Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Death at Hogwarts

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Geoduck

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 1:21:29 PM6/20/03
to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:16:10 GMT, David Silberstein typed:

> In article <jS7Ia.21$Xq4.2...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> LONDON, June 18 - Author J.K. Rowling was so upset about
>> killing off one of the main characters in her latest Harry
>> Potter saga that she burst into tears.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/928171.asp
>>
>>Dumas wept when he was writing the chapter "Death of a Titan"
>>(in which he killed off Porthos), so she's in good company.
>>
>
> Hm. Are you pondering what I think you're pondering?
>
> The character most similar to Porthos in the Potterverse is...
> Hagrid. Heck, even "Titan" is exceedingly apropos as a
> description...

Everyone else in this thread is talking about Dumbledore dying, but I think
you're right. This time it's Hagrid, and Dumbledore dies at the end of book
six, leaving Harry to fight book seven's Final Battle alone.

--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook

The Magically Delicious Mr. Hole

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 11:24:36 AM6/21/03
to
Geoduck <geo...@webave.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:16:10 GMT,
>David Silberstein typed:

>>In article
>><jS7Ia.21$Xq4.2...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, Mike Schilling
>><mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>LONDON, June 18 - Author J.K. Rowling
>>>>>was so upset about   killing off one of the
>>>>>main characters in her latest Harry  
>>>>>Potter saga that she burst into tears.

>>>>>http://www.msnbc.com/news/928171.asp

>>>>Dumas wept when he was writing the
>>>>chapter "Death of a Titan" (in which he
>>>>killed off Porthos), so she's in good
>>>>company.

>>>Hm. Are you pondering what I think you're
>>>pondering?

>>The character most similar to Porthos in
>>the Potterverse is... Hagrid. Heck, even
>>"Titan" is exceedingly apropos as a
>>description...

>Everyone else in this thread is talking
>about Dumbledore dying, but I think you're
>right. This time it's Hagrid,

Poor Robbie Coltrane, first in James Bond and now this. Bitch!

>and Dumbledore dies at the end of book
>six, leaving Harry to fight book seven's
>Final Battle alone.


..
Mr. Hole

Podkayne Fries

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 4:36:58 PM6/21/03
to
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:21:29 -0700, Geoduck <geo...@webave.com>
wrote:

>Everyone else in this thread is talking about Dumbledore dying, but I think
>you're right. This time it's Hagrid, and Dumbledore dies at the end of book
>six, leaving Harry to fight book seven's Final Battle alone.
>

Does anyone want to know who died? I got the book this morning, so of
course I flipped through to see who bought the farm.

--
Regards, Podkayne Fries

Death before ducks out of row.


Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 7:19:39 AM6/22/03
to
>Does anyone want to know who died? I got the book this morning, so of
>course I flipped through to see who bought the farm.
>
>--
>Regards, Podkayne Fries

I do not want to know.

I just want to say that I will -never- understand why you and people like you
DO things like that.


Podkayne Fries

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 8:03:48 PM6/23/03
to
On 22 Jun 2003 11:19:39 GMT, lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library
Avenger ) wrote:

Curiousity. Much has been made of the fact that someone in the book
dies, and I wanted to know if it was worth all the fuss.

Travers Naran

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 8:28:43 PM6/23/03
to
Podkayne Fries wrote:

> Curiousity. Much has been made of the fact that someone in the book
> dies, and I wanted to know if it was worth all the fuss.

Having read the book, no, I didn't think the death was all that
dramatic. It sets up some future emotional stuff for Harry though.

ROT 13'd for a very light spoiler (I don't consider it a spoiler):
Vg jnf vzub n frpbaqnel punenpgre naljnl. Abg bar bs gur cevznel barf.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" | ** UPDATED 9-Apr-2002 **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:01:27 PM6/23/03
to
>>I just want to say that I will -never- understand why you and people like
>you
>>DO things like that.
>>
>>
>Curiousity. Much has been made of the fact that someone in the book
>dies, and I wanted to know if it was worth all the fuss.
>
>--
>Regards, Podkayne Fries

Well, yeah. I want to know who died. But I will find out (i hope) by READING
the book from START to FINISH.


Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:02:07 PM6/23/03
to
>ROT 13'd for a very light spoiler (I don't consider it a spoiler):
>Vg jnf vzub n frpbaqnel punenpgre naljnl. Abg bar bs gur cevznel barf.
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Travers Naran

Rot13 is not a spoiler to many, as they can read it as well as English.

I'm not one of them, I just thought you might like to know.


Travers Naran

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 10:09:27 PM6/23/03
to

Very few, and they are the kind of people who would rather read the
latest UNIX man page than Harry Potter. Also, ROT13 slows them down a
tad so if they scan it, they can stop themselves before reading it.

I've been using ROT13 since you were drooling over your Nintendo 8-bit
console, Lots. :-P

I used to be able to type in ROT13, but my skill has sadly lapsed.

Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:38:44 PM6/23/03
to
>From: Travers Naran tna...@direct.ca

>I've been using ROT13 since you were drooling over your Nintendo 8-bit
>console, Lots. :-P
>

Just goes to show what you know. I lived without tv for eight years. I was done
with drooling by the time I got an NES.


Travers Naran

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:11:36 AM6/24/03
to
Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:

You're _still_ not done drooling.

P.S. Clean that mess off your keyboard before you go to bed.

Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 5:10:17 AM6/24/03
to
>
>You're _still_ not done drooling.
>
>P.S. Clean that mess off your keyboard before you go to bed.
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Travers Naran

That's not drool.

Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:23:15 PM6/26/03
to
On 24 Jun 2003 03:38:44 GMT, lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library
Avenger ) wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about? You drool like a dog everytime I
bone you! You squeal, too.

Cheers,

Jaime

Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:37:20 PM6/26/03
to
<Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:21:29 -0700, Geoduck <geo...@webave.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 01:16:10 GMT, David Silberstein typed:

I guess we all know better now. I was happy it was not old Snape's
turn yet. I think his relationship with Harry --or at least the
expression of it-- might be about to very slowly change in really
interesting ways.

As for Dumbledore, he's got to pull a Ben Kenobi eventually, just so
that Harry can become a real Jedi Knight. Besides, if the latter
finally wastes Voldemort by the end of book seven, he will be too
sickened to want to continue in a career as a lifelong auror (which,
with Voldemort gone, would be overkill for him anyway), and will
probably move on to the only job in the magic universe really worthy
of him as the most powerful good wizard: Headmaster at Hogwarts. So
Dumbledore will have to go, eventually, and remain behind only in
portrait.

As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.

Cheers,

Jaime

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 8:48:49 PM6/26/03
to

"Jaime M. de Castellvi" <3c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3efb8e91...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> <Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
> expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
> in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
> her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
> has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.

I disagree; at the end of the book, Umbridge is pathetic and broken, and no
one will ever be frightened of her again. She's never particularly a strong
personality; her only weapon is being able to manipulate Fudge to get more
and more arbitrary power.


Maureen O'Brien

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:29:01 PM6/26/03
to
"Jaime M. de Castellvi" wrote:
>
> <Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
>

>Dumbledore will have to go, eventually, and remain behind only in


>portrait.
>
>As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I

Also in portrait, unfortunately. Unless they have a choice about
whom to portray?

Maureen

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:42:58 PM6/26/03
to
In article <3EFBB9FD...@dnaco.net>,

Well, I imagine there are two major ways of getting your portrait
painted in their world or ours. You do something important and
they decide to commemorate you, or you pay a lot of money to have
it done. Doesn't look as if Umbridge is going to be in line for
either.

Certainly if I were a painter I wouldn't paint Umbridge for a
roomful of Galleons.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt

Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 12:41:45 AM6/27/03
to
>What the fuck are you talking about? You drool like a dog everytime I
>bone you! You squeal, too.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jaime
>
>

Drool? That's just your sperm shooting out of my nostrils. Squeal? In your
dreams. I just have a dry ass and it chafes. Loudly.

Travers Naran

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:17:14 AM6/27/03
to
Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:

>Jaime wrote:
>>What the fuck are you talking about? You drool like a dog everytime I
>>bone you! You squeal, too.
>

> Drool? That's just your sperm shooting out of my nostrils. Squeal? In your
> dreams. I just have a dry ass and it chafes. Loudly.

Hey, you two! Take it to Texas where it's legal now.

Dreamer

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 9:26:15 AM6/27/03
to

"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RvMKa.207$jF5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>
> "Jaime M. de Castellvi" <3c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3efb8e91...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > <Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
> >
> > As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
> > expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
> > in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
> > her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
> > has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.

