Harry Potter predictions!

[vivalapopedge]

omg, i'm overwhelmed at the all the good discussion going on in here, i wish i could like take a day and talk about every single post



i'm just gonna say a few quick things about the movie, which i saw last night:


-Pla, i agree w/ what you said about there not being a friendship w/ hermione and ron anymore. it feels like the filmakers are thinking that we take the friendship for granted and don't question it, to the point where there was really only one scene (after harry and cho kiss and hermione and ron and harry are in the common room talking/laughing about it) where you really see that they actually still talk to each other. one of the themes of the book/movie is that harry feels alone, but it seems like the only people who make him not feel alone is the DA, and not his best friends.

-i hate michael gambon as dumbledore. i agree w/ everything that's been said against him. i feel like he's too slapstick almost, and seems almost too young. the thing i loved about harris was how he moved around like he was carrying a lot of secrets and knowledge, and had great respect for the smallest thing, and played the part w/ great subtle humor and was gentle and caring like i always imagined dumbledore. gambon is too slapstick, and actually to me moves around like he is too busy for whatever's going on, and always looks angry. i also didn't like the costume change. i like harris's large, intricate robes, and very white hair, it made him seem older and wiser. gambon just seems immature. that scene in goblet that's been discussed always makes me laugh, which is actually not good.

-i loved the actress who played luna. i don't what about her made me like her portrayl so much, but i think it was the fact that she played luna not trying to make her seem funny or weird, just different, in a fantastic way.

-hermione is one of my favorite characters in the book, but i didn't like emma watson in the last two movies b/c as my little bro says "she overeacts too much." she made hermione seem very petty, and she never seemed satisfied w/ anything, but i enjoyed her in the next one, although she needs to get a new "concerned" face, her eyebrows annoy me.

-i loved the ron/hermione tension. in the last couple, it was very immature flirting, mostly just getting mad at each other, or the scene in chamber where hermione hugs harry but ron's all shy, and just shakes her hand, very middle school. this one, i feel like they both know something is going to happen, but it's just a matter of when, and i loved the looks they kept exchanging, and i loved the fact that they didn't fight.

-the foreshadowing of ginny/harry hookup!! anyone catch it?? after the christmas DA meeting, before he kissed cho, they shot to ginny's face, looking at harry wistfully


-the thing i hate about the books into movies is the great subplots cut out, like ron as keeper on the house team (although quidditch always bored me) and st. mungo's, but also some are thrown in there b/c it feels like the filmakers knew it was significant, like hagrid and grawp

-when voldemort posesses harry at the ministry and they show the flashbacks, incredibly well done, don't remember it in the book??? but very well done, i was tearing up, i admit

-finally, anyone think it was waaaaaaaaay too dark??i couldn't see anyting in the scenes in the forest??? i know it's supposed to be "symbolic" but come on......



okay, that's it for now, i'm sure i'll think of more

i'll go see it again soon, because the first time is the analytical/critiquing time, next time is the enjoyment time

 

[Kiki]

seems almost too young.

regarding Gambon. Yeah I dont quite like him either, however if you think of what the next few rolls are asking for out of Dumbeldore, I think they had to get someone younger to do it or portray him in a somewhat younger sense. I can't see the original Dumbledore pulling off the moves, etc. that they'll be asking Gambon to take on.

 

[vivalapopedge]

regarding Gambon. Yeah I dont quite like him either, however if you think of what the next few rolls are asking for out of Dumbeldore, I think they had to get someone younger to do it or portray him in a somewhat younger sense. I can't see the original Dumbledore pulling off the moves, etc. that they'll be asking Gambon to take on.

true, in the sense that he could withstand physical demands or w/e but for me, age is associated w/ wisdom and maturity, and his seeming young makes him seem very immature and not that worldly, which is the opposite of how dumbledore is in the books

 

[Teta040]

My head is spinning with all the great stuff being said here.....oh well, there goes my promise to stay out for a few days.... I can't resist.

