The Rise of the Phoenix
Andy
Here are some of my latest ideas regarding what might be underlying the
fantasy structure of Harry Potter. Thanks to those of you who maked me
re-evaluate earlier versions, and to those who continue to support my
efforts.
Just as there was for men, there was an ancient civilization of
wizards. It ended, as a new epoch began, in 382 BC.
In that year, two muggle kings (Greek, one known as One-Eye), were
born. In that same year, two brother wizards were born, who were the
first wizards of the Middle Age Era of Wizards (which lasted from 382
to the present, with the height of its period in the Middle Ages).
The phoenix which presided over the ancient civilization flew away, and
a new one, Fawkes, took its place. He gave two of his tail feathers to
Ollivander so that, when his time came and the Middle Age Era of
witches came to an end, a new phoenix could be forged.
It is the destiny of Harry and Voldemort to in some manner forge a new
phoenix and thus begin the new, Modern Epoch of Witches and Wizards...
Much more to come on this I hope.
ANDY
Andy
Explanatory Notes:
Ollivander's: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C. JKR chose this
year for a reason. The most notable historic events in that year were
the births of two Greek kings:
1. Antigonus I Cyclops or Monophthalmus ("the One-eyed", so called from
his having lost an eye) was a Macedonian nobleman, general, and satrap
under Alexander the Great. He was a major figure in the Wars of the
Diadochi after Alexander's death. He established the Antigonid dynasty
and declared himself King in 306 BC. (Wikipedia)
2. Philip II of Macedon - Born in Pella, Philip was the youngest son
of King Amyntas III and Eurydice. In his youth, Philip was a hostage in
Thebes, which was the most prominent city of Greece at that time.
(Wikipedia)
As she is wont to do, JKR will make muggle events parallel those in the
magic world. In this case, there were two wizard kings born as well.
As chosen heirs to these kings, Harry and Voldemort are princes.
Ollivander made his first two wands in 382 B.C., and those were the
ones from Fawke's feathers, according to this hypothesis.
Consider that when one civilization ends and another begins, vestiges
of the former usually hang on. In this case, there are a few, but not
all, of the ancient magical creatures that persist in Potterverse (ie.
Centaurs). Those creatures would have seen this pattern all before,
and would be cynical of humans, which they tend to be. The Potterverse
is mostly populated by Middle Ages Era magical creatures (dragons and
the like). Of the Middles Ages magical creatures, it seems probable
that some of those will not carry on into the next epoch, such as the
giants.
There are many indications that this era of magic is waning, and the
restoration of the magic world is needed. Some of these indications
are: there is a sanctioned slave industry in operation; there are
unhappy ghosts, some whom have had to hold on for hundreds of years,
who need to be freed; there is a race of giants killing themselves off;
there's a growing population of werewolves; there are a lot of
mistrusting magical creatures; and in general, the wizard community has
lost touch with itself (ie. Luna and her father have an intuitive
knowledge of magic that's out there which is unknown to most.) The
idea that JKR will deal with each of these issues piecemeal, separate
from a single act by Harry that brings about a general restoration,
seems to me less plausible than the alternative. Unlike LOTR, where
Frodo's act wiped out all the evil, it doesn't seem that destroying
V. would instantly fix the other problems. Those have become
entrenched in a fading era of magic, and so a restorative function to
Harry's act is also needed.
If the framework of my proposal is true, then the purpose of the Order
of the Phoenix (interesting name) has actually been to ensure that
Harry and Voldemort meet when the time is right in order to produce the
next phoenix, and not before. At the end of book six, DD needed to die
in order to bring Voldemort out in the open, as the requirements for
the ultimate meeting are quickly being met.
Symbolically, of course, Harry and Voldemort could be argued to each
contain something of what is needed in a phoenix. Harry is the loving
force, that makes rebirth possible, and Voldemort is the destructive
force, that causes the recurring cycle of death in the bird. The
phoenix's ability to resurrect from its own ashes is its defining
characteristic.
Without this sort of a fantasy structure, HP turns out to be a
compelling story about a boy who overcomes much in overcoming an evil
wizard. But I believe there's more to it than that, as befits an epic
fantasy.
More to come...
Fish Eye no Miko
> Unlike LOTR, where Frodo's act wiped out all the evil,
Nope. There's a whole chapter after the destruction of the Ring that deals
with Saruman and Wormtongue in the Shire.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at dot com
"Take it from El Santo, folks--people who like exotic meat dishes with
secret ingredients are even more dangerous than people whose names are
anagrams of "Dracula'."
-El Santo, from his review of _Shriek of the Mutilated_.
Andy
True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many to be
the low point in the trilogy. Part of the reason is that it was such
an anticlimax to the destruction of the ring and the overwhelming
collapse of the forces of evil that came with it. In my analysis, the
establishment of a new order would bring about such things as the
abolition of slavery of house elves. These would still have to be tied
together after the fact, but they would fall out from the restorative
act of Harry. In a Harry brings down Voldy scenario, all these other
problems that would need to be solved would be somewhat disconnected, I
think anyway.
ANDY
Andy
Further to my earlier notes:
1) The meeting of the wands, which lifted H and V into the air,
anticipates the final meeting between the two when the phoenix will be
created.
2) I'm still working on this next one, but I have a possible historical
equivalent for the horcrux.
>From Wikipedia:
A LARNAX (plural larnakes) is a type of closed box often used as a
container for human remains in ancient Greece.
The first larnakes appeared in Minoan times during the Greek Bronze
Age, when they took the form of a ceramic coffin designed to imitate a
wooden chest. They were richly decorated with abstract patterns,
octopuses and scenes of hunting and cult rituals.
During the later Hellenistic period, larnakes in the form of a small
terracotta sarcophagus became popular, some of which were painted in
similar styles to contemporary Greek vases.
In a few special cases, larnakes appear to have been made out of
precious materials, as in the 4th century BC example found at Vergina
in northern Greece. This is thought to have belonged to *****KING
PHILIP II OF MACEDON***** [indeed, this is the same King Philip born in
382 B.C.], father of Alexander the Great. When found, it contained the
ashes of an unknown cremated male.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larnax_%28Archaeology%29"
Philip's larnax was found in a sarcophagus. Its definition is as
follows: (from Wikipedia)
SARCOPHAGUS - A stone coffin, typically adorned with a sculpture or
inscription.
This sounds innocuous enough until you start to explore its word
origins, when it takes on the aspect of a third-rate horror story. It
is from Greek sark-, flesh, plus -phagos, eating. Flesh-eating
stone? The first reference in English to the word is from a translation
of the works of the Roman writer Pliny the Elder, who said that the
Greeks believed that a type of limestone quarried from an area near
Troy would dissolve flesh and so was suitable for making coffins. Pliny
is not the most reliable of reporters (he also mentioned dog-headed
people and elephants who wrote Greek) and it's more probable that the
Greek name was a figurative reference to the speed by which the bodies
of those interred in porous limestone coffins decayed to bones.
This is a loose connection, but I think one worth pursuing.
Regards,
ANDY
Matt Clara
news:1136942405.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Group,
>
> Here are some of my latest ideas regarding what might be underlying the
> fantasy structure of Harry Potter. Thanks to those of you who maked me
> re-evaluate earlier versions, and to those who continue to support my
> efforts.
>
Not to be discouraging, but not one of your predictions will prove true.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Magic_mom
Andy wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> Here are some of my latest ideas regarding what might be underlying the
> fantasy structure of Harry Potter. Thanks to those of you who maked me
> re-evaluate earlier versions, and to those who continue to support my
> efforts.
>
First, return to school and re-take 1st grade grammar. The word is
*made*.. not *maked*. Your efforts though, are interesting. I am just
not sure this is the place for them.. perhaps one of the forums at
Mugglenet or such, where they post fan fics..
M_m
Andy
Hi there,
Yes, I was actually embarrassed to note that mistake ("maked") after I
posted the message. I wonder what it is about this group, though, that
so many seem unable to resist the temptation to be insulting. Do I
seem illiterate to you? As a magic mom, is that how you speak to your
children? (I think you need a comma after "efforts", btw.)
If my intention were to write a fiction based on HP, I would indeed
venture to another forum. That isn't, however, what I am attempting to
do, even if many people think the effect is the same.
Regards,
ANDY
Andy
slips, too. Maybe there's a forum for people with poor grammar.
Magic_mom
Andy wrote:
> P.S. I know, it's Fawkes', not Fawke's, and there are a few other
> slips, too. Maybe there's a forum for people with poor grammar.
No doubt you could start your own... The Harry Potter Forum Grammar Be
Damned.. or some such... <g>
M_m
Andy
Thanks for that. Are you sure you want to go so far out on a limb,
though, as to suggest that Harry won't turn into a phoenix?
You are probably right. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to treat
this more or less as a Sherlock Holmes mystery, deciding who will turn
against whom, who's bad, who's good, who will live, who will die, and
so on. I just happen to think that there's enough to go on to
postulate a grander overall fantasy structure than what is immediately
apparent. If nothing else, I'm finding it to be an enjoyable
enterprise.
ANDY
Andy
(Another good indication that a civilization is falling is that it has
a corrupt government; certainly, there are signs of that in HP.)
drusilla
"Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1136954521.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there,
>
> True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many to be
> the low point in the trilogy. Part of the reason is that it was such
> an anticlimax to the destruction of the ring and the overwhelming
> collapse of the forces of evil that came with it.
Am not a LotR experts but I dont agree. In fact, it shows how every single
race was or could have been affected by sauron.
In my analysis, the
> establishment of a new order would bring about such things as the
> abolition of slavery of house elves.
They don't want to be free. They don't see themselves as slaves. What they
need is more kind masters.
> These would still have to be tied
> together after the fact, but they would fall out from the restorative
> act of Harry. In a Harry brings down Voldy scenario, all these other
> problems that would need to be solved would be somewhat disconnected, I
> think anyway.
However Harry destroys voldemort, the life in the wizardkind will be the
same as the day befpre, except for the fear of LV himself.
>
> ANDY
>
Troels Forchhammer
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> enriched us with:
> Andy wrote:
>>
>> Unlike LOTR, where Frodo's act wiped out all the evil,
>
> Nope. There's a whole chapter after the destruction of the Ring
> that deals with Saruman and Wormtongue in the Shire.
The Fall of Sauron was the end of the last /incarnation/ of Evil in
Middle-earth, but to believe it to be an end of evil is a
misunderstanding, as you note. In fact not even the fall of Saruman
marks the end of the evil we've seen in the books -- many of
Saruman's henchmen in the Shire fled the area, and most likely
continued to harrass travellers in the wilds (until the King turned
his attention that way).
The appendices tell how Éomer, who became king young and lived to an
old age, spent much of his time fighting Gondor's wars against
Southrons, Shelob lives on in Cirith Ungol etc.
So even within the book itself, there is ample evidence that the Fall
of Sauron isn't some ridiculous end-all-evil event, but merely the
end of incarnate Evil.