While Umbridge is a nasty person, she's the kind of nasty person who's even
worse than Voldemort - she thinks she's being nasty for a greater good.
She's not pro-Voldemort, she's anti-Dumbledore, because Dumbledore is
stirring things up (and because he's a threat, she thinks, to her boss.) I
don't see her teaming up with Voldemort. She hasn't got the guts.

> I disagree; at the end of the book, Umbridge is pathetic and broken, and
no
> one will ever be frightened of her again. She's never particularly a
strong
> personality; her only weapon is being able to manipulate Fudge to get more
> and more arbitrary power.

I agree. The centaurs probably did quite a number on her. I forget if it was
mentioned if she even still has her wand. Centaurs, being no fools, would
have taken it away and quite possibly broken it. Or did it get broken when
she was captured? I forget.

I'm unclear on this whole wand thing now, actually. Neville's wand got
broken. Is he screwed now? Ron's first wand was a hand-me-down and blew up
to boot, but he appears to be getting along okay. Wizards occasionally
snatch each other's wands and use them. Olivander says "you will never get
such good results with another wizard's wand," but obviously they're not
biometrically keyed or anything. *smile* When you get expelled from
wizarding school (or if you do something else bad, possibly,) your wand is
broken, and that takes most of the mojo out of it, but not all, as shown by
Hagrid's umbrella.

Is the deal maybe that underage wizards are only allowed to have wands if
they're enrolled in wizarding school? Or is there some sort of licensing
deal, which is why Hagrid, now that he's an adult, can't just go buy another
one? Do wizards have more than one wand? Olivander refers to people buying
their *first* wands in his shop: do very powerful wizards sometimes make
specialty wands later in life? (Some wands are better at some things than
others.) Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell
summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
snapping his fingers. What's up with that?

I know, I know. This is just a story.

D


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 9:49:00 AM6/27/03
to
In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>,

Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>
>I agree. The centaurs probably did quite a number on her. I forget if it was
>mentioned if she even still has her wand. Centaurs, being no fools, would
>have taken it away and quite possibly broken it. Or did it get broken when
>she was captured? I forget.

ISTR it got dropped, somebody else made a grab for it, and a
large centaurean hoof came down on it and broke it in half. But
I've only read Book 5 once so far.


>
>I'm unclear on this whole wand thing now, actually. Neville's wand got
>broken. Is he screwed now? Ron's first wand was a hand-me-down and blew up
>to boot, but he appears to be getting along okay. Wizards occasionally
>snatch each other's wands and use them. Olivander says "you will never get
>such good results with another wizard's wand," but obviously they're not
>biometrically keyed or anything. *smile* When you get expelled from
>wizarding school (or if you do something else bad, possibly,) your wand is
>broken, and that takes most of the mojo out of it, but not all, as shown by
>Hagrid's umbrella.

Ron's hand-me-down wand got broken early in Book Two, whomped by
the Willow. He put it back together with Sellotape but it never
worked quite right again, and died a spectacular death at the
moment juste at the end, casting Lockhart's memory erasure back
on himself.

It's certainly not "you only get one wand your whole life," for
Olivander reminiscences about Harry's parents coming in and
getting their *first* wands. I think it may be a two-stage
process: you pick a wand, or a wand picks you, with Olivander's
help, that's particularly suited to you, and then as you use it
it gets better suited to you. Rather like buying a pair of shoes
that fit, and then breaking them in?

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:08:50 AM6/27/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HH57p...@kithrup.com...

> In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
> >
> >I agree. The centaurs probably did quite a number on her. I forget if it
was
> >mentioned if she even still has her wand. Centaurs, being no fools, would
> >have taken it away and quite possibly broken it. Or did it get broken
when
> >she was captured? I forget.
>
> ISTR it got dropped, somebody else made a grab for it, and a
> large centaurean hoof came down on it and broke it in half. But
> I've only read Book 5 once so far.

This is my main objection to the door-stopper size of the last two books. I
like to reread series books, particularly when preparing to read the newest
volume for the first time, but with HP this has become infeasible.


Liz Broadwell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:27:55 AM6/27/03
to
In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>, Dreamer wrote:
>While Umbridge is a nasty person, she's the kind of nasty person who's even
>worse than Voldemort - she thinks she's being nasty for a greater good.
>She's not pro-Voldemort, she's anti-Dumbledore, because Dumbledore is
>stirring things up (and because he's a threat, she thinks, to her boss.) I
>don't see her teaming up with Voldemort. She hasn't got the guts.

I don't see Umbridge as worse than Voldemort, exactly (though I won't
argue that she's a nasty piece of work. The lines-in-blood thing gave me
a real jolt). She's a petty tyrant; he's the real thing. At best, she's
a competent footsoldier/bureaucrat. Mind you, Real Tyrants need those
kind of people to carry out the orders and such, and what they do is
morally reprehensible (what they gave a tyrannical regime and nobody
came?), but in herself Umbridge isn't that much of a threat. She lacks
the necessary ability to inspire either sufficient devotion or sufficient
fear in her subordinates/persecutees to keep them in line. Look at the
way the school starts blowing up around her once everyone decides there's
no point in keeping their heads down anymore -- teachers
passive-agressing, students "doing a Weasley", even the Inquisitorial
squad (specifically Malfoy) letting slip that their loyalty is a matter
of personal convenience -- and compare to that Voldemort's
oderint-dum-metuerant approach to his followers. Umbridge's downfall
comes about in large part because she confuses the power she wields as
representative of the Ministry of Magic with personal power -- when she
faces a situation where her status as a Ministry representative is moot,
she's toast.

Peace,
Liz

--
Elizabeth Broadwell (ebroadwe at dept dot english dot upenn dot edu) at
the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"There was also a lot of talk about, you know, The Children -- the poor
tots, always running into popular culture without looking both ways."
-- Charles P. Pierce

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:31:46 AM6/27/03
to
In article <SdYKa.1440$jx3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,

I'm sorry you're having trouble. I'm old and retired and mostly
bedfast, so I have plenty of time to read and reread (mostly the
latter, since I don't get out to bookstores often, though I have
learned to buy books online, my budget is shaking in its shoes).

Perhaps you could do one chapter an evening, parcel it out over
however long it takes her to write volume 6?

Heather Garvey

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:13:50 AM6/27/03
to
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>>
>>Also in portrait, unfortunately. Unless they have a choice about
>>whom to portray?
>
>Well, I imagine there are two major ways of getting your portrait
>painted in their world or ours. You do something important and
>they decide to commemorate you, or you pay a lot of money to have
>it done. Doesn't look as if Umbridge is going to be in line for
>either.

She was (however briefly) a Headmaster. AFAWK, *all* the
Headmasters have their portraits up in the Headmaster's Office....
Question is, whether there's the option to leave her out of the lineup.

--
Heather Garvey | We who stride like giants across the
ra...@xnet.com | world and allow all the systems to
| speak, each unto the other.
http://www.xnet.com/~raven/ | -- Chad Robinson, BOFH

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:17:42 AM6/27/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HH59o...@kithrup.com...

I'm sure something like this is possible, it's just harder than it (IMHO)
has to be.


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:20:03 AM6/27/03
to

"Heather Garvey" <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
news:bdhmve$grk$1...@flood.xnet.com...

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Also in portrait, unfortunately. Unless they have a choice about
> >>whom to portray?
> >
> >Well, I imagine there are two major ways of getting your portrait
> >painted in their world or ours. You do something important and
> >they decide to commemorate you, or you pay a lot of money to have
> >it done. Doesn't look as if Umbridge is going to be in line for
> >either.
>
> She was (however briefly) a Headmaster. AFAWK, *all* the
> Headmasters have their portraits up in the Headmaster's Office....
> Question is, whether there's the option to leave her out of the lineup.


. "During the term of Albus Dumbledore, the pretender Dolores Umbridge
briefly seized the office..."


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:26:25 AM6/27/03
to
In article <bdhmve$grk$1...@flood.xnet.com>,

Heather Garvey <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Also in portrait, unfortunately. Unless they have a choice about
>>>whom to portray?
>>
>>Well, I imagine there are two major ways of getting your portrait
>>painted in their world or ours. You do something important and
>>they decide to commemorate you, or you pay a lot of money to have
>>it done. Doesn't look as if Umbridge is going to be in line for
>>either.
>
> She was (however briefly) a Headmaster. AFAWK, *all* the
>Headmasters have their portraits up in the Headmaster's Office....
>Question is, whether there's the option to leave her out of the lineup.

