Riddles Part 3: a History of Riddles (and Happy Advent)

Well, given the time I have dedicated here to the concept of riddles in explaining Tom Riddle's name, I have decided to give a short history of riddles - and really I mean SHORT history - only 2-3 instances really, but they're good ones. First, though, if you're just tuning in or even if you read the stuff originally but are daunted by the task of sifting back through the piles of my posts to find the other places I have written on riddles - here are the two main posts I have written on riddles thus far: Riddles in Dark Chambers and Riddles and Imagination A Riddle of Two Trees: Many have noted that the two trees in the Garden of Eden are what is known as a Mashal, an established form in the "wisdom" tradition of ancient Israel, a form that is most like an "analogy" or a "parable" (cf "The Shady Side of Wisdom" by George Mendenhall, from A Light Unto My Path, Philadelphia, Temple U. Press, 1974) This is, to the best of my understanding, a riddle of sorts. It is what is used when the author does not wish to speak directly of a thing, either out of "respect for the dead," or out of fear. The two trees are used to speak of a fundamental thing that cannot be directly spoken of. To "name," even mentally, that first sin is dangerously close to sacrilege, and so a Mashal, or riddle, is used. The comparison with "parables" is a very apt one, for who was the master of parables? Christ. He spoke in parables so that the hard of hearing and heart would not understand (Matthew 13:10-17), i.e., they would not "get the riddle." He also spoke in established Mashals from Judaic tradition, particularly the Mashal of the Tree of Life. Father Raymond Brown, whose commentary on the Gospel of John is a standard in scholarly research, notes in that commentary that the discourse on the "Vine and the Branches" in John 15 is an adaptation of the "Tree of Life" Mashal, and he even hazards a notion that this Mashal may be part of the background of the "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6 (R. Drown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible Series, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 671-672). Tolkien and Shakespeare Perhaps a better example of the connection between the "parable" and the "riddle," or at least one that we moderns can grasp a little more readily, is one of the beefs Tolkien had with Shakespeare. David Day relates this in the Introduction to his book Tolkien's Ring. As in ancient Hebraic literature, so in all mythic literature, riddles are a kind of plot device. In Macbeth, Macduff cannot be killed by "one of woman born," and so he is killed by one who was born c-section. Tolkien rightly criticized this as a hackish "answer" to the riddle. The riddle is "how does you kill a man who cannot be killed by one of woman born," and c-section is a mere technicality. The etymology of the word "born" is from the word "to bear" or to carry, and being "born of woman" really means being carried by a woman for 9 months in her body as a child, not just the particular method of exit. Day's point in bringing this up is as an example of standard folklore devices and plots Tolkien used (Day's book being specifically on ring-lore), and this is a "stock plot." Tolkien had an answer of his own to Shakespeare's bad use of the plot device. This particular riddle plot device might be called the "Charmed Captain of Evil" riddle. In it there is a captain of evil who has some magical charm on him protecting him as he commits his villainy. The thing is, all such charms have to use specific language and this is how they are undone, by something not covered in the language. The difference between Tolkien's and Shakespeare's use of this particular one is that Tolkien understood that there had to be some connection between how you worked the language and the "inner meaning" or "moral" to the story. He understood that is what the whole thing is all about, not some smoke and mirrors of language TECHNICALITIES. Here is Tolkien's version: The Witch-King of Angmar (leader of the 9 Nazgul). The core of this particular riddle is the problem arrogance, and the answer is humility. Indeed the very act of sorcery is arrogant. It is gaining "supernatural" aid, but in a very different way from a prayer to a god. Thus, the Witch-king "cannot be hindered by a living man," and those such as Blondie, who might be reading this and thinking "how arrogant!!! Apparently he thinks there is no worry about being killed by a woman!" are completely justified, and Tolkien thought so too. Indeed, it is the very way he solves the riddle and shows the value of humility. The Witch-king is killed by those who his mentality considers weak and too lowly to worry about: a woman disguised as a warrior, helped by a halfling. Tolkien also had a problem with the "march of the woods" in Macbeth, and his answer was the Ents herding the trees to kill the orcs at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. The meaning of that plot device should be that nature itself takes on somewhat of a persona contributes to the battle, not that some soldiers got spooked out by a little fog and a spooky feeling and thought the trees were walking when really it was just some guys with branches sticking out of their butts. Note: Ok, that last was slightly hyperbolic - just saying that that really is not "nature helping fight evil men", it's more just kind of "freak factor." I actually do think Shakespeare had some good points ... but these are not good examples. Riddles and the Incarnation The answer to the riddle is the meaning of the riddle, and I think that is what all riddles at this level of literature are. This is what is at the heart of the mythopoeic, the same as it is at the heart of the Incarnation. The great big meaning is hidden in and then revealed in the small mundane details of language and human communication. The God who created the universe, carried inside a humble poor woman's sacred body (a woman who humbly bore the scorn of appearing to be pregnant out of wedlock) and then wrapped in cloth in a stable; and eventually unjustly hung up to die like a common criminal (the matching bookend to His conception, in which his mother bore unjust scorn for a sin she did not commit, fornication/adultery) - hidden in human meekness and revealed in human meekness. I really didn't plan this when I started writing it (I added that to the title after I got this far) but I guess it is an appropriate post to be writing at the beginning of the Advent season. So, a Blessed Advent to all.