Outside LotR itself, there is of course far more evidence -- Tolkien
did at one point begin a sequel to LotR, but stopped it early on. The
book, however, set in Fourth-Age Gondor, contained e.g. 'evil orc-
cults' (Gondorians, not actual Orcs).
The Scouring of the Shire is an essential chapter also for showing
that this is not really the end, but just a new beginning -- One
great Evil has been vanquished: the last incarnation of Evil, but
much that was good is lost as well. The Scouring of the Shire
contains some extremely important points, and without that chapter,
the story as a whole loses much of its potence.
Yes: I think that 'victors' never can enjoy 'victory'
-- not in the terms that they envisaged; and in so far as
they fought for something to be enjoyed by themselves
(whether acquisition or mere preservation) the less
satisfactory will 'victory' seem.
['The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien', Humphrey Carpenter (Ed.), #181]
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192
Fish Eye no Miko
> True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many to
> be the low point in the trilogy.
That's not really my point... You said Frodo's act (which wasn't even
Frodo's act, actually; in the end, it was Gollum who destroyed the Ring)
"wiped out all the evil", which is just not true.
> In my analysis, the establishment of a new order would bring about
> such things as the abolition of slavery of house elves.
Do we know that?
Frankly, the idea that Harry can get rid of ALL the problems in the
Wizarding World is unrealistic. These things have been around for a long
time, and one act to get rid of them all seems just... no. Again, these
thing are hard to deal with, and need work and time and understanding; just
having one act destroy them all seems wrong.
Oh, and Harry won't destroy all evil. So, whatever problems he might
solve, others will come up. It'll start all over again.
> These would still have to be tied together after the fact,
Why?
> but they would fall out from the restorative act of Harry. In a Harry
> brings down Voldy scenario, all these other problems that would
> need to be solved would be somewhat disconnected,
Why do they need to be solved? Problems that have plagued the Wizarding
World for possibly centuries will not be solved in one lifetime.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"If it weren't for the dozens of idiot drivers in front of you, you'd be
home by now."
-Rock station advertisement.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1136992454.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Andy"
<white_...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for that. Are you sure you want to go so far out on a
> limb, though, as to suggest that Harry won't turn into a phoenix?
Limb? Matt is still hugging to the trunk, sitting on a broad beam,
when he says that. Harry may befriend a Phoenix -- that can't be
entirely ruled out, but as for becoming one? That's on par with
'James and Remus switched bodies'.
[...]
> I just happen to think that there's enough to go on to postulate
> a grander overall fantasy structure than what is immediately
> apparent.
You're putting it the wrong way around. There is /not/ enough to
prevent the enterprise -- there is, however, basically nothing to
support it.
> If nothing else, I'm finding it to be an enjoyable enterprise.
And that is important -- I'm sure they'd be delighted at
fanfiction.net (or has that been closed? Check the list in the FAQ).
You may take this as derogatory -- I suppose that my own dislike for
fan-fiction does shine through, but that is not really my intention.
My point is that this is not something that derives from the Harry
Potter canon or even helps us understand and predict said canon --
this is your own way of expanding the canon using your own ideas and
fabrications; i.e. fan-fiction. A lot of fans are enthusiastic about
that, but others aren't, and that's fine: to each his own.
Generally the discussion of fan-fiction is quite limited in AFH-P,
but I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed if there are people to
discuss it -- just label it appropriately.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
drusilla
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> escribió en el mensaje
news:yMbxf.5225$B93.2969@fed1read07...
> Andy wrote:
>
>> True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many to
>> be the low point in the trilogy.
>
> That's not really my point... You said Frodo's act (which wasn't even
> Frodo's act, actually; in the end, it was Gollum who destroyed the Ring)
> "wiped out all the evil", which is just not true.
>
>> In my analysis, the establishment of a new order would bring about
>> such things as the abolition of slavery of house elves.
>
> Do we know that?
> Frankly, the idea that Harry can get rid of ALL the problems in the
> Wizarding World is unrealistic. These things have been around for a long
> time, and one act to get rid of them all seems just... no. Again, these
> thing are hard to deal with, and need work and time and understanding;
> just having one act destroy them all seems wrong.
> Oh, and Harry won't destroy all evil. So, whatever problems he might
> solve, others will come up. It'll start all over again.
>
>> These would still have to be tied together after the fact,
>
> Why?
>
>> but they would fall out from the restorative act of Harry. In a Harry
>> brings down Voldy scenario, all these other problems that would
>> need to be solved would be somewhat disconnected,
>
> Why do they need to be solved? Problems that have plagued the Wizarding
> World for possibly centuries will not be solved in one lifetime.
>
I I doubt Harry would even want to. If he survives, the most possible is
that he might want to live a normal life and move on.
(the one who must endure of all that 'free-the-elves' thing is Ron... for
the rest of his life... poor thing!)
drusilla
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> escribió en el mensaje
news:yMbxf.5225$B93.2969@fed1read07...
>
>> True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many to
>> be the low point in the trilogy.
>
> That's not really my point... You said Frodo's act (which wasn't even
> Frodo's act, actually; in the end, it was Gollum who destroyed the Ring)
> "wiped out all the evil", which is just not true.
>
>> In my analysis, the establishment of a new order would bring about
>> such things as the abolition of slavery of house elves.
>
> Do we know that?
> Frankly, the idea that Harry can get rid of ALL the problems in the
> Wizarding World is unrealistic. These things have been around for a long
> time, and one act to get rid of them all seems just... no. Again, these
> thing are hard to deal with, and need work and time and understanding;
> just having one act destroy them all seems wrong.
> Oh, and Harry won't destroy all evil. So, whatever problems he might
> solve, others will come up. It'll start all over again.
>
>> These would still have to be tied together after the fact,
>
> Why?
>
>> but they would fall out from the restorative act of Harry. In a Harry
>> brings down Voldy scenario, all these other problems that would
>> need to be solved would be somewhat disconnected,
>
> Why do they need to be solved? Problems that have plagued the Wizarding
> World for possibly centuries will not be solved in one lifetime.
>
I I doubt Harry would even want to. If he survives, the most possible is
Troels Forchhammer
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> enriched us with:
> Andy wrote:
>>
>> True, mind you the scourging of the Shire is considered by many
>> to be the low point in the trilogy.
By you, perhaps, but I have yet to meet or hear from others (and I
have spoken to many LotR readers and fans). I don't doubt that there
are more who feel as you do, and given the readership of LotR, that
group may well qualify as 'many', but in my experience (limited as it
may be -- after all it's only been some twenty-odd years since I read
LotR for the first time) it is a small minority of the total
readership.
> That's not really my point... You said Frodo's act (which wasn't
> even Frodo's act, actually; in the end, it was Gollum who
> destroyed the Ring)
And the failure of Frodo is one of the very interesting aspects of
the story ;-) Tolkien received letters from angry readers who
insisted that Frodo should have been condemned by Aragorn, Gandalf
and the others for his failure.
> You said Frodo's act
[...]
> "wiped out all the evil", which is just not true.
I suppose it's attributable to the inane ending 'and they lived
happily ever after', which is, as far as I know, a relatively modern
thing -- something that is tagged onto the end of traditional folk-
tales by people like Andrew Lang, Bowdlerising them. The ending is
used in modern fairy-tales (by modern I mean within the last
approximately 200 years since the advent of the Romantic period in
Western literature and art).
As Tolkien noted in 'On Fairy-stories':
The verbal ending-usually held to be as typical of the
end of fairy-stories as 'once upon a time' is of the
beginning-'and they lived happily ever after' is an
artificial device. It does not deceive anybody. End-phrases
of this kind are to be compared to the margins and frames
of pictures, and are no more to be thought of as the real
end of any particular fragment of the seamless Web of Story
than the frame is of the visionary scene, or the casement
of the Outer World. [...].
Endings of this sort suit fairy-stories, because such
tales have a greater sense and grasp of the endlessness of
the World of Story than most modern 'realistic' stories,
already hemmed within the narrow confines of their own
small time. A sharp cut in the endless tapestry is not
unfittingly marked by a formula, even a grotesque or comic
one.
>> In my analysis, the establishment of a new order would bring
>> about such things as the abolition of slavery of house elves.
>
> Do we know that?
> Frankly, the idea that Harry can get rid of ALL the problems in
> the Wizarding World is unrealistic.
To my knowledge (or memory, at least, which is sometimes quite leaky,
I'm afraid), Rowling has never really given us any indication of how
or indeed whether at all she is going to resolve the house-elf
question.
There are a couple of statements implying how she feels regarding the
issue:
The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the
house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think
we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room
already.
<http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-
ITVcubreporters.htm>
and
'Hermione gave me a lot of trouble!' laughed Rowling.
'She was really misbehaving. She developed this big
political conscience about the House elves. Well, she
wanted to go her own way, and for two chapters, she just
went wandering off. I just let her do it and then I
scrapped two chapters and kept a few bits. That I liked.
That's the most trouble anyone’s ever given me, but it was
fun so I gave her her head.'
<http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1100-cinescape-
garcia2.htm>
(I like that one).
The former, I think, indicates that the moral point of view is that
the House-elf slavery is wrong, but there is no indication of whether
it's going to find any resolution within the story, and the latter
statement shows how co-incidential it was that the SPEW issue ever
came to be as prominent as it became in GoF.
We do, however, know that some issues are not going to be resolved:
the division between the Muggle and Wizard societies is irreversible.
> These things have been around for a long time, and one act to get
> rid of them all seems just... no.
'Wrong'? Too easy? Certainly both, IMO.
> Again, these thing are hard to deal with, and need work and time
> and understanding; just having one act destroy them all seems
> wrong.
It also seems unrealistic (more so than even magic, which just
requires an addition to the normal laws of nature, while solving such
a huge issue by simply being a popular hero would require a stark
violation of human nature).
Add to this that the wizards who will oppose such an idea are,
largely, the same as those who will loathe Harry for defeating
Voldemort, and the scene is set for a far more difficult struggle
than simply vanquishing the Dark Lord. And even Mrs Weasley's
attitude is that she would like to have a house-elf.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Andy
I was actually being flippant about "going out on a limb" since I know
the average person (or any other living person besides me) doesn't
expect Harry to turn into a phoenix.
As for what gets discussed in this group, I note that the other most
active thread today other than this one concerns whomever Daniel
Radcliffe is dating. Perhaps that's more in keeping with the purposes
of this group... Personally, I prefer this line of discussion. Why do
you feel it's necessary to "label" my thread at all, by the way? Am I
going to dupe some unsuspecting reader into falling for my bogus ideas
if we don't warn everyone that this is actually not very well disguised
fanfic? I think people can draw their own conclusions.
Kind regards,
ANDY
Andy
The group has made some very good points, particularly about Tolkein.