Varitek, thanks for being considerate...I guess I get the honarary FYM "Scourgify!" (as in James to "Snivelly") Award. But no underpants taken off please....

BTW, on a second viewing of the film last night, I'm not as upset about that scene being truncated as I was at first. Steve Kloves, the excellent scriptwriter for the other 4, who is party to as much of the rest of the story as any Scholastic editor (according to one of the DVD's, where he and Jo sat for an interview) but must still surely be ingnorant of the real shockers of 7, wasn't on board for this one. Goldenburg did a fine job but he was still a newcomer. Kooves has been the only figure associated with ther films who has been there for all of them, except this one. He now says he was "taking a break" but I read somewhere that he personally was very disappointed with OOTP, and thought the series was in danger of becoming a cartoon of itself. (The brains in the DOM...I am SO GLAD thst was not in the film!) . He bowed out and had planned not to do any others but then HBP came out and he "fell hard" for it, saying it was the best one so far. So thank God he'll be back in Sept, IMO. I would love to know what Kloves's opinion was on the screen version of SWM. If the "Snape loved Lily" camp is right, then he will find a way, (during the final battle, perhaps) to put that whole scene in Film 7. So getting a little taste of it in Film 5 might work to the dramatic arc of the films in a big way; it'll have a greater impact seeing the whole thing fleshed out (perhaps as a Legiliamens vision Snape presents to Voldy before he destroys him?) than if we had already been clued in film 5. Of course, people who read the books will be clued in already once the whole series is readable, but we have to seperate the books from the films.

Here's how the "Snape loved Lily" theory would work for me. Funny that the little booklet the folks at Mugglenet put out came to some conclusions I didn't, but I see some of the same things they did. More in a second on this.

As was hinted at in OOTP book, Snape had a rough and possibly abusive childhood. Furthermore, he might be a vampire (some people have said this b/c Lupin assigned a DADA class with a lesson on vampires when he found out Snape had assinged the lesson on werewolves while he was gone. Furthermore, I believe Snape has a bit of kindness or at least sympathy in him, as he gave Lupin the Wolfsbane Potion that lessened the effect of his transformations, turning him into a simple wolf instead. Maybe this is simply b/c he was the only Murauder, and the only one besides Lily, who never mocked him. But I like to see the best in people. I share Dumbledore's weakness at times.)

Both in the book and the POA film, Lupin told Harry that LIy had "been there at a time when no one else was" so we have to understand that she at least knew. Even if she didn't know, Lupin was certainly close friends with her. I'm guessing that of course, if Snape was a vampire, Lupin would never on his own tell Lily. Lily might know that Lupin was a werewolf; Snape's condition might have been too much. Whether or not Snape is a vampire, I have no honest opinion; it could go either way. One thing though; Lupin was certainly the only party to the news if he was.

Lily was "pretty, vivacious and popular" and she always saw the best in people. She was certainly a very good person, kind and loving. Maybe she had a "saving people thing" like her son would later have, but whereas with Harry it manifested itself with a penchant for heroics (or maybe that was just b/c of his more dramatic life), with her it was a feminine nurturing instinct, a desire to succor the wounded and comfort the suffering. Lupin hints that Harry might have a bit of this in him as well. (She also seemed to have her steely side too. I've always thought that one of the literary inspirations for LIiy might have been Melanie from "Gone With The Wind." Or that's how I thought of her anyway...a womanly tower of strength....only a lot physically healthier of course. You have to assume she was just as popular as a married adult...a pillar of the community, besides being an Auror. Come to think of it, Neville's parents were very popular and weel known too, another way they're alike. )