I would bet a case of cookies (as my very Snapelike boss used to
say) that Dumbledore will discover there is that option.

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 1:52:10 PM6/27/03
to
"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:

>Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell
>summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
>snapping his fingers. What's up with that?

There was also the incident early in the most recent book, where
Harry's wand has been knocked away, he reflexively tries a Lumos
charm, and is surprised that it works anyway. It wasn't picked
up in this book, but it seems like the kind of thing Rowling put
in so she could come back to it later.

--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.

Lori Coulson

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 1:55:55 PM6/27/03
to
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<SdYKa.1440$jx3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...

> This is my main objection to the door-stopper size of the last two books. I
> like to reread series books, particularly when preparing to read the newest
> volume for the first time, but with HP this has become infeasible.

You think HP is too much to re-read? Try doing a re-read of _A Song of
Ice and Fire_, each time a new segment is published.

As soon as I know *when* _A Feast of Crows_ is going to be in the
bookstores, I plan to set aside the better part of a month before the
release date, so I can re-read _A Game of Thrones_, _A Clash of
Kings_, and _A Storm of Swords_...

I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
ASoIaF...

OOtP took me 7 hours to read. It will take a little over a week to
read each of the George R. R. Martin tomes...

Lori Coulson

Akantha

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:19:40 PM6/27/03
to
"Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b6337818.03062...@posting.google.com...

Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time series
and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
before each new installment.

--
Akantha
---------
(If you can't hear me, it's because I'm in parentheses.)
--Stephen Wright


Bertil Jonell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:30:00 PM6/27/03
to
In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>,
Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>Is the deal maybe that underage wizards are only allowed to have wands if
>they're enrolled in wizarding school? Or is there some sort of licensing
>deal, which is why Hagrid, now that he's an adult, can't just go buy another
>one?

Wasn't "Wand licencensing and its impact on the goblin riots" one of the
questions on the History of Magic OWL?

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."

Dreamer

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:33:34 PM6/27/03
to

"Ross TenEyck" <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:bdi08a$isq$1...@naig.caltech.edu...

> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
> >Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell
> >summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
> >snapping his fingers. What's up with that?
>
> There was also the incident early in the most recent book, where
> Harry's wand has been knocked away, he reflexively tries a Lumos
> charm, and is surprised that it works anyway. It wasn't picked
> up in this book, but it seems like the kind of thing Rowling put
> in so she could come back to it later.

The wand was only a few inches away, and it was the *wand* that lit up - so
we know for *sure* that you don't necessarily have to be touching your wand
to make it do something (although some spells seem to require a gesture as
well.)

Or are wands like "foci" from (RPG Alert: Dive, dive!) M:tG, in that once
you get to a certain level, you don't necessarily need them? Dumbledore uses
his during his big fight scene, so I'd guess that even if you don't need
them, your magic works better with them.

D


Dreamer

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:41:03 PM6/27/03
to

"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
news:L80La.43$a_6....@news.uswest.net...

> Or are wands like "foci" from (RPG Alert: Dive, dive!) M:tG,...

Whoops. Wrong acronym. That should have been M:tA, not M:tG.

The management apologizes for any inconvenience.

D


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:51:43 PM6/27/03
to

"Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b6337818.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<SdYKa.1440$jx3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> > This is my main objection to the door-stopper size of the last two
books. I
> > like to reread series books, particularly when preparing to read the
newest
> > volume for the first time, but with HP this has become infeasible.
>
> You think HP is too much to re-read? Try doing a re-read of _A Song of
> Ice and Fire_, each time a new segment is published.

I did that for volumes 2 and 3. 4 will be more of a chore, I agree (not to
mention 5, 6, and the recently rumored 7.)

>
> As soon as I know *when* _A Feast of Crows_ is going to be in the
> bookstores, I plan to set aside the better part of a month before the
> release date, so I can re-read _A Game of Thrones_, _A Clash of
> Kings_, and _A Storm of Swords_...
>
> I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
> ASoIaF...
>
> OOtP took me 7 hours to read. It will take a little over a week to
> read each of the George R. R. Martin tomes...

The length isn't that different; I presume you find the Ice and Fire books
denser? I do too, which is part of my point: the GRRM books need to be that
long; the HP ones don't. The latter are simply becoming padded with
irrelevant detail.


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:52:23 PM6/27/03
to

"Akantha" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdi1rt$tc1bu$1...@ID-196626.news.dfncis.de...

>
> Are you a Robert Jordan fan?
No.

> We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time series
> and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> before each new installment.

You just explained why not. :-)


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:49:04 PM6/27/03
to
In article <bdi08a$isq$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,

Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:
>
>>Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell
>>summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
>>snapping his fingers. What's up with that?

Dobby casts spells that way too.


>
>There was also the incident early in the most recent book, where
>Harry's wand has been knocked away, he reflexively tries a Lumos
>charm, and is surprised that it works anyway. It wasn't picked
>up in this book, but it seems like the kind of thing Rowling put
>in so she could come back to it later.

Hmmm.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:57:49 PM6/27/03
to
In article <3n0La.129$5q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,

Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The length isn't that different; I presume you find the Ice and Fire books
>denser? I do too, which is part of my point: the GRRM books need to be that
>long; the HP ones don't. The latter are simply becoming padded with
>irrelevant detail.

I disagree. The detail isn't irrelevant, it's world-building.
It makes the environment real. And you frequently don't know
what supposedly trivial little detail in book N is going to be
seriously important in Book N+several. I suspect that's true of
Martin too, but I can't read him.

The HP2 DVD has among its supplemental stuff an interview with
Rowling and Steve Kloves, who writes the screenplays. They
admitted cautiously that there have been times when he's asked
her "can this bit be omitted from the film?" and she's said,
"well, no, because in Book Six, um..." and that there are things
about the overall plot she's told him that she's told no one
else.

The interview opens with the following exchange:
Host: So how do you work together?
Kloves: Well, it's very simple, really, I steal all her good
stuff.
Rowling: And I don't sue him.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 2:59:31 PM6/27/03
to
In article <Hn0La.130$6q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,

Well, no, that's only half of why not. That's the half that goes
"it's very long and complicated and the end is not in sight."
The other half, the important half, is "And I don't like it."

Dorothy J. Heydt
(who got to Book Two, Chapter One, before coining the Eight
Deadly Words)

Steven Sousa

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:14:24 PM6/27/03
to
Akantha wrote:

> Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time series
> and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> before each new installment.

And for all the huge lengths of the books, exactly *one* thing happened
in each book to advance the plot since book 6, and most of them were
completely unsurprising.

Book 7: Lan and Nynaive get married. Everyone else spends the rest of
book talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.
Book 8: The bowl of the winds gets used. Everyone else spends the rest
of the book talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.
Book 9: Everyone spends the entire book talking, doing nothing, and/or
wandering around. Then Rand cleanses the taint.
Book 10: Everyone who can channel wonders what the hell just happened,
in between talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.

He should have stopped at three books. He's obviously just milking his
readers dry now.

--
Steven Sousa
"As an American, I'm getting sick and tired of other countries" - Chris
Langston, as quoted in The Onion
Visit www.badtasteadvertising.com today!

Akantha

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:29:26 PM6/27/03
to
"Steven Sousa" <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3EFC9790...@aurora.mv.com...

> Akantha wrote:
>
> > Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time
> > series and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of
> > re-reading before each new installment.
>
> And for all the huge lengths of the books, exactly *one* thing happened
> in each book to advance the plot since book 6, and most of them were
> completely unsurprising.
>
> Book 7: Lan and Nynaive get married. Everyone else spends the rest of
> book talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.
> Book 8: The bowl of the winds gets used. Everyone else spends the rest
> of the book talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.
> Book 9: Everyone spends the entire book talking, doing nothing, and/or
> wandering around. Then Rand cleanses the taint.
> Book 10: Everyone who can channel wonders what the hell just happened,
> in between talking, doing nothing, and/or wandering around.
>
> He should have stopped at three books. He's obviously just milking his
> readers dry now.
>

It has gotten frustrating, hasn't it? I enjoyed the first 3 books
enormously and have gotten more and more disappointed as the series has
continued. Personally, I don't think he's trying to "milk the readers" (now
that's a pretty image!). I think he lost his grip on the vast storyline he
ambitiously undertook and I think the editing on his later books was faulty.
I still have hope for the series (although I'll be a grandmother before he
finishes the darn thing - 37 months between the 9th and 10th book). But I'm
an eternal optimist.