It's true that the ring's destruction didn't melt away all the evil in
the universe, I will concede. It did, however, set the stage for a new
era, "The Age of Man". That was my main point. I don't see that the
destruction of Voldemort in and of itself would bring about a similar
renewal in the Potter universe. It would simply end the imminent
threat of an evil man. And maybe that's all there is to it, and all
that the resolution to the conflict requires. I find it unfortunate,
though, that by the mere act of posing the question 'Could there be a
similar process of renewal at work here which has up to now only been
hinted at?' - and by further suggesting how such a scenario might play
out - one is instantly tagged as a proponent of "fanfic" and of
groundless speculation. Even if the discussion turns to why JKR has
chosen not to adopt this element, which someone might argue is a key
one in the fantasy archetype, then it strikes me as an area worthy of
discussion.
Cheers,
ANDY
Andy
the looming threat to the world is ended, everything just more or less
goes back to the way it was before?... They'll just keep stumbling
along with the problems they've stumbled along with for hundreds of
years, but at least they won't have Voldemort to contend with anymore.
After all, a single act can't fix everything.
But a single act in fantasy does, it strikes me, often set in motion
the forces of renewal and change. Is it inconceivable, in others'
opinion, that something like that might still happen in HP?
drusilla
"Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1137020879.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
See, the wizards don't suffer of slavery, neither there are ruled by an evil
dictator. Their only problem is in fact Voldemort, who doesn't rule the
Potterverse, although he might want power for himself. The only ones who
might want the things to change are people like the Malfoys, who are against
those who aren't purebloods. The rest, for what I've read, doesn't seem to
have any problem with how the things are: about the elves, not everybody
have them, only wealthy families and their government doesn't look that bad:
Fudge messed it up and he was sacked due to pressure: I wish we could do
that with my President ;).
drusilla
It looks like wizards have lived in the same way in centuries: the only
change was apparently Voldemort, who forced them to live in fear. So, once
LV is gone, their lives return to normal, why change anything else?
Andy
drusilla wrote:
> See, the wizards don't suffer of slavery, neither there are ruled by an evil
> dictator. Their only problem is in fact Voldemort, who doesn't rule the
> Potterverse, although he might want power for himself. The only ones who
> might want the things to change are people like the Malfoys, who are against
> those who aren't purebloods. The rest, for what I've read, doesn't seem to
> have any problem with how the things are: about the elves, not everybody
> have them, only wealthy families and their government doesn't look that bad:
> Fudge messed it up and he was sacked due to pressure: I wish we could do
> that with my President ;).
Hi there, and thank you for your ideas. I will say again, you may well
be right. Voldemort goes down, all the death-eaters probably
spontaneously combust at the moment he dies, someone takes out the bad
werewolf... maybe even the SPEW campaign catches on, and everything is
basically put right.
On the other hand, as I've said, I think a case can be made that the
confrontation with Voldemort represents the final stage of a dying era.
The signs are subtle, but I think they're there. The giants, the
house elves, the ministry of magic, the prejudice (thanks, I'd
forgotten about that one), the ghosts, the lack of connection to much
that is magical, all the things I mentioned in post # 2 in other words,
could suggest that an act of redemption is needed. I find the centaurs
and the giants as particularly suggestive that there have been distinct
ages - the centaurs being remnants of a former classic age, and the
giants being a dying branch of this age. In that event, Harry's role
in the world might not simply be to negate something bad, but to
produce something good. When you add to that the fact that fantasy
very often contains such an element of renewal and transition of ages,
I just don't see that it's such a stretch (at least not to the point
where people need to suggest that I should be discussing this in a
different group). You are right about the current magical age having
persisted for centuries, by the way - about 24 of them in fact.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself.
drusilla
There are big problems that, Voldemort or not, won't be solved righat away.
There always be purebloods who think they are better. Also, werewolves had
been treated like vermin since ever, as people fear them. For instace, JKR
has just mentioned in her website that Luupin, due to Greyback's behavior,
won't get the DADA post:
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=42
"Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his
prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir Greyback
out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press any time soon"
So, even when there is known that Lupin and Hagrid were in Dumbledore's side
and fighting Voldemort, people won't accept them so easy. The only case of
'redemption' was Black, but perhaps that coud have been an exception as he
was a Pureblood. As you see, if you read HBP, people like Umbridge didn't
look Hagrid with good eyes, even when he has the biggest heart I've ever
seen (and there is no irony in my statment :) )
But it's becasue of the wizards that they have had a harsh life: Vodemort
only offered them a better life if they help him, not turned them evil.
> I find the centaurs
> and the giants as particularly suggestive that there have been distinct
> ages - the centaurs being remnants of a former classic age,
There are no reminants of a former classic age. In the Potterverse, they
live ans exost as any other magical creature.
and the
> giants being a dying branch of this age.
Because wizards had been chasing them.
In that event, Harry's role
> in the world might not simply be to negate something bad, but to
> produce something good.
Harry has no mission of changing the world, neither he wants to. He has just
realise that he is perhaps the only one able to defeat LV, prophecy or not,
and he wants to because LV has destroyed so many lives, including his
friends's and beloved ones.
> When you add to that the fact that fantasy
> very often contains such an element of renewal and transition of ages,
> I just don't see that it's such a stretch (at least not to the point
> where people need to suggest that I should be discussing this in a
> different group).
Not, thats true: that can happen but I don't see it happening in the
after-Voldemort Potterverse.
Andy
> There are big problems that, Voldemort or not, won't be solved righat away.
> There always be purebloods who think they are better. Also, werewolves had
> been treated like vermin since ever, as people fear them. For instace, JKR
> has just mentioned in her website that Luupin, due to Greyback's behavior,
> won't get the DADA post:
In that event, you are essentially agreeing with me. There are "big
problems" that the mere destruction of Voldy won't solve. As to
whether or not there always have to be these problems, such as
"purebloods who think they are better", why is that?
> So, even when there is known that Lupin and Hagrid were in Dumbledore's side
> and fighting Voldemort, people won't accept them so easy. The only case of
> 'redemption' was Black, but perhaps that coud have been an exception as he
> was a Pureblood. As you see, if you read HBP, people like Umbridge didn't
> look Hagrid with good eyes, even when he has the biggest heart I've ever
> seen (and there is no irony in my statment :) )
> But it's becasue of the wizards that they have had a harsh life: Vodemort
> only offered them a better life if they help him, not turned them evil.
This is more evidence that the wizard world's problems aren't totally a
result of Voldemort. "But it's because of the wizards that they have
had a harsh life."
> There are no reminants of a former classic age. In the Potterverse, they
> live ans exost as any other magical creature.
I would argue that if you looked at the full catalogue of magical
creatures that populate the HP world, most of them are most closely
associated with our perceptions of creatures in the Middle Ages, not
ancient classical culture. (Although many mythological creatures have
ancient counterparts, such as flying horses, the ones represented in HP
are more in keeping with the Middle Ages versions, I would argue.)
>
> and the
> > giants being a dying branch of this age.
>
> Because wizards had been chasing them.
Regardless of why they're dying, they are dying. Moreover, the
impression that I get reading the series is that many other magical
creatures are becoming rather scarce. Dragons have to be imported from
remote parts of the world, whereas one kind of expects that in the
Middle Ages, they'd be wandering around the British countryside.
>
> Harry has no mission of changing the world, neither he wants to. He has just
> realise that he is perhaps the only one able to defeat LV, prophecy or not,
> and he wants to because LV has destroyed so many lives, including his
> friends's and beloved ones.
Unfortunately, what Harry wants has never been too relevant to what he
gets. Did Frodo want the burden of the ring? Did he want to usher in
the Age of Man? Or did he want his quiet life in the shire, and the
burden just fell to him? Same for Harry. He'd just as soon have his
loved ones back, is my guess, and not be contemplating a murder he
likely won't have the heart to commit.
>
> > When you add to that the fact that fantasy
> > very often contains such an element of renewal and transition of ages,
> > I just don't see that it's such a stretch (at least not to the point
> > where people need to suggest that I should be discussing this in a
> > different group).
>
> Not, thats true: that can happen but I don't see it happening in the
> after-Voldemort Potterverse.
But it could; it would be in keeping with the genre, and there's
clearly a great deal of backstory we don't know yet.
Regards,
ANDY
Fish Eye no Miko
>> There are big problems that, Voldemort or not, won't be solved
>> righat away. There always be purebloods who think they are
>> better. Also, werewolves had been treated like vermin since ever,
>> as people fear them. For instace, JKR has just mentioned in her
>> website that Luupin, due to Greyback's behavior, won't get the
>> DADA post:
>
> In that event, you are essentially agreeing with me. There are "big
> problems" that the mere destruction of Voldy won't solve. As to
> whether or not there always have to be these problems, such as
> "purebloods who think they are better", why is that?
The same reason the real world still has the KKK and other "racial
supremacy" groups. Some people will find any way to think of themselves
superior to others. Getting rid of Voldemort won't end this anymore than
Hitler's death or ending Apartheid stopped racists in the real world.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_
drusilla
>
>> There are big problems that, Voldemort or not, won't be solved righat
>> away.
>> There always be purebloods who think they are better. Also, werewolves
>> had
>> been treated like vermin since ever, as people fear them. For instace,
>> JKR
>> has just mentioned in her website that Luupin, due to Greyback's
>> behavior,
>> won't get the DADA post:
>
> In that event, you are essentially agreeing with me. There are "big
> problems" that the mere destruction of Voldy won't solve. As to
> whether or not there always have to be these problems, such as
> "purebloods who think they are better", why is that?
Because wizards are not like we are. We did change across the history, but
they seemed happy and satisfied with the world they have.
>> There are no reminants of a former classic age. In the Potterverse, they
>> live ans exost as any other magical creature.
>
> I would argue that if you looked at the full catalogue of magical
> creatures that populate the HP world, most of them are most closely
> associated with our perceptions of creatures in the Middle Ages, not
> ancient classical culture. (Although many mythological creatures have
> ancient counterparts, such as flying horses, the ones represented in HP
> are more in keeping with the Middle Ages versions, I would argue.)
Extarnal reasons: JKR took them from there.
Internal reasons: those creatures had existed since ever but wizards had
hidden from us or they had hidden themselves.
> and the
>> > giants being a dying branch of this age.
>>
>> Because wizards had been chasing them.
>
> Regardless of why they're dying, they are dying. Moreover, the
> impression that I get reading the series is that many other magical
> creatures are becoming rather scarce.
See above
> Dragons have to be imported from
> remote parts of the world, whereas one kind of expects that in the
> Middle Ages, they'd be wandering around the British countryside.
IICR, there are still D in UK: 3 or 4 kind of them. Again, there are not
dying, there are protected.
>> Harry has no mission of changing the world, neither he wants to. He has
>> just
>> realise that he is perhaps the only one able to defeat LV, prophecy or
>> not,
>> and he wants to because LV has destroyed so many lives, including his
>> friends's and beloved ones.
>
> Unfortunately, what Harry wants has never been too relevant to what he
> gets. Did Frodo want the burden of the ring? Did he want to usher in
> the Age of Man?
Nope, he did it because he knew no one else would.
