Hp&hbp Spoilers

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Albus
A link to J.K. Rowling's interview with representatives of two leading fan sites:

http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml

She refers to Grindelwald (apparently pronounced "Grindelvald") in part 3.

Thank you for the link. Interesting stuff. I never read these books that closely the first time around, and the second read has been illuminating. It just seems to me that the Grindelwald thing has to be more important than I thought at first blush, like perhaps he was Riddle's Dumbledore, if that makes sense, which is why Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort ever feared.

BTW, new poster or sock?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
2. And Harry definitely has a dark side.

I'm not sure about Harry being a horcrux. AD said that Voldemort cannot tell when a horcrux is destroyed, so it doesn't seem like he has a very good connection with his horcruxes. He and Harry seem to have a very powerful connection...which suggests something stronger than a horcrux?

[Albus]

Originally posted by spookyfish
BTW, new poster or sock?

One can never have enough socks.

As for Harry as horcrux, here's one possible theory. Voldemort needed to commit a murder to create a horcrux, preferably a significant murder. He was in Godric's Hollow, the ancient home of Godric Gryffindor, with designs on killing the infant annointed in the prophecy as the "Chosen One." It's possible that Voldemort was after a two-fer; kill the Chosen One and create his Gryffindor horcrux.

The failed curse couldn't have done the trick -- no murder, no horcrux. But, Lily Potter's death might have worked. The powerful magic of a mother's sacrifice for her child could well have resulted in a misdirected horcrux, with the resulting fragment of Voldemort's soul being directed to the nearest appropriate receptacle -- Harry.

Voldemort's actions lend some credence to this theory. There was no way that Lily Potter was leaving that room alive, yet Voldemort gave her the chance to move aside and not be killed. Why not just cap the mom and kill the kid? Plainly, the order in which Harry and Lily were killed mattered to Voldemort. He may have suspected that killing Lily first might create an unintended horcrux. Then again, this raises the question of why the killing of James didn't pose the same risk. Yes, Jo says her sacrifice was greater because she had a choice, but Voldemort gave her the choice, which would make the resulting creation of a horcrux -- something he intended to avoid by asking her to move in the first place -- kind of ironic.

I don't have a clue. I just hope it isn't true. I do expect that Harry and Voldemort will have their final showdown where it all began, in the ruins of the Potter house in Godric's Hollow. I even expect that the relic of Godric Gryffindor will be there. Whether or not it contains a piece of Voldemort's soul may determine whether Harry lives or dies.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Albus
One can never have enough socks.

As for Harry as horcrux, here's one possible theory. Voldemort needed to commit a murder to create a horcrux, preferably a significant murder. He was in Godric's Hollow, the ancient home of Godric Gryffindor, with designs on killing the infant annointed in the prophecy as the "Chosen One." It's possible that Voldemort was after a two-fer; kill the Chosen One and create his Gryffindor horcrux.

The failed curse couldn't have done the trick -- no murder, no horcrux. But, Lily Potter's death might have worked. The powerful magic of a mother's sacrifice for her child could well have resulted in a misdirected horcrux, with the resulting fragment of Voldemort's soul being directed to the nearest appropriate receptacle -- Harry.

Voldemort's actions lend some credence to this theory. There was no way that Lily Potter was leaving that room alive, yet Voldemort gave her the chance to move aside and not be killed. Why not just cap the mom and kill the kid? Plainly, the order in which Harry and Lily were killed mattered to Voldemort. He may have suspected that killing Lily first might create an unintended horcrux. Then again, this raises the question of why the killing of James didn't pose the same risk. Yes, Jo says her sacrifice was greater because she had a choice, but Voldemort gave her the choice, which would make the resulting creation of a horcrux -- something he intended to avoid by asking her to move in the first place -- kind of ironic.

