Digital Harry Potter manuscript allegedly stolen

[Turtle Woman]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Not all of us, Turtle Woman,

Sorry, NatCh, I should have said ignorant right-wing Christians. I know that there are many wonderful fundamentalists but like anything else, it's the idiots that get all the publicity. Plenty of ignorant left-wingers too.

They may not be so noisy but there are lots of parents that won't let their kids read Harry Potter and don't want it in the schools. They're missing a great opportunity to read the books with their kids and discuss the ideas.

I'm a left-wing Christian, hopefully not ignorant.

[NatCh]

The first step on the journey to true understanding is admitting your ignorance, grasshop-- er, I mean, Turtle Woman.

My mother worked for a few years at a private school that didn't allow HP stuff in the school, but that was mostly because the kids got so excited about it that the couldn't be made to focus on anything else.

[CommanderROR]

I'd say it's a good thing that so many kids actually read a book...and in Harry Potter, the "value" of what they are reading is not that bad either. Of course it's just a fantasy story, but it's surely a lot better than most of the stuff kids these days read (if they read at all).
They might even get into reading through the HP novels and might go for Tolkien next...that should give their vocabulary quite a shove in the right direction...

[JSWolf]

The real evil in this country is if you say "I'm against your freedoms and your rights. If elected, I'm going take them away and trample them into a fine powder and sprinkle them over the ocean." You won't mind. You'll in fact enjoy it.", you'll get to be elected President.

[NatCh]

Huh. I thought that was just Massachusetts, JSWolf!

[nekokami]

Wow, I step out for a couple of days and a thread like this gets into 4 pages before I have a chance to chime in!

1 - Rowling has been very clear in interviews that Dumbledore is dead-- but since the portraits in the Headmaster's office talk, etc., he could still give advice in Book 7. If someone has a wand that matches Snape's, Dumbledore might come back briefly in the same sort of spirit form as Harry's parents did in book 4. Rowling rarely uses an idea only once, so this wouldn't be too surprising. (Or, someone might try this and Dumbledore might NOT come back, indicating that Snape's spell isn't really what killed him, which would also be interesting.)

2 - Some of the ignorant right-wing Christian vitriol was apparently based on taking a certian Onion article literally, rather than as the hilarious spoof that it was.

3 - Rowling has also stated in an interview that she's not going to kill Ron. (Her words were something like "As if I'd kill Harry's best friend!") This makes killing Hermione very unlikely as well. Snape is pretty clearly a goner (and I'm with the crowd that thinks he's ultimately loyal to Dumbledore and now in a terrible position, even if he is a stinker and not someone I'd want in my house). I'm not counting Voldemort as a main character for the purpose of her statement, because I think she meant someone we actually would care about. (Yes, there are people who care about Snape.) If I had to place a bet on another "main" character to die I'd say Hagrid, but I've been expecting him to get it since Book 5, so I could be wrong. I don't think it'll be any of the Weasleys, because Ron's dad came so close to death in Order of the Phoenix. Probably not Lupin because of the relationship Rowling is setting up with Tonks, and because Sirius already got hit from that group. It wouldn't surprise me if we lose most of a generation of teachers, but I'm not sure they'd count in quite the same way as a "main" character, either -- even McGonnigal. Somehow I don't think it will be Malfoy, either.

It could be Harry, because I think he's going to have to give up something really huge to defeat Voldemort, but I'm not sure she'd be counting him in this sort of statement, either.

Does anyone have a reference to the statement where she said "two main characters"? I'd like to check her wording.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Some of the ignorant right-wing Christian vitriol was apparently based on taking a certian Onion article literally, rather than as the hilarious spoof that it was.

I have no trouble at all believing that, somehow.

Originally Posted by nekokami

(Yes, there are people who care about Snape.)

I think that most readers likely care about Snape, just not in the positive sense of 'caring.'

Originally Posted by nekokami

Does anyone have a reference to the statement where she said "two main characters"? I'd like to check her wording.