> Or did he want his quiet life in the shire, and the
> burden just fell to him? Same for Harry. He'd just as soon have his
> loved ones back, is my guess, and not be contemplating a murder he
> likely won't have the heart to commit.
But Harry has never had a quiet life: he's been marked since before he had
born. And, as DD pointed out, that he is not forced to do anything. Yet,
Harry does, as Frodo in this case, because no one else can. Yet, he wants tp
finish V because h erepresens evil but doesn't want to be involved at all
with any political movement, as he stated Scrimgeour very clearly. And,
changing the world, would be political
Andy
of the real world have a counterpart in the wizard world... which is
why I suggested that Harry's act would set in motion the forces of
change, not fix everything all at once. Our society is far from
perfect, but at least in most (all?) countries there is no longer
slavery, for example. And I can envision a world without the KKK
someday. And in any event, a fantasy world isn't quite the same as the
real world, is it, things there tend to happen on a bigger scale.
Andy
> Because wizards are not like we are. We did change across the history, but
> they seemed happy and satisfied with the world they have.
That seems like an assumption, and an odd one at that.
>
>
> Extarnal reasons: JKR took them from there.
> Internal reasons: those creatures had existed since ever but wizards had
> hidden from us or they had hidden themselves.
Clearly JKR took most but not all creatures from Middle Ages mythology.
The question is was that just a whimsical choice on her part, or was
there a reason? You seem to have more background than I do about how
diligently magical creatures have been hidden by the wizards.
>
> > and the
> >> > giants being a dying branch of this age.
> >>
> >> Because wizards had been chasing them.
> >
> > Regardless of why they're dying, they are dying. Moreover, the
> > impression that I get reading the series is that many other magical
> > creatures are becoming rather scarce.
>
> See above
Likewise, but the giants?
>
> > Dragons have to be imported from
> > remote parts of the world, whereas one kind of expects that in the
> > Middle Ages, they'd be wandering around the British countryside.
>
> IICR, there are still D in UK: 3 or 4 kind of them. Again, there are not
> dying, there are protected.
>
Maybe.
> >> Harry has no mission of changing the world, neither he wants to. He has
> >> just
> >> realise that he is perhaps the only one able to defeat LV, prophecy or
> >> not,
> >> and he wants to because LV has destroyed so many lives, including his
> >> friends's and beloved ones.
> >
> > Unfortunately, what Harry wants has never been too relevant to what he
> > gets. Did Frodo want the burden of the ring? Did he want to usher in
> > the Age of Man?
>
> Nope, he did it because he knew no one else would.
Actually, others offered. He simply felt the obligation had fallen on
him. But in essence that's saying the same thing.
>
> > Or did he want his quiet life in the shire, and the
> > burden just fell to him? Same for Harry. He'd just as soon have his
> > loved ones back, is my guess, and not be contemplating a murder he
> > likely won't have the heart to commit.
>
> But Harry has never had a quiet life: he's been marked since before he had
> born. And, as DD pointed out, that he is not forced to do anything. Yet,
> Harry does, as Frodo in this case, because no one else can. Yet, he wants tp
> finish V because h erepresens evil but doesn't want to be involved at all
> with any political movement, as he stated Scrimgeour very clearly. And,
> changing the world, would be political
If only we could change the world with love...
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1137020879.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Tolkein.
Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
> It's true that the ring's destruction didn't melt away all the
> evil in the universe, I will concede.
> It did, however, set the stage for a new era, "The Age of Man".
Both yes and no. It had preciously little to do with the advent of
the Fourth Age, which would likely have begun at basically the same
time regardless of who won. While of momentuous importance in the
immediate perspective, the event that really had the far-reaching
importance was the Three and their Wearers leaving Middle-earth. That
is what signalled the start of the Fourth Age, and it would have
happened at about the same time if Sauron had won, though in that
case the bearers would have been fleeing Sauron and have been
accompanied by nearly all the remaining Eldar and Nandor in Middle-
earth.
What the destruction of the Ring ensured was merely that the Fourth
Age could begin without the shadow of the evil that had marked the
Third Age, but the only guarantee you get is that things will go
wrong again,
'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is
himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part
to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is
in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set,
uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that
those who live after may have clean earth to till. What
weather they shall have is not ours to rule.'
[Gandalf, LotR V,9 'The Last Debate']
This motif is the one that is common in the fantasy genre, IMO. You
see it also in Tolkien with the Silmarillion, where we learn that at
the end of the First Age, in the War of Wrath, the diabolus Melkor,
the Morgoth, was overthrown. Him for whom Sauron was merely a
servant. Then all was good -- for a while, until other evils arose.
The same is seen again and again in fantasy literature -- overcoming
the arch-evil doesn't mean that you have a new age of peace. It means
a period, short or long, in which you have peace and can prosper, but
only as a preparation for the next great evil. That is the way of the
world and the literature. This recurs in e.g. Feist's Midkemia books,
in Eddings' Belgariad-Malloreon books (and his Sparhawk series) the
Chronicles of Narnia etc. etc.
This is inherent in the fairy-story, whether short or long, and is
part of the eucastrophic sense of the 'ending' -- the joy ('a catch
of the breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or
indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form
of literary art, and having a peculiar quality' Tolkien, /On
Fairy Stories/) and uplifting at the nearly miraculous turn of events
that saves the day. In light of that, the future does look bright and
promising, but we do know when the joy and feasting is replaced by
everyday life that the promise is an illusion: the story doesn't
really end, but moves on from the light into everyday life and from
there into darkness once more, and the cycle repeats itself. That is
the mode of the fantastic literature.
> That was my main point. I don't see that the destruction of
> Voldemort in and of itself would bring about a similar renewal
> in the Potter universe.
No, social upheaval takes more than that. In the United Kingdoms of
Arnor and Gondor it took the reinstating of a rightful King, as well
as getting rid of some excess baggage (Sauron, Saruman, Denethor) to
ensure the renewal, but that path seems closed in Potterverse. We'll
probably get an idea that the long struggle of the survivors will
bring some small steps towards a more modern governance, introducing
the Rule of Law, for instance, but there will be no social revolution
in Potterverse, though the future will definitely, in the absence of
the Dark Lord, seem bright and promising. But that is completely in
line with the tradition of the fantastic genre, so no problems there.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
To make a name for learning
when other roads are barred,
take something very easy
and make it very hard.
- Piet Hein, /Wide Road/
drusilla
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:Xns9749B7FC...@130.133.1.4...
> In message
> <news:1137020879.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>>
>> The group has made some very good points, particularly about
>> Tolkein.
>
> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
>
That's how it's pronnounced? I've always said Tol-Kee-en, as read in
Spanish.
<snip lots of information that I'd understand more if I'd read the LotR
books with more attention that I did ;)>
The Middle Earth is, as I understand a entire world with different races
that even when they acted independent one from another are conected. The
Potterverse we araea reading about is centered in the UK Wizard Society,
which is small and definitely not conected to another W societies as any
Muggle Country is connected to another. If suddenly the whole US disappears
(sorry about the example), the whole world as we know it would change. If
the US wizards disappear, there might be not more consequence. There is no
even an indication that other countries were affected by LV.
Returning to the UK W S, they don't want to change and neither no one wants
to start a change, unless not Harry Potter. Hermione does, being nuts as she
is, but as we know, no one takes seriously. Dumbledore reckones indeed that
elves deserve a better treatment from their masters (as well Giants,
Werewolves, etc) but he never suggested, that we've known, that they must be
set free.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1137018121.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
<snip>
> Why do you feel it's necessary to "label" my thread at all, by
> the way?
Regard it as a well-meant advice. The default assumption will be that
you are making the claim that 'this is what Rowling intends', and a lot
of people are likely to simply dismiss it all as 'delusional nonsense'
on those grounds. If you put it (I'm not necessarily speaking about
thread subject here) on different terms -- that this is how you could
imagine it, then people will not make erroneous default assumptions.
Usenet as a medium is limited by the format, and it is therefore
crucial that we try to be as clear as possible (though I'm afraid that
my own best effort is too often 'murky meanderings' <sigh> -- sometimes
it's just easier to see where others can improve than to actually
improve oneself).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
Andy
> We'll probably get an idea that the long struggle of the survivors will
> bring some small steps towards a more modern governance, introducing
> the Rule of Law, for instance
Well, there now. I wouldn't quite call it a concession, but at this
point I'll take what I can get. Introducing the Rule of Law and moving
towards modern governance are quite big steps, though, I'd say.
ANDY
Andy
of the following:
What's among the highest, most noble occupations you can have as a
wizard, if you're one of the gifted ones? What's the one thing
Harry's thought about doing? Well, you can track down murderers in
order to throw them in your prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons.
Wizards can clean up a room with a spell or two, and yet they feel
it's necessary to have a whole servant class of elves. Where's the
nobility we normally associate with elves?
Even though wizards have the extraordinary gift of magic, rather than
cherishing the gift, they discriminate amongst each other as to who is
pure and who isn't, and seem to indulge in the most mundane pursuits,
such as magical practical jokes, in order to best explore the
possibilities of their power.
They have all these wonderful magical creatures who could be their
allies, but most of the creatures want nothing to do with people, and
the people in turn seem to have little appreciation of them. It's
unclear if these creatures are nearly as abundant as they once were.
Where's the wizard art, where's the wizard music, where's the
wizard culture, where's the wizard magic making their world a better
place? What are the higher pursuits that they put their abilities to?
Quidditch? The most advanced area of study seems to be the study of
the Dark Arts, and the defense against them.
The race of giants is headed for oblivion.
There's a whole realm of magic that apparently exists that's been
reduced to tabloid form, and the object of ridicule (ie. Luna's
father).
They have entire hospitals filled with people permanently damaged by
the misuse of power.
Even though the knowledge of life and death is seemingly right at their
fingertips, they are ignorant even of that.
There are ghosts, living in a permanent state of torment, about whom no
one seems the slightest bit concerned about helping.
They finally got around to trying to manage their society with the
Ministry of Magic, but the effectiveness of that organization is no
better than a muggle bureaucracy at best. The unforgivable curses run
rampant; death eaters hold public office, and send their kids off to
school to brag about their evil heritage.
I understand that the HP world runs parallel to our own, with all the
associated problems of crime, prejudice, etc. I also understand that
these are people with the same human frailties as the rest of us.
Moreover, I understand that one could look at the amazing potential of
humans (who don't have magic), and ask how we could screw up the
world so badly. On the other hand, at least we muggles have a modicum
of self-awareness of where we've gone wrong. I don't see much of
that in the wizards.
Probably, as others in the group have suggested, not much in the
resolution of the story will address the broader social structure of
the HP world. On the other hand, if the last age of wizards has been
that of the Middle Ages, then maybe what they're due for now is an
Age of Enlightenment of sorts.
It's just a possibility.
