Harry Potter predictions! - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2007, 01:51 AM   #106
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 12:29 AM
Saracen, it's weird but I heard from Star Wars fans at the time the 2nd trilogy came out just the opposite complaint: that little Anakin Skywalker should have been nasty/a brat/evil from the start, it would make his transition to Vader more believable. And these commonets had nothing to do with Jake Lloyd's performance. It was about the character, not the actor. Yours are the opposite--that Tom Riddle should have been good. It would be easier to believe that Tom could "turn evil" growing up in that setting. He had nothing to look forward to in life. He's the anti-Oliver Twist. Amybe it was Jo's modern-day ciynical reply to Dickens aobut such characters. It just seems to be a toss of the dice--the choices we make. Tom chose to have power over others, even at such a young age. In a word, he put on the Ring.
__________________

__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 02:16 AM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 12:29 AM
It's not that I believe that Tom Riddle should have been "good". It's just that I think that in a way JKR undermined her own theme of choices by consistently showing Tom Riddle to be nothing but rotten, evil, manipulative to the core, etc., without as much as a tiny little grain of goodness or potential for goodness. In order for anyone to "turn" evil, or "choose" evil, they must at some stage be at a point where they are not thoroughly evil -yet-. This is what JKR has never shown with Tom Riddle.
__________________

__________________
Saracene is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:10 AM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 01:29 AM
I think the orphanage turned Riddle evil. Even before Dumbledore tells him he's a wizard, he chose to bully others even back then, just as he chose to focus on Dark Arts after school and just as he chose to manipulate people in his time at Hogwarts, and he chose to become Voldemort. Hating Muggles for his father's actions probably didn't help either.

Harry had a similar environment - no parents, no happy home with the Dursleys - and made different choices.

I hope Dumbledore will be acted really well in movie 6, as well as Riddle flashbacks and the HBP plot, and I hope they cut some of the romance out.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 09:16 AM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
flaming june's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: My room
Posts: 5,333
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I think the orphanage turned Riddle evil. Even before Dumbledore tells him he's a wizard, he chose to bully others even back then, just as he chose to focus on Dark Arts after school and just as he chose to manipulate people in his time at Hogwarts, and he chose to become Voldemort. Hating Muggles for his father's actions probably didn't help either.

Harry had a similar environment - no parents, no happy home with the Dursleys - and made different choices.
Does a little kid have that much capacity to choose? JK has already established that the Gaunts were a family "noted for a vein of insta*bility and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." Somehow, she seems to be implying that it was in Tom's blood to be evil. Harry didn't have that burden.
__________________
flaming june is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:24 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene

The problem is, I don't see how JKR can introduce a completely different reason for Snape's conversion without harming Dumbledore's integrity as a character and his promise not to lie to Harry which he made in the very first book. Yes, Dumbledore often withheld information from Harry - but he never told him fibs. If Dumbledore knew that the reason Snape joined the good side was, say, because Voldemort killed his mother, then what he told Harry is a blatant lie and there's not getting around that. I just don't see how it's possible for his statements to hold true if Snape's reasons for leaving Voldemort was not because of the prophecy affair, as Dumbledore explicitly told Harry.

Here's where we can fall into the trap of believing what Harry believes, which isn't the truth. Dumbledore never said that the reason he trusts Snape is that Snape felt bad about telling Voldemort about the prophecy. He never said that. All he told Harry was that fact---that Snape felt bad about it. Harry, upon hearing this, believes that this is the reason why Dumbledore trusts Snape---he thinks that Snape said "I'm sorry" and that's all Dumbledore needed to hear. He's wrong. Whenever Dumbledore has been explicitly asked why he trusts Snape, he either says that he has his own reasons, or he doesn't answer at all. The information about Snape's guilty feelings related to the prophecy did not come as an answer to the question of why DD trusts him. Instead, it's when Harry confronts DD when he finds out it was Snape who overheard the prophecy. DD says Snape made a terrible mistake, not knowing which boy it would be, that it is the greatest regret of Snape's life & possibly the reason he "returned." "Returned" is left unknown, as Harry cuts DD off----it's assumed to be returned to the good side.

In the conversation, Dumbledore later says that he "trust[s] Severus Snape completely," but he does not say that this is the reason why. Harry believes it's the reason, and thus so do many readers.

