Who brought Aragog to Hagrid?
Dave Vanness
Now that Ron is most definitely not Dumbledore, I have to have something
new to speculate about!
So. Here goes... When asked if he was the monster of the Chamber,
Aragog's response in the movie is something like: "I was not born in the
castle. I arrived in the pocket of a stranger."
The actual text from the book is:
"I!" said Aragog, clicking angrily. "I was not born in the castle. I come
from a distant land. A *traveler* gave me to Hagrid when I was an egg."
(CoS, US version, p. 277, emphasis added)
So, who was the traveler? I googled the group for "Hagrid Aragog Traveler"
to see if this has been discussed before. Not much came up, except this
interesting snippet of a post from Rachel Weinstein on November 18, 2002:
>They had to cut so much from the books for the movies, I wonder
>if what is left in are those hidden clues you catch on rereading
>earlier books. Like Aragog 'I arrived in the pocket of a stranger'
>hmmmm. I remember Rawling saying she told Coltraine some
>secret future stuff about Hagrid, wonder what he knows :)
"Hmmm" indeed! Hagrid's past (and future) may be much more interesting
than we think! Does the text from CoS cited above remind anyone of the
following from SS/PS:
"Hagrid -- What's _that_?"
But he already knew what it was. In the very heart of the fire, underneath
the kettle, was a huge, black egg.
"Ah," said Hagrid, fiddling nervously with his beard, "That's -- er . . ."
"Where did you get it, Hagrid?" said Ron, crouching over the fire to get a
closer look at the egg. "It must've cost you a fortune."
"Won it," said Hagrid. "Las' night. I was down in the village havin' a
few drinks an' got into a game o' cards with a stranger. Think he was glad
ter get rid of it, ter be honest." (SS, p. 233)
OK -- now, we know that the *stranger* who gave Hagrid the dragon's egg was
Voldemort, acting through Quirrell. We know the motive was to get Hagrid
to talk about Fluffy. What if this con-game had been tried before?
If I recall correctly, in one of the books, Dumbledore tells Harry that Tom
Riddle traveled all around the world searching for various forms of dark
magic to gain immortality and in the process became Voldemort. So,
Voldemort has been described as a "stranger" and traveler. Interesting.
Leads me to think that the "traveler" who gave Aragog to Hagrid was in fact
Voldemort. "But wait!" you say -- Riddle didn't become Voldemort until
after he graduated Hogwarts.
Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in limited
ways) travels and/or communicates through time. I'll speculate a bit
further: Voldemort traveled back in time to give the egg to Hagrid (and to
tell his younger self, Tom, about the transaction). That's right -- we
know from the diary that Tom Riddle knew about Aragog -- and got Hagrid
expelled. But how did he know? I think it rather unlikely that Tom and
Hagrid were chums. That's always been a mystery to me, and now it has a
neato explanation.
This idea opens up some interesting points for further discussion. Of
course, there's the time travel issue (which so many people find
interesting -- terribly annoying, yet interesting). The whole "Voldemort
is my past, present and future" line has always struck me as oddly
suggestive of time travel. There's also the issue of why Voldemort would
want to bring Aragog to Hogwarts. Perhaps he never expected Hagrid to tame
that beast. Maybe Voldemort knew that he had to frame someone to take the
heat off Tom? Who knows.
I'll leave this with a teaser question for Troels. Who brought Shelob to
Cirith Ungol?
Cheers!
Dave
Toon
wrote:
You forgot, everybody knew about Hagrid and Aragog after the
expulsion. And Dd always distrusted Tom. So Tom's memory retained
his info, being created after those events transpired.
Though I'm sure Tom did get an egg, and gave it to hagrid when he knew
Hogwarts was closing.
Dave Vanness
news:rmrg811bm9cjge5sg...@4ax.com:
> On 15 May 2005 21:56:24 CST, Dave Vanness <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in
>>limited ways) travels and/or communicates through time. I'll
>>speculate a bit further: Voldemort traveled back in time to give the
>>egg to Hagrid (and to tell his younger self, Tom, about the
>>transaction). That's right -- we know from the diary that Tom Riddle
>>knew about Aragog -- and got Hagrid expelled. But how did he know? I
>>think it rather unlikely that Tom and Hagrid were chums. That's
>>always been a mystery to me, and now it has a neato explanation.
> You forgot, everybody knew about Hagrid and Aragog after the
> expulsion. And Dd always distrusted Tom. So Tom's memory retained
> his info, being created after those events transpired.
OK, then who turned Hagrid in and got him expelled?