I don't have a clue. I just hope it isn't true. I do expect that Harry and Voldemort will have their final showdown where it all began, in the ruins of the Potter house in Godric's Hollow. I even expect that the relic of Godric Gryffindor will be there. Whether or not it contains a piece of Voldemort's soul may determine whether Harry lives or dies.

In my perfect ending, it turns out that Snape was, in fact, still working for AD. But, after killing V, Harry goes ahead and kills Snape anyway, goes all evil, and starts to command the deatheaters himself. Don't think JKR would do it, but I'd love it.

Of course, it would get even better if Hermione and Ginny then took out Harry, and then consoled themselves with some magically hot girl-girl action.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
In my perfect ending, it turns out that Snape was, in fact, still working for AD. But, after killing V, Harry goes ahead and kills Snape anyway, goes all evil, and starts to command the deatheaters himself. Don't think JKR would do it, but I'd love it.

Of course, it would get even better if Hermione and Ginny then took out Harry, and then consoled themselves with some magically hot girl-girl action.

You posted on my buffy board, didn't you? This sounds like half the posts over there. And hey, Willow and Angel did eventually go all evil, so it does happen from time to time.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You posted on my buffy board, didn't you? This sounds like half the posts over there. And hey, Willow and Angel did eventually go all evil, so it does happen from time to time.

AND Willow was involved in the magically hot girl-girl action! So there's precedent here!

Actually, I think I did lurk on your olf Buffy board, pre-fracture. I don't think I ever posted, though.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Albus
One can never have enough socks.

Nicely played, Albus. Is that what you see yourself holding when you look in the Mirror of Erised?

Originally posted by Albus

As for Harry as horcrux, here's one possible theory. Voldemort needed to commit a murder to create a horcrux, preferably a significant murder. He was in Godric's Hollow, the ancient home of Godric Gryffindor, with designs on killing the infant annointed in the prophecy as the "Chosen One." It's possible that Voldemort was after a two-fer; kill the Chosen One and create his Gryffindor horcrux.

The failed curse couldn't have done the trick -- no murder, no horcrux. But, Lily Potter's death might have worked. The powerful magic of a mother's sacrifice for her child could well have resulted in a misdirected horcrux, with the resulting fragment of Voldemort's soul being directed to the nearest appropriate receptacle -- Harry.

Voldemort's actions lend some credence to this theory. There was no way that Lily Potter was leaving that room alive, yet Voldemort gave her the chance to move aside and not be killed. Why not just cap the mom and kill the kid? Plainly, the order in which Harry and Lily were killed mattered to Voldemort. He may have suspected that killing Lily first might create an unintended horcrux. Then again, this raises the question of why the killing of James didn't pose the same risk. Yes, Jo says her sacrifice was greater because she had a choice, but Voldemort gave her the choice, which would make the resulting creation of a horcrux -- something he intended to avoid by asking her to move in the first place -- kind of ironic.

I don't have a clue. I just hope it isn't true. I do expect that Harry and Voldemort will have their final showdown where it all began, in the ruins of the Potter house in Godric's Hollow. I even expect that the relic of Godric Gryffindor will be there. Whether or not it contains a piece of Voldemort's soul may determine whether Harry lives or dies.

As I have no clear idea of how horcruxes are created, except in the general sense, I seriously doubt it is possible to create one by accident, particularly if you've just basically "killed yourself" in the process of trying to make one, if that makes any sense. I just don't see Harry as a horcrux. But, I no doubt could be wrong.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
1.) Why didn't Harry recognize Snape's handwriting in the potions book? I'm thinking that Harry was being deliberately obtuse about the book because it was helping him so much to do well in school, but it should have been fucking obivious as hell who it had previously belonged to. Did Hermione actually see it? She's usually on top of those sorts of things.

Knowing fully well that Riddle was a half-blood, and given the incident with the Diary, it seems implausible that no one - especially Hermione - would at least suggest once that it could have been Riddle's

That being said, I guessed the "Half Blood Prince" was Snape almost immediately, since he was the Potions expert. I was a bit disappointed though, that the "Prince" referred to his mom's maiden name.

