Snape's Patronus

Eeyore has a great post up speculating about what creature Snape's patronus might be. As I've said before, I like these kind of speculations because regardless of whether they turn out to be correct or not, they are taken directly from the texts (i.e., what we call canon) and they provide insights into characters. Here's an excerpt, comparing Snape to the thestrals: Snape has always seemed sinister to Harry and to the other students. Yet, he has not (until the end of HBP) done anything to harm anyone (as Quirrell told Harry in Philosopher's Stone--Snape hated him (Harry), but he never wanted to kill him), only to save them; he tries very hard to teach them things that will be useful. His talents are likely under-used; he'd prefer teaching DADA because he is an expert and has been since childhood. But he's also quite good at Potion making, and Dumbledore has chosen to have him remain in that position--just as the thestrals are used for transportation and mundane things, rather than being used for their full potential. Earlier, we had a good discussion here and here on Snape's affinity with spiders.

Professor G weighs in on the Hallows

Merry Christmas everyone! I looked out on the Feast of Stephen this morning, but unlike the good King W, I saw no snow where I'm currently staying with my family which is Grove City, PA, erstwhile stomping grounds of Merlinus et Paulius. John Granger's site is now a blog. I was reading this post where he provides some more material for the ponderings and then notes: So what does Deathly Hallows mean? Let's be clear. I have no definite idea. It could be a new magical creature, a place like a graveyard or sanctuary, or a reference to the four Founder Horcruxes Harry must destroy before vanquishing the Dark Lord. We’ll know for sure after reading the book, right? But then he throws some more light on word meanings. 3. Deathly Hallows also has an alchemical and Christian meaning of greater depth. The Hallows are a quaternary from the Arthurian tradition that echo the four elements of alchemy we see in the several quaternaries of the Harry Potter books (Hogwarts Founders, Houses, Magical Brethren remaining Horcruxes, etc.). To hallow, that is 'to make whole' and 'to make holy' simultaneously from Old English 'hal', is the alchemical action of transcending the contrary polarities of creation and returning to the transcendent origin of existence, in Christian tradition, the Logos or God's creative Word. In alchemy, again echoing Christian tradition, this requires a death to the world ('renunciation') and to the self ('humility' for a start). Deathly Hallows may have the specific meaning of "deadly graveyard" or "dangerous Horcrux relics"; it certainly points to the life-laden power, the hallowing effect, of dying to the world. Harry Potter's main task in book seven is to "get Voldemort," but this will probably take the form not only of destroying Horcrux-Hallows, but also of his transcending his most closely held beliefs. I like the way Granger ends, reminding us that destroying evil, i.e., killing Voldemort, does not complete the full mission of the good side because the work or restoration is still to be accomplished, i.e., uniting the Hogwarts houses. John G. never lets us lose site of the Great Alchemical Work which is the framework in which he casts his interpretations. Given the richness and superb quality of the Professor's writing, I have no doubt we'll be reading his future posts voraciously.

Hallows and Horcruxes

Time's up. Everybody has had plenty of time to play hangman to find the title the fun way. Now let's analyze it some. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I'm trying to be the first hit on Google for another 15 micro-seconds of fame. (Sorry, Andy, what with inflation and all....) When used as an adjective, deathly can mean deadly, but it can also mean indicative of death. When I think of the latter, the state of Dumbledore's hand in Half-Blood Prince immediately comes to mind as well as Voldemort's horcruxes. My first thought was that those are hardly hallows, literally "holies" or "saintlies". They are more aptly described as infernal or ruined. Of course, to be holy or hallowed means to be "set apart", and the horcruxes are definitely set apart in a "deathly" way. Plus they used to be part of something holy, i.e. Tom Riddle's soul. Next my mind went to Godric's Hollow. I don't particularly know why -- maybe the similarity between the words hallow and hollow? But it seems like a hallow could be a place as in the oft-heard phrase "these hallowed halls" to describe educational institutions (like Hogwarts?). There were two deaths at the hollow, Harry's parents, making the place deathly and hallowed, like the ground at a cemetery. The problem is that Godric's Hollow is just one place and the title specifies a plural. Could they refer to the places, like the cave, wherein the horcruxes have been hidden? The cave is rightly described as deathly what with Inferi swimming around waiting to recruit new members. And in a sense the place is hallowed if you separate the formal "set apart" meaning from the common nuance of hallowed as something good (e.g., Saints, Angels, Heaven, the Almighty God, a church sanctuary, etc.) This is preliminary guesswork to get a conversation going. I suspect we won't know what Rowling is getting at until we have our eyes glued to the pages of the book. Update: Here's a couple posts with good points: Good points by HP Prognostications. Travis weighs in La Shawn goes after Mallory -- and mentions MM -- thanks, La Shawn!

