and it’s the point on which Bella’s possible transformation into a vampire pivots.
    So, what is a soul? The most fitting definition for Meyers’ novels seems to be “the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come” (www.dictionary.com). How is one redeemed? Redemption, in this context is defined as “deliverance from sin; salvation; atonement for guilt” (www.dictionary.com). These are weighty questions that philosophers and theologians have debated for ages. I’m sure every belief system on the planet has a different answer, but I’m going to choose to consider these questions instead through the lens of some of my favorite books, movies, and television shows.
    It’s a generally accepted fact that vampires are evil. However, the vampires we see on the page and on the screen always seem to be that strange combination of dangerous and alluring that blurs the line just a little between good and evil. Consider, for example, the original literary vampire: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He’s definitely evil . . . but also extremely civilized and pretty darn compelling. Modern day presentations of vampires tend to blur the line even more. Angel and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel, Mick St. John from that (thankfully) short-lived series Moonlight, and now Stephenie Meyers Cullen family: all these are vampires that have unquestionably committed horrible crimes in the past but who now strive to make up for them by doing good, and this makes us question what really constitutes good and evil. By what standard should these characters be judged in terms of redemption? Should they be judged by what they are? By what they have done in the past? By the degree to which they try to make up for their pasts with present good deeds?
    Stephenie Meyer questions whether it’s fair to judge a mythical, superhuman character like a vampire by human standards of morality at all. In a personal correspondence published on The Twilight Lexicon, Meyer responds to an online debate about why the Cullens are able to live a seemingly charmed life in the face of all the misery they’ve caused in the past. Shouldn’t they be walking around in rags repenting for the times they’ve slipped from their “vegeterian” diet? Meyer addresses the fact that vampires are predators at the top of the food chain: they “see humans as beef or poultry . . . And it’s a hard viewpoint to resist—after all, vampires are physically and mentally superior to the nth degree. Their life spans measure in centuries and millenniums. Human lives are so short—sort of like fruit flies that only live a day in comparison. Humans die so easily, too, in their sleep, from tripping, from a tiny heart glitch, from a virus, from getting bumped a little too hard by a car. It’s sort of hard for an average vampire to take them seriously. They’re going to die soon anyway, right?" She questions whether it's wrong for them to see themselves this way in relation to humans: "I know it might be difficult to step away from a human perspective and see it through their eyes. The question is, is it really wrong for them to see the world that way? Vampires are at the very pinnacle of the food chain. Should they feel bad about that? Or are they simply following the dictates of nature?" (The Twilight Lexicon). Do we think it’s “wrong” or “evil” when a lion kills a gazelle in the wild? Or when we eat beef? In the Twilight world – as well as most other literary worlds that involve vampires – vampires ARE a superior being: is it so “wrong” or “evil” for them to act like it?
    The issue of superiority comes up in the seventh season episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “Conversations with Dead People.” When Buffy encounters former peer/psychology student and current vampire Holden, she confesses to him in a mopey deadpan that she can’t muster up any excitement about the fight to come between the two because she knows she’ll win. “Do the words ‘superiority complex” mean anything to you?” Holden asks. Holden says he understand how Buffy feels: being the chosen one and all would understandably make her feel a bit superior to other beings on earth. However, Buffy protests that she doesn’t feel superior at all because she’s done terrible things for which her friends should hate her. She feels unworthy of their love, but she also feels like their love and opinions don’t matter because they can’t possibly know or understand the things she goes through as the Slayer. She begrudgingly acknowledges that maybe this is the same as feeling superior. To this, Holden concludes that she has “a superiority complex, and you’ve got an inferiority complex about it" (www.televisionwithoutpity.com). It’s a different situation, but the message is the same: if you are mentally and physically superior to those around you, does it make you a bad person to feel that way and act on it? In the simple, to-the-point words of Justin Timberlake, “It might sound cocky, but is it really cocky if you know that it’s true?”
    Whether it is right or wrong for vampires to behave like predators at the top of the food chain, the Cullen family makes a choice to go against their instincts and nature in an attempt to overcome what they are and do good with their existence. In my opinion, this choice has everything to do with conscience, which is inextricably tied to the soul. Without a soul, which presumably guides morality (supposing, as the definition does, that it’s our link to heaven), where would the conscience come from?   Joss Whedon might agree. Vampires in the Buffy-verse commit evil acts because they lack souls. They don’t sit around intentionally contemplating ways to be evil; they have no moral compass to distinguish between good and evil. They commit evil acts because, without a conscience, they do not see them as evil. As a vampire, Angel spent his existence committing heinous and unspeakably violent and numerous crimes without a second thought. It is only when he is cursed with a soul by a clan of gypsies that he is able to see his crimes through the lens of morality and experience remorse. In other words, when Angel was ensouled, he also developed a conscience. That conscience gave him the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and cursed him to feel remorse for the evil actions he was inclined by nature to do; thus, he was able to choose to take a different path. Meyer does not base Twilight on the same mythology as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel, but this business of the conscience motivating vampires to do good seems to hold true in her work as well. When Edward describes to Bella his own beginnings as a vampire, he tells her about a time when he resented Carlisle for curbing his appetite and went off on his own for a time: “It took me only a few years to return to Carlisle and recommit to his vision. I thought I would be exempt from the . . . depression . . . that accompanies a conscience. Because I knew the thoughts of my prey, I could pass over the innocent and pursue only the evil. If I followed a murderer down a dark alley where he stalked a young girl – if I saved her, then surely I wasn’t so terrible . . . but as time went on, I began to see the monster in my eyes. I couldn’t escape the debt of so much human life taken, no matter, how justified” (Twilight 342-343). Edward’s decision to recommit to Carlisle’s “vegeterian” lifestyle comes from his conscience, from his sense of knowing right from wrong and feeling remorse when he commits acts that he knows are wrong. When describing how Alice and Jasper came to join the Cullen family, Edward says, “Alice and Jasper are two very rare creatures. They both developed a conscience, as we refer to it, with no outside guidance” (Twilight 289). From both his words and actions, it is clear that Edward views a conscience as a necessary prerequisite to making the right choices in one’s un-life..
    And so, because they are possessed of consciences that tell them right from wrong, the Cullens make the difficult choice to abstain from human blood. In the same personal correspondence mentioned above, Meyer makes it clear that this is an incredibly difficult choice to maintain. She writes, “It seems that, in other vampire worlds, drinking blood is more pleasure than compulsion for vampires. They can “drink from” a person in a leisurely manner, leaving that person alive, and perhaps returning for more later. It seems like the lust for blood is very equivalent to the lust for sexual satisfaction. Thus, something that can be controlled by a responsible person fairly easily under most circumstances. A pleasure impulse rather than a need impulse . . . In the Twilight world, this is not the case. Thirsty vampires are in acute physical pain. It is comparable to the feel of a third degree burn inside your throat. It can make a vampire literally crazy for relief—beyond thought. If your hand was on fire and there was a bucket of ice water beside you, would you resist that relief? Of course not. You would have no reason to. Back to the average vampire’s viewpoint, neither does a vampire have a reason to resist. There is a fire, he or she quenches it. Problem, solution . . . Sure, we could sit around and trash talk the vegetarian vampires who make mistakes. But were doing it on a full stomach, so to speak. We’d all stick our hands in the ice water if we were burning” (The Twilight Lexicon). Edward seems to be of the point of view that he is damned because of what he IS. Edward is a vampire = Edward is a monster = Edward is damned to hell. However, I argue that that it is precisely this choice that proves the existence of Edward’s soul and makes redemption possible for him and the rest of his vampire family. If Edward were to face judgment, I believe he would be judged not merely on the fact that he is a vampire but more importantly by what he chose to do with his vampiric existence.
    JK Rowling’s characters might agree with this assessment. When Harry learns that Voldemort put a part of himself in Harry in Chamber of Secrets, he questions whether the sorting hat made the right choice by placing him in Gryffindor. Dumbledore admits that Harry has many of the qualities Slytherin sought in his hand-picked students and asks Harry to think about why he was put in Gryffindor. Harry says, "It only put my in Gryffindor . . . because I asked not to go into Slytherin." Dumbledore responds, "Exactly . . . which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." The same theme recurs in the Order of the Pheonix movie. Harry wonders, "This connection between me and Voldemort . . . what if the reason for it is that I am becoming more like him? I just feel so angry all the time. What if after everything that I've been through, something's gone wrong inside me? What if I'm becoming bad?" Sirius responds, "I want you to listen to me very carefully, Harry. You're not a bad person. You're a very good person who bad things have happened to. Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are." In JK Rowling’s universe, a clear distinction is drawn between one’s physical and mental abilities and how one chooses to use those abilities, and it is those choices that really count. In terms of ability and even personality, Harry and Voldemort are similar in many ways, yet one becomes a monster and one a hero, and it is their choices that differentiate the two. So much of this can be applied to Edward’s situation in Twilight. Edward didn't choose to become a "monster," as he sees himself. None of the Cullens did. They can't help what they are. However, what they can do is choose what to do with it. Yes, the Cullens do "slip up" and do things that are morally reprehensible, and Edward seems to assume that because of the mistakes he has made he is out of luck when it comes to a chance at redemption. However, if one mistake is enough to send the offender to the fires of hell, then we’re all in trouble. Humans aren’t perfect. We all do things that are morally reprehensible at times. It’s human nature. As Sirius says, we’ve all got both light and dark inside of us. I recently read a novel called The Book Thief that describes human nature like this: “So much good, so much evil. Just add water.” Edward might argue that his crimes of conscience are worse than the average person’s and fall into the category of “unforgivable,” but who’s to say? Can we really judge whether one sin is greater than another in the eyes of God if one is truly repentant?
    Tolkein’s character’s might also disagree with Edward’s point of view. In the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo says, “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." Gandalf replies, "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." Gandalf’s wisdom is very similar to both Edward and Carlisle’s explanation of why they chose the path they did. Bella asks Edward, “Why do you do it? . . . I still don’t understand how you can work so hard to resist what you . . . are. Please don’t misunderstand, of course I’m glad that you do. I just don’t understand why you would bother in the first place.” Edward responds, “Just because we’ve been . . . dealt a certain hand . . . it doesn’t mean that we can’t choose to rise above – to conquer the boundaries of a destiny that none of us wanted. To try to retain whatever essential humanity we can” (Twilight 306-307). Bella asks Carlisle virtually the same question when he talks about why he chooses to work as a doctor: “You try very hard to make up for something that was never your fault . . .What I mean is, it’s not like you asked for this. You didn’t choose this kind of life, and yet you have to work so hard to be good.” Carlisle responds, “I don’t know that I’m making up for anything . . . Like everything in life, I just had to decide what to do with what I was given” (New Moon 34-35). Like Frodo when he bears the ring, none of the Cullens chose their fate. None of them chose to become vampires. They were put in a certain situation, and the only choice left for them is what to do with themselves now. Given that they had no control over what they’ve become, one could argue that it means little in terms of redemption. What matters more is what they choose to do with their existence, and the Cullens are arguably paying a high price to take what they believe is the morally high road. In terms of redemption, that has to count for something.
    What’s interesting to note is that, in light of this argument, Bella and Carlisle become the most “evil” characters in the book. In the previous examples, Edward refers to becoming a vampire as being “dealt a certain hand,” which implies he had no control over his fate. When Bella reassures Carlisle, she relies on the fact that he also did not choose his fate: what happened to him wasn’t “his fault” because he “never asked for this . . . didn’t choose this kind of life.” However, if Bella is to become a vampire in Breaking Dawn, it won’t just be a hand that she’s dealt. What she is will be precisely her fault because she DID ask for it – repeatedly – and she DID choose “this kind of life” in full knowledge of what it meant. Does the fact that she chooses to become what the Cullens fight against make her more morally reprehensible than the lot of them? What about Carlisle? The saintly Carlisle who pioneered the idea of abstaining from human blood and even works to save human lives as a doctor is arguably the “best” of the Cullens on the surface. He certainly didn’t choose his existence; however, knowing what he was, he did make that choice for all those he changed: Edward, Esme, Rosalie and Emmett. Despite his unwavering abstinence and altruism, does the fact that he took this choice away from them make him the worst of the bunch?
    In conclusion, I believe the questions of souls, conscience and redemption will be pivotal in Breaking Dawn. Edward has spent 90 years hating himself for what he is and believing there is no hope for his soul. Until he can see things from another angle – an angle in which choice weighs more heavily than being – he won’t be able to go through with changing Bella, a choice he equates to damning her to spend eternity as a monster.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:41:16 -0700