For the record, even though Harry-turning-Phoenix holds interest for me
in the broader implications it would have for the HP world, what I
actually think will happen is quite a bit more standard fare. Namely
-
Harry's scar is horcrux; after a battle in which Harry is unable to
bring himself to kill V given the chance, Voldemort removes soul
fragment killing Harry; when Voldemort integrates soul fragment, the
goodness in the soul that's come from Harry (because we've seen
that it communicates both ways) kills Voldemort. Harry resurrects. A
bunch of other characters turn out to be good, or not, and bad
werewolves and other bad people have fitting ends. This scenario
allows Harry's goodness to kill V without Harry himself having to do
it. It also makes use of the death-resurrection theme, symbolized by
the phoenix and true to the Christian imagery in the story. I
wouldn't swear to this ending, either, of course, but I'm sure it
would make the people in this group much happier.
That's all for now.
ANDY
Andy
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
A careless mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have
caused.
seize
either
leisure
Fish Eye no Miko
chief
thief
belief
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Andy
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
> > Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> >>
> >> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
> >
> > A careless mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience it may
> > have caused.
> > seize
> > either
> > leisure
>
> chief
> thief
> belief
>
> Catherine Johnson.
My point was that there are exceptions to the ie rule. What was your
point? My real point, though, was that people spend too much time
trying to peck the eyes out of fellow group members. There's enough to
discuss without pouncing on people's typos. Hence, my brief
participation here...
Fish Eye no Miko
> My real point, though, was that people spend too much
> time trying to peck the eyes out of fellow group members.
You misspelled someone's name, and Troels politely corrected you. How is
that "pecki[ng] [your] eyes out"?
You screw up or make up wild theories, and people call you on it. It
happens to all of us. Trust me, what you've experienced here is NOTHING
compared to some of the stuff on Usenet. If this sort of thing bothers you
so much, you just won't survive here.
Catherine Johnson.
Richard Eney
Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I knew someone was going to say that - why shouldn't the problems
>of the real world have a counterpart in the wizard world... which is
>why I suggested that Harry's act would set in motion the forces of
>change, not fix everything all at once. Our society is far from
>perfect, but at least in most (all?) countries there is no longer
>slavery, for example.
There are valid, recent reports of active slavery in several parts of Africa.
> And in any event, a fantasy world isn't quite the same as the
>real world, is it, things there tend to happen on a bigger scale.
In real myths, the coming of the new hero (who vanquishes the old ruler)
is followed by a giving of laws, which set the disrupted world in order
again. It isn't necessarily a new and improved order; it's just regular
and reliable again.
So once Harry vanquishes Voldemort, I expect that he and his friends
will have a little more influence than they would ordinarily have at
the age of 17 and 18. They will be able to influence the surviving
wizard government to pass the anti-Mugglebaiting law (and maybe the
spells that constrain all house-elves will be shattered).
After that, things will return more or less to normal. There will
still be a patronage system that allows "favors", but the population
will be reduced and some of the missing wizards and witches will be
the ones who joined the DEs when it seemed like the DEs would win,
so the average level of nastiness will be lower for a few years and
it will be remembered as a golden age.
=Tamar
Troels Forchhammer
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com>
enriched us with:
>
>>
>> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
>
> A careless mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have
> caused.
It is a very common mistake to make, and a single sample doesn't
usually warrant a comment (outside the Tolkien groups, of course,
where we are much more stringent about that thing <G>), but you also
put it like that in another thread's subject ('Tolkein Upside Down'),
and Google doesn't find any messages where you have spelled it
correctly, so I surmised it to be more than a simple typo.
And yes, the old man did feel himself feel irritated by this very
mistake, which might help explain the lack of patience with it in the
Tolkien fan community:
My name is TOLKIEN (not -kein). It is a German name
(from Saxony), an anglicization of Tollkiehn, i.e.
tollkühn. But, except as a guide to spelling, this fact
is as fallacious as all facts in the raw. For I am neither
'foolhardy'1 nor German, whatever some remote ancestors
may have been.
[/The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/, Humphrey Carpenter (Ed.), #165)
and
An instance of how difficult it is to keep books correct
-- mine & the index are full of mistakes - you sign
yourself Jeffery, hut Jeffrey is the spelling in the
[University] Residents' List. I am nearly always written
to as Tolkein (not by you): I do not know why, since it
is pronounced by me always -keen.
[ibid, #347]
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Richard Eney
Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Looking more closely at the social fabric of the HP world, I note some
>of the following:
>
>What's among the highest, most noble occupations you can have as a
>wizard, if you're one of the gifted ones? What's the one thing
>Harry's thought about doing? Well, you can track down murderers in
>order to throw them in your prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons.
Albus Dumbledore chose to teach, when he had the chance to literally
rule the wizard world as Minister for Magic _and_ head of the Wizengamot
_and_ member of several important Orders. Teaching prepares the young
to carry on your culture, and, one hopes, guides them into correct
behavior.
>Wizards can clean up a room with a spell or two, and yet they feel
>it's necessary to have a whole servant class of elves. Where's the
>nobility we normally associate with elves?
You need to read more of the historical beliefs about elves.
Tolkien wrote noble elves. Historically, they were much more like the
DEs. Check out the Dark Alfar in Scandinavian stories. Look at what
the elves really do in the more accurately recorded Irish and Scottish
myths.
The house elves in the Potterverse are based on specific UK folklore
from (if I recall correctly) certain counties in the middle of England.
They are essentially Brownies, and their characterization is precisely
that of stereotypical 19th century British household servants, both in
reality and in literature.
>Even though wizards have the extraordinary gift of magic, rather than
>cherishing the gift, they discriminate amongst each other as to who is
>pure and who isn't, and seem to indulge in the most mundane pursuits,
>such as magical practical jokes, in order to best explore the
>possibilities of their power.
They're acting just like human beings. What a surprise. Would you
prefer that they practice by destroying large areas of countryside?
At least most of them practice their practical jokes on each other.
>They have all these wonderful magical creatures who could be their
>allies, but most of the creatures want nothing to do with people, and
>the people in turn seem to have little appreciation of them. It's
>unclear if these creatures are nearly as abundant as they once were.
According to FBAWTFT, many of the magical creatures are quite abundant,
not to say dangerous. It's just luck that they don't seem to attack
muggles very often.
>Where's the wizard art, where's the wizard music, where's the
>wizard culture,
Capitalize "Culture" and you have a point. We've been asking about
that since Book One, in which Dumbledore says "Music, an art beyond
all that we do here." The art is just like muggle art - Hogwarts is
full of paintings that are very realistic portraits and landscapes
and battles, just like any major traditional UK art museum. Dean
is said to be a skilled painter. He must do it in his spare time,
because we aren't told about any art classes. There are also many
statues at Hogwarts. Except for the Weird Sisters on the wizard
radio-equivalent, music is strangely lacking, though many of the
teachers can perceive off key singing and therefore, I assume,
they know what singing is supposed to sound like. (Actually I
can imagine why a wizard might not want to bother to practice
learning music; if he gets good at it, everyone will assume he
did it by magic, and if he's no good at it, everyone will assume
he's bad at it because he's bad at magic in general.)
Adult wizard culture doesn't show up much in the areas where
Harry has gone so that we could see it. The Weasleys? Lower-middle
class bourgeoisie. The Blacks? Represented by one man who has
spent most of his life in a deliberately soul-destroying prison,
and his psychopathic and narcissistic sisters. (Harry hasn't met
Andromeda, so we don't know about her.) Tonks is halfblood and
she's a little confused.
>where's the wizard magic making their world a better place?
>What are the higher pursuits that they put their abilities to?
>Quidditch?
Ask the same about the average group in a stereotypical bar on
Friday night. Harry hasn't been to any of the places where
dedicated medi-wizards study true healing. He also has not
been to the Department of Mysteries during normal hours when
advanced adepts study the greatest mysteries of life and death.
So we haven't seen them. We can only infer that they exist.
>The most advanced area of study seems to be the study
>of the Dark Arts, and the defense against them.
Virtually any spell could be used as dark arts, and many
dark arts spells can be used for good, under precisely defined
circumstances.
Many of the spells Harry hears mentioned sound rather bad - the
Entrail-Expelling Spell, for instance. That's a claim to positive
fame for a medi-wizard! But it sounds like a rather nasty Dark
Arts attack. Petrificus Totalis might be helpful if someone has
a broken back - you could then levitate them out of a bad spot
without destroying the nerves. It is also an attack spell.
I feel that the Dark Arts are best defined as those areas
of magic which involve acts and ingredients that are socially
unacceptable, or which are for purposes that are socially
unacceptable, or both. None of those are studied at Hogwarts
except at NEWT level for the purpose of defending against them.
>The race of giants is headed for oblivion.
Giants are always heading for oblivion. It's traditional.
They need a large range for hunting and the increase in human
and wizard population has cut their range down to a minimum.
>There's a whole realm of magic that apparently exists that's been
>reduced to tabloid form, and the object of ridicule (ie. Luna's
>father).
Luna and her father think that realm exists; others disagree.
(Personally, I'm hoping her father will find a crumple horned
snorkack and bring it back alive.)
>They have entire hospitals filled with people permanently
>damaged by the misuse of power.
No, they have a whole ward filled, but the rest of the hospital
is filled with people being treated and healed by the correct
use of power. Wizards are people. People have accidents.
>Even though the knowledge of life and death is seemingly right
>at their fingertips, they are ignorant even of that.
Only the most advanced adepts in the Dept of Mysteries have
even enough knowledge to investigate around the edges. They
have more knowledge of time than muggles do, but they can't
bring people back to life.
>There are ghosts, living in a permanent state of torment,
The ghosts chose that situation and they could leave it
at any time. They just don't have the nerve.
>about whom no one seems the slightest bit concerned about helping.
They don't _want_ help. The ghosts chose that state.
>They finally got around to trying to manage their society with the
>Ministry of Magic, but the effectiveness of that organization is no
>better than a muggle bureaucracy at best. The unforgivable curses run
>rampant; death eaters hold public office, and send their kids off to
>school to brag about their evil heritage.
It's based firmly on 19th Century British bureaucracy.
<snip>
>Probably, as others in the group have suggested, not much in the
>resolution of the story will address the broader social structure of
>the HP world. On the other hand, if the last age of wizards has been
>that of the Middle Ages, then maybe what they're due for now is an
>Age of Enlightenment of sorts.
That might be nice for a change. On the other hand, some of the
nastier fads of the 18th century came from the "enlightenment".
I'd like it if the wizards picked up some of the better ideals of
the 20th century.
[his theory:]
>Harry's scar is horcrux; after a battle in which Harry is unable to
>bring himself to kill V given the chance, Voldemort removes soul
>fragment killing Harry; when Voldemort integrates soul fragment, the
>goodness in the soul that's come from Harry (because we've seen
>that it communicates both ways) kills Voldemort. Harry resurrects.
No way. Once you're "properly dead", you're dead. Not unless that
bit in the movie of PoA, with Sirius's soul moving out of his body
and then back in (almost immediately), was the "prophetic" bit.
>I wouldn't swear to this ending, either, of course, but I'm sure it
>would make the people in this group much happier.
Not me. I'm still hoping for better. For the end to be the way
I want it, certain characters do have to die. But not Harry.