I don't. I think the reason is either 1) that Dumbledore had pre-arranged for Snape to kill him at some point in the future, thus "trusting Snape with his life," or 2) some unknown reason to be discovered in Book 7.
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 04:30 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
UnforgettableLemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 7,286
Local Time: 07:29 PM
If Harry is a horcrux, and does have to die for Voldemort to become completely mortal, then someone else will have to kill Voldemort. UNLESS, somehow Fawkes revives Harry. I don't know how this would happen here when it has not in the past, unless there is some sort of final resurrection Fawkes can cause. Then, the revived Harry could finish Voldemort. I know that's a bit convoluted, but Rowling did say, when asked about her Christianity,

"Yes, I am, which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books."


Death and resurrection of Potter? There are feasible plot devices in place.
__________________
UnforgettableLemon is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 04:41 PM   #112
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Didn't Fawkes tears already revive Harry in Chamber of Secrets against the basilisk?
__________________
LMP is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 04:53 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
UnforgettableLemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 7,286
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMacPhisto
Didn't Fawkes tears already revive Harry in Chamber of Secrets against the basilisk?

I always took that more as a cure than a true "back-to-life" moment. That is the other problem with the idea, though. It's a little redundant.
__________________
UnforgettableLemon is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 05:13 PM   #114
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by UnforgettableLemon



I always took that more as a cure than a true "back-to-life" moment. That is the other problem with the idea, though. It's a little redundant.
My thoughts exactly.
__________________
LMP is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 09:39 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Utoo
Here's where we can fall into the trap of believing what Harry believes, which isn't the truth. Dumbledore never said that the reason he trusts Snape is that Snape felt bad about telling Voldemort about the prophecy. He never said that. All he told Harry was that fact---that Snape felt bad about it. Harry, upon hearing this, believes that this is the reason why Dumbledore trusts Snape---he thinks that Snape said "I'm sorry" and that's all Dumbledore needed to hear. He's wrong.
I agree with you, and I never actually said that I believed Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape was because Snape felt bad about telling Voldemort the prophecy. The discussion was about Snape's reasons for leaving Voldemort - which is not the same thing. My point was that, while Dumbledore never told Harry his exact reason for trusting Snape, he did tell him, at least partially, the reason Snape left Voldemort. At least, I can't see what else "returned" could have meant in the context of the discussion.

But yeah, Harry seems to have jumped to the conclusion that Snape expressing remorse over James and Lily's deaths was all Dumbledore needed to hear. Which actually contradicts the chronology of events, as DD's testimony in the fourth book was that Snape switched sides -before- Voldemort's fall and therefore -before- James and Lily's deaths, so he couldn't have said sorry because of the deaths that hadn't happened yet.
__________________
Saracene is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:19 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene


I agree with you, and I never actually said that I believed Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape was because Snape felt bad about telling Voldemort the prophecy. The discussion was about Snape's reasons for leaving Voldemort - which is not the same thing. My point was that, while Dumbledore never told Harry his exact reason for trusting Snape, he did tell him, at least partially, the reason Snape left Voldemort. At least, I can't see what else "returned" could have meant in the context of the discussion.
Gotcha
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 08:14 AM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
major_panic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: the ASIAN TEAM
Posts: 7,450
Local Time: 10:29 AM
Just out of left field, but how good is communication from portraits?

Like, we hear that DD's portrait turns up in his office, and we know that portraits talk to people... Might it be possible that that's how DD will communicate?

Just a thought.
__________________
major_panic is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 10:05 AM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040

Last: Varitek, HOW do you think Mcgonagall might be a spy!?!? And I thought "Snape is a vampire" was far fetched! How could she have such a cute animagus if she were an evil spy? Jeez, the next thing you know I'll hear you say Yates hit it on the head by making Umbridge's office be covered with pics of cats--and that McGonagall is a Ministry spy cat . Explain please!!?

And what is going on with Petunia? Is she a Squib? Most people have debunked this theory but I'mnot ready to toss it out. What might she have seen at Hogwarts?
No, I don't believe McGonagall is a spy at all, I was just throwing out a crazy theory I read on the Leaky board. I do believe that there might be other spies besides Snape - such is the nature of this war. I doubt the cat has anything to do with it though.

JK has said that Petunia is not a wizard and will never do magic. Now by the fact that Lily was a muggle born, this means Petunia wasn't a squib, you can't be a muggle born squib; just a regular old muggle. There's definately a little more goign on with the Dursleys but I expect Harry will demand answers and that mystery will be cleared up rather early in the book. THe only people who hold onto the Petunia-squib theory are the ones (again, crazy fan board theory, not something I believe) who want to think Harry is somehow the heir of Gryffindor set to square off with the heir of Slytherin, and because Lily was a redhead and so is Gryffindor on the recently revealed Wizard of the Month card, Lily must be an heir through some squib decendant of Gryffindor and maybe her parents were squibs and that's why Petunia was so glad to have a wizard in the family. THis blatantly ignores one of the themes of the book: it is our choices, not our pedigree, that define us. Harry doesn't need Gryffindor blood to be great and moral.


