Symbols Revisited
Saint Mungo
Snape Revisited
Draco Malfoy
Goblet of Fire Mistakes
Book ban appeal
Slughorn and the Ring
Laborious Libations
X-Men 3, Harry Potter and the Imago Dei
Harry is Kosher!
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
Hogwarts, Hogwarts,
Hoggy Warty Hogwarts,
Teach us something please,
Whether we be old and bald,
Or young with scabby knees,
Our heads could do with filling,
With some interesting stuff,
For now they're bare
And full of air,
Dead flies and bits of fluff.
So teach us stuff worth knowing,
Bring back what we forgot,
Just do your best
We'll do the rest,
And learn until our brains all rot!
1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2: Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5: Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6: His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8: The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9: The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10: More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11: Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12: Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13: Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14: Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Comments on "Oho! "Muggle Magic" and Gumshoe's excellent theory"
-
jkr2 said ... (June 29, 2006 5:12 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (June 29, 2006 5:32 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (July 01, 2006 6:37 AM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (July 01, 2006 11:40 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (July 01, 2006 2:58 PM)
:
post a commentwow. if i was going to be convinced, that is how.....
mmmmmmm
i think that i think he's really dead..... i think.
jo
It does provide a lot of food for thought doesn't it, Jo? :)
I was totally engrossed in reading that for like an hour and a half last night. Still pondering it.
i wrote Pauli an email on it and maybe I'll sort through and throw some of it up here .... I think some of his arguments are stronger than others ... and I'm still a little puzzeld about how the death would be "faked" (ie not killing Sluggo" if Snape was not in on the deal, which he seems to think a stronger possibility.
One of the things I loved about it though is the implicit chess theme, which Gumshoe doesn't bring out in those words but it is how he is describing DD - as a grown up mature versio of Ron playing wizard's chess in book 1 - ruses, feints (a knife-fighting motif I loved in Frank Herbert's Dune, "A feint within a feint within a feint ...") ... If GS is right this really is REAL wizards chess, and DD will a real master if he manages to win, save his pawns (Ron, Hermione, Draco, Neville, Luna) and some of his main pieces (Harry) while sacrificing just the right key players to win (Sirius, Snape, Hagrid) ... the exact opposite of Magneto's statement in X3, "That is why in chess the pawns go first"
The other thing I love is that GS's piece is a very basic level of "detecting" and I don't mean "simplistic" I mean "elementry, my dear Watson," ... and it's done REALLY well. One of the, not really criticisms, but more mild complaining that Red Hen had about the shift in book 5 from the rest of teh series is that RH (still unknown gender as far I know ... meaning I don't think Pauli and I found out for sure ... RH is good at the whole "publicly open anonimity" thing, which is a good skill to develop)likesthe "whodunit" style of books 1-4 better. And this brings it back to a unified "whodunit" of the series ... which I think would be totally cool. There should be no opposition whatsoever between "basic" levels like the detective mystery and the "deeper" level of the theological mystery ... they don't have to be mutually exclusive and a story can do both well at the same time. That's why Chesterton loved writing Father Brown.
And personally, I just get really excited about any and all "textual hints and echoes" ... I loved the whole muggle magic one (and, of course, I love anything that showcases the genius of Fred and George as revelatory) and the research on that was killer, thorough.
If GS is right, I would have to say DD is in the lead for the "most cunning" award ... as we have discussed some before on here the role of cunning (the serpent in the grden etc)
Hey, Red Hen is a womoan, I'm pretty sure:
http://www.redhen-publications.com/WhoMe.html
LOL - guys: hen's are "girls", roosters are "boys". If Red-Hen isn't female, then it's his fault we think he is.
The picture is very funny, though, is it not?
Travis had a good post awhile back about "why all our theories are wrong" which is good to read to keep things in perspective.
But I do like this theory. I keep hoping that Dumbledore will defeat Voldemort using every form of magic he detests and this "muggle magic" would definitely qualify.
If I had the time I would write a complimentary post to Travis' entitled "why we're all right" (and I do mean complimentary and not contrary or)
If by "right" you mean "predicting what she is going to do or has going on" then we will all be wrong because she is going to write her own story. But I also think that in our venue and even stuff like some fan fic, people work out theories that are not necessarily just about predicting the materail progression of the stiry etc. It's kind of like the Crucifixiion paintings ... the same basic subject matter, many of the same characters (Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea. The Blessed Mother, Saint John)but each painting is different and none of them "wrong" - the same thing applies to say plot elements as applies to color and proportion etc in painting. In both you can get it wrong by doing it poorly of course, but there is not one "right" way. JKR is going to write the story her way way
There is a series out there tahtis up to I think like 12 volumes now, of peripheral Lord of the Rings stuff from Tolkien, discarded material, earlier drafts of parts: the first time a black rider appeared in the shire Tolkien had no idea if he was good or bad (ie, the first time he had an idea for a black rider appearing in the shire, and penned it, that was all he had)... there was an evil versio of treebeard. The "strider" portion of the strider/Aragron character was orginally a hobbit named "trotter." Frodo was originaly Bingo
The temptation is to say "well that stuff is useless, the only thing that matters is the story in it's final form" and to be sure, the story in its final form is to be taken as a unified whole narrative and not be subjected to the wrong sort of "source criticism" ... but the peripherals are not worthless. They are other possible versions of certain elements of the story, versions that accent different aspects or the same ones in different proportions, or with slightly different color schemes )or maybe very differnt, but not clashing, color schemes)
My best example is George Lucas. He had a great story that was given to him by the muse (and personally I am convinced that nothing bugs him more than the idea that it was "given" and not solely ... I think that the prequels were basically his vendetta on the muse) and in the original trilogy he allowed that story to be told well, in the prequels he seems to have actively fought against the credible telling of it. (some day I'll get around to working more on the narrative rewrite of the prequels my friend Dom and I were working on ... Watto as a much more interesting, human, junk dealer, Anakin being 16 or so when he and the Jedi meet and when he and Padme meet ... NO time spent on Naboo itself, no Gungans, and especially no Jar Jar, differnt pacing for those major elements)
All the things about the HP charactes: Hagrid may or may not die in book 7 - but it is a part of the truth of Hagrid's character that in certain circumstances he would bravely sacrifice himself, and that it would be a hell of a fight. DD may or may not be dead ... either way I trust Rowling that whichever it is it will be consistent with the themes we have seen thus far and will be interesting, ie a good story (and full of surprises). I also find that Gunshoe's theory tells a pretty interesting version of the story, one that brings out the truth of how cunning DD can be as a chess player, how wise in knowing how to adapt in fighting evil ... a different version of the story might bring out the truth of DD's self-giving and the efficacy of it by having Snape actually have killed DD and this being possible becuase DD wilingly became vulnerable to Snape and this fact changes Snape's heart when he realizes it. Neither version is necessarily truer than the other ... although different versions maybe more or less consistent with the preceeding parts of the story as Rowling has actually written in, and there is where we get into the fun of guessing games (and some versions of stories can be more or less "universally" true than other version, like I think that Lucas version of the prequels is pretty much riddled [and I use that term deliberately referring to the HP Riddle] with prevarication)
But I would just say that I think a couple of things will be true no matter what.
1. I will thoroughly enjoy book 7 when Rowling has it out
2. I won't feel necessarily like I was "wrong" about any of it.
3. I'll be happy ... even if Snape isn't a vampire (but, man, did you see Fenrir cower when Snape arrives on the tower-top?)