1. When Fudge visits the Prime Minister, he says, "I've just come from Azkaban . . . Middle of the North Sea, you know, nasty flight" (8). In the OotP movie, I liked the presentation of Azkaban, but I doubted it was accurate. This statement makes it seem like it was.

2. Bellatrix chides Snape at Spinner's End for not being able to reveal the location of the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix. Snape counters that he is not the Secret Keeper and therefore cannot speak the name of the place. I forget what happens to a secret when the secret keeper dies-- does the secret die with him, or does the secret become speakable? Dumbledore was Secret Keeper for the Order-- will Snape be able to reveal the location of the Order now that Dumbledore is dead? I think this was a question once on jkrowling.com, but I just went and looked, and I couldn't find it.

3. The second mention of dragon's blood occurs in Slughorn's home. Dumbledore asks what kind of blood he used to coat the walls, and he replies that it was dragon's blood. He doesn't really mention a use for it, but he does say, ""My last bottle, and prices are sky-high at the moment," which indicates that it must be very valuable for reasons unknown to us.

4. When Slughorn brews love potion for the class to examine, he says, "Amortentia doesn't really create love, of course. It is impossible to manufacture or imitate love . . . it is probably the most dangerous and powerful potion in this room" (186). It certainly does turn out to be dangerous twice in HBP. Ron's encounter with love potion isn't so much "dangerous" as "humorous," but Merope's experimentation with love potion leads to the circumstances that create Lord Voldemort. Thoughts on how this discsusion of the power and danger of love and love potion relate to love as a strength/weakness for Harry?

5. Dud Marvolo and Morfin know that Merope was a witch, or did it come to a surprise to them? Twice Marvolo calls her a squib, but I didn't understand if he meant this as an insult or if he honestly thought she had no magical ability.

6. Assuming that the proprietor of the Hog's Head is indeed Aberforth Dumbledore, I'm mystified by his function within the novel. Do the other Order members know that he is Dumbledore's brother? Does he play a part in the Order? Are he and Dumbledore estranged? We see him several times in HBP. The first is outside the Three Broomsticks with Mundungus: "The street was not very busy; nobody was lingering to chat, just hurrying toward their destinations. The exceptions were two men a little ahead of them, standing just outside the Three Broomsticks. One was very tall and thin; squinting through ihs rain washed glasses Harry recognized the barman who worked in the other Hogsmeade pub, the Hog's Head. As Harry, Ron, and Hermione drew closer, the barman drew his cloak more tightly around his neck and walked away, leaving the shorter man to fumble with something in his arms" (245). The shorter man turns out to be Mundungus selling Sirius's stolen goods. Is Aberforth doing something dodgy here (After all, this is the second time he's been in the company of Mundungus-- the first was when the DA met in the Hog's Head. Dumbledore says he knows about the meeting because Mundungus, disguised in the corner, overheard them) or is he working for the Order? When Voldemort meets Dumbledore to request the DADA teaching job, Dumbledore asks Voldemort, "Then if I were to go to the Hog's Head tonight, I would not find a group of them-- Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov-- awaiting your return?" Rowling writes, "There could be no doubt that Dumbledore's detailed knowledge of those with whom he was traveling was even less welcome to Voldemort." Voldemort attributes Dumbledore's unexpected knowledge to "omniscience," but Dumbledore claims he is "merely friendly with the local barmen" (444-445). From this, it would seem that Aberforth is passing Dumbledore information, and quickly. Aberforth is also present-- and overhears-- the prophecy about Harry: "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm afraid he had been apprehended eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore" (545). Was Aberforth again working for Dumbledore here? Or-- gasp-- does this mean it could also have been Aberforth who passed the information on to Voldemort? Lastly, when Harry and Dumbledore go off in search of the horcrux, he tells Rosmerts, "forgive me, I'm off to the Hog's Head," (supposedly to make an alibi of sorts), but when they pass teh Hog's Head, Dumbledore says, "It will not be necessary for us to enter" (554). So, is Aberforth in the business of creating alibis for Dumbledore? And if he doesn't even need to enter, do Dumbledore and his brother have some other way of communicating?