The reference I saw was in People magazine, my wife takes the thing, and I generally ignore it entirely but it had Harry's name on the front so ... I couldn't find an direct link, and it didn't have an exact quote, but here's a scan.

However, a bit of digging has revealed that the People reference to the point is, in fact, an erronious paraphase, and one that turns everything on its ear.

Her actual words (with context) were:

Audience member question (paraphrased): Have there been any changes to what you initially planned out?

Rowling: It is different to an extent. The essential plot is what I always planned when working toward the end I've planned toward the beginning. But a couple of characters I expected to survive have died and one character got a reprieve, so there have been some fairly major changes I suppose.

So, that rather negates all the speculation there, as it clearly means something totally different than what we were working with.

Particular thanks to Accio Quote for the extensive and complete record.

[nekokami]

Ah. Ok, I've seen that quote. Since that says nothing about how "major" the characters were, we could be talking about Rita Skeeter.

A surprising number of people seem to actually be fond of Snape in some sense. Rowling appears mystified. Evidently she's never heard of the Byronic Hero.... I personally find him fascinating, but as I said, not someone I'd want in my house. I just think he's interesting because he's one of the most complex characters in the story. Half the reason I went to the movies at all was to see Alan Rickman's portrayal, as Rowling has given him some additional information about Snape's character that I've been hoping to see hints of. I guess I just like a good puzzle.

Edit: so the more interesting question, if we want to continue speculating, is "who got a reprieve?" Hmmm....

[NatCh]

The thing that mystifies me about Snape is the same question Harry seems to have about him: why does Dumbledore trust him? If that one is answered, it'll be a considerable load off my mind.

I think that it's pretty obvious that a lot of characters are going to "not survive" th book, and it's equally clear from the Dumbledore example that Ms. Rowling isn't afraid to kill off fairly major characters -- with the "two major characters" thing being bogus, we could end up with just Ron and Trevor (Neville Longbottom's toad) being the only surviving characters. I think all bets are off on that one.

Personally, I hope she doesn't kill off Harry, and I'm kind of leaning (at this moment) toward thinking he'll survive, but who knows?

I think that a lot of folks may be thinking he'll die as a side-effect of her willingness to axe Dumbledore, but I don't think that necessarily follows.

I think the answer to that probably lies in the prophecy:

The one with the power to vanquish the dark lord approaches… born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies… and the dark lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the dark lord knows not… and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives… the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord will be born as the seventh month dies…

Specifically the line "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives" is on point and nicely cryptic.

Note that it's not "one must die at the hand of the other" it's "either." I take that to mean that Harry can kill Voldemort, but Voldemort can also kill Harry, and one of the two will happen.

"... for neither can live while the other survives...." I think that's actually less opaque, if anything, due to the fact that Harry and Voldemort are now both fully alive. It's pretty clear that Harry can't get on with his life while Voldemort is still alive, mostly because Voldemort won't get on with his own life so long as the "one with the power to vanquish" him is still around, he's arguably spent all his time since he heard the prophecy trying to find and kill this "one." So, that makes the live/survive business fairly clear.

What it doesn't say is that either of them will live, and living/surviving doesn't seem to be necessarily tied to this vanquishing power.

I take from it a few things. the object of the prophecy is Harry, since Voldemort has "marked him as his equal" (it could also have been Neville, remember, but since Voldemort chose Harry, it's clear that it can't be Neville anymore). There's something that only Harry can do that will vanquish Voldemort. And that at least one of them has to die, and fairly soon.

Notice that I've been avoiding saying that Harry can kill Voldemort. The prophecy only says he has the power to vanquish, and vanquish does not mean kill, not according to Mirriam-Webster, anyway. Given the insane amount of research into arcane matters that JKR is supposed to have done for these books, I think it's a reasonable assumption that she looked up the word 'vanquish' when writing her "prophecy," and chose it specifically. Now it does later pretty much say that Harry can kill Voldemort, but I'm trying to point out that there are two distinct sections there.