> Though I'm sure Tom did get an egg, and gave it to hagrid when he knew
> Hogwarts was closing.
Can you elaborate why you're sure about that?
Dave
Troels Forchhammer
Dave Vanness <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu> enriched us with:
> Just watched CoS for the umpteenth time and something jumped out
> at me. Now that Ron is most definitely not Dumbledore, I have to
> have something new to speculate about!
LOL!
<teasing>
I thought is was the British who were always the champions of lost
causes ;-)
</teasing>
> So. Here goes... When asked if he was the monster of the
> Chamber, Aragog's response in the movie is something like: "I was
> not born in the castle. I arrived in the pocket of a stranger."
The stranger is definitely a 'movieism' -- an invention of the film-
makers. Whether Aragog was born at Hogwarts or not is unknown, but he
certainly arrived there by way of Hagrid.
> The actual text from the book is:
>
> "I!" said Aragog, clicking angrily. "I was not born in the
> castle. I come from a distant land. A *traveler* gave me to
> Hagrid when I was an egg." (CoS, US version, p. 277, emphasis
> added)
I would have emphasised 'gave' as well -- I guess it might 'after
Hagrid had paid him', but my immediate reaction was to question the
strange generosity of this 'traveller'.
That was one of the clever things about the 'stranger' from whom Hagrid
got the egg in PS -- he let Hagrid win it in a game, thus making my
suspicions subside.
On the other hand that might be precisely the reason why this case
should be less suspicious -- or not ;-)
> So, who was the traveler?
<snip>
> If I recall correctly, in one of the books, Dumbledore tells Harry
> that Tom Riddle traveled all around the world searching for
> various forms of dark magic to gain immortality and in the process
> became Voldemort. So, Voldemort has been described as a
> "stranger" and traveler.
My count shows the word 'stranger' as having been used 31 times in the
books -- including nine times in PS, only the last four of which
referred to Quirrell.
'Traveller' however, is only used once -- to describe the person who
gave Aragog to Hagrid.
(All numbers here are subject to the quality of my quality of my OCR
scanning)
> Interesting. Leads me to think that the "traveler" who gave Aragog
> to Hagrid was in fact Voldemort.
It might have helped to know when Hagrid got Aragog, though.
> "But wait!" you say -- Riddle didn't become Voldemort until after he
> graduated Hogwarts.
Of course he did.
" I AM LORD VOLDEMORT
'You see?' he whispered. 'It was a name I was already using
at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course. You
think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name
forever?"
[CoS-17 'The Heir of Slytherin']
But Tom was only two years senior to Hagrid at Hogwarts, so it depends
quite strongly on the timing here.
> Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in
> limited ways) travels and/or communicates through time.
You know how I'm going to react to that ;-)
If you can accept 'has access to a true Seer' as enough, then I'll join
the speculation ;-)
> I'll speculate a bit further: Voldemort traveled back in time to
> give the egg to Hagrid (and to tell his younger self, Tom, about
> the transaction). That's right -- we know from the diary that Tom
> Riddle knew about Aragog -- and got Hagrid expelled. But how did
> he know? I think it rather unlikely that Tom and Hagrid were
> chums. That's always been a mystery to me, and now it has a neato
> explanation.
You know -- I would have happily discussed the possibility of the
contemporary Tom Riddle setting up the situation where Hagrid got the
egg -- possibly even 'instructed' by some prophecy telling that he had
to frame someone in order to avoid getting caught himself.
The time-travelling suggestion, however . . . I don't like it and I
don't believe it: it is too circumstantial a way to explain something
perfectly natural.
Hagrid, the old (well, he was young back then) fool hid Aragog in the
dungeon.
Slytherin, where Tom Riddle belonged, has the entrance to their house
in the dungeon.
Tom Riddle, going secretly to and from the Chamber of Secrets (and
before that the search for the Chamber), was about at all times and in
great secrecy.
Tom Riddle was far more intelligent and careful than Rubeus Hagrid.
It is inevitable that Tom Riddle will discover Rubeus' little secret.
It is such a nice little secret that Tom obviously keeps it: after all
he might some day need a 'lever' with the brute -- or a scapegoat as it
were.
> This idea opens up some interesting points for further discussion.
> Of course, there's the time travel issue (which so many people
> find interesting -- terribly annoying, yet interesting).
Rowling managed to use time travelling with care and skill. She
deliberately set up a situation where the past was not changed in any
way (not going into the discussion of whether it is possible at all to
change the past).