Anyway, to her, Snape, the outcast, would not be a frightening or intimidating figure,or one of contempt. To her he'd be just another wounded animal, like a sparrow with a broken wing, who needed fixing. Since a physical relationship was of course out of the question---Snape being what he was; I wonder if he was as adverse to soap as he is to shampoo? (and what's with the shampoo thing anyway? Is it impossible for vampires to keep thier hair clean or is this simply Jo's stereotypicalteen we all know, there's one in every crowd, or both?) she at least sought him out. Or maybe not. Maybe she sought to tick James off for some aforementioned slight by making a point of allowing him to see her walking with him in the halls, talking with him, etc. Or maybe she sought him out by the lake and talked with him. Who knows. But IMO there can be no doubt that by the time of the Momory, they were friends. Snape, astonished that anyone would take notice of him let alone be kind to him and talk with him, fell in love with her. And you can be sure this was no puppy love crush. It was Quasimodo and Esmeralda all over again. She was for a while truly the light of his miserable life. He mistakenly (thoughere was no way he could know that of course) hoped friendship could lead to something more, in his way must have tried to impress her just as much as James. So that by the time of SWM there must have been a weird invisible "love triangle" thing going on, that nobody sensed except the two of them. Is it any accident that James used a spell that took off his pants and then his underwear? The thought of a teen sexual rivalry here intruiges me. (But then I read into things too much.) Maybe he did a Polyjuice Potion thing and snuck into the Slytherin baths or something and spied Snape in the locker room? And knowing what he knew about Snape's poor hygiene and--um, I WON'T go there!-- sought to humilate him in the ultimate way before the stident body but espcially before Lily? I think he may have been afraid to ask her point blank if there was something going on. She of course would have had no idea what he was talking about if he did. But you know the male ego, even a teen one Note he says he will stop with Snape if she goesout with him "Go on...go out with me, Evans, and I'll never lay a hand on old Snivelly again." This was no casual courtyard confrontation; I get the feeling James had been planning this public stunt for a long time. So there can be no doubt at that point that even if he did not suspect anything, his mind was racing with all manner of dire possibilties. But he assumed Lily knew what he was talking about. She being only casual friends with Snape, of course did not. She would have been friends with Snape anyway, I think, but would not have insisted on making it a pulbic point if it did not rile James so much. And anything that riled James was good for her. Just as Hermione sought out other boyfriends to rile Ron, Lily would have made it a public spectacle to be seen with Snape as friends--though she would have no idea that for James the viatrol was personal.

So that when Snape is yanked into the air with his dirty underwear on display, he knows that Lily is there and there goes all his efforts to impress her and any future relationship. Hygiene deficiency or not, surely he understood what was going on here. So his angry Mudblood outburst to Lily or at her, was not said b/c he meant it but was smply a misguided statement of frustration and anger at her seeing him so helpless and vulnerable before his rival. And she of course got upset (and rightfully so). She was insulted and that drove away from him the only person he had ever cared for. To this day he knows it was his fault and as if there was not enough remorse..we know what his role in the betrayal was, but the remorse was genuine. Dumbledore's statement of love is curious b/c he seems to approve of love being avenged. And normally I get the feeling Dumbledore would nothave approved of revenge for its own sake. Bit he does so with Snape. Or is this b/c revenge is here the means to the untimate end and thus in this one case the rules can be bent?

Though Varitek, your "Sawyer" theory is intruiging too--I guess we'll never really know until we know more about Snape. Maybe Jop will have Harry get Pensive or somehow glimpses into Dumbedore's and Snape's familes/backgrounds just as in Book 6 it was all about Tom Riddle. I read somehwhere that 7 is "about" Dumbledore the same way 6 was about Riddle--though we will have to see. HBP was of course "about" Snape too.