7. How did Merope die? We know that she died shortly after giving birth to Tom Riddle, but Dumbledore says, "Merope refused to raise her wand even to save her own life (262), as though there is some magic she could have done to save herself.

8. Once again, I'm unclear on what Dumbledore knew and how he knew it. When Harry tells Dumbledore that he heard Snape and Draco scheming together at Slughorn's part, Dumbledore responds, "I think you might even consider the possiblity that I understood more than you did. Again, I am glad that you have confided in me, but let me reassure you that you have not told me anything that causes me disquiet" (359). When he and Draco meet on the roof at the end of the novel, he tells Draco, "You almost killed Katie Bell and Ronald Weasley. You have been trying, with increasing desparation, to kill me all year" (585). So, Dumbledore DID know that Draco was trying to kill him, and yet, he did nothing. At what point did he know that Draco was trying to kill him, and how did he know? Did Snape tell him before the school year began? Or did Dumbledore, blessed with extraordinary mind power, figure it out after the first or second attack? What else did Dumbledore know? Did Dumbledore know he would have to die? This ties in to the question of whether Snape is good or evil, but to put it simply, I do believe Dumbledore knew at the beginning of the year that he would be sacficing himself and that Snape would kill him. I don't believe, however, that he knew when it would happen because that would involve knowing that Death Eaters would infiltrate the school while he was away. While I think he was willing to put himself and Harry in a certain amount of danger to teach and show Harry things, I think allowing Death Eaters to infiltrate the castle is a step too far. I think Dumbledore either didn't know the Death Eaters were a part of Draco's plan or he knew but was far too confident in his own defenses.

9. When did Tom Riddle start killing and when did he start making horcruxes? In Slughorn's memory in which Tom asks him about the creation of horcruxes, "Harry saw that he was wearing Marvolo's gold-and-black rin; he had already killed his father" (369). So, Tom started killing around the age of 16. While he had the ring at this point, it would appear that he had not yet turned it into a horcrux seeing as he didn't yet know what they were. Furthermore, Dumbledore later reveals, "I stumbled across the ring hidden in the ruin of the Gaunt's house. It seems that once Voldemort had succeeded in sealing a piece of his soul inside it, he did not want to wear it anymore" (504). Dumbledore's memory of Tom returning to ask again for the DADA teacher job occurs ten years after his initial disappearance. Dumbledore makes it clear at this point that Tom is already calling himself Lord Voldemort, attempted unnamed magical deeds of dubious nature, and gathered followers who call themselves "Death Eaters," although the term seems relatively new seeing as Voldemort is surprised that Dumbledore knows it (440-444). I also believe that Voldemort had begun making horcruxes at this point: "Harry let out a stifled gasp. Voldemort had entered the room. His features were not those Harry had seen emerge from the stone cauldron almost two years ago: They were not as snake-like, they eyes were not yet scarlet, the fact not yet masklike, and yet he was no longer handsome Tome Riddle. It was as though his features had been burned and blurred; they were waxy and oddly distorted, and the whites of the eyes now had a permanently bloody look, though the pupils were not yet the slits that Harry knew they would become" (441). It becomes clear later that Voldemort's inhumane appearance is tied to the act of splitting his soul (as he splits his soul again and again, he becomes less and less human), so I deduce from this that he has at least begun to experiment with horcruxes at this point in his life.

10. Where are horcruxes mentioned? We know that there aren't any books on them at Hogwarts. Hermione is able to find only a single line in the entire library that basically says they're so evil they won't be mentioned, and Slughorn says, "you'd be hard-pushed to find a book at Hogwarts that'll give you deatils on horcruxes" (496). However, Voldemort tells Slughorn he "came across the term while reading," and Slughorn obviously knows about them-- maybe even more than he reveals. Where did Voldemort and Sulghorn get their knowledge?

11. When Voldemort pushes Slughorn for more information about how to create a horcrux, he says, "Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion--" (498). This gives us a little more information about the relationship between killing and creating a horcrux. It seems that every time a murder is committed, the soul is torn, whether or not a horcrux is created or not. The spell that creates the horcrux simply encases the torn portion of the soul. Given that information, it's still unclear whether the spell occurs simultaneously or a certain time after the murder is committed.

12. What are the remaining horcruxes? Here's what we know. One seventh of Voldemort's soul is in his body, and one seventh was destroyed when Harry destroyed the diary, and one seventh was in the ring Dumbledore destroyed. That leaves four pieces of Voldemort's soul at large. Dumbledore supposes that they are Hufflepuff's cup, Slytherin's locket, the snake Nagini and an unknown object belonging to Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. Dumbledore is "confident . . . that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe" (505). Permit me to say that I think Dumbledore is wrong. I do not think Nagini is a horcrux-- Dumbledore's explanation for why Nagini is a horcrux seems weak to me, and the complications of using another living being as a horcrux seem too great. I think that the remaining four horcruxes will turn out to be one item from each of the four founders. I remember hearing at one point that the original title for the book was "Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows." Given my previous analysis of what a "hallow" is, it makes sense with this title that the horcruxes would be items of significance belonging to each of the founders. I have no idea what the Ravenclaw item might be (although, perhaps of interest is the fact I just read that Moaning Myrtle was in Ravenclaw . . . perhaps she might be of help in finding the Ravenclaw artifact?). I'll accept that the Hufflepuff horcrux is the cup, although we have no idea where it is (also of interest-- Tonks's house was Hufflepuff). I'll also accept that the Slytherin horcrux is the locket, and I still believe that it is in Grimmauld Place. Now the Gryffindor horcrux . . . Dumbledore doesn't say that there aren't any artifacts of Gryffindor; he says there aren't any other known artifacts of Gryffindor. Bear with me as my mind wanders, now. At one point, didn't we consider the possiblity that Harry is a descendent of Gryffindor? While there's no evidence for this aside from the fact that Harry 's parents lived in Godric's Hollow, it's a possibility worth considering. Is it possible that this is why Voldemort chose Harry, and not Neville, as his "equal?" Furthermore, Dumbledore seems convinced that Voldemort intended to create his seventh horcrux with Harry's death. If Harry is a descendent of Gryffindor, is it possible that there was some artifact of Gryffindor's in his parents' house that Voldemort intended to turn into a horcrux on the night he died? One of Harry's first plans for DH is to visit Godric's Hollow and his parents' graves. This could help him to find the entirely suppositional horcrux I just dreamed into existence. I think we should also consider where the horcruxes are hidden. I think the locket is in Grimmauld Place. Other possibilities: Hogwarts itself? The orphanage? Burgin and Borkes? The Room of Requirement?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:38:53 -0700

1. To answer a previous question of my own, "Bellatrix and her husband Rodolphus came in [to Azkaban] with Barty Crouch, Junior . . . Rodolphus's brother, Rabastan, was with them too" (114). So the four people Harry saw on trial in the pensieve were Barty Crouch, Jr and Bellatrix, Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange.

2. OotP really strikes the chord that Harry has always had older and wiser wizards to lean on when fighting evil in the past. When Hermione and Ron ask Harry to give them Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons, they bring up all the things he's done in the past-- saving the Stone from Vodlemort, killing the basilisk and destroying Riddle, fighting off a hundred dementors at once, and defeating Voldemort in the graveyard. Harry yells, "It sounds great when you say it like that, but all that stuff was luck-- I didn't know what I was doing half the time, I didn't plan any of it, I just did whatever I could think of, and I nearly always had help . . . I got through it all because -- because help came at the right time, or because I guessed right" (327). The first time Harry really IS on his own is when he sees the faux vision of Sirius in trouble: "There was nobody left to tell. Dumbledore had gone, Hagrid had gone, but he had always expected Professor McGonagall to be there, irascible and inflexible, perhaps, but always dependably, solidly present" (730). I think it will be interesting to see Harry "on his own" in DH because I think we can all agree that this first time he tried to do something on his own it didn't exactly turn out how one would hope. He misinterpreted the whole situation, dragged five of his friends and the entire Order of the Phoenix into danger and got Sirius killed. Let's hope his powers of deduction and judgement have grown over the course of HBP. Also, see #s 15 and 20 below for hints on how I think Harry will have to change his ways to confront challenges like this more effectively in DH.