=Tamar
Igenlode Wordsmith
On 13 Jan 2006 Richard Eney wrote:
[snip]
> The house elves in the Potterverse are based on specific UK folklore
> from (if I recall correctly) certain counties in the middle of England.
> They are essentially Brownies, and their characterization is precisely
> that of stereotypical 19th century British household servants, both in
> reality and in literature.
I concur in the first statement, but I'd seriously question the second;
the characterisation and speech patterns of household servants in
nineteenth century (or modern) literature bear little or no resemblance
to those of house elves. You don't meet maidservants who iron their own
fingers for 'cheeking the missus', or footmen who cringe and weep at a
reprimand.
E.Nesbit, writing for a contemporary audience, tends to depict the
servants in her young characters' world as bossy and unimaginative
grown-ups:
The cook suddenly opened her eyes and screamed, shut them, screamed
again, opened her eyes once more and said --
"Why, drat my cats alive, what's all this? It's a dream, I expect.
Well it's the best I ever dreamed. I'll look it up in the dream-book
to-morrow. Seaside and trees and a carpet to sit on. I never did!"
"Look here," said Cyril, "it isn't a dream; it's real."
"Ho yes!" said the cook; "they always says that in dreams."
"It's REAL, I tell you," Robert said, stamping his foot. "I'm not
going to tell you how it's done, because that's our secret." He
winked heavily at each of the others in turn. "But you wouldn't go
away and make that pudding, so we /had/ to bring you, and I hope you
like it."
"I do that, and no mistake," said the cook unexpectedly; "and it
being a dream it don't matter what I say; and I /will/ say, if it's
my last word, that of all the aggravating little varmints --"
"Calm yourself, my good woman," said the Phoenix.
"Good woman, indeed," said the cook; "good woman yourself!"
("The Phoenix and the Carpet", 1904)
The first servant I come across when flicking through the pages of
Walter Scott (who admittedly is setting his novel a hundred years
earlier) is the servant-girl Dorcas in "Redgauntlet":
[...]Mr Justice Foxley was making a score of apologies, with at
least a hundred cautionary hems and eh-ehs, when the girl Dorcas burst
into the room, and announced a gentleman on justice business.
"What gentleman? --and whom does he want?"
"He is cuome post on his ten toes," said the wench; "and in justice
business to his worship [i.e. the Justice] loike. I'se uphald him a
gentleman, for he speaks as good Latin as the schule-measter; but
lack-a-day! he has gotten a queer mop of a wig."
Hard to imagine a creature such as Winky bursting in noisily and without
ceremony on her masters, let alone passing judgement on the dress sense
and schooling of their guests!
In "Vanity Fair", Thackeray passes judgement on all Society, and on
their servants no less:
[The child Rawdon] knew his enemy; and this gentleman, of all who came
to the house, was the one who angered him most. One day the footman
found him squaring his fists at Lord Steyne's hat in the hall. The
footman told the circumstance as a good joke to Lord Steyne's
coachman; that officer imparted it to Lord Steyne's gentleman [i.e.
his personal body-servant], and to the servants-hall in general. And
very soon afterwards, when Mrs Rawdon Crawley made her appearance at
Gaunt House, the porter who unbarred the gates, the servants of all
uniforms in the hall, the functionaries in white waistcoats, who
bawled out from landing to landing the names of Colonel and Mrs
Rawdon Crawley, knew all about her, or fancied they did.
I hoped for better luck, or at least more sentimentality, in Dickens,
but of course this is the creator of Jerry Cruncher and Miss Pross.
This was the first domestic I found upon opening "Dombey and Son":
Susan Nipper stood opposite to her young mistress one morning, as
she folded and sealed a note she had been writing: and showed in her
looks an approving knowledge of its contents.
"Better late than never, dear Miss Floy," said Susan, "and I do say,
that even a visit to them old Skettleses will be a God-send."
"It is very good of Sir Barnet and Lady Skettles, Susan," returned
Florence, with a mild correction of that young lady's familiar
mention of the family in question, "to repeat their invitation so
kindly."
[...] "They know what they're about, if ever people did," murmured
Miss Nipper, drawing in her breath, "oh! trust them Skettleses for
that!"
"I am not very anxious to go to Fulham, Susan, I confess," said
Florence thoughtfully; "but it will be right to go. I think it will
be better."
"Much better," interposed Susan, with another emphatic shake of her
head.
Anyway, this is in no sense a scientific sampling, being quite
literally the result of opening books at random. Certainly none of
these characters represent Victorian *ideal* servants, who, in an age
before labour-saving devices, would have been in a sense themselves as
unobtrusively mechanical as possible, never quarrelling with their
fellows, resigning without notice for personal reasons, or intruding
upon their employers' family life. The stereotypical servant would
perhaps be the little maid in cap and apron who says "Yes'm" and brings
in the tea :-)
Rowling's house-elves, though I hesitate to make the comparison, bear
more resemblance perhaps to Tolkien's creature Gollum: in their
appearance, their self-referential habit of speech, and even their
slavish devotion or rebellion. But they are of course the 'brownies' for
whom one puts out saucers of cream in exchange for the housework, the
Elves whose aid the Shoemaker inadvertently lost by bestowing upon them
miniature clothes, and no-one (until, apparently, Hermione) ever saw
them as employees under contract; they do what it is in their nature to
do, like spiders spinning webs, and they appear to find the suggestion
that this is a 'job' for which they should be compensated to be an
insult and a devaluation of their preferred activities.
(The statement by extremists that 'all marriage is prostitution', the
exchange of sexual favours for financial benefit, may be an analogous
viewpoint?)
--
Igenlode Visit the Ivory Tower http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/
* It takes self-confidence to be able to accept criticism *
Troels Forchhammer
<news:200601161543...@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org>
Igenlode Wordsmith <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> Anyway, this is in no sense a scientific sampling, being quite
> literally the result of opening books at random. Certainly none of
> these characters represent Victorian *ideal* servants, who, in an
> age before labour-saving devices, would have been in a sense
> themselves as unobtrusively mechanical as possible, never
> quarrelling with their fellows, resigning without notice for
> personal reasons, or intruding upon their employers' family life.
> The stereotypical servant would perhaps be the little maid in cap
> and apron who says "Yes'm" and brings in the tea :-)
I am compelled to mention Sam (son of Hamfast Gamgee) and Bunter (who
is never anything else, just 'Bunter'). Though both appear in post-
Victorian novels, I have seen it claimed (I am not well enough versed
in this to make the claim on my own behalf) that they are both, in
each their own way, embodying some fundamentally Victorian ideas
about servant-master relationships. The justification for this would
be that both authors, J.R.R. Tolkien and Dorothy Sayers, were born
under Queen Victoria and supposedly raised to Victorian ideals.
Well, Queen Victoria aside, there are some underlying similarities
between the two -- both seem to actually manage their master's life
inobtrusively in many details and both seem to have a friendship with
their master, that is still extremely class-conscious: there is a
master and a servant, and the servant is the one who insists on
propriety (rather than taking advantage of the friendship and
kindness shown by the master).
> Rowling's house-elves, though I hesitate to make the comparison,
> bear more resemblance perhaps to Tolkien's creature Gollum: in
> their appearance, their self-referential habit of speech, and even
> their slavish devotion or rebellion.
;-)
I am also, if I may bring some more Tolkien into the discussion,
reminded of both Wormtongue (as the servant of Saruman) and of the
Orcs: '[...] so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-
enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; [...]' (LotR VI,4 'The
Field of Cormallen'). In Winky we have this same mindless loss of
direction once she loses her master.
> But they are of course the 'brownies' for whom one puts out
> saucers of cream in exchange for the housework, the Elves whose
> aid the Shoemaker inadvertently lost by bestowing upon them
> miniature clothes,
Is there any suggestion as to what the Brownies represented in the
society that brought forth such stories? In Denmark most of our old
Folk-tales and 'folk-beliefs' (my dictionary turns up no translation,
so I'm used a literal translation) have all been analysed ad nauseam,
but in a number of cases (though not all) it does seem that the
analysis gives an added insight to the society that produced the
tales or beliefs. Are there something similar for the Brownies?
> and no-one (until, apparently, Hermione) ever saw them as
> employees under contract; they do what it is in their nature
> to do, like spiders spinning webs, and they appear to find the
> suggestion that this is a 'job' for which they should be
> compensated to be an insult and a devaluation of their
> preferred activities.
I think (or perhaps rather 'believe it likely') that the house-elves
were indeed adopted rather uncritically from folk-traditions into
Potterverse, and that's it. We have Dobby in CoS, with an abusive
master whom he cannot leave, but whose wishes he is capable of
countering as long as he doesn't have a direct order not to. That far
it seemed fairly straightforward.
But then came GoF.
In GoF we had to have the dismissal of Winky as part of the plot
(it's one of those 'hints' that are only useful in retrospect -- not
a real hint at all). She is introduced by the means of Harry's
acquaintance with Dobby, wich is still rather innocent.
But then Hermione took over. We have Rowling's description of how she
was surprised by Hermione's sudden political awareness, and how she
let Hermione take over for a while before she rolled it back and
deleted most of the SPEW stuff.
The question is whether any of that was planned? The problem is that
it puts a lot of emphasis on the house-elf question, which I am not
sure that Rowling was ready for, and now the tradition becomes a
problem as there is a contrast between Hermione's righteous wrath and
the folkloristic tradition, and we don't know which way to lean.
I've said earlier that Rowling had to come down on either side of the
issue and offer her readers an ethical resolution to the house-elf
question, but now I'm thinking that the best thing might be to leave
it unresolved: let Harry and Herimione find one to two more elves who
desire and will like freedom, but let that be the extent of their
success -- let us question what is nature and what is external
conditioning.
> (The statement by extremists that 'all marriage is prostitution',
> the exchange of sexual favours for financial benefit, may be an
> analogous viewpoint?)
;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Men, said the Devil,
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
>
> A careless mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have
> caused.
I have been made aware, and have realised, that the correction wasn't
phrased in such a way as to convey the spirit in which it was intended.
I was intended simply as a piece of helpful information, and I am sorry
that I didn't manage to put it as such.
As for my reacting at all, I do plead obsession with Tolkien as my
excuse :-/
I apologise for any offence or discomfort my post may have caused.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Igenlode Wordsmith
> In message
> <news:200601161543...@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org>
> Igenlode Wordsmith enriched us with:
[snip]
> >
> > The stereotypical servant would perhaps be the little maid in cap
> > and apron who says "Yes'm" and brings in the tea :-)
>
> I am compelled to mention Sam (son of Hamfast Gamgee) and Bunter (who
> is never anything else, just 'Bunter').
Mervyn, actually (not surprising he keeps it quiet! :-)
He signs it at the end of a letter in "Busman's Honeymoon"... to his
mother, I think. I've a feeling he signs a note to Wimsey somewhere as
well.