But having used it once, she has cleverly left it alone, and I do not
think that it will come up again in the form of any person travelling
more than an hour or two back into the past.
> The whole "Voldemort is my past, present and future" line has
> always struck me as oddly suggestive of time travel.
Why?
There is nothing in it, IMO, to suggest anything of the kind.
Tom Riddle is a voice from fifty years ago, and in that sense we are,
of course, dealing with a temporal anomaly, but it is not time
travelling.
Tom, when he created the diary, had already been using the name 'Lord
Voldemort' for some time among his most trusted friends in Slytherin --
that covers the 'past'.
He was creating the anagram in the air -- that covers the present.
Ginny had told him all about the terrible Lord Voldemort and how he
fell victim to the gorgeous Harry Potter -- and that covers Tom's
future (though not Harry's, of course).
Tom also believes that he will defeat Harry and become incarnate again
-- presumably seeking out his discarnate older self, and joining with
him to become an even stronger Voldemort. That would cover the future
of both Harry and Tom.
> There's also the issue of why Voldemort would want to bring Aragog
> to Hogwarts. Perhaps he never expected Hagrid to tame that beast.
> Maybe Voldemort knew that he had to frame someone to take the heat
> off Tom? Who knows.
If you wish to use the time travelling ploy, then it can only have been
meant to provide a scape-goat. The question is if that is the Voldemort
could have done for his sixteen-year-old self?
Without having thought much about it, I think that it should be
possible for someone as intelligent and powerful as Voldemort to do
more than just provide Tom (his younger self) with a scape-goat.
> I'll leave this with a teaser question for Troels. Who brought
> Shelob to Cirith Ungol?
Shelob, of course.
She fled the ruin of Beleriand, and was 'there' (in Cirith Ungol /
Mordor) before Sauron and before the first stone of Barad-dūr.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
Troels Forchhammer
Dave Vanness <dvannessD...@wisc.edu> enriched us with:
> Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote in
> news:rmrg811bm9cjge5sg...@4ax.com:
>>
>> On 15 May 2005 21:56:24 CST, Dave Vanness
>> <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in
>>> limited ways) travels and/or communicates through time.
>>> That's right -- we know from the diary that Tom Riddle knew about
>>> Aragog -- and got Hagrid expelled. But how did he know?
>>
>> You forgot, everybody knew about Hagrid and Aragog after the
>> expulsion.
Probably not 'everybody' -- just a very select few, I'd guess. Hagrid
was allowed to stay on at Hogwarts as assistent to the gamekeeper (old
Ogg, presumably), which, to me at least, implies that the circumstances
of his expulsion were kept silent.
It was a tricky situation: Hagrid had been caught harbouring an illegal
beast inside the castle. Riddle, who had caught him, claimed that this
must be the monster from the Chamber of Secrets -- or at least the
monster who had killed Myrtle.
Hagrid denied any such thing, but the attacks stopped when the
'monster' had escaped (into the Forest, presumably).
Hagrid is then expelled, but on what charges? For raising an illegal
beast? That is all they could actually charge him for, but he was
expelled on the /assumption/ that his beast had been responsible for
the death of Myrtle, and the suspicion that he might be the 'Heir of
Slytherin' and have opened 'The Chamber of Secrets'.
>> And Dd always distrusted Tom. So Tom's memory retained
>> his info, being created after those events transpired.
>
> OK, then who turned Hagrid in and got him expelled?
Tom Riddle did -- /before/ he created the diary.
Therefore the Tom Riddle persona from the diary can show, in the diary,
to Harry the actual 'capture' of Hagrid.
Recall Tom's description to Harry:
" 'Well, he certainly kept an annoyingly close watch on me
after Hagrid was expelled,' said Riddle carelessly. 'I knew it
wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was still
at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd
spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary,
preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one
day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my
footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work.'"
[CoS-17 'The Heir of Slytherin']
He only created the diary after realising that he would not be able to
open the chamber again, because Dumbledore was keeping 'annoyingly
close watch' on him even after he had thrown Hagrid to the wolves.
I'm not sure how any of that pertains to your suggestion, however ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo
Welsh Dog
Norwegian Ridgeback:
<snip>
>.... The whole "Voldemort
>is my past, present and future" line has always struck me as oddly
>suggestive of time travel.
Why would that be? It's really clear what that means.
Voldemort was his past: Tom is speaking as a 50 year old 'entity'
stating what he was when alive...
Voldemort is my present: Tom *is* Voldemort.. and was currently in
some sort of quasi-existence through the diary's magic.
Voldemort is my future: He was assuming he would be recreated through
Ginny's death and would live once more in the real world.
Straightforward enough in the context of the book.
--
Wenglish at its online home
http://www.talktidy.com
(visit the new site today!)
Jan van Aalderen
> In message <news:Xns9657E50BE651...@216.170.153.136>
> Dave Vanness <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu> enriched us with:
>
Either your scanning leaves something to be desired, or you scanned from
a different source.
In my text of book 1 thru 5, traveller does not occur, but traveler
occurs twice:
CoS: used by Aragog
PoA: "They had a very enjoyable lesson. Professor Lupin had brought
along a glass box containing a hinkypunk, ....
"Lures travelers into bogs," said Professor Lupin as they took notes.
"You notice the lantern dangling from his hand? Hops ahead -- people
follow the light -- then -- "
"Stranger(s)" occurs 28 times, not counting the adjective. But that is
hardly relevant, since it is used in very different contexts.
..................
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Richard Eney
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>Dave Vanness <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu> enriched us with:
>> The actual text from the book is:
>>
>> "I!" said Aragog, clicking angrily. "I was not born in the
>> castle. I come from a distant land. A *traveler* gave me to
>> Hagrid when I was an egg." (CoS, US version, p. 277, emphasis
>> added)
>
>I would have emphasised 'gave' as well -- I guess it might 'after
>Hagrid had paid him', but my immediate reaction was to question the
>strange generosity of this 'traveller'.
>
>That was one of the clever things about the 'stranger' from whom Hagrid
>got the egg in PS -- he let Hagrid win it in a game, thus making my
>suspicions subside.
>
>On the other hand that might be precisely the reason why this case
>should be less suspicious -- or not ;-)
The word "traveler" has a meaning in the UK that it doesn't have
in the US (yet - they're here, but not called generally that).
As I understand it, it refers to a group of people who have no fixed
residence, living in trailers and moving from place to place. They
aren't (as far as I know) the classic gypsy tribes, nor are they
the traditional tinkers - they're just travelers. In the US I suppose
we'd call them trailer park people. (Of course, both designations
become confused with all the perfectly good, honest people who happen
to live in trailers or trailer parks.) The assumption or implication
is of someone shady, like Mundungus Fletcher at best, or like the
denizens of Knockturn Alley by stereotype.
I take the meaning to be that Hagrid got Aragog's egg from a very
shady character. He probably didn't get it during the school year.
He wouldn't have to.
Given that giants were not considered good neighbors, Hagrid's
family probably lived far from ordinary wizard towns and very
far from muggle communities, deep in the mountains where a lone
giantess could take a walk once in a while if she felt like it.
Hagrid could have wandered in the woods fairly casually, perhaps
being assumed to be just a rather odd young man when he was a
ten year old boy. He might have encountered a group of travelers
then.
That still leaves the question of why the traveler gave a strange
kid a spider egg. Maybe he traded or gambled for it. Maybe the
traveler had just noticed he had it, and wanted to get rid of it.
We probably won't find out, unless someone asks JKR on her polls
or chats - since it almost certainly doesn't affect the plot,
she might even answer.
=Tamar
Brian Peppers
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:118imp0...@corp.supernews.com...
There are the Irish Travelers here in the US. Basically Gypsy type
con men and women who bilk old ladies out of the savings with different
cons.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/irish_travelers.html
Dan
> Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in limited
> ways) travels and/or communicates through time. I'll speculate a bit
> further: Voldemort traveled back in time to give the egg to Hagrid (and to
> tell his younger self, Tom, about the transaction). That's right -- we
> know from the diary that Tom Riddle knew about Aragog -- and got Hagrid
> expelled. But how did he know? I think it rather unlikely that Tom and
> Hagrid were chums. That's always been a mystery to me, and now it has a
> neato explanation.
You actually made sense until now.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE REPEAT:
JKR SAID NONE OF THE CHARACTERS ARE TIME TRAVELLING.
Isn't it a BILLION times more logical that Tom set-up hagrid with the
spider, so he could later use that spider as an escape goat?
Toon
<dvannessD...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote in
>news:rmrg811bm9cjge5sg...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 15 May 2005 21:56:24 CST, Dave Vanness <dvan...@delete.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Now, for my totally rampant speculation: Voldemort (at least in
>>>limited ways) travels and/or communicates through time. I'll
>>>speculate a bit further: Voldemort traveled back in time to give the
>>>egg to Hagrid (and to tell his younger self, Tom, about the
>>>transaction). That's right -- we know from the diary that Tom Riddle
>>>knew about Aragog -- and got Hagrid expelled. But how did he know? I
>>>think it rather unlikely that Tom and Hagrid were chums. That's
>>>always been a mystery to me, and now it has a neato explanation.