There's also the possibility that the vanquishing part of the prophecy has already taken place -- certainly what happened to Voldemort on the night he first tried to kill Harry fits the definition of vanquishing. Come to think of it, it's pretty well happened as many as three other times.

Harry might kill Voldemort and still die, but I think that if Voldemort does kill Harry, there will be an excellent chance that Voldemort will live. Unless, of course, Harry's scar is the seventh hoarcrux (as has been much speculated in the various Potter discussion groups), and by killing Harry Voldemort destroys it and renders himself truly mortal again, in which case, I should think that anyone who's handy might be able to take him out. Maybe even Trevor.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Huh. I thought that was just Massachusetts, JSWolf!

Remember George W. Bush? he ran on the anti-freedom campaign and won.

[nekokami]

There's an interesting interview (the "Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron" interview) in which the interviewers suggest to Rowling that perhaps Dumbledore tries too hard to see the good in others, specifically with reference to Snape. Rowling "agrees" in her usual noncommittal manner. We shall see... in a bit less than a month now. (My copy will be a bit late, as I ordered the Canadian version to get the recycled paper, and so they have no obligation to deliver it to me on the release date. The fan-generated ebook version will quite likely become available before my copy arrives.)

I've always wondered when Snape's birthday is. He was, in fact "approaching" as Trelawney was spewing out this particular prophecy. That's probably not the direction Rowling is headed, based on her interview comments, but it would be amusing. Rowling has said, however, that the reason the prophecy is true is that Voldemort has made it true by choosing to attack Harry, not that there was some inherent fate involved.

I don't think any of Harry's previous encounters with Voldemort qualify as "vanquishing," though. I agree that "vanquish" doesn't necessarily mean "kill," but it seems to me that if the villain comes back in the very next book of the series every time, the term "vanquish" isn't quite appropriate.

The other big mystery character is Aunt Petunia. We've been promised more info on her for years, and there have been hints, but no real explanation as to why she has harbored Harry all this time, considering how much she claims to have loathed his parents, and considering that she seems well aware that having him around puts her own family at risk.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nekokami

The other big mystery character is Aunt Petunia. We've been promised more info on her for years, and there have been hints, but no real explanation as to why she has harbored Harry all this time, considering how much she claims to have loathed his parents, and considering that she seems well aware that having him around puts her own family at risk.

We got a bit as to why in each of the last two books, but nothing on the reasons she accepted and respected those "whys" -- some actual explanation would be very nice to have. The Dursleys and their behavior are always among the most puzzling parts of these books to me.

[joblack]

These psycho christians are just nerve-ranking ...

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by NatCh

We got a bit as to why in each of the last two books, but nothing on the reasons she accepted and respected those "whys" -- some actual explanation would be very nice to have. The Dursleys and their behavior are always among the most puzzling parts of these books to me.

Their job is to instill in Harry a need to keep a certain distance from Muggles. Otherwise his destiny could not take place. It is meant also as a way to reach the reader, to make him more comfortable in the magic than his physical world. You were caught by it as well as Harry weren't you?
Petunia has access to the magic world in the way of an alarm belll, no doubt also to protection charms. We might see the whole relationship change for the better but that is a longshot.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Their job is to instill in Harry a need to keep a certain distance from Muggles. Otherwise his destiny could not take place. It is meant also as a way to reach the reader, to make him more comfortable in the magic than his physical world. You were caught by it as well as Harry weren't you?

Ah! That makes perfect sense, and yes, I totally missed it.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Petunia has access to the magic world in the way of an alarm belll, no doubt also to protection charms. We might see the whole relationship change for the better but that is a longshot.

That's an interesting bit, yvanleterrible. Is there a source on that, or is it something you're figuring is the case?

I assumed that Mrs. Figg was the only "magical" presence that they'd have in the neighborhood.

But then again, Petunia knew about Azkaban and Dementors ....