> Though both appear in post- Victorian novels, I have seen it claimed
> (I am not well enough versed in this to make the claim on my own
> behalf) that they are both, in each their own way, embodying some
> fundamentally Victorian ideas about servant-master relationships.
Hmm... I don't know about Victorian. Pre-WWII, perhaps. You'll see much
the same thing in Noel Coward's "In Which We Serve", for instance.
Modern society has a great deal of trouble understanding a world in
which equality was not regarded as a self-evident virtue, I think; in
which you could believe confidently that you were as good a man as your
master, without associating that with being his social equal. 'The
gentry' were a little more thin-skinned and frail, a little less able to
look after themselves without your help, and somewhat given to
book-learning, fox-hunting and other pointless pursuits, and you had to
make allowances for them.
[snip]
> Well, Queen Victoria aside, there are some underlying similarities
> between the two -- both seem to actually manage their master's life
> unobtrusively in many details and both seem to have a friendship with
> their master, that is still extremely class-conscious: there is a
> master and a servant, and the servant is the one who insists on
> propriety (rather than taking advantage of the friendship and
> kindness shown by the master).
I suspect the similarities are due to the fact that such relationships
were fairly customary, rather than making any deliberate literary
point... In many ways, such a friendship is very similar to a marriage
without the sexual element; the manservant is sharing a household and
performing the tasks that a woman would do, were she present (in fact,
a recurring phrase in such situations describes some task being carried
out by the servant, to the surprise of a [female] observer, 'as deftly'
or -- in the case of a sickbed -- 'as tenderly as a woman').
I'm trying to picture Bunter, for example, sitting down to tea and
biscuits in front of the fire with his master; I can picture Wimsey
casually issuing the invitation if he felt the manservant was
'hovering' uncomfortably, but I can't visualise Bunter being happy to
accept it -- he'd sooner take his tea back to the pantry. I'm not sure
it is a question of not taking advantage of friendship and kindness,
but more perhaps a question of preserving one's own separate identity...
Again, it's like marriage: it is *comfortable* to have a defined
framework within which to relate, and within which to enjoy a perhaps
greater degree of freedom. Sam can lecture and reprove his master in a
way that he could not do with a hobbit 'equal' -- Ted Sandyman, for
instance; and he can do so precisely *because* he is insisting on the
class-distinction.
I'm not explaining this very well. There's a degree of intimacy that
would not be possible between equals... like a partition against which
both parties can lean without constraint, although if it were not there
they would scarcely lean up against each other. Bunter can do things for
Wimsey that he would neither wish nor permit Chief-Inspector Parker to
do for him.
And therefore, *if* that barrier is broken down, the result would be
that the two would draw further apart, rather than some Utopian ideal
of fraternity. The master, cheerful in his Cophetua-like generosity,
may not sense this; the servant does. Insisting on the forms of
propriety is, I think, a form of self-defence; that show of deference is
the privilege that enables the greater familiarity in the first place,
just as the physical intimacies of a hospital are enabled by the
professional distance of the nurses.
It's a fascinating and delicate balance; which is why I get fed up with
people trying to assign masculine friendships to a homosexual agenda :-(
[snip back to house-elves]
> Is there any suggestion as to what the Brownies represented in the
> society that brought forth such stories? In Denmark most of our old
> Folk-tales and 'folk-beliefs' (my dictionary turns up no translation,
> so I'm used a literal translation)
Folklore -- I'm sure you're sufficiently the lore-master to translate
that back and judge whether it equates ;-)
> have all been analysed ad nauseam, but in a number of cases (though not all)
> it does seem that the analysis gives an added insight to the society that
> produced the tales or beliefs. Are there something similar for the Brownies?
I'm afraid I don't know -- I'm familiar with them only as an element in
stories. I can try to look them up, but you can do that as well as I...
or probably better, since I have no relevant reference works and am not
online.
The Oxford English Dictionary cites the /svartalfar/, but that doesn't
seem to me a particularly close analogy. It says merely that they were
apparently called 'brownies' due to being in Scotland described as 'wee
brown men'.
My own guess, off the cuff, would be that they may either have been
some dim folk memory of the Picts, the little Painted People who
predated the Celts, and whom it may perhaps have been customary for the
wives and maidservants of later generations of the invaders to
propitiate for fear of some mischief among the rickyards, and who may
perhaps have done some tasks for these benefactors in return -- or else
some remnant of minor household gods, like the Russian house- and
yard-spirits. After all, leaving out saucers of cream is not so very
far removed from the unChristian habit of pouring a libation!
[snip]
> I think (or perhaps rather 'believe it likely') that the house-elves
> were indeed adopted rather uncritically from folk-traditions into
> Potterverse, and that's it.
[snip]
> But then Hermione took over. We have Rowling's description of how she
> was surprised by Hermione's sudden political awareness, and how she
> let Hermione take over for a while before she rolled it back and
> deleted most of the SPEW stuff.
There was *more* of it? <horror> :-)
>
> The question is whether any of that was planned? The problem is that
> it puts a lot of emphasis on the house-elf question, which I am not
> sure that Rowling was ready for, and now the tradition becomes a
> problem as there is a contrast between Hermione's righteous wrath and
> the folkloristic tradition, and we don't know which way to lean.
That summary sounds about right to me. The trouble is that she's now got
to find some way out of it -- I can't help feeling that it would have
been better to have suppressed Hermione altogether, because she
[Hermione] has made such a fuss that it is now going to reflect very
badly on her if she drops the matter. But engineering another major
strand into her [Rowling's] plot to tie up that affair neatly requires
a lot of valuable space she hasn't got... (and is it really worth it?
The whole thing seems guaranteed to stir up political passions to me,
whichever direction she decides to let it fall in the end).
--
Igenlode Wordsmith *latest review 11 Jan 2005*
My IMDb film reviews: http://imdb.com/user/ur1448185/comments
ratings: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=3145804
Phil
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns974EC709...@130.133.1.4...
> In message <news:1137121663.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>>> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
So what for chrissakes man.
If a person wants to call him Til-kreem does it matter ?
Louis Epstein
:
: Andy wrote:
:> Hi Group,
:>
:> Here are some of my latest ideas regarding what might be underlying the
:> fantasy structure of Harry Potter. Thanks to those of you who maked me
:> re-evaluate earlier versions, and to those who continue to support my
:> efforts.
:>
:
:
: First, return to school and re-take 1st grade grammar. The word is
: *made*.. not *maked*.
I would not be surprised,however,if "made" were etymologically
a slurring of an older "maked".
: Your efforts though, are interesting. I am just not sure this is the
: place for them.. perhaps one of the forums at Mugglenet or such, where
: they post fan fics..
:
: M_m
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: In article <1137044827.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
: Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>Yes, I knew someone was going to say that - why shouldn't the problems
:>of the real world have a counterpart in the wizard world... which is
:>why I suggested that Harry's act would set in motion the forces of
:>change, not fix everything all at once. Our society is far from
:>perfect, but at least in most (all?) countries there is no longer
:>slavery, for example.
:
: There are valid, recent reports of active slavery in several parts of Africa.
There have been no countries in which slavery has been a legal
condition for about a hundred years now.To consider people being
treated as slaves as their actually BEING slaves is to validate
the actions of their captors.
:> And in any event, a fantasy world isn't quite the same as the
:>real world, is it, things there tend to happen on a bigger scale.
:
: In real myths, the coming of the new hero (who vanquishes the old ruler)
: is followed by a giving of laws, which set the disrupted world in order
: again. It isn't necessarily a new and improved order; it's just regular
: and reliable again.
:
: So once Harry vanquishes Voldemort, I expect that he and his friends
: will have a little more influence than they would ordinarily have at
: the age of 17 and 18. They will be able to influence the surviving
: wizard government to pass the anti-Mugglebaiting law (and maybe the
: spells that constrain all house-elves will be shattered).
:
: After that, things will return more or less to normal. There will
: still be a patronage system that allows "favors", but the population
: will be reduced and some of the missing wizards and witches will be
: the ones who joined the DEs when it seemed like the DEs would win,
: so the average level of nastiness will be lower for a few years and
: it will be remembered as a golden age.
:
: =Tamar
I am not sure how much stability there will be...as long as there is
a constant supply of Muggleborns entering Hogwarts coupled with a
Statute of Wizarding Secrecy and "irreversible" separation,there will
be tensions.
Louis Epstein
:
:
:
:> We'll probably get an idea that the long struggle of the survivors will
We don't really know the details of Potterverse wizard law...
but Rowling's bias toward modernism raises my traditionalist
hackles!
Louis Epstein
:
: "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
More than you think.
Louis Epstein
: In article <1137119936.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
: Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>Looking more closely at the social fabric of the HP world, I note some
:>of the following:
:>
:>What's among the highest, most noble occupations you can have as a
:>wizard, if you're one of the gifted ones? What's the one thing
:>Harry's thought about doing? Well, you can track down murderers in
:>order to throw them in your prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons.
:
: Albus Dumbledore chose to teach, when he had the chance to literally
: rule the wizard world as Minister for Magic _and_ head of the Wizengamot
: _and_ member of several important Orders. Teaching prepares the young
: to carry on your culture, and, one hopes, guides them into correct
: behavior.
Dumbledore's past leadership of the International Confederation of
Wizards did in fact make him the closest thing to the leader of the
entire wizarding world...even though his title was a pejorative
term for the indecisive!!
:>Wizards can clean up a room with a spell or two, and yet they feel
:>it's necessary to have a whole servant class of elves. Where's the
:>nobility we normally associate with elves?
:
: You need to read more of the historical beliefs about elves.
: Tolkien wrote noble elves. Historically, they were much more like the
: DEs. Check out the Dark Alfar in Scandinavian stories. Look at what
: the elves really do in the more accurately recorded Irish and Scottish
: myths.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that legendary elves
exhibit a wide variety of motives?
: The house elves in the Potterverse are based on specific UK folklore
I suppose you mean his cousins,not sisters...
:>where's the wizard magic making their world a better place?
I'd be very disturbed to find out the CHS is anything but a
figment of his imagination!
:>They have entire hospitals filled with people permanently
:>damaged by the misuse of power.
:
: No, they have a whole ward filled, but the rest of the hospital
: is filled with people being treated and healed by the correct
: use of power. Wizards are people. People have accidents.
:
:>Even though the knowledge of life and death is seemingly right
:>at their fingertips, they are ignorant even of that.
:
: Only the most advanced adepts in the Dept of Mysteries have
: even enough knowledge to investigate around the edges. They
: have more knowledge of time than muggles do, but they can't
: bring people back to life.
:
:>There are ghosts, living in a permanent state of torment,
:
: The ghosts chose that situation and they could leave it
: at any time. They just don't have the nerve.
Just how "tormented" are they,anyway?
:>about whom no one seems the slightest bit concerned about helping.
So who besides Voldemort?
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrotte:
>> "Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
>
> So what for chrissakes man.
> If a person wants to call him Til-kreem does it matter ?
Yes, cuz that's not his NAME.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"No dragons were harmed in the making of this movie."
-End credits, _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_.