Aaron J. Dinkin

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 4:02:58 PM6/27/03
to
On 27 Jun 2003 10:55:55 -0700, Lori Coulson <OV...@juno.com> wrote:

> I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
> ASoIaF...

Ooh! What if Harry Potter had been written by G.R.R. Martin?

McGonagall would die unexpectedly, leaving a drastically underprepared
Madam Hooch to take over as head of Gryffindor.

Snape would secretly poison every nominee for the Defense Against the Dark
Arts position.

The third book would make Draco Malfoy into a sympathetic character by
presenting certain chapters from his point of view.

Any more?

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 4:15:45 PM6/27/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HH5M3...@kithrup.com...

> In article <Hn0La.130$6q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Akantha" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:bdi1rt$tc1bu$1...@ID-196626.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >> Are you a Robert Jordan fan?
> >No.
> >
> >> We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time series
> >> and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> >> before each new installment.
> >
> >You just explained why not. :-)
>
> Well, no, that's only half of why not. That's the half that goes
> "it's very long and complicated and the end is not in sight."
> The other half, the important half, is "And I don't like it."

For me, the first half is sufficient.


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 4:30:35 PM6/27/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HH5M0...@kithrup.com...

> In article <3n0La.129$5q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The length isn't that different; I presume you find the Ice and Fire
books
> >denser? I do too, which is part of my point: the GRRM books need to be
that
> >long; the HP ones don't. The latter are simply becoming padded with
> >irrelevant detail.
>
> I disagree. The detail isn't irrelevant, it's world-building.
> It makes the environment real. And you frequently don't know
> what supposedly trivial little detail in book N is going to be
> seriously important in Book N+several. I suspect that's true of
> Martin too, but I can't read him.

Very true of Martin.

And I suspect that wosshername, the clumsy witch with the day-glo hair, will
be important later on, since she was completely superfluous here. IMHO she
could have been cut, along with 90% of the scenes at Sirius's house.


Dreamer

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 5:34:51 PM6/27/03
to

"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LP1La.139$RD.16...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

> And I suspect that wosshername, the clumsy witch with the day-glo hair,
will
> be important later on, since she was completely superfluous here. IMHO she
> could have been cut, along with 90% of the scenes at Sirius's house.

She wasn't completely superfluous: she was an important contact between
Harry/Hermione and "The Quibbler," which her father publishes. Since "The
Quibbler" is apparently well-read in the wizarding world, whether or not
anybody actually admits they read it, she's a link to something important.

That being said, *other* than that, she wasn't very important to the plot.

D


Aaron Brezenski

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 5:38:51 PM6/27/03
to
In article <HO2La.61$a_6....@news.uswest.net>,

You're thinking of Luna. Mike was referring to Tonks.


--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.

Dreamer

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 5:42:38 PM6/27/03
to

"Aaron Brezenski" <apbr...@sedona.intel.com> wrote in message
news:bdidhb$5ah$1...@news01.intel.com...

So I am. My mistake. Luna's the weird one: Tonks is the clumsy one.

D


Duffy Pratt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 6:13:11 PM6/27/03
to

> Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time
series
> and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> before each new installment.
>
> --
> Akantha

Yeah, but you don't have to re-read the last 4 books in WoT, cos nothing
happenned in them.

Duffy


Duffy Pratt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 6:17:24 PM6/27/03
to
At least one of Harry, Hermione, or Ron would be dead by now.

"Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:Sp1La.38000$e26....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 7:04:39 PM6/27/03
to

"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
news:HO2La.61$a_6....@news.uswest.net...

I meant the grown-up clumsy one (Tonks?), but you're right, Luna could go as
well.


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 7:27:05 PM6/27/03
to
In article <Un3La.43088$TJ.16...@twister.austin.rr.com>,

See, all this is why I'm cheerfully rereading all the existing
Rowling and gave up on Martin midway through book One.

Dorothy J. Heydt

Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 9:45:00 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:17:42 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message

>news:HH59o...@kithrup.com...
>> In article <SdYKa.1440$jx3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,


>> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message

>> >news:HH57p...@kithrup.com...


>> >> In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>,
>> >> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>> >> >

>> >> >I agree. The centaurs probably did quite a number on her. I forget if
>it
>> >was
>> >> >mentioned if she even still has her wand. Centaurs, being no fools,
>would
>> >> >have taken it away and quite possibly broken it. Or did it get broken
>> >when
>> >> >she was captured? I forget.
>> >>
>> >> ISTR it got dropped, somebody else made a grab for it, and a
>> >> large centaurean hoof came down on it and broke it in half. But
>> >> I've only read Book 5 once so far.


>> >
>> >This is my main objection to the door-stopper size of the last two books.
>I
>> >like to reread series books, particularly when preparing to read the
>newest
>> >volume for the first time, but with HP this has become infeasible.
>>

>> I'm sorry you're having trouble. I'm old and retired and mostly
>> bedfast, so I have plenty of time to read and reread (mostly the
>> latter, since I don't get out to bookstores often, though I have
>> learned to buy books online, my budget is shaking in its shoes).
>>
>> Perhaps you could do one chapter an evening, parcel it out over
>> however long it takes her to write volume 6?
>
>I'm sure something like this is possible, it's just harder than it (IMHO)
>has to be.

I, OTOH, love the big chunky format that will prolong my reading
pleasure a bit longer, before I'm done and have to face another 2-3
year wait for the next tome. Just can't please (or displease)
everyone.

Cheers,

Jaime

Julie d'Aubigny

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:42:15 PM6/27/03
to

My Verbena taps green mana to summon elves.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "When they started singing kum ba yah, we had
to take them out" -- Vampire Roadtrip, the Hammerdowns

Jeff Stehman

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 12:29:39 AM6/28/03
to
In article <LP1La.139$RD.16...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
mscotts...@hotmail.com says...

>
> And I suspect that wosshername, the clumsy witch with the day-glo hair, will
> be important later on, since she was completely superfluous here. IMHO she
> could have been cut, along with 90% of the scenes at Sirius's house.

Likewise Grawp. This book is a lot more complex than it needs to be for
its own sake, so I hope most of that is groundwork.

--Jeff Stehman

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 1:10:59 AM6/28/03
to

"Jeff Stehman" <jbst...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1966b9921...@news.kendra.com...

I hope so. Grawp purely as deus ex machina to save them from the centaurs
is really clumsy.


richard e white

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 4:00:55 AM6/28/03
to
Dreamer wrote:

> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:RvMKa.207$jF5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Jaime M. de Castellvi" <3c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:3efb8e91...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > <Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
> > >
> > > As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
> > > expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
> > > in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
> > > her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
> > > has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.
>
> While Umbridge is a nasty person, she's the kind of nasty person who's even
> worse than Voldemort - she thinks she's being nasty for a greater good.
> She's not pro-Voldemort, she's anti-Dumbledore, because Dumbledore is
> stirring things up (and because he's a threat, she thinks, to her boss.) I
> don't see her teaming up with Voldemort. She hasn't got the guts.
>
> > I disagree; at the end of the book, Umbridge is pathetic and broken, and
> no
> > one will ever be frightened of her again. She's never particularly a
> strong
> > personality; her only weapon is being able to manipulate Fudge to get more
> > and more arbitrary power.


>
> I agree. The centaurs probably did quite a number on her. I forget if it was
> mentioned if she even still has her wand. Centaurs, being no fools, would
> have taken it away and quite possibly broken it. Or did it get broken when
> she was captured? I forget.
>

> I'm unclear on this whole wand thing now, actually. Neville's wand got
> broken. Is he screwed now? Ron's first wand was a hand-me-down and blew up
> to boot, but he appears to be getting along okay. Wizards occasionally
> snatch each other's wands and use them. Olivander says "you will never get
> such good results with another wizard's wand," but obviously they're not
> biometrically keyed or anything. *smile* When you get expelled from
> wizarding school (or if you do something else bad, possibly,) your wand is
> broken, and that takes most of the mojo out of it, but not all, as shown by
> Hagrid's umbrella.