For timeline questions - book 7 indeed takes place in 1997 (we can place this because Nearly Headless Nick's 500th deathday was in in 1992/2nd year which we know from the rotten cake that said he died 1492.) There is indeed a mistake in the previous book when he says he hasn't eaten in nearly 400 years - JKR is human. I explain away most of her numbers mistakes (for most of her mistakes are number-related) in my head (when Harry says there are 100 tables or 600 people and we believe the school is much smaller, I take him to be exagerating because he is nervous, for example) but some are simply mistakes. For the fan-accepted authority on the timeline and its inconsistencies, as well as pretty much anything HP, see www.hp-lexicon.org which is a wonderful resource and also has some interesting reading.

Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene


The problem is, I don't see how JKR can introduce a completely different reason for Snape's conversion without harming Dumbledore's integrity as a character and his promise not to lie to Harry which he made in the very first book. Yes, Dumbledore often withheld information from Harry - but he never told him fibs. If Dumbledore knew that the reason Snape joined the good side was, say, because Voldemort killed his mother, then what he told Harry is a blatant lie and there's not getting around that. I just don't see how it's possible for his statements to hold true if Snape's reasons for leaving Voldemort was not because of the prophecy affair, as Dumbledore explicitly told Harry.

Regarding Tom Riddle, I gotta say that I was somewhat disappointed by the way JKR chose to portray him in HBP as irredeemably eeeeevil from the moment Dumbledore meets him at the orphanage. Sure, Voldemort is perfectly effective as your typical one-dimensional fantasy villain but I couldn't help thinking that exploring his history could have been an opportunity for a more complex portrayal which unfortunately JKR wasn't interested in.
What Utoo said. We make many assumptions in the book, both because of Harry's, and because we know a little more than all the characters much of the time (we see Spinner's End, Harry and DD don't) but less than most of them as well (except Harry and his friends). Also, I simply refuse to believe that "love" is a legitimate emotion for the other facts we know about Snape, Lily, and Lily and James. I mentioned that if Snape did have feelings for Lily, they were more stalkerish, and this weekend I was reading the discussion of that Snape=the immoral 3rd character essay I linked and the author said that while she cut it out of the essay she believes one of Snape's motivations (in addition to the Voldemort killed his mother theory that us anti-Snape-Lily shippers embrace) may have been stalker-love for Lily, further making him the opposite of Harry (Harry has giving love, Snape had taking love). I guess I'd buy that. I don't expect to be disappointed by any of JKR's explainations in book 7, and I expect to be surprised by most despite endless theorizing - if I weren't surprised I would be disapointed. The Stalker-love theory is the one theory I have/have come accross that I actually want to be true if the alternative is legitimate love between the two or unrequitted love.


However, Utoo and I part ways on DD's reason for trusting Snape being a pre-arranged death pact. Really, 16+ years in advance? Because there was a reason even back then, that stood fast through book 4 when LV returned. I think it was something else (like that Snape at some point found out LV killed Eileen Prince, making him a lonely greasey unloveable and unloved and unloving orphan). This would be an ironclad but personal reason, especially as they can't have the fact that Snape knows LV killed his mom getting back to LV. In fact, it adds a whole extra comparison to Harry, for LV killed both their mothers, but Harry's died to protect him, ensuring that his mother's love would be with him, whereas Snape didn't have that, and it could be another reason he resents Harry but never mentions Lily.

In fact, I'm now anti-death pact with some degree of certainty. Both because I highly doubt JK would do something that so many people have predicted. But here is my evolution on the tower scene. First I was just confused, as many of us were, at how Snape could betray DD: he couldn't be good, but he couldn't be bad because that would mean our infallible DD was wrong, despite the fact that he makes correspondingly huger mistakes. I believed Snape must be out for himself, maybe going to whomever he thought would keep him alive, maybe with his own motives for power or glory (glory in vanquishing LV is still a possibility - Snape is good in intentions but horribly wrong in action). Everyone had some cognitive dissonance here, and some people resolved that Snape must be evil, whereas DD loyalists sought another way - the death pact is DD being right. I came to this conclusion upon my 2nd reading, because I wanted to find it. But moralists point out that DD was thus asking Snape to tear his soul and would never do this as the moral highground in the story, simply to go into deep cover, not to mention the fact that we can't possibly take Snape being more useful than DD. Death pact believers counter that DD was dying, knew he was on borrowed time, and that's why they made the pact and DD taught Harry so much so fast (but didn't tell him how he destroyed the ring?). So, upon examining all this, I was left very confused, because none of it quite fits and I'm sure JK's eventual resolution will fit perfectly. That left me to go back to my original state - Snape is neither good nor evil in the simpler senses, but a free agent. That's why I loved the Lame Snape essay, because it made so much sense to me from the standpoint of JK's moral lessons so far that Snape would be the guy with good intentions and terribly evil actions that thus will fail to defeat evil. I'm in favor of a Snape forgiveness scene where Harry will show his capacity for love, I'm also in favor of a Snape death scene because I hate the guy and would rather see him go as a major character than many other possible deaths.