Just a couple of random thoughts to replies. Foreshadowing: on second wiewing of Film 5 there is for me the ultimate case of "unintentional foreshadowing". In the book, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the kids and the Order do not get to Harry untol after he is posessed; the "snake" has gone from him and Dumble dore is with him, and then they all run up. In the film, Ron and Hermione specifically lead the others to where Dumbledore is kneeling over Harry as he struggles to throw off Voldemort's hold on him. We know what is going on but of course they don't. All they see is Dumbledore kneeling over Harry's body lying still on the floor. There is a shot taken from Ron and Hermione's POV. We see Dumbledore and Harry from a distance. All I could say was "there, folks, is Book 6 and 7 foreshadowed on film, in one shot." If Harry dies this might prove to be the most haunting shot of the films.

Foreshadowing: Just after the kiss Ron and Hermione sit side by side calmly questioning Harry. Hermione has her hair up in the "adult" hairstyle we see only once before: at the end of GOF. They look married already. I think this is just Yats trying to predict Book 7 but gosh, I'd hate to see them die.....

 

[Saracene]

Both in the book and the POA film, Lupin told Harry that LIy had "been there at a time when no one else was" so we have to understand that she at least knew. Even if she didn't know, Lupin was certainly close friends with her.

Actually, that whole quote is a complete screenplay invention and never appeared in the books, so the close friendship between Lily and Lupin is pure speculation. In the matter of fact, Lupin never really talked about Lily in the novels unless it was in the context of her relationship with James or her being Harry's mother.

As an aside, one reason I liked Slughorn's character so much in HBP is that he was the only character who talked about Lily as her own person and not just as James' other or Harry's saintly mother.

As another aside, speaking of movie inventions I really really dislike the way Kloves cuddlyfied Snape in the films, especially PoA. Book-Snape has a genuinely cruel, vindictive streak to him - which Kloves seems to want to soften as much as he can and even gives him the heroic jump-in-front-of-the-kids scene, for crying out loud.

I'm very sceptical about the popular speculation that Snape and Lily were friends at the time of the Memory. Mostly because I can't detect a single whiff of intimacy between them in the Pensieve scene - throughout it, Lily's attention is focused 100% on James and from the way she behaves this scene, for her, is ALL about James. The one and only time she interacts with Snape in any meaningful way is after he insults her - and if you read the scene Snape doesn't even speak directly to Lily when he calls her a Mudblood - his retort is directed at James.

Plus, while I don't doubt that Lily was a kind and wonderful person, for all we know she could have thought that Snape was a little Dark Arts-loving creep and wanted nothing to do with him. Yes, she stuck up for him - but people with a strong sense of right and wrong can stick up for the people they don't actually like simply because they think that no one deserves to be treated that way.

Originally posted by VaritekI also don't buy that he would go this far for love of Lily, whom he insulted terribly and who clearly didn't love him back in any lasting way. (Frankly I think the "they were childhood friends" theory is crap.) I know love is one of JK's central themes but that is just stretching it. There is something else driving him against Voldemort that DD knew about. There is a theory that Voldemort killed Snape's mom and framed his dad, possibly to steal a Ravenclaw artifact, but Snape discovered the truth, and I think something like that is closer to what really happened.

Thing is, all of these theories don't gel with what Dumbledore had already told Harry about Snape's reasons for coming over to the good side. He said that Snape suffered tremendous remorse when he realised how Voldemort interpreted the prophecy Snape had delivered; that it was the greatest regret of his life and the reason he returned. Why on earth would Dumbledore make this up and lie to Harry if he knew that Snape's reasons were completely different? Personally, I just don't see the need for all those over-complicating theories about Snape's mother, etc. - if Snape indeed left Voldemort forever, I expect that whatever we learn about him in the final book will stem directly from what DD had already told Harry. And the connection with Lily is about the only thing I can think of as an explanation for why Snape would be so remorseful about his role in the prophecy affair - I certainly can't see him feeling that way over James.

I've read many theories about Snape being neither good nor evil but instead being essentially self-serving. What often puzzles me about them though is the idea that it somehow makes a big difference that Snape is not really loyal to Voldemort and only does what he does for his own gain. Surely it's actions, and not just allegiances, that make characters "evil"? In my book, betraying and murdering the only person who trusted and protected you sure as heck makes you evil.