3. To answer another one of my questions from a previous email, I now see what people mean about the proprietor of the Hog's Head being Aberforth Dumbledore. When Ron, Hermione and Harry walk in for their first DADA meeting, "The Hog's Head bar comprised one small, dingy, and very dirty room that smelled strongly of something that might have been goats," and when the barman comes up to Harry, he is described as, "a grumpy looking old man with a great deal of long gray hair and beard. He was tall and think and looked vaguely familiar to Harry" (335-336). This makes me even more curious about Dumbledore's past. How did his brother end up running a ramshackle establishment in Hogsmeade and performing illegal charms on goats while Dumbledore wound up one of the best sorcerer's of the age?

4. When Hagrid returns, he uses a piece of dragon meat to soothe his bruised face: "He picked up the steak and slapped it over the left side of his face. Greenish blood trickled down into his beard as he gave a soft moan of satisfaction" (422). Well, there's one use for dragon's blood out of twelve: soothing wounds.

5. When Hagrid presents the thestrals to the Care of Magical Creatures class, he says, "I reckon I'm probably the on'y person in Britain who's managed ter train 'em" (443). Who's death did Hagrid witness that he is able to see the thestrals? If I recall correctly, this is also a question that was posed on mugglenet.

6. When Harry goes to Dumbledore with his dream of Arthur Weasley being injured, "Dumbledore . . . swooped down upon one of the fragile silver instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with the tip of his wand. The instrument tinkled into life at once with rhythmic clinking noises. Tiny puffs of pale green smoke issued from the miniscule silver tube at the top. Dumbledore watched the smoke closely, his brow furrowed, and after a few seconds, the tiny puffs became a steady stream of smoke that thickened and coiled in the air . . . a serpent's head grew out of the end of it, opening it's mouth wide. Harry wondered whether the instrument was confirming his story . . .'Naturally, naturally,' murmured Dumbledore apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke without the slightest sign of surprise. 'But in essence divided?'" (470). What does this instrument do, and what is going on here? I mean, I get the big picture: Dumbledore is insinuating that Harry and Voldemort are connected in some way. But how did this instrument help him come to this conclusion? Will Harry be able to use it or something like it in DH? And what exactly does he mean when says, "but in essence divided"? Like I said, I get the big picture: Harry and Voldemort are connected. But that's a strange way to express it. What is "divided" between the two of them?

7. "'I thought,' said Phineas Nigellus, stroking his pointed beard, 'that to belong to Gryffindor House you were supposed to be brave? It looks to me as though you would have been better off in my own house. We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.'" (494-495). I think this gives us some insight into Draco's character and what he'll be doing in DH: whatever's best for him.

8. When Neville visits his parents at St. Mungo's, his mother gives him an empty Droobles Blowing Gum wrapper. Neville's grandmother says, "she must have given you enough of them to paper your bedroom by now" (515). Significance? Or is it a meaningless detail to show us how nuts she is?

9. Harry occlumency lessons. When Harry fails to master occlumency, Snape screams, "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord! . . . Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannotn control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily-- weak people, in other words-- they stand no chance against his powers!" (536). Interesting seeing as love is what Dumbledore constantly terms Harry's major STRENGTH against Voldemort. Here, however, Snape points out that the ability to love and care for others also makes Harry vulnerable (see #s 15 and 20). When Snape stops giving Harry occlumency lessons, Lupin gets angry and says, "Harry, there is nothing so important as you learning Occlumency!" (672). But Harry failed miserably at Occlumency. Will it be important in DH or was it just important because of what Voldemort was trying to do in OotP?

10. Hermione's patronus is an otter. Thoughts?

11. When Montague tries to dock points from George and Fred, they "forced him headfirst into the Vanishing Cabinet on the first floor" (627). So I was wrong before. The broken cabinet in CoS was NOT the matching cabinet for Burgin and Borkes. More questions on this vanishing cabinet, though. What is it doing in Hogwarts? Or, conversely, what is it's mate doing in Knockturn Alley? Did someone put one of the cabinets in one location or another purposefully, or is this just a big tragic accident?

12. In addition to Dumbledore, I am equally eager to learn about Lily's past. When we see Snape's worst memory, Lily and James are up in arms at one another. How do they get together? Also, how did a muggle family produce the likes of both Aunt Petunia and Lily Evans?

13. What makes Snape's worst memory his worst memory? I mean, yeah, it's embarassing, but he's always trying to show Harry what an awful person his father was. Wouldn't he WANT Harry to see evidence that actually backs that up? Harry admits that when he considers the memory: "He had been so sure that his parents had been wonderful people that he never had the slightest difficulty believing Snape's aspersions on his father's character" (653). A theory I read somewhere which Molly had trouble believing was that it isn't James's abuse of Snape that makes this a memory he wants to keep hidden but rather Snape's treatment of Lily. After Lily defends Snape and tells James to leave him alone, he rounds on her and says, "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" (648). The theory conjenctured that it was insulting Lily like this that Snape was truly embarassed about and wanted to hide from Harry. Betzi?

14. What is the veil? In the Department of Mysteries, Harry and Luna seem to be the only two who can hear the voices from behind the veil, Ginny and Neville appear entranced by it, and Hermione is angry and afraid. Is the veil like the thestrals? Can you only hear the voices if you've seen someone die? Then why wouldn't Neville have also been able to hear them?

15. Harry's heroics. When Harry is all up in arms to get Sirius out of trouble, Hermione accuses him of having a "saving people thing." She's worried that Voldemort will use this against him, and he does. When they are in the department of mysteries, Malfoy says that Harry "has a great weakness for heroics; the Dark Lord understands this about him" (782). Harry confirms this again and again in the Department of Mysteries. They're there because he wants to save Sirius. When Malfoy orders Bellatrix to torture Ginny until Harry gives up the prophecy, Harry steps in front of her. When Hermione is cursed, he thinks "Don't let her be dead . . . it's my fault if she's dead" (793). When Bellatrix uses the cruciatus curse and threatens to kill Neville, "Harry did not have to think; there was no choice. The prophecy was hot with the heat from his clutching hand as he held it out. Malfoy jumped forward to take it" (801)-- even though Neville is willing to sacrifice himself and screams at Harry more than once to not give it to them. Because of Harry's ability to love, he cares about people too much ot sacrifice them-- even when they're willing to be sacrificed. If Harry's vision were real, I am sure that Sirius would rather have died than had Harry and friends come to the Department of Mysteries to save him. But Harry cares about him too much to let that happen. Same with Neville. He screams at Harry not to give Malfoy the prophecy, but Harry cares about Neville too much to let him die. Although Harry's ability to love separates him from Voldemort, it's also a weakness. I think it will be interesting to see how this effects Harry in DH. Yes, he can love. And yes, he needs his friends. But they're fighting supreme evil here. While Harry would gladly sacrifice himself, that's not always what the situation requires. I think he's going to need to learn in DH that the fight they're taking on also might require the sacrifice of people he cares about if it means furthering the cause, and I do think he'll have to make the choice to let people die.

16. What curse does the Death Eater use on Hermione? "The Death Eater Hermione had just struck dumb made a sudden slashing movement with his wand from which flew a streak of what looked like purple flame. It passed right across Hermione's chest; she gave a tiny "oh!" as though of surprise and then crumpled onto the floor where she lay motionless" (792). When Hermione returns to relative health, "she winced slightly and put a hand to her ribs. The curse Dolohov has used on her, though less effective than it would have been had he been able to say the incantation aloud . . . Hermione was having to take ten different types of potion every day" (847). This ties in with my former query about killing a wizard and if avada kedavra is the only way. Also, does avada kedavra have to be uttered orally?

17. I second a question Molly posed when I talked about Lupin and Sirius using the avada kedavra curse on Wormtail. Why couldn't Harry use the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix? Bellatrix says, "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain-- to enjoy it-- righteous anger won't hurt me for long" (810). This is arguably the angriest Harry has ever felt in his life. I believe he sincerely wants to hurt Bellatrix and cause her pain for what she did to Sirius. So why can't he use the Cruciatus curse? Is it a question of controlling his emotions like Snape urges him to do in Occlumency lessons?