As for Riddle, I am rereading HBP now and thinking about his history as well. I think Dumbledore was the only one who saw him as evil - or, some might say, saw him for what he was - and I wonder if this great man's obvious mistrust of him despite being the one to tell him he was a wizard actually affected his formation - what if Hagrid had come, told Harry he was a wizard, and proceeded to treat him as suspicious throughout his first year? I do agree that Riddle seems rather one-dimensional, I also wonder how he got to be so great and smart - it must have been his contemptibly muggle father, because when we meet the Guants we are told they are violent and crazy from years of inbreeding. Now, clearly LV is violent, but I think his mother, when she wished for him to get his father's looks and then died, actually did manage to use some magic, as she got her wish. If he knew that, that she had used her dying magic to give him better features (phyical and mental) that he would have had, that might have had a positive effect on him. And, I suspect his time at the orphanage was more miserable than we can imagine, though again, he (and possibly Snape) serves as a comparison to Harry, who grew up wonderfully despite the Dursleys. So I guess what I'm saying is that I kind of agree with you about JKR's portrayal of Voldemort, but it's possible that (like so many other things in the books that later change with increased exposure to new facts) we are just seeing him through Harry and DD's eyes and that is why we've gotten that impression. DD gives second chances to everyone, but I think he saw admitting Riddle to Hogwarts as the 2nd chance - the boy had done horrible things, maybe once he was accepted and had the magical world he would be fine. And he failed at that 2nd chance.

I believe there will be a back-to-life scene, but not so Christian. I think JK might have been getting at the above with that quote about her beliefs - that things can be more grey than the church teaches (which most of us between 10 and 60 and up know anyway). I like many think it will involve the whispering beyond the veil, and possibly Sirius and possibly the broken mirror. I prefer some other method of reviving Harry, say a potion (some have suggested Draught of the Living Dead) than the reuse of Fawkes, though DD did use him multiple times including at the MoM battle when Fawkes ate an AK curse. I'm sure a phoenix will play a role in the book, I really like the idea of the one at DD's funeral coming into play.


Quote:
Originally posted by major_panic
Just out of left field, but how good is communication from portraits?

Like, we hear that DD's portrait turns up in his office, and we know that portraits talk to people... Might it be possible that that's how DD will communicate?

Just a thought.
There's been a lot of discussion on HP boards about this, as well as the technicality of unbreakable vows, secret keeper charms, etc. We simply don't know. Obviously portraits are more complex than pictures (whcih can't visit eachother or move into other frames, though some believe DD listens to people from his chocolate frog cards). Obviously they have personality and knowledge and the ability to react to current events - we know this mostly from Phineus and Sirius's mother. However will DD's portrait be able to advise Harry on his hunt, or impart any knowledge to him like why he trusted Snape? (I think DD likely left this memory in a bottle for the Pensieve.) Exciting possibilities, and exciting that we will likely get more info on how JK's magical world works.


I highly recommend a reread of all the books, or at least 5 and 6 or 4, 5 and 6 before 7, even if you have to ignore HP mentions on the internet and read 7 a few days after the release. There is some really important stuff especially in the last few, both with deciphering Snape, the horcruxes, and just being aware of all the unanswered questions we expect DH to tie together brilliantly. I've greatly enjoyed my reread though I started a little to early and have had to take breaks - I want to finish HBP on line for DH but I'm already halfway through with 4 hours of reading last night! ooops...
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 03:34 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
UnforgettableLemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 7,286
Local Time: 07:29 PM
The book has leaked. It's a really mediocre, but page-by-page, series of photos with someone holding the book open. It definitely seems legit, and, sadly, I have no willpower.
__________________
UnforgettableLemon is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 03:37 PM   #120
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by UnforgettableLemon
The book has leaked. It's a really mediocre, but page-by-page, series of photos with someone holding the book open. It definitely seems legit, and, sadly, I have no willpower.
Which part of the book, I wonder.

I think I'm going to have to start avoiding the HP threads around here, starting now.
__________________

__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com