Towering Technologies and Heights

This is a post I have had on my list for a while to write in response to Pauli's request in a comment some time ago, that I write some on "Towering Technology." The only disclaimer I will preface this with is that the old addage rings true, "the higher the leap, the harder the ground." BUT that does not mean it is not worth the climbing (a pig cannot be weighed down by sin because a pig cannot sin, but I would rather be a man in poverty, as long as I am contrite, than a pig in bliss). It simply means that in striving for the perfection God creates us possible of a achieving we must balance the heights of our God-given potential with a similar (if not greater) degree of lowness of humility. This is, I think, at least one of the subsidiary meanings of the precarious balance that Chesterton refers to as, "the romance of orthodoxy." What is in a Name (The Legacy of Cain): Pauli had surmised that this would go back at least to the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, but actually it goes even further back. Those men wanted to build a "name" for themselves but they were not the first to build under a certain name. In Genesis 4 Cain is condemned to nomadic exile for murdering his brother Abel, and he complains, "my punishment is too great to bear." It would have been better for Cain had he accepted the punishment and learned something from in it, but he did not. Instead he moved and settled in the land of Nod east of Eden, and there he built a city and named it after his first born son Enoch (all of this information as well the imemdiately following paragraph is taken from what is called the "Cainite Genealogy" in Genesis 4). The 7th generation from Cain was a man named Lamech, the first recorded polygamist. His two wives bore to him 3 sons who became the "fathers" of "civilization": Jabal was the father of shepherds/cattle men, Jubal was the father of musicians and Tubal-Cain was the father of those who forge metal into instruments. Lamech was also a very violent man, he killed a man for the small offense to him and then came home and bragged to his wives about it. Thus in this place that is the seat of the seeds of civilization and technology, we have the temptaions to evil that come with it. These temptations go all the way back to Cain who buitlt the city and to his parents. It was a "cunning" serpent who tempted Adam and Eve to want to be "like gods." And this same temptation was passed on to his son: when Cain is angry that Yahweh accepts Abel's sacrifice but not his own, God speaks of sin as a serpent, crouching at Cain's door in wait for him (Genesis 4:7) Keep in mind that the theme of naming is essential to the sort of "Kingly" vocation of man (I am borrowing this term from Dr Scott Hahn, who notes a "Kingly" and a "Priestly" vocation of humanity in the 2 creation stories of Genesis 1 &2). It is in the action of naming the animals in Genesis 2 that God shows man that he is incomplete with out woman. But apparently the royal task of naming the animals and the woman were not enough; Adam gave in to temptation and sought a name for himsef, "like a god." The temptation and sin were passed to his son Cain; then to Enoch, the son for whom Cain named a whole city; and then to the descendents in that city who were the first masters of tachnology and the arts. In Genesis 6:1-4 we see how this lineage continued in the "mighty warriors," the Gibborim, who were believed to be born of the union of mortal women with gods; they were the "famous men" (literally, "the men of the name"). And finally we see how, even after a catastrophe like the flood, men still sought to "build a name" for themselves by building a tower that reached into the heavens, into the realm of God Himself (Genesis 11: 1-9). A Kingdom Divided (The King of Israel) The Deuternomic covenenant is related in the book of Deuteronomy, which literaly means "second law" since the first version of the covenant, given at Mt Sinai, was broken by Israel. This second version functioned as a sort of "constitution" for Israel as a nation and then a Kingdom. The thing that makes this second version distinctive from the first is the presence of a number of "concessionary" laws. The first covenant was given by God in power and might on top of a mountain (thunder and lightning and Moses's face glowing when he came down with the tablets). The second version was given through a 120 yr old man droning on a field. But that second version contained some shrewd measures the man was allowed to introduce, measures that anticipated some of the "cunning" that would attend the "hardness of heart" of the Israelites. (In this section I am borrowing again from the thought of Dr Scott Hahn). A good example of one of these measures was that on divorce, and this is evidenced in Christ's words on the matter in Matthew 19:7 ff and the parallel in Mark 10:4 ff. If a man wants to divorce his wife, but he is not allowed because of "till death do us part," what is he to do? Well, in heavily patriarchal society where a man might get away with murder (literally) he might just makle sure that "till death do us part" comes sooner rather than later (a new wife while the old one lives would be frowned upon by the community, but an "accidental" death ... "well, you have our condolences"). The provision prevents greater evils from hardness of heart. Among these conscessions were what are called, "the laws of kingship." That Israel would want a king like the nations around them was forseen, and so was the fact that the king would be tempted to covet more and more power and to abuse it more and more. So the "laws of kingship" prohibited the king from amassing 3 things connected with power, the 3 "W"s: Women, Wealth and Weapons. Obviously, "money is power," but so are wives and concubines when they are the princesses of foreign rulers wed in political marriages. Likewise, a standing army is power, and the better armed they are with the "latest and greatest" weapons the more powerful they are. The Temple One further thing that was a "concession" in the Deuteronomic covenant was "central sanctuary." The "natural" place to worship a deity was a "high place" (a hill top grove of trees), and the pagans had been using these sights for many ages. Just like at Sinai, where the Israelites said, "we will worship Yahweh, BUT we should worship Him in the form of a golden calf, which just so happens to be an Egyptian god," so the people entering the promised land would say, "we're going to use these standard worship spots to worship Yahweh, and it won't hurt to use the old forms too ... and he'll understand that when we worship the Baals taht were worshipped there before we're really worshiping Him - right?" So, the Temple of Jerusalem was really the fulfillment of a precept that was a concession to deal with the people's predeliction for idolatry - no sacrifices accept to Yahweh at His central sanctuary, the Jerusalem Temple. And this institution leads to the next instance to examine. The Highest Point of the Temple (Christ) In the fourth chapter of St Matthew's Gospel we read that, like the Israelites, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness (40 years in Israel's case) and was then tempted, among other things, on a high place to worship a pagan god - one called "the tempter," hinting back to the serpent in the garden, and in Christian tradition this is the devil, or Satan. The 3rd temptation in this event was pretty much an all out assault of pressure to idolatry, a bare-faced temptation to this. The first 2 temptations however appeal to the fact that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, but the tempter wanted to "catch him up" by getting him to focus on the power of this position. The first temptation is to simple physical power, "you are hungry, use your power for your appetites ... and in the process prove that power of messiahship." The second temptation, on the pinnacle of the temple, was to the political power of the Messiah, like the king of Israel who would eventually be tempted to amass power through wealth, political marriages and military might. Interestingly, Christ was not the first "Messiah," there is an immediate fulfillment of that role in the Old Testament itself. "Messiah" means "annointed one," and in the Hebrew Scriptures it means the annointed son of the king. The first fulfillment of the "Messiah" was Solomon, the wise one, 3rd king of the united Kingdom of Israel. A number of scholars note that the Temptation of Christ was focussed on the concept of being the "messiah." From that great height where He could see all that could be His in the way of political power as Messiah, Jesus was tempted to focus on that power and define what it meant for Him to be Messiah by that power alone. The Dizzying Heights of Space (Star Wars) In Star Wars we have of course that power that rains down terror, literally, from the "heavens," the Death Star. The Jedi seem to take a more balanced approach to physicality. They will use technology in harmony with traditional symbol as in something like the lightsaber (something that takes the kind of skill born of long training). The sith, on the other hand, wants one of two extremes: either straightforward domination over the elements by their will (which is prefered) or a technology that can obliterate millions in one pwerful stroke. There are many smaller images that fill out the larger image but one of the most impressive is the use of technology with regard to the right hand - both Luke and Vader have a robotic right hand. In Herbaic thought especially, the right hand is the hand of judgement and the hand of power. In the perverse world engineered by the sith (often right under the noses of the jedi) this is fulfilled through raw technology, grafted and melded onto human body in ways I think you are meant to wonder abouth the prudence of. The Dangerous Heights of Knowledge (Harry Potter and Death by Divination atop the Tower) Tolkien: a Precursor Before tackling the Astronomy tower, I should note that there is an immediate precursor to Rowling's use of the high-tower, a precursor in probably the most famous of the "Inklings" in whose footsteps she follows. Forget not that the Tower of Barad Dur (Sauron's high place) was built with the one ring, and when the one ring and he himself were destroyed the tower crumbles. In David Day's book Tolkien's Ring we find recounted the legend of the use of Solomon's ring to build the temple, and in Rowling we see take place atop a high tower the culmination of the sacrifice DD made in destroying Voly's ring horcrux (provided we're right about the "stoppered death" theory). The Lightning Struck Tower From the first book of the Harry Potter series we have heard the themes noted above echoed, when Quirrell says that Voldy taught him that, "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." (Sorcerer's Stone, 291). But the real question connected with the height of that particular tower towards the end of book 6 is the central question of Hogwarts' very essence as a school - the power of knowledge. Of course, as Pauli noted (in his comment on the post linked to just above, in the Star Wars section), Tolkien's Orthanc tower is one prime example of a lust for knowledge turning into a lust for power, and Saruman gazing into his palantir is pretty much the dreggs of divination ( which astronomy is the height of, as we see when a real master like Firenze takes over in Order of the Pheonix). But in both the case of Saruman and of Denethor, Tolkien's characters are beguiled by twisting and perversions of facts which Sauron substitues for real truth. Likewise, Trelawney has had only two real predictions and the one only came true because Voldy believed it to be true and made it so. You get the serious impression that the centaurs take a seriously different approach to knowledge and reading the stars. I think DD dies for the greater good, but also that it is telling that he dies on top of the Astronomy tower, since so much of Astronomy is like that ... it can be a legit part of magic but it can go seriously awry too (much like the water element, the cunning of the serpent, potions etc). The knowledge can be abused. Hidden Clue: If somebody wants to beat me to this they can ... I want to look and see if in book 5, when they witness the attack on Hagrid's hut by Umbridge, if there are any notable distortions in their perception of it because they witness it from the top of the Astronomy tower.