>
>> You forgot, everybody knew about Hagrid and Aragog after the
>> expulsion. And Dd always distrusted Tom. So Tom's memory retained
>> his info, being created after those events transpired.
>
>OK, then who turned Hagrid in and got him expelled?
Tommy Boy.
>> Though I'm sure Tom did get an egg, and gave it to hagrid when he knew
>> Hogwarts was closing.
>
>Can you elaborate why you're sure about that?
>
It fits a a plan. Tom wanted to stay at Hogwarts all year round (if
he asked Diple about a summer stay to avoid the orphanage, he had to
stay from the other school year breaks). he couldn't because Hogwarst
was closing because a monster that nobody ever saw was petrifying
students, and had even succeeded in killing Myrtle. So, in order to
stop the school from closing indefinitely, Tom had to stop the
basilisk. But he still needed a monster, because even if the troubles
stopped, it only made sense to close down the school until the monster
is found. He knows Hagrid kept dangerous pets (clearly, all of
Hogwrats knew this, how else would a Slyhterin know what a gryffendor
does?), so he has his patsy. All he needs is a monster. So, he gets
the egg (how not important), disguises himself, and gives it to Hagrid
(or sells, or gambles, whatevery). It hatches, then Tom frames Hagrid
for bringing Argagog into Hogwarts. The monster is caught, the
culprit expelled, and Tom has a school to return to come Sept (why he
then never stayed, I don't know. Maybe he did,)
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>He only created the diary after realising that he would not be able to
>open the chamber again, because Dumbledore was keeping 'annoyingly
>close watch' on him even after he had thrown Hagrid to the wolves.
Hagrid being happy to lay with the wolves, of course.
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>If you wish to use the time travelling ploy, then it can only have been
>meant to provide a scape-goat. The question is if that is the Voldemort
>could have done for his sixteen-year-old self?
>
>Without having thought much about it, I think that it should be
>possible for someone as intelligent and powerful as Voldemort to do
>more than just provide Tom (his younger self) with a scape-goat
Like a sports book, so he can make all the right bets. All a spell
book with new spells, to make his past self more powerful than anybody
else, even Dumbledore. Imagine if Tom knew the 12 uses of Dragons
Blood first.
Dave Vanness
4ax.com:
>>
>>Can you elaborate why you're sure about that?
>>
> It fits a a plan. Tom wanted to stay at Hogwarts all year round (if
> he asked Diple about a summer stay to avoid the orphanage, he had to
> stay from the other school year breaks). he couldn't because Hogwarst
> was closing because a monster that nobody ever saw was petrifying
> students, and had even succeeded in killing Myrtle. So, in order to
> stop the school from closing indefinitely, Tom had to stop the
> basilisk. But he still needed a monster, because even if the troubles
> stopped, it only made sense to close down the school until the monster
> is found. He knows Hagrid kept dangerous pets (clearly, all of
> Hogwrats knew this, how else would a Slyhterin know what a gryffendor
> does?), so he has his patsy. All he needs is a monster. So, he gets
> the egg (how not important), disguises himself, and gives it to Hagrid
> (or sells, or gambles, whatevery). It hatches, then Tom frames Hagrid
> for bringing Argagog into Hogwarts. The monster is caught, the
> culprit expelled, and Tom has a school to return to come Sept (why he
> then never stayed, I don't know. Maybe he did,)
OK -- I can buy this. So, Tom must have been traveling far and abroad
while still a Hogwarts student. Maybe he was already looking for ways to
escape death even then. I wonder... when did he find the time to do this
traveling? I suppose he could have gone during summer break.
Dave Vanness
news:4289a0e2$0$5178$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
Rowling's statement about characters time travelling was in the context of
the Ron=Dumbledore proposition. She said, and I quote: "NONE of the
characters in the books has returned from the future." She explicitly did
not say that none of the current characters (i.e. Voldemort) have traveled
to the past.
And frankly, I could have done without the all caps shouting. And it's
"scapegoat."
Troels Forchhammer
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) enriched us with:
> In article <Xns9658940E...@130.133.1.4>,
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
Hagrid getting Aragog's egg from a traveller:
>> I would have emphasised 'gave' as well -- I guess it might 'after
>> Hagrid had paid him', but my immediate reaction was to question
>> the strange generosity of this 'traveller'.
[...]
>
> The word "traveler" has a meaning in the UK that it doesn't have
> in the US (yet - they're here, but not called generally that).
Thanks.
<http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/traveller?view=uk>
traveller
(US also traveler)
+ noun
1 a person who is travelling or who often travels.
2 a gypsy.
3 (also New Age traveller) a person who holds New Age
values and leads an itinerant and unconventional
lifestyle.
So there are more possibilities than merely 1, which is the only one I
have had in mind. It is, I suppose, not very likely that a New Age
traveller would have an acromantula egg (unless the New Age comes from
the wizard world <G>), so the most likely alternative would be a gypsy,
who are, in Danish superstition at least, often attributed with magical
abilities (and in particular with prophetic talents).
Of course I suppose that Aragog's usage is a reflection of Hagrid's,
and since the acromantula is not indigenious to Scotland, however, I
suspect that Hagrid probably meant someone who had travelled to the
places where the acromantula lives naturally.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he
said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?"
- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Dave Vanness
news:Xns96596224EA34Fdv...@144.92.9.81:
I should correct myself. Actually, according to the etymology, the word
scapegoat is due to the mistranslation of the Canaanite demon Azazel as
'ez ozel (the goat who escapes) -- so, "escape goat" while not the
current form of the word, is in a way, correct!
Oh, and I would grant that your explanation is three and a half times
more logical than mine, which is actually quite far from a BILLION.
>:-{)> <- my attempt at an ascii escape goat...
Dan
"Dave Vanness" <dvannessD...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96596224EA34Fdv...@144.92.9.81...
I hate it when people take everything she says exactally how she said it.
Its clear that none of the characters are using time travel over the course
of the series. JKR has also said she wished she never did time travel now
because it was to powerful. Sorry for yelling but got sick of reading all
this time travelling non-sense.
Secondly, from the way that PoA is written, JKR clearly wants in her
universe for time to only happen once. ie. Nothing actually changed when
Harry and Hermione went back in time. Your idea of Voldemort going back in
time and telling Tom something is Paradoxical unless you consider the time
line in its entirety which would be:
Voldemort appears and tells Tom.
Tom then does the spider thing.
Tom then goes back intime and tells himself to do it to avoid a paradox.
This kind of self-reference loops is silly.
Toon
That's my theory. Besides, we know of only two actual time travelers,
Harry and hermione. And both have done their traveling through time.
Toon
Summer break, spring break, weekends, skipped Hogsmeade for Knockturn
Alley. And if Harry can sneak around at night...
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
>> Rowling's statement about characters time travelling was in the
>> context of the Ron=Dumbledore proposition. She said, and I quote:
>> "NONE of the characters in the books has returned from the future."
>> She explicitly did not say that none of the current characters (i.e.
>> Voldemort) have traveled to the past.
Once -- in particular before the release of OotP -- there was a lot of
discussion about which house James was in, because Rowling, in a chat
answer, failed to address that part of the context:
Q: What position did James play on the Gryffindor Quidditch
team? Was it seeker like Harry, or something different?
A: James was Chaser.
http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm
The argument raged whether Rowling implicitly answered the house part by
not protesting, or whether she deliberately avoided to address that
part, leaving all options open for herself.
(Googling for <"James was Chaser" Gryffindor Quidditch> from before July
2003 will probably yield a lot of heated debates.)
In my experience it is usually safer to assume that Rowling is
implicitly inclusive in her answers -- and thus that her answer in this
case can (most likely) be extended to exclude that any of the characters
we see have returned from time-travelling more than a short period
(let's say days at most, and certainly not years).
There are some obvious errors and inconsistencies in her various
answers, but these are all connected to mathematical errors or
inconsistencies, which I tend to view as a special case ;-) Apart from
those, I don't recall any cases where Rowling's statements (outside the
books) haven't been true at 'face value' -- where a detailed analysis of
what her statement can logically support has been better than taking it
at face value (where the difference between notation and connotation has
been important). Usually when she has been unwilling to answer
something, she has made it plain that she hasn't answered that and that
she doesn't want to.
>> And frankly, I could have done without the all caps shouting.
I think that the underlying assumption is that the increase in volume
also gives an increase in weight, but it doesn't really work that way.
Too often the added volume is just hot air . . .
>> And it's "scapegoat."
>
> I should correct myself. Actually, according to the etymology, the
> word scapegoat is due to the mistranslation of the Canaanite demon
> Azazel as 'ez ozel (the goat who escapes) -- so, "escape goat" while
> not the current form of the word, is in a way, correct!
That's interesting, thanks.
> Oh, and I would grant that your explanation is three and a half times
> more logical than mine, which is actually quite far from a BILLION.
LOL!
How about the idea that 'Hagrid got the egg from a stranger who doesn't
appear anywhere else in the books'? Or is that co-incidence too
unlikely?
As you know I, for my own part, preclude time-travelling explanations a
priori, but Tom Riddle had been spending long time trying to find the
Chamber of Secrets, and he may have realised early on that it would be a
good idea to have a potential scapegoat (let's stay current <G>). My
main objection to this explanation is the transfer: I don't suppose that
Hagrid was already drinking so much in his second of third year that he
would fail to recognise the much admired Tom Riddle. So either Tom would
have to disguise himself (Polyjuice?), which would certainly be within
his powers, but still introduces another layer of complexity, or he
would have had to have an accomplice who could give the egg to Hagrid.
Given Hagrid's fondness for monsters, I think it is likely that Tom
merely exploited a situation that he found rather than setting it up
himself; that our mysterious traveller could be named 'Mark Evans' ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
>Given Hagrid's fondness for monsters, I think it is likely that Tom
>merely exploited a situation that he found rather than setting it up
>himself; that our mysterious traveller could be named 'Mark Evans' ;-)
That's it. V recruited Mark Evans, who got an egg, traveled back to
give it to Hagrid, and was found out by Dudley, who attacked him for
trying to alter history, being a major proponent for Original History.
Troels Forchhammer
<to...@toon.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> That's it. V recruited Mark Evans, who got an egg, traveled back
> to give it to Hagrid, and was found out by Dudley, who attacked
> him for trying to alter history, being a major proponent for
> Original History.
You've got it!
Dave Vanness
news:3f3p60F...@individual.net:
Hello Troels! Finally a spare minute or two to reply to your comments.
>> Dave Vanness <dvannessD...@wisc.edu> wrote in
>> news:Xns96596224EA34Fdv...@144.92.9.81:
>>> Rowling's statement about characters time travelling was in the
>>> context of the Ron=Dumbledore proposition. She said, and I quote:
>>> "NONE of the characters in the books has returned from the future."
>>> She explicitly did not say that none of the current characters (i.e.
>>> Voldemort) have traveled to the past.
[snip the "James was a chaser" example]
> In my experience it is usually safer to assume that Rowling is
> implicitly inclusive in her answers -- and thus that her answer in
> this case can (most likely) be extended to exclude that any of the
> characters we see have returned from time-travelling more than a short
> period (let's say days at most, and certainly not years).
Context, my friend -- context. You have to read JKR's response in light
of the question that was being asked: Is Dumbledore really Ronald
Weasley gone back in time. She extended the question to a broader issue
-- namely, are any of the current characters actually time-travelers
from a future (or parallel) timeline? This is a matter of the
characters' identities -- not their activities.
What allows you to extrapolate her response to forbid the possibility of
characters making short trips into the very distant past? Of course,
they would require means to "come back" to the present rather than live
a parallel life. Are you assuming that the time turner is the only
time-traveling device in the Potterverse? Are you allowing your
preferences for non-changeable time as a plot device color your
analysis? (Not that there's anything wrong with that! ;)
[SNIP]
> been important). Usually when she has been unwilling to answer
> something, she has made it plain that she hasn't answered that and
> that she doesn't want to.
Like when she said "Not telling!" in response to the question "Will
Harry time-travel again?" (AOL Chat, October 19, 2000)
[SNIP]
> How about the idea that 'Hagrid got the egg from a stranger who
> doesn't appear anywhere else in the books'? Or is that co-incidence
> too unlikely?
Too unlikely and too boring! :)
> As you know I, for my own part, preclude time-travelling explanations
> a priori, but Tom Riddle had been spending long time trying to find
> the Chamber of Secrets, and he may have realised early on that it
> would be a good idea to have a potential scapegoat (let's stay current
> <G>). My main objection to this explanation is the transfer: I don't
> suppose that Hagrid was already drinking so much in his second of
> third year that he would fail to recognise the much admired Tom
> Riddle. So either Tom would have to disguise himself (Polyjuice?),
> which would certainly be within his powers, but still introduces
> another layer of complexity, or he would have had to have an
> accomplice who could give the egg to Hagrid.