On Gambon as Dumbledore - I don't mind his take on the character; he doesn't have book-Dumbledore's warmth or self-possession but I quite like his energy.

 

[Kiki]

And the connection with Lily is about the only thing I can think of as an explanation for why Snape would be so remorseful about his role in the prophecy affair - I certainly can't see him feeling that way over James.



On Gambon as Dumbledore - I don't mind his take on the character; he doesn't have book-Dumbledore's warmth or self-possession but I quite like his energy.

exactly how I feel about DUmbledore and I agree with the first comment as well.

:nod:

 

[Varitek]

Actually, that whole quote is a complete screenplay invention and never appeared in the books, so the close friendship between Lily and Lupin is pure speculation. In the matter of fact, Lupin never really talked about Lily in the novels unless it was in the context of her relationship with James or her being Harry's mother.

This is why I hate confusing the movies with the books. The movies are not canon. The clues they hold are only related to what JK has allowed them to leave in and out - and even then they have made mistakes in the past, like not explaining the Marauders at the end of the third movie. Still, some think it's significant that Kreacher was in the movie and Mundungus was not - that would support Kreacher having the locket and not Mundungus having it or having sold it, perhaps to Aberforth. No matter what, I don't take any of these implications nearly as seriously as I do things that come from examining canon.

I like Slug's memories of Lily too - but I think the reason she hasn't been independent before is that Harry has plenty of people who knew James better in his life, while the Dursleys are just horrid. People who knew them both, like Dumbledore, McGonnagall, and Hagrid, have been fairly even handed in their recollections of his parents I think, but also sparse - as teachers/the groundskeeper, they didnt know them as well as James's friends knew James, except Slughorn, who we know takes extraordinary interest in some students.

I'm very sceptical about the popular speculation that Snape and Lily were friends at the time of the Memory. Mostly because I can't detect a single whiff of intimacy between them in the Pensieve scene - throughout it, Lily's attention is focused 100% on James and from the way she behaves this scene, for her, is ALL about James. The one and only time she interacts with Snape in any meaningful way is after he insults her - and if you read the scene Snape doesn't even speak directly to Lily when he calls her a Mudblood - his retort is directed at James.

Plus, while I don't doubt that Lily was a kind and wonderful person, for all we know she could have thought that Snape was a little Dark Arts-loving creep and wanted nothing to do with him. Yes, she stuck up for him - but people with a strong sense of right and wrong can stick up for the people they don't actually like simply because they think that no one deserves to be treated that way.

Agreed. The memory as readers see it is Harry's interpretation of Snape's perception of events. Harry would be likely to downplay any possible connection, but JK still always mentions little things even if Harry then chooses to ignore or misinterpret them. Snape, if he had liked Lily, would have perceived greater emotion in his memory. There's no way there was something between them then; there is speculation that they were somehow childhood friends but I dobut it. I also agree that Lily was focused on James - I think there was some attraction there but as sucha good person she had to get over his arrogance/bullying, or he had to grow out of it.

Thing is, all of these theories don't gel with what Dumbledore had already told Harry about Snape's reasons for coming over to the good side. He said that Snape suffered tremendous remorse when he realised how Voldemort interpreted the prophecy Snape had delivered; that it was the greatest regret of his life and the reason he returned. Why on earth would Dumbledore make this up and lie to Harry if he knew that Snape's reasons were completely different? Personally, I just don't see the need for all those over-complicating theories about Snape's mother, etc. - if Snape indeed left Voldemort forever, I expect that whatever we learn about him in the final book will stem directly from what DD had already told Harry. And the connection with Lily is about the only thing I can think of as an explanation for why Snape would be so remorseful about his role in the prophecy affair - I certainly can't see him feeling that way over James.