Music

I had said in regard to Snape being good and mystical that one of the big things that changed my mind was the healing incantation that was "like a song," and had noted that Rowling uses music sparingly, so I thought I would point out something that came to mind recently as a result of seeing this lates movie. That is that the golden egg is a place she does use music. I'm not sure that this use of music is as high symbolically as the Pheonix song and Snape's Incantation (although I'm not completelty sure of the opposite either) but I do think there is some good pointed symbolism here. Particularly, it is only when heard in it's proper context that the music even sounds like music, and so there is a good focus on the need for context in understanding and communication. Of course there is also the fact that that context in this situation is the element of water. I'm not sure there is a strong significance to that fact, except for that it does fit in with the fact that while the music is beautiful and I think definitely on the good side, it is mysterious in that one cannot assume that the mer-people being on the side of the good will take the form one thinks. Sometimes it is mischievious and a bit dark etc. Just an observation.

OK ... a good point

Well, I still hold to that the Dumbledore in this recent movie is more internally consistent than in movie 3, and I don't really see him as much as being mean as being kind of crotchety - maybe a little like Gandalf suffering nicotine withdrawal in the mines of Moria in Lord of the Rings. But, after looking at Dumbledore's exchange with Fudge just now at the end of Goblet of Fire, I have to admit that the new Dumbledore of movie 4 does not have the self-composure of the Dumbledore of the books. In the book Dumbledore is able to be completely calm AND bear down on Fudge at the same time.

Believable Stories

It is now Sunday evening and I am off work tomorrow (I'll be working on grad school applications since I work for a Pittsburgh roofer and the Monday after Thanksgiving, the first day of rifle season for buck deer in PA, is like a national holiday in western PA) ... so I am cleaning out some posts I have had for a while on my spreadsheet list of posts to write. A long while ago Pauli and I exchanged thoughts briefly on here on the nature of good stories, Flannery O'Connor's thoughts on such and Harry's interest in a good story in Prisoner of Azkaban. David Day, in his book Tolkien's Ring, discusses how Tolkien was drawing on a large body of "ring-lore" and one of his goals was to write a "believable source story" for this body of legends etc. By that term though, he did not mean "believable" in the sense that one would believe that they actually did happen, but rather that (given certain givens) they could have happened. What was central to Tolkien was that the story be internally consistent with itself and with the core of human experience of our own psychology and drives for the transcendent and peace and love etc (of course not with our experience of "science", etc.) So, one of my noted posts to write comes from The Goblet of Fire p. 705 where Dumbledore emphasizes very succinctly the importance of this type of "believability" in a story, and at the same time does a great act of charity in using his authority to help an innocent who is being born down upon by a bureaucrat. He notes that he has no reason not to believe Harry's and Barty Jr's stories, they make sense and they explain all the facts.

A Man's Brain is A Bomb ...

"A man's brain is a bomb...it has to explode." This is a line spoken by "Monday", the secretary of the high council of anarchists G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who was Thursday in which each of the 7 members of that council in the book are named after days of the week. It also echoes a statement by Nietzsche in Ecce Homo, "I am dynamite!" (among those who follow Nietzschean studies it is noted that he was supposedly already well on his way to crazy when he wrote Ecce Homo.) This statement connects greatly with a comment Pauli made on my "speculation" about Cedric and Harry representing Hogwart's as earth and fire. And this is a crucial point of much needed temperance if one is to keep their sanity when studying these things - and not have his or her brain explode. SYMBOLS In regards to the symbols I think that they do all fit but that Paul is right, we must not narrow any given character down SIMPLY to one element alone. Fleur is from Beauxbatons, which arrives on the air or wind, but in book 6 we see her as "phlegmatic," which, If I remember correctly what Pauli was saying in our conversation over Thanksgiving weekend at my parents, the "humor" of phlegm - in medieval 4 Humor anthropology - corresponds to the element of water in the 4 Elements cosmology. As Pauli noted, we are all made up of all 4 elements, and really that is what the books are about, finding harmony and balance within ourselves and the cosmos, just as the golden soul is the balance between the biological and intellectual souls and Dumbledore pure spirit (Dumbledore) and pure matter (Voldemort). I'll describe this more in the next section on narrative because I think I can draw it out better there. But for here I will say that I think that all the symbols are true and they all intersect. BUT to try to understand HOW is probably too big of a task for even angelic intellect, and reserved only to the Divine intellect. As for us humans it would probably "blow our minds" like a big ol' bomb. ASIDE: A really good movie on this is the movie "Pi". I do not recommend it for everyone because its black and white presentation (meaning the actual color, not figurative of its tone toward morality or truth) is of a very unique style that some will find jarring and difficult to watch (and even for me, who loved the movie, it's not a "good time" movie). But, in that movie, Max is right, mathematics is a universal language that expresses the essence of nature (at least of physical nature). To try to figure it out, however, is like looking into the sun, it will make you blind. Max's quest to do so has burdened him with migraine's and when his friend Sol eventuallout thes him by re-working out the 216 digit bug in pi for him, it sends Sol into his second - and possibly deadly - stroke. NARRATIVE Ok, Here is where I tie this in with narrative. We all know that in good narratives there are always "sub-plots" which connect with and fill out the main plot. We are tempted to view a lot of the "mundane details" of our lives as accidental and not necessarily thematically connected to the main development of our lives; and this is indeed what we MUST do if we are to survive and function and avoid a dangerously explosive brain (to continue the bomb analogy.) But in reality all of the subplots are connected to the main plot of our life. The thing is, only that Divine author/providence can understand that ultimate inter-connectedness of all those "disparate" sub-plots in our mundane lives. That is why we need narrative, a "Kairotic Chronology." We need artists to weave us images and movements that accentuate the kairotic in our lives so that we can see at least some of it, so that we do not get so bogged down in physical details, politics, etc. that we drown in them. Narrative is that place we go for meaning (at least on the natural level), not so that we can escape the mundanity of reality but, rather, so that we can return to it and be effective in our lives without having to neurotically agonize over "whether it all means anything" because our natural limitations prevent us from being able to see how all the details fit into the "big picture". One should neither "lose the forest for the trees" nor vice versa). This is why, I think, in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings you do not have as much of a concept of God present. You do have a feeling of a "providence" (I am borrowing here from Joseph Pearce) BUT (and here I am not borrowing) that directing from that provident will is always implicit, never explicit. Were it to be explicit, the explication of how it worked what it worked would, again, "blow our minds." THE SACRED There is a realm where these things cross a line into the sacred and that is the area focused on by John Granger, Iconography. I will only make one comment on this area. In thinking about these things after reading Pauli's comment and planning this post I became more and more aware why it is that the Eastern Orthodox ascribe a quasi-sacramental to icons. I do not believe as I have heard the Amish and Native Americans do, that a photograph of a person is sacrilege because it captures a piece of the person's soul, but I can see why they might think that. Even in regards to natural image and narrative making keep in mind that Tolkien referred to human art as "sub-creation" because it is indeed mystically connected to the creative power of God. IMAGINATION AND THE MUSE I think that what we are talking about when we discuss these things is the imagination of the author. But that distinctly human imagination is a doorway to a world that is larger than the human author and even larger than humanity itself, the world that is what the Greeks spoke of when they referred to the "muse" as a god, the muse which visited and inspired (literally "breathed into") the poets. But we must always remember when discussing a particular work that we are talking first about a human work, and that world of the imagination must never overtake completely, in a fascist manner, the physicality of the world in which God has placed us, in such a way that that mundanity of "chronos" gets completely obscured (and I think that this is some of what Pauli's warning was speaking to) for that mundane day to day existence is also distinctly human/created in the image of God; temporality reflects eternalness in a distinct way. A good example of this would be a movie I am really into, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - the Johnny Depp version. I love that movie but I have one problem with it. In the very end the Buckets' house has been moved inside the factory. It was originally only a few blocks away, so why could Willie not have simply come there every night for dinner - while of course donating some much needed repairs? The thing is, the factory and candy is symbolic of human imagination; and while the transcendence of God to which that imagination is a pathway DOES encompass all of the world, the human imagination does not. The "mundane" Bucket life should have been left to exist in harmony with, but distinct from, the imagination symbolized by candy. For, if the "higher" things not simply rule over the "lower" things in a proper hierarchy, but rather dominate them in such a way that the very nature of the lower things is obliterated this becomes the tenet of Gnosticism in which it is said that matter is essentially evil. In The Hidden Key To Harry Potter Granger does a good job of emphasizing that the point of alchemy is for spirit and matter to be reunited once the matter has been refined, which I think makes Harry Potter a great example of how Chistian Alchemy is really a Christian response to Gnosticism. This is basically the same thing as I was talking about in the post I did on "Religion and Love in Tolkien," when the interpretation of the statement that "Grace builds on nature" is that Grace completely deconstructs nature and rebuilds something with the parts that bears absolutlely no resemblence to the nature of nature. In literature it is metaphor without methexis (which is a Greek term I discussed meaning "participation" that indicates a real connection between symbol and reality, not merely amentionedal or arbitrary connection). The "escapism" that I mentionened above and asserted that it was NOT the role of narrative would also be an example of such Gnostic tendencies which truly good narrative combats. A FINAL EXAMPLE : Humor and Humility So, thus far I have tied together Chesterton, Nietzsche, Harry Potter, Eastern Orthodox Iconography, Tolkien, Gnosticism, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Amish, Native Americans ... and I may as well throw in one more for good measure. It may be justly leveled against me that tying together all these disparate works and elements and seeing them as all connected is a bit schizophrenic and lends to an ever-rambling and digressive style of communication. And such a charge puts me in the mind of a novel that I have often thought scary in how well it probably describes my mind (and it's an often much needed reminder to humility LOL), The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy by Lawrence Sterne (18th century English writer). In that book Sterne focuses on "Hobby Horses". A hobby horse is your "deal," your paradigm, the system of hooks on which you hang your hats in order to understand the world of your experience. Of course, no individual hobby horse does the task entirely of explaining that world, but without a hobby horse you would fall apart. For Stern as the implied author, his hobby horse is narrative. As I said, a hobby horse is always a "wobbly horse". Sterne's narrative intentionally wanders and rambles all over the place, digressing further and further back on tangents and then jumping forward in time in an astoundingly disconnected leap. He even sets aside one distinct chapter to surrealistically draw out the image of himself on his narrative hobby horse: it becomes a wild bucking bronco on which he crashes through the stands and even knocks over a bishop - (a reference to one of the earliar chapters where a bishop is discussing baptism - and hilariously runs amok over his material ... and this type of self-lampooning is what I a much needed humility. At one point Sterne symbolizes the silliness of the hobby horse of narrative with 10 completely black pages smack dab in the middle of the book...BUT, he did write the book, the narrative. The point is that you have to keep trying and humbly accept that sometimes in doing so your own human efforts are quite simply comical - and sometimes, as Pauli insightfully noted, you have to reign that horse in a bit if you're going to stay sane. This is doubly important for my own field - I watched one friend NEVER complete his thesis for his MA because every week he had another book that connected with his themes and that he was going to try to work in. Part of the work of an academic is to find the scope for a discussion that you can present for others to read and digest without overly burdening them, otherwise nobody will get anywhere - and I apologize for my GROSS breaking of that rule in this post LOL. THE END (Did I really say that was the last example?) So, I'l close by adding one more to my ragtag bag of wildly divergent examples. This is perhaps one of my favorite lines ever from a popular song on the distinctness of being human; it' from Tom Waits' song Hoist that Rag from his most recent album, "Real Gone" (to which I am listening at the moment.. that and Love and Peace or Else, by U2 .... In the Waits song I think the "cracked bell" is the liberty bell, symbolizing liberty, the distinctively human capacity for free will lived out in the time-bound movement of life, and the "gods" are like the Greek gods, as opposed to God with a capital "G"). The cracked bell rings as the ghost bird sings And the gods go begging here So just open fire when you hit the shore All is fair in love and war.

Coming soon - New site name, address and look

New name & new look - Coming Soon! We have been using the name of my favorite movie, Babette's Feast, for this blog for awhile now and have been planning to change it from the moment we turned it into a Harry Potter discussion blog. Merlin came up with the name "Muggle Matters" which I really liked. I registered the domain name mugglematters.com a while back, but I really wanted to have a new design before the cut-over. Meanwhile our 'net-friend Sarah who does great stuff like Sarah and Beyond and Lucas Around the World has been designing a great new look for our blog. You had better be sitting down when you first see it; the improvement is quite shocking! When? I've OK'd the latest design and so we should have it up by Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005. Until cutover, the new site will bounce back to http://babettesfeast.blogspot.com, and after the cutover, the old address will bounce to the new one. [NOTE: I discovered in my research of the nature of the trademark which is held on the word "muggle" that the new site name and address will most likely be some type of minor infringement. But since we're not selling anything I think they'll probably leave us alone. Also J. K. R. herself has raised a stink about the big companies "going after" fan sites and discussion sites since she feels that this activity contributes even more to literacy among the youth - so good for her! At any rate, I think we're under the radar.]

Soul Music

This relates to my (Merlin's) post on the definition of "narrative." My Father once made a very insightful statement concerning music that relates to the movement which characterizes narrative (I did not actually hear this one myself, it was related to me by Pauli and our friend Nathan). He said: Rhythm appeals to the body, Harmony to the mind and melody to the soul. This is basically the 3 parts of the soul found in Ron, Hermione and Harry ... but the important thing is that movement is what relates to/connects with the soul. For, you see, rhythm is regularity in a movement but it really does not "go" anywhere in and of itself in that it does not have with in it some telos/end/goal/resolution to which it travels; and Harmony has a resolution but it appears "statically" as it were, all at once. Only melody achieves a harmony among different notes by moving through them sequentially in a certain way. .... So melody contains both elements of rhythm (it has a particular meter and tempo etc) and elements of harmony (it has harmonic resolution) and thus really is like the "golden soul" of alchemy as the unifying bond between the biological soul (body) and intellectual soul (mind). This is one of the things that is uniquely human. Animals and vegetables have (respectively) sensate and vegetative souls (life forces) that are both forms of the biological soul; Angels have intellect because they are purely spirits (no bodies); but humanity alone has the "golden soul" of alchemy that is a unity between the biological and intellectual, the physical and spiritual. Movie Music (the artistry of John Williams) It really is the way I said in my new definition of narrative, that the movement itself of the chronology of a narrative has a unique identity. Dominic is much more of a music head than I am - he used to play trombone in marching band and all and learned a good bit of theory, I just sort of "rocked out" in a band for a bit LOL - but he showed me once that in the Star Wars Universe John Williams (composer) has some "hidden clues" type of stuff. For instance, the main melody to the "triumphal song" (I don't know the real name of it) at the end of Phantom Menace is the same note intervals (but in a major key) as the Emperor's Theme from Return of the Jedi. - Same harmonic elements, with very different feels carried across by the movement of the music. Likewise, The main theme Williams wrote for the Harry Potter Movies is almost identical (at least the first two phrases in each) with that of Schindler's Theme from Schindler's List (also, of course, done by Williams). Post-Script Speaking of my father and music - I had a very enjoyable time recording music with him over this Thanksgiving weekend; we do mainly old Gospel and folk type stuff when we get together, Johnny Cash type stuff.

Merlin's Definition of "Narrative"

OK, I have decided that I think I can do this best and stick to the point better if I do it quickly so I am doing it as I take a break from packing to go to my parents for Thanksgiving. This is the post I have talked about a lot, on my definition of "Narrative," how the Star Wars prequels were the catalyst for modifying it and how these concerns apply to criticisms of book 5 in the Harry Potter series, "Order of the Phoenix". My Original Definition of "Narrative": At first my definition of narrative was "a chronology of kairotic moments," and of course I am going to have explain these Greek terms. Chronos: Chronos is, in short, "clock time." It is the strictly linear and systematic/regulated succession of events in what is often referred to as "real time." It is mundane and tedious, including every single tick of the second-hand. Kairos: "Kairos" is "special time." It literally means, "the appointed time or season." It is used of the harvest festivals in and other religiously highly significant days and feasts in Judaism, and this meaning can perhaps best be seen in Galatians 4:10, "You observe, days and months and times." This concept is the same as that in the thought of the Hebrew word "MeODE" - "appointed season." In fact, in the Septuagint, the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, circa 300 BC, in the text of Genesis 1:14 this Hebrew word is translated by the Greek word "chairos" (In many English versions it is translated, "seasons," but the meaning is special religious "seasons.") It really means a particularly special time that is "full" or pregnant with meaning. This is the sense in which the word is used in Ephesians 1:10, "A plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth." And this is also what a symbol is, a physical object or a particular character etc. that is full of a meaning that comes from something larger than itself but comes through a connection by virtue of some quality it possesses intrinsically (cf Granger.) A Chronology of Kairotic Moments Thus, a "chronology of kairotic moments" is a chronology or a timeline of events (ie a "plot," which is the translation of Aristotle's use of the word "mythos"), but not a chronology based in the mundane details of "clock time," but rather based in a succession of moments and events that are pregnant with symbolic meaning. The Star Wars Prequels During a discussion of the prequels with my friend Dominic it occurred to me that the prequels which we had been lamenting as badly plotted, also fit my definition. Especially the visual icons as symbolic as well as more "static" elements fit my definition. The problem was that, while each was powerful in and of itself, Lucas had simply strung them together loosely and haphazardly. It could not be denied, however, that the films' plots were "chronologies of kairotic moments." A New Definition Thus I modified my definition of "narrative" to, "a kairotic chronology." The difference is that in this definition it is not simply the moments or elements which are constitutive parts of the chronology that are chairotic; but the very manner of the movement of the chronology, the way the plot flows, is itself chairotic. The Order of the Phoenix: The discussion of criticisms of book 5 actually help (at least for me) to get a better picture of this new definition. Some (such as Julie) have criticized the book as being the weakest individual book of the series whereas I have found in it instances of powerful and very unique, and well timed developments of central themes and symbols crucial to the meaning of the whole story of the 7 book series. However, I could also not deny the ring of truth to Julie's statements of weakness in the book as an individual work. I believe it to be the case that with each book in the series there are indeed 2 plots involved. The first is the plot of the book as a self-contained narrative; and it is on this level that it seemed to me that Julie's criticisms were possibly very just. At the same time it was possible for the timing of the thematic/symbolic developments in the plot of the 7 book series as a whole (the second plot involved in each book) to be very good and well-timed. Simply because the latter (the "series plot development") is good does not mean that the former (the "individual, self-contained-work plot") is not weak.

Concerning "Nutters"

I had not really taken huge note of that term in HP until a particular email exchange, but have loved it ever since. I was describing, in an email to a girl I knew, a particular hairy situation in a group boarding situation I lived in and she, also having read all of the HP books to that date and knowing I had an avid interest in them, wrote back, "you have a real knack for rooming with nutters!" I thought I would here insert a tidbit from Aurthurian studies concering the, shall we say, looney character of some of the examples I have used for "a good use of cunning," such as Jack Sparrow and The Maskl ( ... and I think the real Mad-eye Moody, about whom we do actually learn a good bit in Goblet of Fire via Crouch Jr's imitation of him, also definitely falls into this category of "cunning in a good way, but mad as a hatter") This is of particular interest to me, given my chosen moniker, since it is about Merlin. In the earliest versions of the Arthurian tales Merlin began as a mad-man hermit up in the hills. I think there is something hidden in the fact that such a "nutter" ends up as the great wizard who fights on the good side. One thing I loved in the movie Excalibur was that they kept Merlin a little bit of a crazy character while still being on the good side ... and also pretty cunning (although he does flub one of his plans prety badly early on).

Potter's Pains: Wands and Broomsticks versus Apparition and Portkeys

I have been mulling over the whole wandless magic thing. One thing that has struck me is the effect portkeys and apparitions have on Harry. Portkeys are described for him as a hard tug behind his navel, not particularly a fun thought. And in the very heavy chapter "Lightning Struck Tower" we hear apparition described as a feeling of "horrible compression." These are both forms of wandless magic. Apparition is completely wandless and, while I imagine it does take a wand to make a portkey, it does not take a wand to use one. It hink these forms of magic, like potions, are allowable and can be used for good (maybe "neutral"), and that those such as Arthur and Molly Weasley, who are good, can use them without noticing the effects Harry notices because they are sort of the "hoi polloi" who are immersed in the mundane details of life - not meaning "mundane" in a negative sense - and sort of get used to the thing of the sensations so they might not even consciously recognize the feelings anymore. But Harry, so intimately tied to all the minute details of the battle between good and evil, is acutely sensitive to the very nature of any unique form of magic such as these. He acutely senses the "non-wand" nature." When I first thought of this, I thought, "well, can it be contrasted with any magic that Harry does get a particularly good feeling from, an area of magic that he really likes a lot?" And I thought, "well, he really enjoys flying ... but that is a wandless magic too" And THEN I thought, "but wait a minute, it does necessarily involve a broomstick!" So the symbolism sort of broadens here from "wand vs non-wand" to "magic based in a symbol vs magic untied to symbols." The broomstick is very much an emblem or symbol, an external object which the wizard must connect with in order to do the magic.

More Goblet of Fire Movie

I just finally got a clear conception of this on the way home today. Regarding the psychological horizontal level of the Alchemical symbolism in the books and Ron as the "biological soul" and Hermione as the "intellectual soul," with Harry in the middle as the golden soul uniting them, my friend Dom put me on this track with a side comment on the movie concerning Hermione's statement that Krum is "more of a physical being," and how fitting it is that she is paired with him ... and I thought, "of course! How could I have missed that?!" (smacking my head). And then I notice something in the symbolism in the book, that the movie brings it out especially well. The symbolism of the horizontal level extends to the different characteristics of Hogwarts, Durmstrang and Beauxbatons. I am sure that there is something in the names (like the fact that beaux is "beatutiful" etc) but I do not know what it is. What I want to discuss is the way each school is portrayed. Durmstrang is physical, the biological nature. I thought they pulled this off wonderfully in the movie with the use of the harsh regimented rhythm of the beating of the staffs. The biological is about the rhythm of the natural life in the world (fertility cycles, planting and harvest cycles etc). Beauxbatons is about an airy beauty, not meaning airy in the sense of necessarily air-headed ... although in HBP we do see in the person of Fleur that this charge is often made against beauty. I mean "airy" in the sense that mercury/thought - a.k.a. what is represented by Hermione as the intellectual soul - is un-tethered and free to fly. And, as Dom noted, the symbolism carries through to the pairings. Hermione, who is destined to be with Ron as the intellectual soul is with the biological soul in the human person, winds up for this book being paired with another very "biological" soul, Victor Krum. And who does Ron take a fancy to but Fleur Delacour (that scene in the movie where he has asked her out is hilarious). And who is in the middle? Why Hogwarts of course, wearing neither the regimented uniforms of Durmstrang nor the beautiful uniforms of Beauxbatons, but the shirt-tails that hang out and the sloppy ties without the top buttons buttoned, that match all to well the always uncombed hair of the true golden soul, Harry. The winning quality, the status of most important, being ascribed to Hogwarts as the golden soul of unity can be seen in that only the two champions from that school make it to the cup. I like too how Rowling worked in a little confusion on Harry's part in the form of a crush on Cho, who is from Ravenclaw (wind). Speculation Now here is some pure speculation, and it is not in very polished form either, but I thought I would throw it out there - maybe Pauli can pick it up and run with it the way I ran with his side comment that potions is a wandless magic. Is there a significance to the fact that it is Huffle puff and Gryffindor who represent Hogwarts? Earth and Fire? There is a unique significance in Genesis to the fact that "Adam" comes from the "Adamah" ... Humanity comes from the ground, and combined with this there is some mysterious significance to the fact that Cain and Noah are both "tillers of the ground." Fire on the other hand is usually connected with the divinity of Yahweh, such as when Yahweh speaks to Moses from within the burning bush or when Yahweh leads Israel as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For Rowling (who has herself made special note of the 4 elements symbolism), I cannot imagine that there is not some significance to the fact that earth and fire champion Hogwarts, but I do not yet know what that is. Disclaimer: If any of this is already in Granger's work and I have lifted it from there without realizing it I apologize ... I did not thoroughly read the portions of his book that were focused specifically on the individual books. There were chapters at the end devoted to each book, but most of what I read came from the main chapters where he did use specific examples but did not go through each book one at a time yet.

Reverse Alchemy

I feel again like the skeletal Sparrow atop the treasure pile in Pirates of the Caribbean: "I just couldn't resist mate." By the way, saw the poster at the theater - July 7th release date for Dead Man's Chest. I just couldn't resist posting this since it connects with literary theory I am developing in regards to HP. Dom and I were on the way to see HP 4 again and we were talking about the Star Wars prequels. We were noting that while there were some really rich thematic elements and some very powerful iconic images in the visual department, they were not well done movies in actual plotting and dialogue. And Dom noted that what hurt the worst, he being a HUGE fan of the original movies from a young age, was that you could tell that there was a good narrative there to be told, and I replied, "Yeah, it's like you want to say: George what are you doing? You had pure gold in your hands ..." and Dom automatically added, "yeah, and you turned it into lead ... reverse alchemy." I should note that the Star Wars prequels are the distinct catalyst for my change in my definition of narrative, which I'll get into when I post on criticisms of book 5.

A Couple other Notes About the Goblet of Fire Movie

Dominic and I just got back from a second viewing of the movie, just to soak it in an solidify more of the points/issues in my mind, so thought I would toss them up here quickly: 1. Another place where some of the details in the books are combined or amalgamated into one character (like I noted Ludo Bagman being lumped in Fudge as announcer at the world Quidditch cup) is that when Karakarof is before the Wizengamot Bella Lestrange's torture of Frank Longbottom and his wife is assigned either to Berty Jr or another character he names. 2. I think things are at the point where Steve Kloves and Mike Newell can assume that anybody seeing the movie knows at least one person who has read the books and can fill in details for them, and so they can operate on a sort of short-hand and emphasize the most important points. Everybody knows somebody who can fill them in on what Dumbledore is talking about when he mentions Priori Incantatem towards the end of the movie and the film makers are free to focus on the point that magic is not going to bring Harry's parents back from the dead, just like ghost-hood will not bring Sirius back into Harry's realm of contact in book 5. 3. I liked the fact that at the end, when Dumbledore gives a sort of eulogy for Cedric Digory, you can see that the ceiling is not enchanted, you can see the bare timbers ... there are some things like death you must face head on. 4. I liked how they added in (I checked the book and did not find it) an echo that goes all the way back to the beginning of the story, with the first chapter of Sorcerer's Stone when Voldy calls Harry "the boy who lived." It is especially pointed here considering that immortality is what Voldy craves and that life and death are a huge theme in the books, and neat to see in a movie that hangs together so much as an internally consistent piece something that is a tip of the hat to the way Rowling has weaved elements and prefigurings together over the span of multiple books. 5. I realized when again seeing the Durmstrang ship delve into the lake and the chariot fly through the air leaving, that there had to be 4 champions and they had to be from where they were from because of the 4 elements symbolism. Durmstrang (like Slytherin, their closest counter-part at yogurt's) comes from the water, Madame Maxime's crew flies in on the wind, like Ravenclaw, Cedric is from Hufflepuff (earth) and Harry is of course Gryffindor's fire. I'm sure Granger has mentioned this in his books and I simply forgot it. 5. I liked the melding of the image of Voldy as taken from the book with that of Gibson's satan in The Passion of the Christ (I'm not sure if it was an intentional similarity or just flowed from the natural rendering of the books description onto film but the resemblance is stroking) PS - I also went to see a matinee of "Walk The Line" today - very different type of movie/story but an excellently done film. Very emotionally draining though.

Worth the Price of Admission - and then some

Merlin's Movie Review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire It is hard to know how to approach this movie except to say that I really liked it and will probably have a second viewing, maybe even this weekend. First, let me say that you should not go to the movie expecting anything like any of the other movies. Despite my defense of some of the carry-through of the symbolism in the last movie, Prisoner of Azkaban, it did not stand up on its own two feet anywhere near as well as this movie. Movie 3 was really caught in a cross-ground between trying to flow out of the first two movies and trying to move into the territory of being a unique move. A lot of subplots are removed in this movie and it is really the main plot "adapted." The house elf is not present, you get NONE of the back-story of Barty Crouch Sr's involvement in Jr's escape from Azkaban, nor of Rita's animagus form, none of the sideline events at the world quidditch cup, the Ludo Bagman character is melded into Fudge, but simply in the announcing of the match beginning and you have nothing of the quidditch details of Krum getting the Seeker, or the Weasley twin betting with Bagman ... apparently the director of movie 3 was the one who convinced Mike Newell to turn down the studio's offer to make the movie in 2 installments to be released several months apart, and, having seen the film, I think it was the right choice. What I mean by "adaptation" is kind of what I thought about the Lord of the Rings movies, that they have the main characters, the main plot and the main thematic development as the book but are really their won distinct narrative interpretation of that basic story. This is what the third movie does not accomplish. One place you really notice it is the Music ... John Williams was not the primary composer although he is in the credits for "themes". This is a very much more "adult" film - by that I simply mean that in the cinematography and scoring, staging and everything else ... this is aimed at an older age group as a thriller/adventure/action/drama/meaning movie. The music of Tom Waits provides a useful comparison here. There are some of Waits' albums, on in particular, Bone Machine, which I think is a GREAT album, but in which he gets his furthest away from what I would call "traditional music" and more into what I would call well-done "sonic art." This movie is like that in that, while keeping the core of main characters, major instantiations of central themes and main-plot, it develops those elements much more thoroughly in the manner more particular to modern movies, such as variety of adaptations in the score, seriously, the VERY first opening music reminded me of the Matrix and then it was the John Williams Harry Potter theme but with very obvious adaptation and interpretation. The visuals that are not just stunning - as in GREAT special effects ... and it is definitely that - but also unique and distinctive. In other words the musical and visual changes in style are as much a part of the interpretation the movie gives to the story as anything else. A final point about the movie is that the writing of Dumbledore in a "post movies 1 & 2" film has come more into its own and Michael Gambon's acting of it seemed much more natural than as a sort of stand in for Richard Harris. It is really a new (and I think valid) interpretation of the character. In short I found the character as a whole much easier to connect with as an internally consistent whole on its own grounds than in the last movie. I still think the Harris version gets closer to the particular unique flavor of the books but I think this movie's Gambon-Dumbledore hangs together a lot more as an internally consistent and unique interpretation and keeps the viewer in touch with him throughout the film than that in "Prisoner of Azkaban". I think I will always love the first two movies for what they are and like this one for what it is as it stands on its own grounds as a film adaptation and interpretation of the core story in the book. A final thing to note is the diversity of this director's (Mike Newell) career: from Four Weddings and a Funeral in 1994, to Donnie Brasco in 1997, to Mona Lisa Smile in 2003. Other Links: Official site IMDB Page Hollywood.com Other Reviews

Let's Not Forget Sparrow

This is not the more structured and serial posts on Pirates of the Caribbean I mentioned before, this is just an afterthought to the post on the Weasley twins and The Mask. Jack Sparrow, especially as a sea-farer, is very much an Odysseus character (from Homer's The Odyssey), the ultimate tactician and definitely having a gift for the "cunning" in a good way. One of the best scenes for this was actually deleted: When he and Elizabeth are marooned on the island she confronts him with, "I can't believe you were going to tell him (Barbosa) about Will in exchange for a ship!" and he replies, "In fact, if you must know, I was going NOT to tell him about Will ... in exchange for a ship, Because as long as he didn't know about Will I still had something to bargain with, which now none of us has ... thanks to bloody Will!" The idea of the ellipses there is to try to convey the sense of it as spoken, which is NOT "I wasn't going to do ANY of that" but rather that "I WAS indeed going to try to bargain for the ship, but what I was going to try to bargain with wasn't telling him, but rather holding out on telling him ... and of course the part he wouldn't know was that I intended to hold out forever and never tell him. But I would have the ship by then.") NOTE: There is also, in the deleted scenes, an uproariously hilarious improvisation scene between Jack and the cursed Pirates when they find him in the cave and he says "parlez" and the "hello poppet" pirate says "damned to the depths whatever mutton-head came up with parlez!"- Depp has a brilliant improv on the French (including a line he stole from Mary Stuart Masterson's dialogue in Benny and June, in which Depp and Masterson co-starred, about raisins being humiliated grapes). That scene alone is worth buying the DVD.

Loki and HP

In discussing the "George and Fred as Cunning" material with my friend Dominic we were making the comment I noted that the specific instance Steve had mentioned was the phrase "mischief managed," and that I had noted, yes! and it is precisely mischief, not evil." To this Dominic added the very brilliant observation that this is pretty much what you have in the movie The Mask, with Jim Carey. The particular "mischief" behind the mask in that movie is the Norse god "Loki," who is pretty much a trouble maker and a master of mischief (kind of more like a Gremlin). What I always liked about that movie is the irony of the "Why do nice guys always finish last?" letter he wrote to "dear Peggy" in the newspaper. It is precisely the girl who tells him that it was a great letter and that there are a ton of girls like her who really want a nice guy that screws him over. "Niceness" is when "goodness" becomes defined solely by politeness. To be sure politeness and courtesy are good things, but sometimes they aren't feasible if you're to do the right thing. Sometimes it is better to be truly good at the cost of not being "nice." In the end it is not Stanley Ipkiss the nice guy who can overcome Dorian Tyrell. Dorian is a very dangerous evil all the more because he is a very mediocre evil, and thus very subtle evil. When his kind gets the empowerment of the mask (which, in this world, will happen sooner or later) he is a a huge problem, all the more because of his "underdog" grudge born out of luke-warmness. Stanley Ipkiss the nice guy does not stand a chance of being able to stop him even when he is the "regular" Dorian ... he needs a little "cunning" on his side in order to manage that particular mischief.

The Weasley Twins: A Good Sort of Cunning (also from Steve)

So, during the dinner convo I had been telling my brother Steve some of the stuff we had been discussing on the blog, particularly the whole thing about "cunning" and Slytherin as water and the fact that cunning is a thing that by nature is good, in fact very good but, "the higher the leap, the harder the ground." And then I entered this sort of rave about how excellent Rowling's characters are, and I was talking about how Fred and George Weasley may be my favorite characters on a personal level, how I absolutely loved (to the point of goosebumps) their exit from the Umbridge-run Hogwarts in book 5 and how they made their last great stand an all out assault of pranks to give Harry a diversion to use the flue network in Umbridge's office and their "marching orders" to Peeves upon their exit (