Book 7 Ponderings

Well, I was just poking around on the internet taking a break from working on a paper, looking for any news on the progression of Book 7 I might have missed or any new news on titles and release dates etc and came across these 2 that I am sure that everybody else who is more in the know has known for some time but I just thought I would toss in on them. The First is not really news I guess ... I just liked the title for the piece: "Harry Potter: Wanted Dead or Alive" Which just struck me as funny because it is the desperate cry of all fans: "Kill him or don't, but we're dying with wanting to know how it ends!" ... but of course, the good story I know JKR will provide is worth waiting for her to write it well and I am satisfied that her intuition of when the story is well written enough to see the light of day will make the best call on it. The other is the probably "old news" piece: 2 Characters dying unexpectedly This is some piece from a lit expert saying Harry won't die. I haven't read enough to see what other arguments Prof. James Kranser gives to say that in general Harry won't die, but I would definitely agree that Harry wouldn't be one of the 2 characters Rowling said did have to die that she had not anticipated (I know ... this was from way back in July, but I've been a little behind the times). If Harry dies in Book 7 I would wager he has been going to die all along. It doesn't seem like the type of meaning thing you change part way through, definitely not half way through the final installment. I would say she would have known by at least OotP or HBP on something that big. And if she is changing Harry's fate this late, I doubt she would be bringing it up. Never a good idea to give any hints that something that big might have been flying by the seat of your pants. As for who does die ... I hope they're death eaters, but I suspect that at least one of them has the last name Weasley ... don't ask me to support that with argumentation, just a gut feeling ... and I sure hope that both characters don't have the last name Weasley because then the fact that the decision for both deaths came at the same time (sometime just prior to the Richard and Judy show appearance) increases the possibility that they are the two characters you cannot think of one being alive without the other, literarily, because who would finish the other one's sentences for them the way identical twins do? (in other words, decide to kill one as a writer and you might as well kill the other ... hence the decision being simultaneous ... if both newly deceased characters have the last name Weasley the twins' chances don't look that good ... glad she didn't tell us though :) ). If Fred and George do die I'll be very sad but I'm sure it will be a real show; they never disappoint for putting on a show. :) POST-SCRIPT: I just read some of Krasner's arguments and they seem weak ... and downright off-base with this one "Neville Longbottom is really the chosen one, so I suspect he'll die." Neville isn't the chosen one because Dumbledore has made it pretty clear that the title "chosen one" really refers to Voldemort's choice in trying to kill Harry at Godric's Hollow (In other words, I'm not saying that the title "chosen one" is complete bunk ... but it is an "ironic" title, in the technical sense of the word ... the wizarding world, as well as the reader, wants to hop on the "prophecy train," and that is basically what Voldemort did and what started the whole saga of Harry's involvement ... so in a way the books are sort of revelation about self for the reader too ... I think a gentle revelation, and not heavy handed, as would be the case if the reader is supposed now to feel guilty about being part of the same "structures" as the great evils in the world, but I think still a bit of a self-checking revelation, "for those who have ears to hear"). Neville may well die but the fact is that he is not "the chosen one" because one of the things Rowling is primarily doing (and that she is pretty clear about in the places where Dumbledore is obviously her mouthpiece) is challenging a "deterministic" concept of "fate." She is doing this primarily by challenging the mis-conception of "prophecy." Harry will have to