2.) This was pointed out in a locked post, so I can't link to it, but I read a really, really pissed off rant about the sudden Tonks/Lupin love match. The poster was irate that such a blatant sign that said "Remus Lupin is a heterosexual" needed to be put in the book, especially given all of the subversive evidence to the contrary in other books.

Lupin never set my gaydar at all. I'm curious, where?

3.) The Snape theory in Mircalla's journal above is being fleshed out in the comments. There's an interesting observation that if Harry is an inadvertent Horcrux, Ginny may also be one from events in CoS, which may bring a new definition to the word "soulmate."

Let me read the rest of the comments here before I give my take on the Horcruxes

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
long, complicated Harry Potter speculation

Abstract: In which it is proposed that the basin full of potion that Harry and Dumbledore found in the cave was itself a horcrux, and that the locket lying in the bottom of said basin was merely a red herring, planted there by Dumbledore to prevent Harry realizing what was really going on. It is further proposed that Dumbledore had been aware of this horcrux and its nature for years, and had long ago come to the conclusion that in order to destroy it he would have to drink it, necessitating that someone kill him in order to complete the destruction of said horcrux. It is finally proposed that Dumbledore was keeping Snape in reserve for this very task of killing him, and that in Book Seven Snape will be proven to have been acting solely on Dumbledore's orders with a view to Voldemort's ultimate defeat, and is therefore not guilty of murder or betrayal (in this case, anyway).

This is where I was going. As Dumbledore continues to drink the potion, he begins to exhibit the possible remorseful side of the younger Voldemort's soul ("no, dont make me do it")

Once possessed of this piece of his soul, Dumbledore had to die in order to kill the soul. Snape was merely fulfilling his duty.

The locket was placed there by Dumbledore (as I recall, it somehow just appears there beneath his magic goblet) as a means to get Harry on the road to locating the remaining items - either in the LaStrange House or nicked by Mundungus - and possibly a "living" Regelus Black.

If this theory is accurate, though, and the "Harry is also a Horcrux" is accurate - you figure Harry would have to die.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Which could explain why, although the book was defined as Snape’s by the name of the “Half Plood Prince”, and many spells in it are “known” to be Snape’s own inventions, and Harry was convinced that it belonged to a boy, Hermione was also convinced that the handwriting in it was a woman’s. If Harry had shown the book to Remus Lupin, would he have recognised the handwriting as Lily’s? If they had worked together in Potions, using the same textbook together, and adding in their additional refinements, I think this is entirely plausible. And actually, the strange sense of humour that Harry observed may owe something to Lily too – the sort of Lily that liked playing practical jokes on Petunia. I can imagine the wry humour with which, when Snape referred to the book as his own, she wrote (in place of his real name) she wrote inside, that it belonged to his "preferred" name, of the Half Blood Prince.

Perhaps "half blood prince" is not a mark of ownership, but a "dedication?"

This is a good one that never occurred to me. It's Lily's book. The notes were in her handwriting, but given to her by Snape. The "Half Blood Prince" in the book was akin to a student writing "I heart Popeye" on her notebook.

[dtb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is a good one that never occurred to me. It's Lily's book. The notes were in her handwriting, but given to her by Snape. The "Half Blood Prince" in the book was akin to a student writing "I heart Popeye" on her notebook.

It is definitely a girl's writing, if for no other reason than that Hermione repeats it several times. She's usually right (throughout the books).

[SlaveNoMore]

spookyfish
It just seems to me that the Grindelwald thing has to be more important than I thought at first blush...

One last point.

The books are unclear how Albus Wulfric Dumbledore "defeated" Grindelwald. If by defeating him, he killed him (given the obvious Wulfric-Grindelwald/ Beowulf-Grendel comparisions, this seems likely) then isn't it quite possible that this death allowed Dumbledore himself to create a Horcrux?

Slug says murder is required - but never says it can't be murder for good?

And what object would Dumbledore use for such vessel? Well it says animals are possible, and Fawkes the Phoenix would sure be nice and symbolic...

but I'm thinking much more of that Gryffyndor Sword safely ensconced on that office wall.

[Albus]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One last point.

The books are unclear how Albus Wulfric Dumbledore "defeated" Grindelwald. If by defeating him, he killed him (given the obvious Wulfric-Grindelwald/ Beowulf-Grendel comparisions, this seems likely) then isn't it quite possible that this death allowed Dumbledore himself to create a Horcrux?

Slug says murder is required - but never says it can't be murder for good?

And what object would Dumbledore use for such vessel? Well it says animals are possible, and Fawkes the Phoenix would sure be nice and symbolic...

but I'm thinking much more of that Gryffyndor Sword safely ensconced on that office wall.

I doubt you can create a horcrux by means of a morally justified killing (i.e., killing in self defense, or to protect the lives of others). To be murder, and thus to rend one's soul, it would have to be a wrongful killing. I'd be surprised if the defeat of Grindelwald towards the close of WWII (Rowling has already hinted that he either was a Nazi or aided their cause) counts as murder.

But even if that killing would be sufficient to create a horcrux, Dumbledore saving a fragment of his soul as a precaution against an untimely death would be very un-Albus like. In the very first book, he tells Harry, "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." (And here's another thought: when leaving the Dursleys' with Harry at the beginning of the Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore says, "And now Harry, let us step out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure." Could this have been foreshadowing of Dumbledore's next great adventure? But I digress).

During the duel in the Department of Mysteries, the following exchange takes place between Dumbledore and Voldemort:

"There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" snarled Voldemort.
"You are quite wrong," said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks. Harry felt scared to see him walking along, undefended, shieldless. He wanted to cry out a warning, but his headless guard kept shunting him backward toward the wall, blocking his every attempt to get out from behind it. "Indeed your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness –"

These are not the words of a man who would even contemplate creating a horcrux to forestall his own demise.

I'm betting that we'll get much more of Dumbledore in Book 7, but he won't be alive. It's likely that Harry will inherit the pensieve and a collection of Dumbledore's bottled memories. (I'm hoping that Winston Churchill shows up in one of them). I would not be surprised to see Harry have some meaningful conversations with Dumbledore's portrait. But the rules of the heroic quest genre require that Harry face his final battle alone. Therefore, Dumbledore had to die.

ETA: That thing about adventure being a flighty temptress. God, I'm a windbag.

[Replaced_Texan]

Mircalla on women in the Potterverse:



I was having a discussion (again) about Tonks. We all know that I feel like Tonks was a fairly weak character in HBP. People have said they thought it showed great strength of character that she wanted to be with Lupin in spite of the fact that he’s a werewolf. I agree. And it showed great strength of character for Fleur, who before this looked a bit silly, to stand by Bill. It takes great strength of character for Molly to be there for her husband and children, who are all in the Order, and for whose safety she worries all the time. And it took enormous strength of character for Lily to die for her child.

But…are we seeing a pattern here?

Why is it that so many of the women’s “finest moments” all seem to revolve around “hearth and home”? Isn’t this perpetuating a stereotype? It does seem that the wizarding world is rather old-fashioned – women certainly work, but it seems like only those who are unmarried have careers outside the home (given, we haven’t seen that many married women, so I’m extrapolating from a very small amount of data here. And for all we know the female professors and staff at Hogwarts could have husbands and/or children, although that doesn’t seem likely – McGonagall, for one, spends her free time at Hogwarts). Fleur’s job doesn’t seem very serious – it’s part-time, “until the wedding,” so that she can “eemprove her Eenglish.” And just from very minor hints dropped here and there – Fleur’s happy that Bill likes rare steaks, so obviously there’s no doubt who’s going to be doing the cooking.