>
> Is the deal maybe that underage wizards are only allowed to have wands if
> they're enrolled in wizarding school? Or is there some sort of licensing
> deal, which is why Hagrid, now that he's an adult, can't just go buy another

> one? Do wizards have more than one wand? Olivander refers to people buying
> their *first* wands in his shop: do very powerful wizards sometimes make
> specialty wands later in life? (Some wands are better at some things than
> others.) Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell


> summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
> snapping his fingers. What's up with that?
>

> I know, I know. This is just a story.
>
> D

Umbridge's wand was stomped on and broken just after she was caught.
Nevil was useing his fathers old wand. but it all so seams that wands can
be replaced. what leads me to think is Olavander's coment I can remember when
your parents where in here to buy there first wand. so there are most likely
people who buy another one later. The reason that Hagrid did not get a new one
is that he never past his owl's so is not a qualafied wizerd. I wound if he is
spending any time on learning now?

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.


Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 9:48:59 AM6/28/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:48:49 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Jaime M. de Castellvi" <3c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3efb8e91...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> <Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
>> expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
>> in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
>> her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
>> has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.
>

>I disagree; at the end of the book, Umbridge is pathetic and broken, and no
>one will ever be frightened of her again. She's never particularly a strong
>personality; her only weapon is being able to manipulate Fudge to get more
>and more arbitrary power.

You could be right. Yet as I read the book, I kept thinking that the
author had to be setting her up for a very big and satisfying fall at
the end of the book. If we didn't get such a thing (and in fact,
Umbridge's fall was distinctly anticlimactic, considering to what
degree she'd been build up as a hateful villain), it had to be because
Mrs. Rowling intended to use her again in the future (like Lucius
Malfoy, Wormtail, even Fudge). She is not just a throwaway villain
like, say, Quirrel. The author has gone the length to build someone
we'd really love to hate.

The reason I think her association with the Dark Lord may be a
possibility is that she is the kind of mean, malicious and
power-hungry bitch that will do anything to further her own goals, yet
she is also stupid enough to be easily used and discarded by
Voldemort.

The fact that she could go as far as sending the dementors after Harry
on her own shows she is pretty dark herself (not along ideological
lines, like the Death Eaters, but she is still the kind of user who
might try to ride that kind of wave for her own gain) and will stoop
to anything to advance her means.

Still, it is also possible that she will stay within the Ministry and
just become an impediment and royal pain in the butt for Harry and
Dumbledore's lot, from whatever kind of influence she can muster
there. Time will hopefully tell.

Cheers,

Jaime

t...@localhost.localdomain

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 10:29:21 AM6/28/03
to
richard e white <chip...@cox.net> writes:

> your parents where in here to buy there first wand. so there are
> most likely people who buy another one later. The reason that
> Hagrid did not get a new one is that he never past his owl's so is
> not a qualafied wizerd. I wound if he is spending any time on
> learning now?

It would be interesting to see Hagrid sitting next to the rest of the
crew on schoolbench, especially since his innocence was proven in
_Chamber of Secrets_.

If I was Dumbledore, I'd be pushing Hagrid to complete his education,
not least because of his reliability and loyalty. It would also help
to set right (at least partially) an ancient wrong.

--
Tapio Erola (t...@tols17.oulu.fi) No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!

"I hope I die before I get old"
--The Who, My Generation

jewahe

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 2:21:50 PM6/28/03
to
3c...@comcast.net (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:

> As for Dumbledore, he's got to pull a Ben Kenobi eventually, just so
> that Harry can become a real Jedi Knight. Besides, if the latter
> finally wastes Voldemort by the end of book seven, he will be too
> sickened to want to continue in a career as a lifelong auror (which,
> with Voldemort gone, would be overkill for him anyway), and will
> probably move on to the only job in the magic universe really worthy
> of him as the most powerful good wizard: Headmaster at Hogwarts. So
> Dumbledore will have to go, eventually, and remain behind only in
> portrait.

It seems that he's being moved in that direction, anyway, with his
introduction to teaching in Order of the Phoenix. He seems a natural,
especially considering how much he was able to teach his peers in the
course of the year.

Jeff Stehman

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 5:14:06 PM6/28/03
to
In article <86116603.03062...@posting.google.com>, jewahe2
@yahoo.com says...

> 3c...@comcast.net (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>
> > As for Dumbledore, he's got to pull a Ben Kenobi eventually, just so
> > that Harry can become a real Jedi Knight. Besides, if the latter
> > finally wastes Voldemort by the end of book seven, he will be too
> > sickened to want to continue in a career as a lifelong auror (which,
> > with Voldemort gone, would be overkill for him anyway), and will
> > probably move on to the only job in the magic universe really worthy
> > of him as the most powerful good wizard: Headmaster at Hogwarts.
>
> It seems that he's being moved in that direction, anyway, with his
> introduction to teaching in Order of the Phoenix. He seems a natural,
> especially considering how much he was able to teach his peers in the
> course of the year.

Not headmaster. "I'd like to introduce the new Professor for Defense
Against the Dark Arts." That way he and Snape can continue their
relationship properly. Besides, I'd guess that McGonagall will be
Dumbledore's replacement.

--Jeff Stehman

Thomas Madura

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 6:07:58 PM6/28/03
to

Aha - maybe she IS Tom Riddle!

Earwax

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 6:30:35 PM6/28/03
to

I have to say that I love all those bizarre little details. And I'm
convinced that a good percentage of them are laying the foundation for
things that'll become more important in books 6 & 7.

--

Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 11:31:25 PM6/28/03
to

I didn't express myself with enough clarity, for which I apologize. I
agree that Harry might end up as a teacher for Defence Against the
Dark Arts initially, or even after he graduates from Hogwarts (hee,
hee, if old Snape is still around, that ought to get the fire going
some). But, eventually, waaay down the road, I do see Harry as
Headmaster. That's where the most powerful wizbangs seem to end up
(rather than enmeshed in the silly politics of the Ministry of Magic).
Plus, it seems like the worthiest job around...

Otherwise, I agree. McGonagall should be next in line. *Assuming*
Dumbledore bites it within the seven books.

Cheers,

Jaime

jewahe

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:13:09 AM6/29/03
to
Jeff Stehman <jbst...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Not headmaster. "I'd like to introduce the new Professor for Defense
> Against the Dark Arts." That way he and Snape can continue their
> relationship properly. Besides, I'd guess that McGonagall will be
> Dumbledore's replacement.

I don't think it will happen within the next 10 years...but
eventually...

Just to clarify: I think he's moving toward *teaching.* Whether or not
that means headmaster is not clear.

Labyrsman

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 5:38:03 AM6/29/03
to
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:DgZKa.1443$VK3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

>
> "Heather Garvey" <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
> news:bdhmve$grk$1...@flood.xnet.com...
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> >Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Also in portrait, unfortunately. Unless they have a choice about
>> >>whom to portray?
>> >
>> >Well, I imagine there are two major ways of getting your portrait
>> >painted in their world or ours. You do something important and
>> >they decide to commemorate you, or you pay a lot of money to have
>> >it done. Doesn't look as if Umbridge is going to be in line for
>> >either.
>>
>> She was (however briefly) a Headmaster. AFAWK, *all* the
>> Headmasters have their portraits up in the Headmaster's Office....
>> Question is, whether there's the option to leave her out of the lineup.
>
>
> . "During the term of Albus Dumbledore, the pretender Dolores Umbridge
> briefly seized the office..."
>
>
She was 'Acting Headmaster', wasn't she. I mean after all, the Board of
Governor's are the ones who are technically in charge of selecting the
headmaster and such. Besides, she was an employee of the Ministry of
Magic, assigned there and not really a part of the staff at all.

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:05:46 PM6/29/03
to
Labyrsman wrote:

>
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . "During the term of Albus Dumbledore, the pretender Dolores Umbridge
>> briefly seized the office..."
>
> She was 'Acting Headmaster', wasn't she. I mean after all, the Board of
> Governor's are the ones who are technically in charge of selecting the
> headmaster and such.

She was, anyway, not considered the 'rightful Headmaster'. Phineas
explains to Harry that the office was "barred to all but the rightful
Headmaster," and remember that Umbridge wasn't able to enter the
office.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

Jaime M. de Castellvi

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:27:09 PM6/29/03
to
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:14:06 -0700, Jeff Stehman
<jbst...@earthlink.net> wrote:

A thought just occurred to me this aft. What if, for whatever reason,
Snape were to become the next Headmaster after Dumbledore moves on,
with Harry eventually as his Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher?
The short chat between Harry and Phineas at the Black Mansion might
tie nicely into this, and it would also develop the Snape-Harry
relationship quite interestingly.