Certainly possible. Probable, even. But as you know, I reject all
explanations that don't involve time-travelling, a priori. :D
Toon
<dvannessD...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>> How about the idea that 'Hagrid got the egg from a stranger who
>> doesn't appear anywhere else in the books'? Or is that co-incidence
>> too unlikely?
>
>Too unlikely and too boring! :)
Not a defense. People consider the Grangers interesting, but JK does
not. Our preference for boring vs interesting doesn't affect much.
Dave Vanness
4ax.com:
Nah. The Grangers are boring. Time travel -- now, that's interesting!
And it's coming back, baby! Nyah! :P
:)
Troels Forchhammer
> news:3f3p60F...@individual.net:
>>
>
> Hello Troels! Finally a spare minute or two to reply to your
> comments.
Always a pleasure to hear from you.
>> In my experience it is usually safer to assume that Rowling is
>> implicitly inclusive in her answers -- and thus that her answer
>> in this case can (most likely) be extended to exclude that any of
>> the characters we see have returned from time-travelling more
>> than a short period (let's say days at most, and certainly not
>> years).
>
> Context, my friend -- context.
Yes. Context is very important.
<snip>
> This is a matter of the characters' identities -- not their
> activities.
I agree.
I also believe that it extends not only to the situations that are
contemporary to the books, but also to the flash-back situations,
including Tom Riddle's youth, the school days of the Marauders et Al,
Harry's infancy etc. -- that her use of "NONE of the characters in the
books" is inclucive, including all situations described in the books,
an thus that in none of these situations, IMO, are any of the
characters "returned from the future" -- the future of that particular
instant.
> What allows you to extrapolate her response to forbid the
> possibility of characters making short trips into the very distant
> past?
I don't believe that it is possible -- at least not without strongly
influencing the identity of the character. Making, for instance, a loop
before the beginning of the books would still, IMO, strongly influence
the identity of the character even after the time-loop is long past.
> Of course, they would require means to "come back" to the
> present rather than live a parallel life.
Precicely.
> Are you assuming that the time turner is the only time-traveling
> device in the Potterverse?
Actually, yes.
The Time-room in OotP contained no other devices that could reasonably
be assumed to be time-travelling devices (or at least: no such devices
were described). The description did, however, incluce "a glass-fronted
cabinet on the wall full of variously shaped hour-glasses," which can
easily mean that Time-Turners come in more than one variety, and the
functionality of the one Hermione had on loan doesn't necessarily limit
what is possible with a Time-Turner. The name itself, however, strongly
(IMO) implies that it can only turn the flow of time -- making you
travel from the present to the past.
It may be that some Time-Turners take you back days, weeks, months or
years for each turn, but I don't think that any of them will transport
you in the other direction -- going into the future is even more
philosophically problematic (it smacks of determinism, which is often
considered as problematic with respect to Free Will -- I may not see it
that way myself, but at that point we're getting into some rather
serious philosophical debates that I don't think Rowling would be
willing to engage in in a series of children's books).
One possible solution might be a spell or device that enables a wizard
to return to his point of temporal origin (e.g. by 'anchoring' the
device at a particular point in space-time). Such a device might solve
my primary objection to the idea of travelling far into the past and
returning without having to live through the whole Time-Turned period.
Unfortunately I don't recall any trace of such a device . . .
> Are you allowing your preferences for non-changeable time as a plot
> device color your analysis? (Not that there's anything wrong with
> that! ;)
Would you believe me if I said no ;-)
I would be surprised if my preferences did not influence my analysis,
even if I try to avoid it.
>> Usually when she has been unwilling to answer something, she
>> has made it plain that she hasn't answered that and that she
>> doesn't want to.
>
> Like when she said "Not telling!" in response to the question
> "Will Harry time-travel again?" (AOL Chat, October 19, 2000)
Exactly.
It would, however, be a mistake to interpret such an answer as an
affirmative.
>> How about the idea that 'Hagrid got the egg from a stranger who
>> doesn't appear anywhere else in the books'? Or is that
>> co-incidence too unlikely?
>
> Too unlikely and too boring! :)
;-)
I suspected as much.
<snip suggestion>
> Certainly possible. Probable, even. But as you know, I reject
> all explanations that don't involve time-travelling, a priori. :D
LOL!
Well -- I don't think that we'll see any more time-travelling, but I
wouldn't mind it if it is comparable to what we have seen so far:
travelling back an hour per turn and not changing anything, or
observing the past through various devices (e.g. the pensive). I guess
that is the only area where we can meet, then ;-)
But sometimes it's as much fun to throw notes over the wall, trying to
get in touch with those 'on the other side' . . .