18. When Dumbledore and Voldemort meet in the Ministry of Magic, Voldemort questions, "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" to which Dumbledore responds, "We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom . . . merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit." When Voldemort says, "There is nothing worse than death!, Dumbledore responds, "You are quite wrong . . . Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has alwasy been your greatest weekness" (814). What does Dumbledore mean by "other ways of destroying a man?" Will this come into play in DH? Is it possible that the fate that awaits Voldemort in DH isn't death but something worse?

19. Dumbledore says, "It is my fault that Sirius died . . . you should never have believed for an instant that there was any necessity for you to go to the Department of Mysteries tonight. If I had been open with you, Harry, as I should have been, you would have known a long time ago that Voldemort might try and lure you to the Department of Mysteries, and you would never have been tricked into going there tonight" (825-826). "I believed it could not be long before Voldemort attempted to force his way into your mind, to manipulate and misdirect your thoughts" (827). I bring up the same question I did in SS. It seems like Dumbledore knew from the beginning what was happening and just . . . let it happen. And this makes NO sense to me. I mean, come on. Harry never would have struggled so much against occlumency if Dumbledore just said "Hey, Harry, Voldemort can read your mind and he's going to try to make you do stuff. That's why it's so important you learn occlumency." Harry never would have gone to the Department of Mysteries if Dumbledore had just told him what was there and said that Voldemort would try to lure him there. I get that he wants to "protect" him (see #20), but this just doesn't make sense! If he knew what was going on all along, as it seems he does, he could have done so much more to prevent it.

20. Dumbledore tells Harry, "I cared about you too much . .. I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act" (838). Once again we see that love can be a strength but also a weakness. If Dumbledore hadn't been so worried about Harry's happiness, much could have been avoided. Going back to what I said in #15, Harry's going to have to walk a fine line in DH. Yes, he will need to use his love as a strength, but he'll also have to know when it can be used against him.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:36:58 -0700

1. "My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not! He held his head high and went about his business as usual! Of course, I'm note entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery" (454). This is one of the very few things we have heard in the entirety of the series yet about Dumbledore's family, and it's a funny detail, isn't it? It seems that Dumbledore comes from a wizarding family if his brother was aquainted with inappropriate goat charms. But it also seems like the rest of Dumbledore's family isn't as intelligent as he is. An illiterate wizard practicing inappropriate charms on a goat? That sounds to me like the wizarding equivalent of a redneck.

2. GoF sets the stage for Dumbledore being too trustworthy in ways I didn't realize before HBP. When Hagrid is crying about being half-giant, he says, "Dumbledore was the one who stuck up for me after Dad went. Got me the gameskeeper job . . . trusts people, he does. Gives 'em second chances . . . tha's what sets him apar' from other heads, see. He'll accept anyone at Hogwarts, s'long as they've got the talent" (455). Yes, that whole "trusting people" and "giving them second chances" stuff is what ends up getting him killed. Also interesting about him accepting anyone at Hogwarts. After all, one might argue that the biggest mistake he made was accepting Riddle and giving him a magical education-- trusting him when he seemed so, well, untrustworthy what with the stealing, lying, and torturing other children and small animals. Later on, Moody says to Snape, "'Course Dumbledore trusts you . . . He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me-- I say there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?' Snape suddenly did something very strange. He seized his left forearm convulsively with his right hand as though something on it had hurt him" (472). Interesting! First of all, this again highlights Dumbledore's impulse to trust and give second chances. This is also particularly interesting because "Moody" here is actually Barty Crouch, Jr. aka Voldemort's faithful servant at Hogwarts. So, what is he getting at here? The "spots that never come off" that he refers to are obviously the dark marks emblazoned on the Death Eaters' forearms. Is he indicating that once you're a Death Eater-- like Snape was-- that you're never not a Death Eater? Or is he incredulous at Snape for switching sides when he still bears Voldemort's mark-- is Snape one of dark Wizards BC Jr hates because he gave up his convinctions rather than went to Azkaban for Voldemort?

3. More on the "Is Snape good or evil?" front. Hermione says Dumbledore trusts Snape. "'Oh give it a rest, Hermione,' said Ron impatiently. 'I know Dumbledore's brilliant and everythingm but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him' . . . 'I think they've both got a point,' said Sirius, looking thoughtfully at Ron and Hermione. 'Ever since I foudn out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school. Slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid, he was . . . Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in the seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters . . . But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death Eater-- not that that means much. Plenty of them were never caught. And Snape's certainly clever and cunning enouch to keep himself out of trouble'" (530-531).One thing in particular that interests me about this is that Sirius seems to think that Snape was never accused of being a Death Eater . . . but he was. During Karkaroff's trial (which Sirius does have knowledge of), Karkaroff accuses Snape. Crouch responds, "Snape has been cleared by this council . . . he has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore." Karkaroff then replies, "No! . . . I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!" (590). This wasn't a closed court room, so to speak. A lot of people were there. Sirius knows that Karkaroff was tried. So why didn't he know that Snape was ever accused? Also, either Snape really is still a Death Eater, or he's doing a superb job at fooling everyone.

4. The beginnings of the Order of the Phoenix. Of course we see the order beginning in the infirmary at the end of the novel when Fudge refuses to believe that Voldemort has returned and Dumbledore immediately rallies the good guys. But we even see the beginnings of the order a little before that. I remember reading on JKR's web site that members of the order communicate with one another using their patronuses, but I couldn't remember that ever happening. However, When Krum/Crouch are attacked outside the forbidden forest, "He [Dumbledore] raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dary out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird" (560). The phoenix is Dumbledore's patronus (also from JKR's web site), and he obviously uses it here to communicate with Hagrid.

5. I'm trying to piece together exactly who the Death Eaters are. What I mean is, how many have been mentioned, how many do we know, and how many are left? At Barty Crouch, Jr's trial, "Six dementors entered this time, flanking a group of four people . . . there was a thickset man who stared blankly up at Crouch; a thinner and more nervous looking man, whose eyes were darting around the crowd; a woman wiht thick, shining dark hair and heavily hooded eyes, who was sitting in the chained chair as though it were a throne; and a boy in his late teens, who looked nothing short of petrified . . . the woman with the heavy-lidded eyes looked up at Crouch and called, 'The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait! He will rise again and come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" (594-596). The scared looking boy is BC Jr. I assume the woman and one man are the Lestranges. When Voldemort rises in the graveyard, he surveys the circle and says, "The Lestranges should stand here . . . but they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me" (650). Who is the other man at BC Jr's trial? Furthermore, as Voldemort continues to survey the circle, he says, "And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return . . . he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever . . . he will be killed, of course . . . and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service" (651).Who are these people? And more importantly, where does Snape fit in? I've read arguments for Snape being the "most faithful servant," but people who make this argument are obviously shitty argument makers who don't care about context as the subsequent dialogue makes it clear that Voldemort is speaking about BC Jr here. That leaves the "one too cowardly to return" and the one "who I believe has left me forever." Is Snape one of these? Who is the other? Where does Regulus fit in?

6. I was pissed off at JKR in HBP because I thought there was no basis for Bill and Fleur's relationship. Au contraire: "Fleur Delacour, Harry noticed, was eyeing Bill with great interest over her mother's shoulder. Harry could tell she had no objection whatsoever to long hair or earrings with fangs on them" (616).

7. On Horcruci (I will be using that as the plural from now on): here are a slew of quotes from Voldemort's speal to his Death Eaters in the graveyard that I find interesting.

- "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to gaurd myself agains mortal death?" (648). The "they" he is talking about here (from context) is his followers, the Death Eaters. After reading HBP, it's clear that these "steps . . . to gaurd myself against mortal death" are the horcruci he's created. And this makes it seem like his followers knew about them: "they, who knew the steps I took." Interesting.

- "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost . . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know . . . I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads toward immortality. You know my goal-- to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked . . . for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it" (653). I find it interesting that Voldemort has obviously taken steps toward immortality-- in act, he believes he's gone further than anyone else in achieving immortality-- but he doesn't actually seem to have a clear idea of how the horcruci he's created work. Although he had already created multiple horcruci (he mentions "experiments," plural), he doesn't seem to understand how it is that he came to be alive or what form he was in after he "died." It's also interesting that he says, "it appeared that one of more of my experiments had worked" because it sounds as though he's tried to create several horcruci, but he doesn't actually know if he's been successful or how they will work.