Louis Epstein
:
: Explanatory Notes:
:
: Ollivander's: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C. JKR chose this
: year for a reason. The most notable historic events in that year were
: the births of two Greek kings:
:
: 1. Antigonus I Cyclops or Monophthalmus ("the One-eyed", so called from
: his having lost an eye) was a Macedonian nobleman, general, and satrap
: under Alexander the Great. He was a major figure in the Wars of the
: Diadochi after Alexander's death. He established the Antigonid dynasty
: and declared himself King in 306 BC. (Wikipedia)
:
: 2. Philip II of Macedon - Born in Pella, Philip was the youngest son
: of King Amyntas III and Eurydice. In his youth, Philip was a hostage in
: Thebes, which was the most prominent city of Greece at that time.
: (Wikipedia)
(I must declare a history of acrimony that drove me from Wikipedia)
: As she is wont to do, JKR will make muggle events parallel those in the
: magic world. In this case, there were two wizard kings born as well.
: As chosen heirs to these kings, Harry and Voldemort are princes.
: Ollivander made his first two wands in 382 B.C., and those were the
: ones from Fawke's feathers, according to this hypothesis.
Waaaaait a minute.
I can believe that the Ollivander FAMILY have made wands since 382 B.C.,
but if it's the SAME Mr. Ollivander what would Voldemort need the
Philosopher's Stone for,and why would Nicolas Flamel's age be seen as
exceptional?
Are you proposing that Voldemort kidnapped Ollivander for immortality-
related reasons?
I am inclined to believe that the feathers of Fawkes were donated
for wands no earlier than the 19th century,and that Dumbledore was
already affiliated with Fawkes at that time.And it may have been the
late-20th-century Ollivander or his father then...with many,many
generations since the founder of the firm.
: Consider that when one civilization ends and another begins, vestiges
: of the former usually hang on. In this case, there are a few, but not
: all, of the ancient magical creatures that persist in Potterverse (ie.
: Centaurs). Those creatures would have seen this pattern all before,
: and would be cynical of humans, which they tend to be. The Potterverse
: is mostly populated by Middle Ages Era magical creatures (dragons and
: the like).
The history of dragons goes back far beyond the Middle Ages...
consider the Mesopotamian Tiamat,and the Chinese dragons.
: Of the Middles Ages magical creatures, it seems probable
: that some of those will not carry on into the next epoch, such as the
: giants.
:
: There are many indications that this era of magic is waning, and the
: restoration of the magic world is needed. Some of these indications
: are: there is a sanctioned slave industry in operation; there are
: unhappy ghosts, some whom have had to hold on for hundreds of years,
: who need to be freed; there is a race of giants killing themselves off;
: there's a growing population of werewolves; there are a lot of
: mistrusting magical creatures; and in general, the wizard community has
: lost touch with itself (ie. Luna and her father have an intuitive
: knowledge of magic that's out there which is unknown to most.)
I think they're kooks who have trouble telling fact from fancy.
: The idea that JKR will deal with each of these issues piecemeal, separate
: from a single act by Harry that brings about a general restoration,
: seems to me less plausible than the alternative. Unlike LOTR, where
: Frodo's act wiped out all the evil,
Already dealt with elsewhere on the thread.
: it doesn't seem that destroying
: V. would instantly fix the other problems. Those have become
: entrenched in a fading era of magic, and so a restorative function to
: Harry's act is also needed.
:
: If the framework of my proposal is true, then the purpose of the Order
: of the Phoenix (interesting name) has actually been to ensure that
: Harry and Voldemort meet when the time is right in order to produce the
: next phoenix, and not before. At the end of book six, DD needed to die
: in order to bring Voldemort out in the open, as the requirements for
: the ultimate meeting are quickly being met.
:
: Symbolically, of course, Harry and Voldemort could be argued to each
: contain something of what is needed in a phoenix. Harry is the loving
: force, that makes rebirth possible, and Voldemort is the destructive
: force, that causes the recurring cycle of death in the bird. The
: phoenix's ability to resurrect from its own ashes is its defining
: characteristic.
I don't believe the inference drawn by many that because a phoenix
resurrects from ashes on its death,it has no other means of reproduction,
is reasonable.There's no reason phoenices of opposite sexes could not
meet,lay eggs,raise young,teach them not to set the wrong things on fire
when they suffer fatal injuries,and so on.
: Without this sort of a fantasy structure, HP turns out to be a
: compelling story about a boy who overcomes much in overcoming an evil
: wizard. But I believe there's more to it than that, as befits an epic
: fantasy.
:
: More to come...
Christian Winter
> But a single act in fantasy does, it strikes me, often set in motion
> the forces of renewal and change. Is it inconceivable, in others'
> opinion, that something like that might still happen in HP?
Just S.P.E.W. that thought ;)
SCNR
-Chris
Phil
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:eOydnVPbesuHzFDe...@velocitywest.net...
> Phil <p...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> : "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:Xns974EC709...@130.133.1.4...
> :> In message <news:1137121663.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> :> "Andy" <white_...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> :>>
> :>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> :>>>
> :>>> Please, "Tolkien" (Tol-keen)
> :
> : So what for chrissakes man.
> : If a person wants to call him Til-kreem does it matter ?
>
> More than you think.
Well, no accounting for peoples obsessions, so you're right I suppose.
Phil
> Magic_mom <Spen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Andy wrote:
> :> Hi Group,
> :>
> :> Here are some of my latest ideas regarding what might be underlying the
> :> fantasy structure of Harry Potter. Thanks to those of you who maked me
> :> re-evaluate earlier versions, and to those who continue to support my
> :> efforts.
> :>
> :
> :
> : First, return to school and re-take 1st grade grammar. The word is
> : *made*.. not *maked*.
>
> I would not be surprised,however,if "made" were etymologically
> a slurring of an older "maked".
>
> : Your efforts though, are interesting. I am just not sure this is the
> : place for them.. perhaps one of the forums at Mugglenet or such, where
> : they post fan fics..
> :
> : M_m
>
enjoy it and be a little surprised at the origin of certain words. And also
how more akin to original english that American english is (surprised me)
"Fall" for example is original english - it was we brits that made the error
of going with autumn instead of the olde english "fall o' the leafe" you
yanks stayed true to the original.
Good on yer ! ;-)
Phil
> Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> We don't really know the details of Potterverse wizard law...
> but Rowling's bias toward modernism raises my traditionalist
> hackles!
I must admit myself being torn in two directions with your comments.
I too despise revisionists, but am basically a Old Labour man who loathes
the politically correct as corrupt self-serving gits.
But I'd never ever have put JKR in that bracket. Her females aren't the
butch man haters that the PC love to portray as modern women and girls -
they are feminine. Lads are lads, lasses are lasses.
Phil
> Wizards did in fact make him the closest thing to the leader of the
> entire wizarding world...even though his title was a pejorative
> term for the indecisive!!
How so ? A confederation, and a leader of that confederation is surely
better than a Stalinesque type of leader.
Ranee Mueller
Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> There have been no countries in which slavery has been a legal
> condition for about a hundred years now.To consider people being
> treated as slaves as their actually BEING slaves is to validate
> the actions of their captors.
This is not true. Slavery was only outlawed in Saudi Arabia in the
60s or 70s. My family is from there.
Regards,
Ranee
Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.
"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
Louis Epstein
:
: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
Hmmm...my most recently read book is "The Unfolding of Language"
by Guy Deutscher,have you seen that?
Louis Epstein
:
: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
Well,she has described herself as "left-wing",and tends to portray
traditionalists in a bad light.
Louis Epstein
:
: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
But "mugwump",as in someone whose mug is on one side of the fence
and his wump on the other,is something of an insult...
Jason Lane
wrotd:
>Phil <p...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>:
>: "Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
>: news:OtidnYTInep...@velocitywest.net...
>:> Andy <white_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:> :
>:> We don't really know the details of Potterverse wizard law...
>:> but Rowling's bias toward modernism raises my traditionalist
>:> hackles!
>:
>: I must admit myself being torn in two directions with your comments.
>: I too despise revisionists, but am basically a Old Labour man who loathes
>: the politically correct as corrupt self-serving gits.
>: But I'd never ever have put JKR in that bracket. Her females aren't the
>: butch man haters that the PC love to portray as modern women and girls -
>: they are feminine. Lads are lads, lasses are lasses.
>:
>
>Well,she has described herself as "left-wing",and tends to portray
>traditionalists in a bad light.
Guess that would explain the swipe at Bush on p1 of HBP.
Andy
By one source I read, only one phoenix can exist in the world at one
time.
The creatures in the HP world strike me as Middle Ages creatures
predominantly. As I pointed out, they can all trace their roots
farther back, but as they are depicted in the story, my impression is
Middle Ages creatures. The dragons don't seem very Chinese.
Andy
drusilla
> All I meant by Ollivander was the family name.
Might be, as it says: "Makers of Fine Wands" not "Maker of Fine
Wands"... :=)
> By one source I read, only one phoenix can exist in the world at one
> time.
And the source is...?
I agree there are several theories about phoenixes in different cultures
(those who believe in phoenixes, at least!) yet, when it comes to the
Potterverse, we should stay with what is stated in whether the series of
books or the Comic Relief books.
From fantastic Beasts:
"M.O.M. Classification: XXXX ( The phoenix gains a XXXX rating not
because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever
succeeded in domesticating it.)
The phoenix is a magnificent, swan-sized, scarlet bird with a long
golden tail, beak and talons. It nests on mountain peaks and is found in
Egypt, India and China. The phoenix lives to an immense age as it can
regenerate, bursting into flames when its body begins to fail and rising
again from the ashes as a chick. The phoenix is a gentle creature that
has never been known to kill and eats only herbs. Like the Diricawl (see
above), it can disappear and reappear at will. Phoenix song is magical:
it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike
fear into the hearts of the impure. Phoenix tears have powerful healing
properties."
Saying that it can be found in Egypt, India and China, that presumes
there are more than one. Also,
From HP lexicon:
"[...]The Moutohora Macaws have a phoenix for a mascot. His name,
appropriately enough, is Sparky (QA8)."
So, there are at least, so far, two phoenixes in the Potterverse: Fawkes
and Sparky.
> The creatures in the HP world strike me as Middle Ages creatures
> predominantly. As I pointed out, they can all trace their roots
> farther back, but as they are depicted in the story, my impression is
> Middle Ages creatures. The dragons don't seem very Chinese.
Actually, there are dragons from all over the world, even China:
Antipodean Opaleye (New Zealand (and Australia)
Chinese Fireball
Common Welsh Green
Hebridean Black
Hungarian Horntail
Norwegian Ridgeback
Peruvian Vipertooth (and HP-lexicon and I agree about the location :) )
Romanian Longhorn
Swedish Short-Snout
Ukrainian Ironbelly
So, she might have taken some magical creatures from middle age, but,
because in those times, muggles 'claimed they saw them so, exclude their
existence in this magical universe had been simply stupid. Many other
from the FB book, I think big part of them, she has invented them all.