There isn’t anything in the world wrong with stay-at-home wives and mothers, and I certainly would hope that any parent would sacrifice anything for their children. And it isn’t just women; Sirius, certainly, was willing to risk his life for Harry. But it would make me feel a little bit better about the Potterverse in general if we saw more strong women whose major strengths did not *only* cover the domestic sphere. Again, of course, McGonagall is a strong woman. And there are strong women that we’ve seen “in the background,” so to speak, such as Amelia Bones. But get this. (It’s another one of those “little hints.”) Amelia Bones is Susan Bones’ aunt. Seems to me like that means that Amelia isn’t married (if she were Susan’s mother’s sister, she’d have a different last name; if she were Susan’s father’s sister and her name is *still* Bones, that means she isn’t married.) Madame Maxine, certainly a strong character, also unmarried. There’s really only one married woman who seems very strong and she’s…well…Bellatrix. In other words…she’s EVIL.

Okay, you might say I’m stretching things here, but the overall picture certainly seems to indicate that wizarding women, even more so than modern-day Muggle women, generally have to choose to either be wives and mothers, or to have careers. And damn it, that pisses me off.

‘Cause if *I* were going to create a whole new world, I think I’d try to remedy that. I’m just saying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Mircalla on women in the Potterverse:



I was having a discussion (again) about Tonks. We all know that I feel like Tonks was a fairly weak character in HBP. People have said they thought it showed great strength of character that she wanted to be with Lupin in spite of the fact that he’s a werewolf. I agree. And it showed great strength of character for Fleur, who before this looked a bit silly, to stand by Bill. It takes great strength of character for Molly to be there for her husband and children, who are all in the Order, and for whose safety she worries all the time. And it took enormous strength of character for Lily to die for her child.

But…are we seeing a pattern here?

Why is it that so many of the women’s “finest moments” all seem to revolve around “hearth and home”? Isn’t this perpetuating a stereotype? It does seem that the wizarding world is rather old-fashioned – women certainly work, but it seems like only those who are unmarried have careers outside the home (given, we haven’t seen that many married women, so I’m extrapolating from a very small amount of data here. And for all we know the female professors and staff at Hogwarts could have husbands and/or children, although that doesn’t seem likely – McGonagall, for one, spends her free time at Hogwarts). Fleur’s job doesn’t seem very serious – it’s part-time, “until the wedding,” so that she can “eemprove her Eenglish.” And just from very minor hints dropped here and there – Fleur’s happy that Bill likes rare steaks, so obviously there’s no doubt who’s going to be doing the cooking.

There isn’t anything in the world wrong with stay-at-home wives and mothers, and I certainly would hope that any parent would sacrifice anything for their children. And it isn’t just women; Sirius, certainly, was willing to risk his life for Harry. But it would make me feel a little bit better about the Potterverse in general if we saw more strong women whose major strengths did not *only* cover the domestic sphere. Again, of course, McGonagall is a strong woman. And there are strong women that we’ve seen “in the background,” so to speak, such as Amelia Bones. But get this. (It’s another one of those “little hints.”) Amelia Bones is Susan Bones’ aunt. Seems to me like that means that Amelia isn’t married (if she were Susan’s mother’s sister, she’d have a different last name; if she were Susan’s father’s sister and her name is *still* Bones, that means she isn’t married.) Madame Maxine, certainly a strong character, also unmarried. There’s really only one married woman who seems very strong and she’s…well…Bellatrix. In other words…she’s EVIL.

Okay, you might say I’m stretching things here, but the overall picture certainly seems to indicate that wizarding women, even more so than modern-day Muggle women, generally have to choose to either be wives and mothers, or to have careers. And damn it, that pisses me off.

‘Cause if *I* were going to create a whole new world, I think I’d try to remedy that. I’m just saying.

2. i also think it's be nice if some of the better looking females wear low cut robes in the movies, you know to show strenght like Zena.