- Voldemort describes how he finally returned to his body. He mentions Quirrell (although not by name) and says that Quirrell died when he left his body, and he "was left as weak as ever I had been . . . I returned to my hiding place far away, and I will not pretend to you that I didn't then fear that I might never regain my powers . . . and then, not even a year ago, when I had alomst abandoned hope, it happened at last . . . a servant returned to me." He continues speaking about Wormtail. Notice that he skips the entirety of CoS, which answers a question brought up in HBP-- it doesn't seem that Voldemort can tell when a horcrux is destroyed. This could be very useful to Harry in DH.

8. My theory on the much-discussed "gleam of triumph." "'He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's . . . He said the protection my-- my mother left in me-- he'd have it too. And he was right-- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face.' For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes" (696). My theory is that there is something important about Harry's blood that will come to be important in defeating Voldemort in DH. When Harry and Dumbledore are trying to enter the cave in HBP and Dumbledore realizes the door demands a payment of blood to enter, Harry offers his. Dumbledore refuses and says something about his blood being far too valuable. I think the value of Harry's blood is something Dumbledore must have suspected all the way back in GoF, and the fact that Voldemort could touch Harry after using his blood in the potion validated whatever supposition he had made about Harry's blood. Perhaps this will even tie into those 12 uses for dragon's blood that Dumbledore is famous for-- perhaps whatever he supposed about Harry's blood grew from the previous work he had done with Dragon's blood.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:35:23 -0700

- As for the PoA movie being a good predictor of things to come . . . one thing that was prominent in book 3 and absent from movie 3 was the tension between Ron/Harry and Hermione. Ron wasn't speaking to Hermione for a good portion of the book becuase of Crookshanks' pursuit of Scabbers, and Harry was angry at Hermione for telling McGonagall about the present of the Firebolt and threatening to tell her about the Marauders' Map. If I recall, this tension amongst the threesome wasn't really a part of the movie at all. Perhaps their group dynamic and close friendship foreshadows the importance the friendship of the trio will take on in fighting Voldemort in DH. Moreover, the lack of tension between Ron and Hermione in the PoA movie makes the idea of their budding relationship a lot more plausible seeing as my major criticism of them as a couple is that they argue all the time. There's also what Betzi said about Lily's eyes. Harry's resemblance to Lily was stressed in the movie; his resemblance to James is stressed in the book. Perhaps Harry's resemblance to his mother will come to help him more than his resemblance to his father in DH. Without having recently watched the movie, that's about all I've got.

- Question: Are there other ways to kill a wizard? We've heard-- and seen-- a lot of Avada Kedavra-ing, but is this the only spell that will kill a wizard? When Harry, Lupin, Sirius and crew are in the Shrieking Shack, Harry contemplates killing Black: "A boiling hate erupted in Harry's chest, leaving no place for fear. For this first time in his life, he wanted his wand back in his hand, not to defend himself, but to attack . . . to kill." The unforgivable curses are introduced by Moody in the fourth book; furthermore, it's made clear that you can't simply say the words and cause death, so how exactly does Harry intend to kill Black? The same question occurs to me when Black and Lupin are poised to kill Pettigrew. Right before Harry jumps in front of Pettigrew, Lupin says, "You should have realized . . . if Voldemort didnt' kill you, we would. Good-bye, Peter." Do they intend to perform the Avada Kedavra curse on him? How can they? First of all, like I said before, I recall that you can't just say the words "avada kedavra" and produce murder; I recall Moody saying that there must be a powerful bit of dark magic behind any unforgiveable curse (which is why Harry is unable to use one on Voldemort and then Malfoy in subsequent books). Would Lupin and Sirius have been capable of producing an avada kedavra? I guess in addition to wondering if there's another way to kill a wizard, I'm looking for more information about how the avada kedavra curse works. Moreover, even if Lupin and Siruis could have produced the avada kedavra, would they? Wouldn't that basically be suicide? They'd be sent to Azkaban themselves for using an unforgivable curse. And yet, they are BOTH willing to do it. If it were a suicide mission, why would Lupin jump in and hurtle himself onto the tracks, so to speak? Sirius is already a dead man. It makes more sense, rationally, for him to perform an unforgivable curse. So, do they have another way, or are they just so consumed by revenge that they don't even care?

- I go back to a point I made before that Harry is going to have to toe a tricky line between good and evil in order to defeat Voldemort in DH. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Dumbledore's fatal flaw was that he was too trusting and too noble. He is too trusting in that he's too willing to believe that people are good at heart. He has a pattern of believing in people and giving them second chances, and while some of them have worked out (Hagrid, Lupin, Sirius), others have been fatal (Snape, Voldemort himself when he was Tom Riddle). He's too noble in that it's pointed out again and again that Dumbledore has the same strength that Voldemort does, but he chooses not to use the dark powers he does. In order to defeat Voldemort, not only will Harry have to make shrewder choices, but I'm betting it will involve finding a balance between good and dark magic and being willing to cross a line that Dumbledore was not willing to cross. If Harry intends to defeat Voldemort once and for all, he will have to kill him. I don't see another way. And that will involve tapping in to a dark magic that he's thus far avoided. I'm so interested to see how this affects Harry in DH.

- I am no longer convinced that McGonagall may be evil as I have seen no evidence of it in CoS or PoA. I now think that JKR just wanted to keep the possibilities open in SS. It was so early in the series, and all the characters were new; the "hints" I picked up on that McGonagall may be on the side of evil were likely present because JKR just didn't want to give too much away in the first book. I think it's far more likely that JKR just didn't want to give away so early who was on what side.

- I do, however, think that someone close to Harry will betray him in DH. Something new has to develop in DH, and I think the likeliest candidate from my point of view is that a close friend will betray him, and I do mean a friend. Someone his own age. His own parents suffered betrayal at the hands of their trusted friend Pettigrew; furthermore, PoA makes it clear that no one was trusted. When Pettigrew asks Lupin, "Wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?", Lupin replies, "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter . . . I assume that's why you didn't tell me Sirius?" Sirius replies, "Forgive me, Remus," and Lupin responds, "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend . . . and will you, in turn, forgive me for believing you were the spy?" These four-- James, Lupin, Sirius and Pettigrew-- were the closest of friends, yet they didn't trust one another in the darkest of times. Aside from Draco and his cronies, Harry hasn't yet begun to entertain the idea that one of his own peers could join the dark side and betray him, but I think they're reaching an age now where that's a real possibility. The "kids" at Hogwarts are getting old enough now to take sides, and it will be interesting to see where they fall in DH.

- I can't bring myself to think that Harry will die. I just can't. I do, however, think that one of the trio will die, and JKR's outburst only strengthens that opinion. I would think that she would be just as upset at killing any one of them. My bet is on Ron. Ron has always been in Harry's shadow; he's never been quite as strong at magic as Harry or Hermione, and he's never really had his turn in the spotlight. This makes him just a little bit like Peter Pettigrew, who was never as strong as James, Lupin and Sirius. When given the opportunity to latch on to what seemed like a larger greatness in Voldemort, Pettigrew sold the Potters for his own life. When Pettigrew points out that Voldemort would have killed him if he hadn't turned the Potters over, Sirius responds very vehemently, "Then you should have died! . . . died rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you!" My theory is that Ron will be presented with a similar choice, but being nobler and braver than Pettigrew he WILL choose to die in order to save Harry, and thus, he WILL get his final moment in the spotlight. After all, Ron already proved in the chess game in CoS that he'll sacrifice himself for the greater good.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:33:28 -0700

I never quite put together it's in CoS where we see a few things that come to be very important in HBP. The first is the set of cabinets that Draco uses to transport Voldemort's followers into Hogwarts. When Harry messes up the floo powder and winds up in Borgin and Burkes in Knockturn Alley, he hides in the Knockturn Alley portion of the cabinet so he can spy on the Malfoys: "Harry looked quickly around and spotted a large black cabinet to his left; he shot inside it and pulled the doors closed . . ." In a portion that wasn't in the movie, Filch gets on Harry's case for tracking mud into the castle and is about to write him detention when Nearly Headless Nick gets Peeves to cause a distraction: "Nearly Headless Nick came gliding out of a classroom. Behind him, Harry could see the wreckage of a large black-and-gold cabinet that appeared to have been dropped from a great height." Is this the other half of the set of cabinets? And is this how it got broken in the first place? Also of interest is that we see the poisonous necklace in Burgin and Borkes when Draco is wandering around looking at things: "Draco paused to examine a long coil of hangman's rope and to read, smirking, the card propped on a magnificent necklace of opals, Caution: Do Not Touch. Cursed-- Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date." I've just got to continue loving what a genius JKR is.