fight Voldemort, but because of the way Voldemort pushed things from his own putting stock in the prophecy in a certain (wrong-headed) way. That seems to me to be one of the primary themes of the series: There are certain patterns in the world that things follow but unless your a centaur (and even the best of them, like Firenze, admit the tentativeness of even their ability to read such things) getting your head around those patterns will blow your mind apart and you'll probably misread it anyway ... better to stick with your moral center and courage and just try to do the right thing. Oh yeah ... Krasner also appears to have been on the "Dumbledore will come back, at least as a ghost" bandwagon, which she seems to pretty much have put the squelch on back in August. 1. He's officially dead (unless she is pulling a really big ruse, but I don't think she would ruse on something like this to this level ... it seems like it would dip into the realm of being actually duplicitous ... with the Romance thing of Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny she just cast aspersions on the "shipping wars" in general as a mild ruse to hide her hand ... I know I may be doing a 180 from something I said before, hopefully not too bad though ... but I take her at her public word on this one that DD has really exited stage left) 2. If we are to believe Nick's comments about why Sirius won't come back as a ghost, in the end of OotP (which I thought was a really good piece), then even moreso for Albus Dumbledore. 3. Harry will probably have some access to Dumbledore's memory and thought at the time of his death but I am willing to bet that there will be some pointed statement in it of the limitedness and purpose of those paintings - that Harry will try to get as much out of the DD painting as possible and be told by the painting (in that typical patient and endearing DD way we have all come to love so much in how he deals with and relates to Harry), something like that the paintings are only there to help the present headmaster/mistress and to help them with the running of the school etc ... meaning maybe not just mundane operational things but wisdom and knowledge that might help in actively protecting the students (such as checking on matters in other locations where they have paintings, letting the headmaster/mistress know that the minister has just left the ministry to apparate in Hogsmead to come to the school, since that falls under "protecting" the schools interests from being encroached upon by the state and that sort of thing) ... but I suspect that there will be some type of curb in Harry's encounter with the portrait (not sure exactly all what, just a gut feeling). Rowling's is a pretty complex world and she is a pretty talented writer. I would not be surprised if the painting has everything in Dumbledore's mental powers (memory and intellectual powers) but that there are parameters on the "advisor paintings" system that control what the painting itself can disclose or do. If she uses such a device in book 7 I suspect it will be as much a part of the "needing to come to grips with death and have closure" thing as anything else, like the experience of looking for Sirius as a ghost in OotP. I suspect that if such an incident occurs, one of the points will be some sort of statement by the painting that it is only a painting of Dumbledore and not the man himself, a portrait with a certain defined function, and Harry should not look to it for "all the answers" ... both on the level of solving the problem of Voldy and Snape etc, but also on the level of emotional desire to be with Dumbledore again -- that he should let grieving and closure take their natural course and accept that he will not see Dumbledore again on this side of the veil. I suspect Harry will get something helpful from the painting but also be slightly frustrated somehow by not being able to get everything he is asking (it is a type she has used before: the room of requirement gives you what you need but it has parameters to that system, and in HBP we saw Harry pushing and bucking against those parameters frustratedly, and I suspect we'll see the same sort of thing with the painting in book 7). Just my thoughts though ...