I don't know that it will stem directly from what DD has told Harry - we have seen DD withhold painful information in the past with harmful results - like nto telling Harry about the prophecy in book 5. While it is not in DD's nature to lie, I wouldn't put it past JK and DD to have some sort of great misdirection go on here, so that while these statements hold to be true, there is much, much more to it. I agree that Snape couldn't have been upset over James, but I just don't see unrequetted/scorned love from Lily causing that reaction in one who is now so bitter and cold to the world and even then was an icey loner. I can't accept the Lily-love explaination as sufficient. I'd rather think Snape and Petunia were the childhood friends/lovers, obviously that isn't true either, but personality-wise Lily and Snape don't cut it (though maybe, like Harry, I am just denying this because it is so repulsive).

So while the Voldemort-murdered-Snape's-mom theory isn't likely (in fact, I vaguely recollect that this is impossible due to what we know about her, but I'm not sure) I do think that there must be some other sort of deep, gut reason why DD trusted Snape but couldn't tell anyone. It will probably relate to that night in Godric's Hollow, but I don't think it's through Lily.

I've read many theories about Snape being neither good nor evil but instead being essentially self-serving. What often puzzles me about them though is the idea that it somehow makes a big difference that Snape is not really loyal to Voldemort and only does what he does for his own gain. Surely it's actions, and not just allegiances, that make characters "evil"? In my book, betraying and murdering the only person who trusted and protected you sure as heck makes you evil.

Well, there is self-serving, which implies that he wants to succeed Voldemort as a Dark Lord or something else of the sort. Then there is independent, or against Voldemort but not with Dumbeldore tactically. It's actions that make characters legal (choices to act) but it is also intentions. Snape could have committed an evil act for a good purpose - he's severely misguided and certainly not good, but his good purpose would distinguish him from Voldemort as a third moral actor in the story's morality lesson. Harry = good and the right way to fight evil, Voldemort = evil, Snape = the wrong way to fight evil, has corrupted himself because of it. This can also be said for the Ministry's denial, educational decrees, Scrimgeour's wish to use Harry as a mascot... I see great parallels to the US government supressing civil liberties and denying facts in the name of saving lives/defeating "terror". They go about saving lives/defeating evil in the wrong way, and the question becomes exactly what you get at above - is there any difference between that and the evil they are fighting? So from a story construction point of view, the most interesting morality issues come up if Snape has good intentions but goes about reaching them in the wrong way.

For an excellent and thought provoking essay on the Snape does evil things for good reasons concept, see this link. JK has built a clear moral framework for the books that some would say is a little simplistic so far - there is the good side and the evil side, and Snape provides another dimension. That this dimension would only be revealed at the end (though we have wondered what his deal is for 6 books) fits with her story construction style - she drops in bunch of subplots and threads and factors that end up being tied up at the end where things are revealed for what they truly are and we are bombarded with information. So she's saved this little lesson for the end, and it's part of the point of the whole series. For an excellent essay on the knot, see Leaky's www.harrypotterseven.com essay section.


Finally, there is no way in hell Snape is a vampire. And unrequetted teenage "love" just because some pretty girl who is nice to everyone defended you one time (maybe more, we have no evidence of that) is indeed puppy love. If it's anything more, it's not real love, but more along the vein of what inspires obsessive stalkers: irrational and only an illusion of love. Again, this isn't strong enough to be DD's ironclad reason for trusting Snape.

 

[Teta040]