Cheers,

Jaime

Travers Naran

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:48:21 AM6/30/03
to
Jaime M. de Castellvi wrote:

Assuming Harry survives his ordeals. He might just end up a wigged-out
war vet. But I have to admit: I really want to see Rowling try to get
Snape and Harry to get along better, or at least to a grudging mutual
respect. But it may be hard as Snape made it clear in this book that
his main reason for betraying the Death Eaters was to have *some* sort
of importance in the wizarding world, even if it's just being a snitch
on Voldemort. Snape was just as craven for attention as James Potter;
he just hated James for being successful at it.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" | ** UPDATED 9-Apr-2002 **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Stehman

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:38:48 AM6/30/03
to
In article <piPLa.42901$Mc4.5...@news0.telusplanet.net>,
tna...@direct.ca says...

> But it may be hard as Snape made it clear in this book that
> his main reason for betraying the Death Eaters was to have *some* sort
> of importance in the wizarding world, even if it's just being a snitch
> on Voldemort.

He did? I must have been a bit glassy-eyed on that page.

--Jeff Stehman

John Fisher

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 9:10:21 AM6/30/03
to
Jaime M. de Castellvi (3c...@comcast.net) wrote:
> As for Dumbledore, he's got to pull a Ben Kenobi eventually, just so
> that Harry can become a real Jedi Knight. Besides, if the latter
> finally wastes Voldemort by the end of book seven, he will be too
> sickened to want to continue in a career as a lifelong auror

I'm sure this is right. Being an auror will be far too
violent and aggressive for Harry after the Final Battle.

> (which,
> with Voldemort gone, would be overkill for him anyway), and will
> probably move on to the only job in the magic universe really worthy
> of him as the most powerful good wizard: Headmaster at Hogwarts.

In the end, yes. But he may have a stint as some other
teacher there first.

> So
> Dumbledore will have to go, eventually, and remain behind only in
> portrait.
>

> As for Umbridge, not surprising she'll be around in the future. I
> expect she will eventually plot with Voldemort. It would be very much
> in character. Haven't we all met both the male and female versions of
> her type all too often in RL. They stick around forever, so one kinda
> has to learn to accept and deal with their presence.

Yup. She will recover from her experiences at Hogwarts
surprisingly quickly. I think she'll end up as Minister
of Magic, against Harry's Head of Hogwarts...

--
John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk

John Fisher

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 9:20:05 AM6/30/03
to
Dorothy J Heydt (djh...@kithrup.com) wrote:
> In article <bdi08a$isq$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> writes:

> >>Some wizards appear not to need wands to do some things - Quirrell
> >>summons up walls of fire and ties Harry up with no visible act other than
> >>snapping his fingers. What's up with that?
>

> Dobby casts spells that way too.

I get the feeling that house-elf magic is a different thing
altogether.

Lori Coulson

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 11:48:41 AM6/30/03
to
"Akantha" <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bdi1rt$tc1bu$1...@ID-196626.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:b6337818.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<SdYKa.1440$jx3.21...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...

> >
> > > This is my main objection to the door-stopper size of the last two
> books. I
> > > like to reread series books, particularly when preparing to read the
> newest
> > > volume for the first time, but with HP this has become infeasible.
> >
> > You think HP is too much to re-read? Try doing a re-read of _A Song of
> > Ice and Fire_, each time a new segment is published.
> >
> > As soon as I know *when* _A Feast of Crows_ is going to be in the
> > bookstores, I plan to set aside the better part of a month before the
> > release date, so I can re-read _A Game of Thrones_, _A Clash of
> > Kings_, and _A Storm of Swords_...

> >
> > I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
> > ASoIaF...
> >
> > OOtP took me 7 hours to read. It will take a little over a week to
> > read each of the George R. R. Martin tomes...

> >
>
> Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time series
> and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> before each new installment.

No, I'm not. I quit when I realized the second book was going nowhere fast.

Lori Coulson

Lori Coulson

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:03:49 PM6/30/03
to
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3n0La.129$5q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...

> "Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:b6337818.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > You think HP is too much to re-read? Try doing a re-read of _A Song of
> > Ice and Fire_, each time a new segment is published.
>
> I did that for volumes 2 and 3. 4 will be more of a chore, I agree (not to
> mention 5, 6, and the recently rumored 7.)

Yes, but it's worth it.

> > I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
> > ASoIaF...
> >
> > OOtP took me 7 hours to read. It will take a little over a week to
> > read each of the George R. R. Martin tomes...
>

> The length isn't that different; I presume you find the Ice and Fire books
> denser? I do too, which is part of my point: the GRRM books need to be that
> long; the HP ones don't. The latter are simply becoming padded with
> irrelevant detail.

Why are you allowing GRRM a latitude that you won't permit Rowling?

I find JKR's writing to be a lighter version of Tom Clancy -- the
detail is there because it will be important, maybe not in this book
but the next (if you brush something off as irrelevant be prepared for
it to bite you on the butt later). I enjoy that kind of world
building. Because JKR is writing at a level that a 9-year old can
comprehend, the books are not going to be as complex as ASoIaF. I
wouldn't call it padding, but YMMV.

ASoIaf *is* much more dense, and sometimes I find the different POV
chapters to be a challenge. Re-reading the earlier books helps refresh
the characters motivations and machinations -- there is so much going
on that my fibro-fogged mind needs the reminders...

Lori Coulson

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:12:53 PM6/30/03
to
In article <b6337818.03063...@posting.google.com>,

Lori Coulson <OV...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>I find JKR's writing to be a lighter version of Tom Clancy -- the
>detail is there because it will be important, maybe not in this book
>but the next (if you brush something off as irrelevant be prepared for
>it to bite you on the butt later).

Yes. E.g., the scene in book 1 when Olivander remarks that
Harry's wand contains a feather from the same phoenix that
donated to the wand that killed his parents and gave him his
scar. Nothing more is made of that; even when Harry meets Fawkes
later on nobody points out that his feather is in Harry's wand.
Not till the end of Book 4 when the fact that Harry's wand and
Voldemort's wand are linked by sharing a feather-donor *with
serious magical and plot consequences,* is the matter mentioned
again.

I think I've mentioned the interview (to be found on the HP2 DVD)
with Rowling and Steve Kloves, the scriptwriter. There's a line
about "Sometimes he'll ask me, 'Can I leave this part out?' and
I'll say, 'Um, no, because you see, there's something in Book Six
where .....'"

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:48:34 PM6/30/03
to

"Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b6337818.03063...@posting.google.com...

> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3n0La.129$5q.15...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Lori Coulson" <OV...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6337818.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > You think HP is too much to re-read? Try doing a re-read of _A Song of
> > > Ice and Fire_, each time a new segment is published.
> >
> > I did that for volumes 2 and 3. 4 will be more of a chore, I agree (not
to
> > mention 5, 6, and the recently rumored 7.)
>
> Yes, but it's worth it.
>
> > > I love the HP books, but they are a breeze to read compared to
> > > ASoIaF...
> > >
> > > OOtP took me 7 hours to read. It will take a little over a week to
> > > read each of the George R. R. Martin tomes...
> >
> > The length isn't that different; I presume you find the Ice and Fire
books
> > denser? I do too, which is part of my point: the GRRM books need to be
that
> > long; the HP ones don't. The latter are simply becoming padded with
> > irrelevant detail.
>
> Why are you allowing GRRM a latitude that you won't permit Rowling?

Martin doesn't tell me the same thing over and over. Rowling does. I
didn't need however many chapters it was set in Sirius's house to figure out
that he didn't like being cooped up there.


Tennant Stuart

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:40:06 PM7/1/03
to
In article <Mf0La.47$a_6....@news.uswest.net>, "Dreamer"
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:

> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
> news:L80La.43$a_6....@news.uswest.net...

>> Or are wands like "foci" from (RPG Alert: Dive, dive!) M:tG,...

> Whoops. Wrong acronym. That should have been M:tA, not M:tG.

> The management apologizes for any inconvenience.

What do M:tA and M:tG mean?


Tennant

--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:41:51 PM7/1/03
to
In article <HH59o...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> I'm old and retired and mostly
> bedfast, so I have plenty of time to read and reread

May we know your age, please Dorothy?

Some fans in their 40s and 50s feel that they're 'too old' to
be reading what is marketed as a children's book, and it is a
help for them to discover that they're relative babies. :)

So far, the newsgroup has eight correspondents in their 60s,
but no-one older than that. Of course, most people know of an
older fan; I have an aunt who turned 80 this year, and thanks
to Marie (pen-name "Earwax") she'll now be able to read OotP.