Merlin's take on the question "Is Harry a Horcrux?"

Well, Merlin did not blog/muse on this subject, he just sent me an email, so I have to publish it on my blog (sigh) and get 0% of the royalties. Good stuff, Merlin! Q: Is Harry a Horcrux?? A: No ... but they are on to something. I think it is true, those who say that Harry actually being a horcrux is a silly thing. BUT I do think Voldemort tried. It fits several models. 1. Heir against Heir John Granger in "The Hidden Key To Harry Potter" predicts that Harry will be found to be the true heir of Godric Griffyndor. I think he is right (note the import at the end of book 6 of Harry going back to Godric's Hollow, where it all started ... I think he will here find out he is the true heir, as well as the particulars of that night) ... I think Harry is Griffyndor's heir as Voldemort is Slytherin's - and I think Voldemort knew it. Think about it, it kills 2 birds with 1 VERY IRONIC stone Bird 1: What more appropriate horcrux could the heir of Slytherin have from Griffyndor than his not only living (think of Slughorn's dismay at Riddle's question about making a living being a horcrux) but HUMAN (a person) heir ... what more ironic than to make the personal heir of Griffyndor, who opposed Slytherin's mentality most of all, into a horcrux, a mechanical cog in the evil machinations of the heir of Slytherin. Bird 2: The Prophecy - Very tricksy ... It is known that Voldy knew of the prophecy and of the fact that both Harry and Neville fit the dates ... and thus far the only explanation for his choice of Harry is that, ironic to all his prejudice, he fears the child of the muggle-born more because he is muggleborn. BUT what if there is another reason yet to be revealed? What if Voldy combed the jedi and sith archives and found out that Harry is the heir of Griffyndor through James? That would take care of Harry Potter would it not? how can the heir of Griffyndor make himself into the fulfiller of the prophecy and undo the heir of Slytherin, when he himself is a horcrux preserving the existence of Voldy. (maybe, after taking care of the heir of Griffyndor as a possible prophecy fulfiller in a way that really floated his "thick with irony" boat, he was gonna head over and do in Neville Longbottom but mainly just to be safe. OR Keep in mind that mother and father are very important with Voldy ... maybe in Voldy's mind he never intended to kill either Harry or Neville ... maybe killing would be too easy and not demonstrate Voldy's power clearly enough, not like control would ... bringing Neville to the dark side through the despair of Bella torturing his parents into insanity, through fear like Wormtail. And the heir of Griffyndor, realizing the utter futility of trying to outwit Voldy's superior trickiness in using his own heritage against him and making him horcrux by murdering his parents, would despair ... both despair through the fall of their parents. Think about the nature of prophecy as a means to getting at what is true ... Do you think Voldy would like this? Don't you think he would hate it? Don't you think it would feel to him like the ultimate triumph to prove the prophecy UTTERLY wrong? ... to say "see! I did not even have to kill them ... I can live even while they live because I rule them through fear and pain." To someone like Voldy, I would imagine, there is quite a difference between killing to demonstrate your own power and killing in defense because some prophecy said you might die if you don't get rid of this person ... that would show forth the authority of the prophecy. 2. Literary Precedent: Merlin In some of the Arthurian legends Merlin is said to be the "backfired" plans of an incubus. Incubi were devils/demons who took human form and copulated with human women so that the devil might inhabit the offspring as a perverse mockery of the Incarnation. The Devil slept with a woman, but it backfired ... he could not inhabit the offspring but rather the offspring was a powerful magician who fought on the good side, against the forces of evil such as Mordred - the offspring was Merlin. 3. Other Predictions Just a thought, and my prediction. And for the record here are my other 2 predictions. 1. When Snape killed Dumbledore he was NOT being "good" in the same sense as Arthur and Molly Weasley or Tonks, Lupin, Black, Harry, Ron or Hermione. This is just my prediction and I could be proven wrong in book 7 (ie if she uses the "secret plan between DD and SV" theory). But thus far I have not heard any arguments that strongly persuade me and the closest (the question of DD and SV's convo overheard by Hagrid) seems inconclusive (don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss it ... it puzzles the daylights out of me and I'm dying to know what is was about and how it fit in) I don't think this means Snape will remain evil, I predict he will be redeemed (maybe at the cost of his own life) Some have proposed that Snape had good intentions in the "not until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed" ... and I stick by my reading of it as INTENDED as a taunt rather than a "lesson" ... but that doesn't keep it from becoming a lesson, and not just a lesson "in the abstract" but also a lesson from Snape himself ... I think Snape's drive is to be a teacher, a drive that was corrupted by Voldy BUT not corrupted all the way to what Voldy's own "once upon a time" good inclinations had been perverted into. In an odd way Snape has as much trouble NOT teaching (even when he's doing it with vindictive intentions and thoroughly meaning it only as a taunt) as he has not hating DD on the rooftop ... and one of the keys to being a good teacher is being a good student, and this may be be Snape's redemption ... that he will finally pay attention to DD's charity, he will be unable to resist his inclination to be a good student. 2. Harry will be the 7th and final dark arts teacher. Of the 7 potions that began the DADA riddle (the 7 potions Snape put as his trap to guard the stone [Sorcerer's Stone 286]... greatly talked about on Potter discussion boards) ... 3 were poison (Quirrel, Barty Crouch Jr and Snape), 2 were Nettle wines (fruits ... Lockhart and Umbridge wind up in the booby hatch) and 2 there were that aided in passing through the flames: Lupin and Harry. The position has been cursed since DD refused it to Voldy. Who better to assume the post once the curse is undone than the one who will undo that curse? What better way to truly fight the dark arts than to instill and nurture understanding ? C'mon, Rowling was a teacher ... do you really think that her protagonist will end up as anything other than a teacher when it is THE central teaching position at Hogwarts with regards to the story? Has any other post at the school been so in need of settling and definition? One of the central questions to the series is the question of how to defend against the dark arts (think of the contrast with the philosophy of the Durmstrang school in Bulgaria in book 4)