As to blurring the line between good and evil...I know you don't like the films that much but I have to say, I wonder if Yates's playing fast and loose with OWLS by seeming to make them an Umbridge invention, commiserant with her earlier comment "And testing is what school is all about", I'm sure Yates knows that his viewers know this is complete hogwash but that most viewers would grant him such cinematic licence in a film was that it was an obvious commentary on No Child Left Behind? Just as Umbridge's hairdo and outfit suggest the Queen? And the Minsitry has this great Fritz Lang?"Metroplolis" lok to it. (If Thatcher didn't destroy our school system than look at what Bush has done to school in the US and if we're not careful we'll go dow n this road?) As bad as some aspects of British school systems are (and of course I have no knowledge of this; any Brits on here enlightnen me?) you can have no concept of the Orwellian-named No Child Left Behind. As much as it may have done some good in some distrcts ("standards") in the long run I think it will have done terminal damage to a generation of American kids by turning school into a joyless prison where (just as in Umbridge's classes) "Progress for progresses' skae is disocuraged", learning reading and math, reading and math, like drones, and recess being cut out and--the biggest damage of all--just as in Umbridge's classes, practical learning is cut out and everyone is tested in reading instead. Vocabulary words about science, vocabulary tests, instead of growing seeds in a petri dish or dissecting frogs? Term papers in gym class? Believe it, my sister's done it, and in the very same classes at the very same school I went to 18 yrs earlier.

As to Dumbledore not telling him the truth about the reasons about Snape's motives--for the very same reason, I suspect, that Yoda and Ben never told Luke the truth about his parentage. Dumbledore would say, as Yoda said, "Unexpected this is, and unfortunate" if Harry ever knew. And for the same reason--it would weaken Harry by establishing some sort of common bond between them . Not they will ever like each other--they despise each other and always will. But there again it makes the forces of good stronger. Snape needs to be kept just as focused and freed of distraction as Harry,l so paradoxicallty encouraging the rivalry between them strenghtens his hand and lulls Voldy into a sense of "divide and conquer" complacency. I suspect Dumbledore suspects Snape has serious emotional vulnerabilties as well.

One point about the HPB film I have to bring up that would makde me agree with you about the films, Varitek--a casual viewer might put a serious thinking session into the possession Scene (flawlessly done and probably my favorite and best scene of the films so far) and come to the conclsion that Voldemort's path of evil was undertaken b/c of "environmental" reasons "he never knew friendship or love. I feel sorry for you." ) Whereas Jo owuld say that you can;t ever blame the environment aorund you for you being who you are--I think it's more comolex than that. While the big choices are indeed ours, there are situations where no person can escape totally undamaged in some way. But then you have to see it in terms of redemption. IF you feel that is still possible. Jo makes it very clear that redemption for Tom Riddle is imossible and there are lines that very soon are crossed--the threshhold is low indeed. The fan viewing Film 5 "knows" who Tom Riddle /Voldemort is and why he has to be killed--not imprisoned or whatever. The casula film goer who has not read evden book 6 would say, "He's got a point there, you know. It's easy for Harry to choose to be good when he was blessed a host of "Surrogate parents" and friends. Yates HAS to show the Orphanage Pensieve flashback, as well as the one where Tom/Voldemort goes back to Hogwarts and talks to Dumbledore for the last time, NOT to apply for a job, as they well know. Sadly I think the Ogden and Hepzibah Smith will be cut but maybe not. Having raised this question of sympathy in the audience, Yates has to go back in Film 6 and warn the audiece that Tom Riddle came to Hogwarts and, unlike Harry who had no pretensions to power and glory but simply chose to make friends and care about people other than himself, (and NOT "Seek followers" as Riddle did) show Voldemort as someone whois fundamentally differnet from Harry.

In the books this just shows Jo's genius. Just as she chose to introduce the character of Sirius at just the right time--when he was 13 and not before or after--she chose to put the wonderful Dickensian Riddle flashbacks in Book 6. This works so well for 2 reasons: we need to have a contrast bewtwen Tom and Harry; Tom began his genocidal career at 16, and in this book we see where Harry is at 16. It works so well b/c we are seeing the conflict play out in real time, as Harry goes through his 16th yr, Dumbledore contrasts it with Tom's 16th yr. And second, it works well as entertainment--just as we are in danger of lauging Voldemort off as a cartoon character (or the filngoer would anyway) Jo lets us know that he comiitted his greatest evils when he was still underage. FInding out just WHY this evil man neds to be stopped, and what is at stake, has a bigger impact for us learning it at a later stage of the game when we can fully undertsand it in light of yrs of events.