Tennant Stuart

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:43:00 PM7/1/03
to
In article <b44La.153$3t1.19...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message

> news:HO2La.61$a_6....@news.uswest.net...

>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:LP1La.139$RD.16...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

>>> And I suspect that wosshername, the clumsy witch with the day-glo
>>> hair, will be important later on, since she was completely superfluous
>>> here. IMHO she could have been cut, along with 90% of the scenes at
>>> Sirius's house.

>> She wasn't completely superfluous: she was an important contact between
>> Harry/Hermione and "The Quibbler," which her father publishes. Since
>> "The Quibbler" is apparently well-read in the wizarding world, whether
>> or not anybody actually admits they read it, she's a link to something
>> important.

>> That being said, *other* than that, she wasn't very important to the plot.

> I meant the grown-up clumsy one (Tonks?), but you're right, Luna could go
> as well.

Luna is very important to the plot, she is besotted with Ron.


Tennant

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:46:04 PM7/1/03
to
In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Dreamer"
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:

SPOILER SPACE FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

F
O
R

H
A
R
R
Y

P
O
T
T
E
R

A
N
D

T
H
E

O
R
D
E
R

O
F

T
H
E

P
H
O
E
N
I
X

> I'm unclear on this whole wand thing now, actually. Neville's wand got
> broken. Is he screwed now?

No. Gloriously, he was screwed *before*.

I've long been a Neville fan, defending him from those who assume he's
weak, whereas in fact he's a very powerful young wizard, not as much as
Harry, but certainly more so than Ron (as for Hermione I don't know).

The point is that his magic is strong, but he lacks control, and now we
learn that his wand (that became broken) had chosen his *father*.

In Book 6, Neville will have a wand which actually chose him, and then
he will become a force to be reckoned with.


> Ron's first wand was a hand-me-down and blew up to boot, but he appears
> to be getting along okay.

Ron's first wand chose Charlie, but it had the same core (unicorn tail
hair) as the later wand which chose Ron, so they were compatible. In any
case, Ron only had problems in Book 2 after the wand became damaged.


> Wizards occasionally snatch each other's wands and use them.

Indeed, but we've seen Dumbledore/Quirrel/Snape/Harry perform focused
wandless magic, which is the next stage up in power. I would guess that
in Auror training, a wandless "Accio Wand" is an essential requirement.


> When you get expelled from wizarding school (or if you do something else
> bad, possibly,) your wand is broken, and that takes most of the mojo out
> of it, but not all, as shown by Hagrid's umbrella.

I reckon that Hagrid's wand did not get broken (thanks to a subterfuge)
and that the umbrella stem *is* his wand. He lied to Mr.Ollivander.


> Is the deal maybe that underage wizards are only allowed to have wands
> if they're enrolled in wizarding school? Or is there some sort of
> licensing deal, which is why Hagrid, now that he's an adult, can't just
> go buy another one?

We don't know if wands are licensed, Mr.Ollivander has never mentioned it,
but Q4 of Harry's history exam referred to 18th century wand legislation.


Tennant Stuart

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:42:50 PM7/1/03
to
In article <na.1714664c0b...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <HH59o...@kithrup.com>,
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> I'm old and retired and mostly
>> bedfast, so I have plenty of time to read and reread
>
>May we know your age, please Dorothy?

61.

But hell. In my imagination I'm somewhere between 15 and 20,
depending on what I'm doing, till I come back to reality and then
I feel like about 90.

>Some fans in their 40s and 50s feel that they're 'too old' to
>be reading what is marketed as a children's book, and it is a
>help for them to discover that they're relative babies. :)

<chortle>

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:51:56 PM7/1/03
to
In article <na.6f158b4c0b...@argonet.co.uk>,
>I've long been a Neville fan, defending him from those who assume he's
>weak, whereas in fact he's a very powerful young wizard, not as much as
>Harry, but certainly more so than Ron (as for Hermione I don't know).
>
>The point is that his magic is strong, but he lacks control, and now we
>learn that his wand (that became broken) had chosen his *father*.

Actually, you know who he has just reminded me of? Schmendrick
the Magician in _The Last Unicorn._

His master told him, "You are *SUCH* a klutz, you do everything
so spectacularly wrong, that you are obviously the vessel of an
enormous talent which one day will flower and make you one of the
greatest wizards in history. However, you should live so long as
it will take for this to happen to you. So I'm going to enchant
you so that you will not age till you come to your powers."
Schmendrick (it's Yiddish for someone who is not dry behind the
ears) has lived for centuries being, as Molly Grue puts it,
unable to turn cream into butter.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:44:07 PM7/1/03
to
In article <na.4314f14c0b...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Luna is very important to the plot, she is besotted with Ron.

I would modify that slightly. Luna has been introduced in such
a way that we can be fairly certain (Rowling being a capable
Sub-Creator who does nothing without purpose) that she will be
important before she's done.

Jeff Stehman

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 12:22:27 AM7/2/03
to
In article <na.6f158b4c0b...@argonet.co.uk>,
ten...@argonet.co.uk says...
> In Book 6, Neville will have a wand which actually chose him, and then
> he will become a force to be reckoned with.

I suspect that's the case, too. I also wonder if Harry and Neville
won't become something of a team in battling dark arts. They were
paired in the DA sessions and much of the climax, and then we learned
that the prophecy could have been for either of them.

--Jeff Stehman

Tim Bruening

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 12:54:26 AM7/2/03
to

Bertil Jonell wrote:

> In article <nFXKa.11$AE.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:

> >Is the deal maybe that underage wizards are only allowed to have wands if
> >they're enrolled in wizarding school? Or is there some sort of licensing
> >deal, which is why Hagrid, now that he's an adult, can't just go buy another
> >one?
>

> Wasn't "Wand licencensing and its impact on the goblin riots" one of the
> questions on the History of Magic OWL?

I'm assuming that the goblins were denied the right to acquire wands.


Tim Bruening

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 1:00:07 AM7/2/03
to

Duffy Pratt wrote:

> > Are you a Robert Jordan fan? We're on book ten of the Wheel of Time
> series
> > and each book is at least the size of OotP. That's a lot of re-reading
> > before each new installment.
> >

> > --
> > Akantha
>
> Yeah, but you don't have to re-read the last 4 books in WoT, cos nothing
> happenned in them.

In book 9, Rand boinked Elayne silly and removed the taint from the male half
of the One Power.


Mike Schilling

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 1:18:11 AM7/2/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HHDp1...@kithrup.com...

> In article <na.4314f14c0b...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Luna is very important to the plot, she is besotted with Ron.
>
> I would modify that slightly. Luna has been introduced in such
> a way that we can be fairly certain (Rowling being a capable
> Sub-Creator who does nothing without purpose) that she will be
> important before she's done.

I know the term "subcreator" only from Tolkien's "Tree and Leaf"; is it in
more general use?


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 1:34:07 AM7/2/03
to
In article <nWtMa.557$Nc3.58...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,

Well, I use it. So does Dorothy L. Sayers IIRC. I certainly got
it from Tolkien and she could have; she might have heard it
transmitted through Lewis or, especially, Williams. It is a damn
useful term if one occasionally tries to subcreate things
oneself.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 1:30:59 AM7/2/03
to
In article <3F0266D7...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,

Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>In book 9, Rand boinked Elayne silly

But was she silly already?

and removed the taint from the male half
>of the One Power.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 3:13:29 AM7/2/03
to
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>In article <Mf0La.47$a_6....@news.uswest.net>, "Dreamer"
><dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
>> news:L80La.43$a_6....@news.uswest.net...

>>> Or are wands like "foci" from (RPG Alert: Dive, dive!) M:tG,...

>> Whoops. Wrong acronym. That should have been M:tA, not M:tG.

>> The management apologizes for any inconvenience.

>What do M:tA and M:tG mean?

M:tG is "Magic: the Gathering," the insanely popular card game
that started the collectible card game craze of the mid-nineties.
It also took the company that made it, Wizards of the Coast,
from "tiny struggling game company" to "behemoth of the role-
playing game industry," until it was bought by Hasbro, since
even behemoths in the role-playing industry are small potatoes
in the mainstream game industry.

M:tA is "Mage: the Apocalypse," a role-playing game from White
Wolf, whose flagship product was (and still is, so far as I
know) the game "Vampire: the Masquerade." White Wolf went on
to produce yet more games set in the same universe; the winner
of which, for my money, was "Wraith: the Eyestrain" (not actual
title... I think), a book printed in black type on a dark grey
background, and which actually had "Angst" as a character statistic.
White Wolf games were known, among the more traditional role-
players, for being pretentious and appealing to goths; but some
of those traditional role-players would admit, under duress, that
if you ignored the pretentious bits and corrected the more obviously
broken parts in the rules, then what was left could actually be
a pretty good game.