I'd like to note that once again tragedy almost befalls the school not merely when Dumbledore is away but under McGonagall's watch.

One other thing of interest in the "Is Harry a horcrux?" debate. There's the bit at the end where Dumbledore and Harry discuss the fact that Harry is a parseltongue, and Dumbledore supposed it's because Voldemort was a parseltongue and unknowingly transferred some of his power to Harry when he gave him his lighting bolt scar. In the book, however, it goes more like this. Dumbledore explains, "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure . . ." and Harry responds, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" I've got to say I'm not loving JKR's choice of words there because "put a BIT OF HIMSELF in me" certainly sounds a lot like the description of a horcrux.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:32:27 -0700

In preparation for Saturday's release of Deathly Hallows, I've been conducting lengthy conversations with friends regarding the first six books. I've been a fairweather vox-visitor as of late, but I thought I'd post them here and see if anyone else has thoughts. Here's the first set on Sorcerer's Stone.

1. I am truly in awe of how well-planned this series is. So many characters were mentioned by name in the opening chapters of SS who only later come to be extremely important. In chapter one, when Dumbledore asks wehre Hagrid obtained a flying motorcycle, Hagrid responds that he borrowed it from "Young Sirius Black." Mrs. Figg is introduced as Harry's babysitter in chapter two. And it's not just characters. Major plot points are introduced incredibly early in the series-- we just don't realize they're major until later. Of course there's Harry speaking to the snake in the zoo, but also more minor things; for example, McGonagall asks Dumbledore if he can "do something" about Harry's scar when Dumbledore drops Harry off on the Dursley's front stoop; Dumbledore responds, "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy." How true does that turn out to be throughout the whole series? The examples are really endless and I'm sort of kicking myself for not having a highlter in hand while I was re-reading (of course that might make me the biggest dork ever, and more importantly, these aren't my copies of the books). Basically, rereading SS has made it utterly clear to me what an incredibly genius JKR is.

2. I know we talk about it frequently, but SS reinforced for me just how much we don't know about Dumbledore and his past, and I really hope those questions are answered in Book 7. A few specific examples that struck me:

- Dumbledore's biography on the chocolate frog cards reads, "Considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times, Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and tenpin bowling." Two things about Dumbledore's biography interest me. First, we have yet to hear anything of the dark wizard Grindelwald or Dumbledore's defeat of him, for which it seems he is most famous. Second, what are the twelve uses of dragon's blood? They are mentioned-- though not stated-- exactly three times in book one, and (if I recall properly) never again. I have to believe that every aspect mentioned of Dumbledore's past is important. Will dragon's blood come to be important in Book 7?

- When Dumbledore finds Harry looking in to the Mirror of Erised, Harry asks Dumbledore what he sees when he looks in the mirror. Dumbledore responds, "I? I see myself holding a pair of thick, woolen socks . . . one can never have enough socks . . . Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a single pair." The chapter closes with the following: "It was only when he was back in bed that it struck Harry that Dumbledore might not have been quite truthful. But then, he thought, as he shoved Scabbers off his pillow, it had been quite a personal question." What does Dumbledore really see in the Mirror? Is he lying here? The question interests me because we've debated for a long time now about what Dumbledore sees when he drinks the potion in HBP. And if he really sees socks, is that just a quirky detail or does it have deeper meaning? It may seem silly, but socks are pretty meaningful in the Harry Potter world-- I mean, just think, without a sock, Dobby would never have been freed!

3. I continue to fail to understand Dumbledore's actions in SS. After reading it cover to cover, it really does seem like he knows what's happening all along and lets it happen. I mean, he knew Voldemort would try to get the stone. He took precautionary measures to make sure that didn't happen . . . but why the big show? Why not just destroy the stone in the beginning if he knew the damage it would cause? When Dumbledore visits Harry in the infirmary at the end of the novel and Harry asks if Dumbledore received Hermione's owl, he responds, "We must have crossed in midair. No sooner had I reached London than it became clear to me that the place I should be was the one I had just left." If he knows what's going on, why would he have left in the first place? When Harry questions Dumbledore about whether Voldemort is gone for good, Dumbledore responds, "While you may only have delayed his return to power, it will mrerely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems like a losing battle next time-- and if he is delayed again and again, why, he may never return to power." But this doesn't make sense. Dumbledore already knows the prophecy at this point (Although, I must say the next few paragraphs-- in which Harry asks Dumbledore for "the truth" about why Voldemort came to kill him on that night and Dumbledore responds, "The truth . . . it is a beautiful and terribly thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution . . . Alas, the first thing you ask me, I cannot tell you. Not today. Not now. You will know, one day . . . when you are older . . . when you are ready" -- ties in SO nicely with his explanation of the prophecy in HBP). Anway, back to my point. Dumbledore knows about the prophecy. So how can he say that maybe if one person and then the next and then the next can keep Voldemort at bay then maybe he'll never come back? When Harry, Ron and Hermione discuss the events that led them the the stone, Hermione says she was dashing up the the owlery to contact Dumbledore "when we met him in the entrance hall" (meaning Hermione never sent an owl, which draws into question his earlier statement that the two "must have crossed in midair), and Dumbledore says, "Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?" Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do it? Sending you your father's cloak and everything?" Harry surmises, "I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked." I've got to say . . . they make some convincing points. It really does seem like Dumbledore knew what they were up to all along . . . so why in the world would he let them go through with it? Why would he let any of this play out in the first place?

4. OK, bear with me. There was this article a while ago on how McGonagall may be evil. Well, frankly I found the idea so unreasonable that I didn't even read the article, so I don't really know what points it made. And it would still take a lot to convince me that McGonagall is the evil one, but after rereading book one . . . I can see where they get that idea. I'm probably just nitpicking, but consider the following points.

- McGonagall showed up in Privet Lane the day of the Potter's murder of her own accord-- not under Dumbledore's orders-- and her reactions do seem a bit questionable. When Dumbledore first seems the cat on Privet Lane, he says, "Fancy seeing you here, Professor McGonagall," indicating that he's surprised to find her there. She responds, "How did you know it was me?", which indicates that she is surprised to be recognized by Dumbledore (especially curious seeing as we later learn that animagi are required by law to be registered-- shouldn't her cat form have been known?). McGonagall then goes on a fishing expedition in which she questions Dumbledore to find out if Voldemort is really gone, if the Potters are really dead, and if/why Harry survived. Among the more interesting things she says: she admits that Voldemort "had powers I [Dumbledore] will never have" but says, "Only because you're too-- well-- noble to use them." I find the "well" interesting. It's like she was searching for the right word. McGonagall becomes especially interested when it comes to what stopped Voldemort: "'You know what everyone is saying? Abotu why he's disappeared? About what finally stopped him?' It seemed that Professor McGonagall had reached the point seh was most anxious to discuss, the real reason the had been waiting on a cold, hard all all day, for niether as cat nor woman had she fixed Dumbledore with such a piercing stare as she did now." When they get to the subject of Harry, she says, "It's-- it's true? . . . After all he's done . . . all the people he's killed . . . he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just astounding . . . of all the things to stop him . . . but how in the name of heaven did Harry survive?" She does seem awfully astounded that just a boy could beat Voldemort and even more curious as to why. One of McGonagall's first questions to Dumbledore upon seeing Harry is, "Couldn't you do something about it [the scar]?" Dumbledore immediately responds that he wouldn't if he could because scars can come in handy. McGonagall's not an idiot. Wouldn't she have known that? Why is she so quick to try to get rid of the scar?

- The first attempt on Harry's life is Quirrel's attempt to jinx him in to falling off his broom. But it's McGonagall who put him in that position in the first place. Even after he'd ignored a teacher's direct order and flown on his broom (even though Madame Hooch threatened expulsion to anyone who did so), McGonagall doesn't punish him-- instead, she puts him on the Quidditch team and arranges to bend the rules so he can have a broom as a first year. I understand she wants her house to win the cup, but this is SO out of character for her. At other times in the novel she doesn't shy away from taking fifty points from her own house for breaking lesser rules.

- It's McGonagall who halts the trio's progress toward the stone. When they go to her demanding to see Dumbledore and insistent that someone will steal the stone, she is, of course, shocked that they know about the stone, but she "eyed him with a mixture of shock and suspicion" and says, "Professor Dumbledore will be back tomorrow . . . I don't know how you found out about the Stone, but rest assured, no one can possibly steal it, it's too well protected." I get that she doesn't believe these first year's tale about Snape wanting to steal the stone, but given that they know about the stone in the first place-- where it's located, how it's gaurded-- isn't it a little odd that she doesn't even check on it? And isn't it strange that the stone was stolen under her watch? She is, after all, deputy headmistress, and like I said before, she's not an idiot.

- Despite everything else I've just said, this is the one that really gets me. Each teacher was responsible for a portion of the mystical obstacle course that led to the Stone. When Harry, Ron and Hermione make their way past each obstacle, there is evidence of someone else's recent passing. Hagrid's trap is "Fluffy;" there is a harp at it's feet indicating that someone has already passed by. The flying key needed to open the door is battered, indicating that it has already been used. Quirrell's troll is "out cold with a bloody lump on its head." The potion Harry needs to drink to walk through the fire is already partially gone-- Harry says, "There's only enough for one of us . . . that's hardly one swallow." My point in all this is that the course doesn't "reset" itself for each passerby. In each room, there is evidence that someone has already walked through . . . each room except the chessboard. It's made clear twice in SS that McGonagall's trap is the chessboard. When Hermione is reasoning out the obstacle course, she says, "McGonagall transfigured the chessmen to make them alive," and when Dumbledore awards Ron fifty points for "the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years," Percy screams out, "My brother, you know! My youngest brother! Got past McGonagall's giant chess set!" It's also clear that playing the game causes massive destruction: "Their first real shock came when their other knight was taken. The white queen smashed him to the floor and dragged him off the board, where he lay quite still, facedown . . . Every time one of their men was lost, the white pieces showed no mercy. Soon there was a huddle of limp black players slumped along the wall." So why is the board set up for play when Hermione, Ron and Harry walk in as though Quirrell never played?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

So, what exactly is a "hallow?"

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:34:20 -0800

I went on a bit of a Harry Potter binge this weekend that included watching all four movies, rereading the first 500 pages of book six, and wondering how in the world I'll control myself until the release of book seven. My HP overdose led me on a search to figure out exactly what the title of book seven, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, means. This is what I came up with.

1) www.dictionary.com provides several definitions for “hallow:”

a. Verb: to make holy; sanctify, consecrate; to honor as holy, consider as sacred, venerate. This is certainly the context in which I have heard the word “hallow” before, or, more accurately, hallowed. For example, in shows like Buffy you always hear about “hallowed ground” meaning a sacred or holy place. So perhaps Harry will be visiting places that are considered sacred or holy in the wizarding world. On the other hand, the word “hallow” in the title is certainly a noun seeing as it is modified by the adjective “deathly.”

b. Interjection: used to call or answer someone, or to incite dogs in hunting. Perhaps Harry is being chased by hunting dogs? Is that why the “hallows” are “deathly?”

c. Noun: the cry “hallo!,” a shout of exultation. I sincerely doubt anyone is excited about the murder and mayhem sure to ensue in book seven.

2) From the online etymology dictionary: from the old English “halgian”—“to make holy, to honor as holy,” related to “halig” meaning “holy” from P.Gmc I don’t know what P. Gmc means, and I took a class on the history of the English language that, among other things, involved extensive readings of etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary. Regardless, this is not helpful as it merely regurgitates the only definition I already knew.

3) Having exhausted my word resources, a Google search then directed me to Wikipedia articles on both Halloween and All Saints’ Day. Wikipedia states, “The festival of All Saints, also sometimes known as “All Hallows” or Hallowmas (“hallows” meaning “saints” and “mas” meaning “mass”), is a feast celebrated in the honor of all the saints, known and unknown.” Well, at least now I can see it used as a noun. Apparently “hallow” is a synonym for “saint.” However, as far as I know, the wizarding community doesn’t revere Roman Catholic saints, so this seems an unlikely meaning of the title. Besides, I can’t imagine why saints would be “deathly.” That just seems like an oxymoron.

4) Continuation of my Google search then directed me to an Arthurian A-Z dictionary published on something called the “Mystical World Wide Web:” http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm#HAL. It’s a really fascinating explanation of “hallows,” but in brief:

a. In Arthurian legend and myth, a hallow is either a piece of royal regalia or a much-sought object of power/sacred vessel that is “quested” after like the holy grail.

b. Something called “The Hallows of Ireland” were brought to Ireland by something/one called the “Tuatha de Danaan” (Unlcear if this is a single person, a race of people or a group of some sort) and were guarded by four “Guardians of the Hollows.”

c. Beliefs later evolved/changed (again unclear how this happened) to say that the hallows brought by the Tuatha were four sacred treasures from the “otherworld:” the shining spear of Lugh (which provides victory in any fight), the stone of Fal (on which kings were crowned), the sword of Nuada (with which it is impossible to avoid being struck and wounded), and the cauldron of Dagda (plenty). In later traditions, these evolved into: the pole of combat, the sword of light, the cauldron of cure and the sword of destiny. In even later traditions, these have developed into the four symbols of magical elements: the sword, the spear, the cup and the pentacle—in other words, the four suits of Tarot cards.

Conclusion: My, my, a hallow sounds quite a bit like a horcrux. JKR knows her Arthurian mythology and stole the term as a loose synonym for “horcrux” in order to make the title more mysterious.

Better conclusion: JKR not only took the term from Arthurian mythology, but plans to parallel other aspects of book seven to the Arthurian legend of “hallows.” Notice that certain aspects of that story fit nicely with aspects of the HP books. There are four guardians of the hollows just like the four founders of Hogwarts. Dumbledore made it clear in book six that Voldemort would have looked for magical objects of power, such as objects that belonged to these founders. We’ve also seen a sword (one of the two known existing relics to belong to Godric Gryffindor) and a cup (a relic of Helga Hufflepuff presumably stolen by Voldemort and used as a horcrux). OK, so it’s not a perfect match—there’s on sacred locket in Arhurian mythology, and I’m not sure I know the difference between a sword and a spear, but you must admit there are parallels. Furthermore, I feel like she could work in the part about hallows being associated with “magical elements”--- this is, after all, a world of magic, and don’t they use some form of Tarot card in divination?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dear Winter Storm,

nobody@vox.com(Mary Beth) — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:02:14 -0800

Dear Winter Storm,

When we met last Thursday, I just knew you would be trouble. We first encountered one another when you showed up unexpected in Kansas City, MO. You made a simple 2 hour drive from Kansas City to Columbia a hellish three plus hour experience, and you delayed the arrival of not one, not two, but five of my friends for a fun-filled weekend. To top it all off, you stranded Mary Kate in Indianapolis and prevented her from getting to Kansas City at all. I was not fond of you then, Winter Storm, and I was glad to leave you behind in Kansas City on Monday afternoon.

But it seems you hadn't had quite enough of me yet. You tagged along to Chicago, where we met again a few miles from Midway airport. You decided not to let my plane land, and presumably laughed as I spent an unplanned night in Chicago and arrived home a full 12 hours later than planned and rushed to get to work late. Winter Storm, I had certainly had enough of you then.

But it seems you hadn't yet had enough of me. You decided to join me today for the entirety of my drive from Winston-Salem, NC, to Round Hill, VA. Now, Winter Storm, you know that I hate driving with you. I'm starting to think you are doing these things solely to annoy me.

Winter Storm, I am not fond of you, and I think it's time we parted paths. Of course, now that you've plunked yourself down in northern VA and have taken it upon you to dump snow all over my yard, the least you can do is graciously stick around for the evening and make sure school is closed tomorrow. You've put me through quite a bit in the past week and a half, and I think you owe me that much. And let's face it, Winter Storm, the only way I really enjoy your company is when you arrive bearing the gift of a free day off work.

Sincerely,
Mary Beth

Read and post comments | Send to a friend