Oh--since I can't resist--I know this isn't the film thread but I can't help commenting on some things I missed. Such as how FAT Uncle Vernon has gotten? Sorry, there's no bettter word. Did they put an additional prosthetic belly on this guy?? And how parts of it look like a British kitchen sink drama--I know all the older actors are 6 yrs older but Mrs Weasley and Aurther look aged. This would be a great makeup jhob to suggest hding out has given them a hard edged look.

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?

 

[LMP]

Did anyone else know about the weird chronology of this series? I thought it was present time, but it's really set in the '90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_stories

Does this mean Book 7 might be following the same chronology or will be set present time? Maybe as an epilogue or something.

 

[Teta040]

The books were comoposed in the 90's. The basic storyline, plus the last chapter, were all there by 1995. Jo took 2 yrs to write SS from her 90s outline. So even though the fleshed-out tales were written late ron she is choosing to stick to the 90s format.

And speaking of dates: Can anyone link me to the birth/death years of the Riddle family plus the older generation of characters? The graveyard scene omly provided a brief glimpse. I've put the Snape's Worst Memory scene in 1974?

PS. Oops--your Wiki link answered all my questions. Wish I'd found this earlier! Thanks so much! I'm going to print this all out--it's fascinating!

 

[Utoo]

Did anyone else know about the weird chronology of this series? I thought it was present time, but it's really set in the '90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_stories

Does this mean Book 7 might be following the same chronology or will be set present time? Maybe as an epilogue or something.

Yeah, it's because she started writing in the early-mid 90s, and the books are only supposed to be a year apart. That would mean the books are all still in the 90s, even though it takes her almost as long as U2 to write a new one and the new books have come out in the 00s. I didn't realize they were set that far back, though----I thought the series was set to start near the first book's original publishing date, around 1995-6 or so.

Since they're all one year apart, I think that Deathly Hallows will start just a few months or weeks after HBP ends.

 

[Saracene]

Originally posted by Varitek I don't know that it will stem directly from what DD has told Harry - we have seen DD withhold painful information in the past with harmful results - like nto telling Harry about the prophecy in book 5. While it is not in DD's nature to lie, I wouldn't put it past JK and DD to have some sort of great misdirection go on here, so that while these statements hold to be true, there is much, much more to it.

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.

 

[LMP]

Yeah, it's because she started writing in the early-mid 90s, and the books are only supposed to be a year apart. That would mean the books are all still in the 90s, even though it takes her almost as long as U2 to write a new one and the new books have come out in the 00s. I didn't realize they were set that far back, though----I thought the series was set to start near the first book's original publishing date, around 1995-6 or so.

Since they're all one year apart, I think that Deathly Hallows will start just a few months or weeks after HBP ends.

I'm debating whether or not to read all of the books again before I got to Deathly Hollows. Mainly because I've forgotten more than half of the stuff since I've read them.

 

[Tiger Edge]

^I'd go with rereading everything, just because the last book is bound to wrap up all loose ends in all of the books.
But it's probably too late to start that now. Maybe you should stick to reading books 4 - 6 this week. It'll probably eat up most of your time, that is if you're planning to get the book next Friday night.

 

[LMP]

I pre-ordered the book, but I leave for a trip the same day and I still have to do summer reading (2 books!), AP American homework, and finish my Christmas play.

I'll have to stay away from this thread for a while, then.

 

[Teta040]

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.

 

[Saracene]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[flaming june]

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 insta­bility 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.

 

[Utoo]

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 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.

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

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.

 

[LMP]

Didn't Fawkes tears already revive Harry in Chamber of Secrets against the basilisk?

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

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.

 

[LMP]

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.

 

[Saracene]

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.

 

[Utoo]

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

 

[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.

 

[Varitek]

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.

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.

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...

 

[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.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

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.