--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.

rwarrior2

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 3:23:37 AM7/2/03
to
I really did like OotP... I thought is was really great. I understand
what happened with the death , I just don't understand the veil.


MR

-Robert Stanek fan
- George RR Martin fan
- Tolkien fan


"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CRZLa.3$xT...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...

Daniel Frankham

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 6:24:52 AM7/2/03
to
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 05:18:11 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I know the term "subcreator" only from Tolkien's "Tree and Leaf"; is it in
>more general use?

It's used in a lot of Tolkien documentaries, DVD extras and such.

--
Daniel Frankham

Dreamer

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 9:07:00 AM7/2/03
to

"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.4e12644c0b...@argonet.co.uk...

> In article <Mf0La.47$a_6....@news.uswest.net>, "Dreamer"
> <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
> > news:L80La.43$a_6....@news.uswest.net...
>
> >> Or are wands like "foci" from (RPG Alert: Dive, dive!) M:tG,...
>
> > Whoops. Wrong acronym. That should have been M:tA, not M:tG.
>
> > The management apologizes for any inconvenience.
>
> What do M:tA and M:tG mean?

M:tA - Mage: The Ascension. A Storytelling RPG from White Wolf Games.

M:tG - Magic: The Gathering. A card-based fantasy combat game from Hasbro.
(By way of Wizards of the Coast.)

D


Dreamer

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 9:17:41 AM7/2/03
to

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HHDtz...@kithrup.com...

> In article <3F0266D7...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >
> >In book 9, Rand boinked Elayne silly
>
> But was she silly already?

Extremely. But, let's be honest about the thing, she was in serious need of
said boinking. Perhaps now she can concentrate on something else for five
minutes. I'll never know, because I gave up the series in disgust a book and
9/10's ago.

> and removed the taint from the male half
> >of the One Power.
>
> Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Yes, because apparently male channelers are all such prisses that getting
their mental hands dirty on a little Residue of Ultimate Evil drives them
mad and then you've got the equivalent of human nuclear weapons wandering
the landscape doing bad Tim the Wizard impressions. ("What a strange
person.")

For some reason, I now have a mental image of Rand walking around telling
the Asha'man (I just now realized that that word is "A Shaman," how sad is
that?) "Pick up all that, you lot. Be careful, that's Concentrated Evil. One
drop of that could turn you all into toads," in a stuffy British accent.

D


Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 9:33:33 AM7/2/03
to
In article <X_AMa.8$Ez4....@news.uswest.net>,
Dreamer <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:

[WoT stuff snipped]

>For some reason, I now have a mental image of Rand walking around telling
>the Asha'man (I just now realized that that word is "A Shaman," how sad is
>that?) "Pick up all that, you lot. Be careful, that's Concentrated Evil. One
>drop of that could turn you all into toads," in a stuffy British accent.

Ah. And wearing a navy blue suit and looking like a headmaster.
I loved that bit.

Was it toads, though? I thought it was something more exotic.
Brine shrimp or something?

....pause to check the screenplay.....

Hermit crabs. I knew it was something small and crustacean.

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 11:29:05 AM7/2/03
to
Tim Bruening wrote:

>>Yeah, but you don't have to re-read the last 4 books in WoT, cos nothing
>>happenned in them.
>
> In book 9, Rand boinked Elayne silly and removed the taint from the male half
> of the One Power.

(Looks it up on Amazon)

It took 780 pages to do *that*? Jeez, an net-porn hack could have managed
it in five.

--
Keith

Liz Broadwell

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 2:40:17 PM7/2/03
to
In article <52d8e2b3.03070...@posting.google.com>, rwarrior2 wrote:
>I really did like OotP... I thought is was really great. I understand
>what happened with the death , I just don't understand the veil.

It's one of the standard metaphors for the fact that death is -- I was
going to say, "terra incognita", but that's another metaphor. :-) For
the idea that death is a state into which it is relatively easy to pass,
but the qualities of which are hidden from the living. I wish I could
dredge up the poem with this metaphor that's hovering in the back of my
head, but all I'm getting is Hamlet's soliloquy (which uses the "terra
incognita" metaphor instead, and was so bizarrely referenced in ST6).

Peace,
Liz

--
Elizabeth Broadwell (ebroadwe at dept dot english dot upenn dot edu) at
the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"There was also a lot of talk about, you know, The Children -- the poor
tots, always running into popular culture without looking both ways."
-- Charles P. Pierce

Chris Byler

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 3:55:27 PM7/2/03
to
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:43:00 BST, Tennant Stuart
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <b44La.153$3t1.19...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
>Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in message
>> news:HO2La.61$a_6....@news.uswest.net...
>
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:LP1La.139$RD.16...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>> And I suspect that wosshername, the clumsy witch with the day-glo
>>>> hair, will be important later on, since she was completely superfluous
>>>> here. IMHO she could have been cut, along with 90% of the scenes at
>>>> Sirius's house.
>
>>> She wasn't completely superfluous: she was an important contact between
>>> Harry/Hermione and "The Quibbler," which her father publishes. Since
>>> "The Quibbler" is apparently well-read in the wizarding world, whether
>>> or not anybody actually admits they read it, she's a link to something
>>> important.
>
>>> That being said, *other* than that, she wasn't very important to the plot.
>
>> I meant the grown-up clumsy one (Tonks?), but you're right, Luna could go
>> as well.
>
>Luna is very important to the plot, she is besotted with Ron.

Is she? I didn't notice.

The main ways she was important to the plot so far, IMO, were being
able to see the thestrals (now I want to reread Sorcerors Stone and
see if there is any indication that Neville saw them first year, as he
should have already been able to do IIRC) and having contacts at the
Quibbler.

As for Tonks: there are a couple members of the Order that just show
up and don't do much. I think she may be more important for what she
is (a Metamorph-something) - are there more of them? Are they limited
to human forms?

Or, of course, she could turn out to play a bigger role in later
books, like that Ravenclaw Seeker mentioned in a couple of sentences
in an earlier book. You know, Cho something? :)

--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"Between justice and genocide there is, in the long run, no middle
ground." -- Lois McMaster Bujold (Aral Vorkosigan)

Andy Platt

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 4:02:08 PM7/2/03
to
"Chris Byler" <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote in message
news:3f0333ce...@news.ntelos.net...

Yes, I thought of this. Often we find out a property in one book only for it
to be important in another. Look for someone who doesn't appear to be what
they are in the future and see if they could be a Metamorphmagus. Tonks says
it's a rare skill but I wonder if it is more common within a family - I
wonder if one of her aunts could be one?!

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.


Geoduck

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 12:07:58 AM7/5/03
to
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:55:27 GMT, Chris Byler typed re Luna Lovegood:

(snip)


> The main ways she was important to the plot so far, IMO, were being
> able to see the thestrals (now I want to reread Sorcerors Stone and
> see if there is any indication that Neville saw them first year, as he
> should have already been able to do IIRC) and having contacts at the
> Quibbler.

(snip)

Neville hasn't seen death; he's seen something worse, as Dumbledore tried
to explain to Voldemort at the end of TOotP.

And in any event, the first years come to Hogwarts in boats, not in the
carriages, so he wouldn't have had a chance to see the thestrals.

--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook

Jeffrey C. Dege

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 12:52:12 AM7/7/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:20 GMT, Jaime M. de Castellvi <3c...@comcast.net> wrote:
><Beware of spoilers and speculation, below>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>As for Dumbledore, he's got to pull a Ben Kenobi eventually, just so
>that Harry can become a real Jedi Knight.

Dumbledore isn't going to pull a Ben Kenobi, he's going to pull a
Senator Palpatine.

Voldemort is working for Dumbledore - always has been.

--
The great misfortune of the twentieth Century is to have been the one in
which the ideal of liberty was harnessed to the service of tyranny, the
ideal of equality to the service of privilege, and all the aspirations and
social forces included under the label of the "Left" enrolled in the service
of impoverishment and enslavement. This immense imposture has falsified most
of this century, partly through the faults of some of its greatest
intellectuals. It has corrupted the language and action of politics down to
tiny details of vocabulary, it has inverted the sense of morality and
enthroned falsehood in the very center of human thought.
- Jean Francois-Revel

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages