|
|
Post by teehee100 on Apr 11, 2013 20:17:03 GMT -5
As most of you know, Voldemort put a taboo on his made up name. Do you think he also did this with his birth name?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nahara46 on Apr 11, 2013 22:18:42 GMT -5
Hmm... Doubt it. After all, he considered his birth name to be practically trash- scorn. He would never dirty his magic by using it to protect that muggle name.
|
|
|
|
Post by eskimoRock on Apr 12, 2013 4:26:03 GMT -5
Well, Nahara just said it better than I could  |
|
|
|
Post by teehee100 on Apr 12, 2013 5:03:42 GMT -5
I can see that. However that means that Harry could have said that instead of you-know-who. This way he could avoid the taboo and insult Voldie at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nahara46 on Apr 12, 2013 6:39:16 GMT -5
But Harry was never that sensible when he was on a tangent, now was he, hence why he said the name in the first place. Anyways, I doubt Harry and co. would want to take the risk- I certainly wouldn't!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Apr 12, 2013 9:37:48 GMT -5
Somehow it would make sense that he'd put a taboo on the name he hates, so no one would ever find out, but I doubt Voldemort would bother. And they couldn't take the risk at that point in time, no.
Btw, that reminds me - if such a taboo is possible, why didn't the Ministry put a taboo on the Unforgivables to catch Death Eaters? I mean not necessarily during the time under Thicknesse, but in general? It should have been clear to everyone save idiots like Fudge that enough Death Eaters walked free - or was it just to protect his 'donations to very good causes'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dimcairien on Apr 12, 2013 13:23:15 GMT -5
Btw, that reminds me - if such a taboo is possible, why didn't the Ministry put a taboo on the Unforgivables to catch Death Eaters? I mean not necessarily during the time under Thicknesse, but in general? It should have been clear to everyone save idiots like Fudge that enough Death Eaters walked free - or was it just to protect his 'donations to very good causes'? I've always though that whatever the spell that causes the taboo is a Dark Magic spell. If that's the cause, that's my reasoning for the Ministry never tabooing the Unforgivables. BTW, I've never even thought of them doing that, but it is an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Apr 12, 2013 13:55:54 GMT -5
Hm, dark spell? Who knows ... I wouldn't put it beyond the pureblood fraction to declare anything as dark and in consequence forbidden that could throw a wrench in their plan, you know. Besides, we all know that most wizards don't have much common sense or logic. Yes, I know, I am cynical.
The whole dark/light stuff is sometimes questionable anyway. I've seen these arguments a few times and agree - the Avada Kedavra might have been used to butcher animals painlessly, for instance. Would that really be dark? On the other hand, Wingardium Leviosa is a light first year spell, but if you levitate someone over a cliff and then cancel it, the person can fall to their death. So, which spell would be worse? IMO they need to consider the intent a bit more ...
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Apr 12, 2013 16:50:10 GMT -5
The problem is that the wizarding world seems to think of everything in terms of black and white, not taking into account the various shades of grey in between.
For example, Severus Snape. He was the head of Slytherin, biased towards his house, and a spy against Voldemort, but the Gryffindors never saw him as anything other than a greasy git, forgetting how much he sacrificed, spying on the Death Eaters for the Order, who couldn't even seem to see past the Mark on his arm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Apr 13, 2013 0:57:11 GMT -5
While that is true in general, I wouldn't say that fits for Snape. First, most Gryffindors did probably not even know about his past, and second, he made it impossible with his behaviour for them to see him as anything else. Frankly, for me it's not deciding what he sacrificed or did for the Order (which I wonder about anyway - could he even give anything important away without getting caught, so was what he told the Order that useful?) but how he behaved. And that wasn't a reformed good guy, but a right biased, prejudiced, immature git and Death Eater. Sorry, but I still can't stand him, and that has nothing to do with him being Slytherin, I'd feel the same about him if he were Gryffindor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nahara46 on Apr 13, 2013 8:34:54 GMT -5
While that is true in general, I wouldn't say that fits for Snape. First, most Gryffindors did probably not even know about his past, and second, he made it impossible with his behaviour for them to see him as anything else. Frankly, for me it's not deciding what he sacrificed or did for the Order (which I wonder about anyway - could he even give anything important away without getting caught, so was what he told the Order that useful?) Not useful? That is the biggest... i don't even know what to call hat statement, of this century. Snape, for one, saved Harry's life over and over, warned them about the prophecy, warned them about Voldemort's attempts to get the prophecy. He could tell them how many death eaters- If I were dumbles, I would have greatly appreciated the knowledge of what I was up against- numbers are a big deal. Snape clearly was able to inform Dumbledore of several things, such as the murder plot of him. To say he was not useful, just isn't correct. Anyways, it's not the information that matters- he showed great self-sacrifice and bravery putting himself at risk like that! If Voldie realized what was happening.... I shudder to think of what would happen to Severus. Was he mean? Yeah, of course. Though I do think this could be attributed as many theorize to the fact he can't seem to like Potter due to his status with Voldie- Malfoy was in class with Harry all the time, so if Snape did something, Lucius would know. Which could also explain why Draco was publicly humiliated or disciplined. Daddy-dearest wouldn't like that very much, now would he? I agree he was a bit stupid. However, that's not unlike a lot other characters, People seem to somehow like Ron despite his general dickery. (Even I have a soft spot for that jerk, and I just want to punch him sometimes, hard!) Also, we always talk about how a character can't be perfect, but when they have a flaw- such as Snapes' remarkable ability to hold a grude and prejudice, we focus on it and ignore their stronger attributed, such as Snapes' remarkable ability to also be endlessly faithful and true to the one he loved.  There is my rant. If you can't tell, Severus is one of my absolutely favorite characters. So, I might be a bit biased |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Apr 13, 2013 9:14:07 GMT -5
Saved his life over and over? I only remember the broom incident in first year. And for someone supposedly wanting to protect Harry, he was rather obsessed with having him expelled - which would protect him nicely. About the prophecy Dumbledore knew since before Harry was born, so it was clear that Voldemort would be interested in it. And the murder complott - well, what good did it do, seeing as Dumbles allowed himself to be killed anyway?
But what I was thinking about was something else. Numbers are all good and well, but it would have been more useful to be apprised of planned attacks to lay traps for the Death Eaters. But if these were derailed, then Snape would have been suspected so he couldn't really do and say too much. Besides, we all know that Dumbledore couldn't harm any bad guy, they need to be redeemed so they can kill more good guys.
As for self-sacrifice and bravery - well, the alternative would have been Azkaban. He only stayed out because Dumbledore vouched for him, IIRC. And it gave him a good, nice, safe place to life out his grudges for 14 years before Voldemort came back. I don't see why he would have to be that nasty from day one.
See, and that's where I don't agree. If I had been Dumbledore, I would have told Snape to tell Lucius that he had threatened to fire Snape if he didn't behave better to the non-Slytherins. Snape would have to tone his nasty attitude down if he wanted to stay at Hogwarts and supposedly spy for the Dark Lord any longer. That's something the Death Eaters would have had to accept But obviously, Dumbledore keeping his spy entertained and playing his political games was worth destroying the careers of a whole generation?
As for loving Lily ... that's something I always rather doubted. If he truly loved her, why was he so nasty to her son? As I said, I don't buy the spy excuse. And I never got the impression Snape would have cared one bit if James and Harry died, but Lily survived that attack in 1981 and expected her to fall into his arms now that he had set Moldyshorts to kill her family. To be honest, the idea of Snape loving Lily rather creeps me out.
No, Snape's not the only one who got away with too much. Personally, I don't think Harry should have just accepted Ron's behaviour so willingly, he should have told him off now and then. And the same goes for Hermione. Or Molly, and even more Dumbledore. It is amazing me how many people think these people can do no wrong.
Can you tell that I am as biased, just into the other direction? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Apr 13, 2013 10:26:39 GMT -5
Kitty, I actually agree with Nahara, but then, that might be because Severus is one of my favourite characters too. Saved his life over and over? I only remember the broom incident in first year. And for someone supposedly wanting to protect Harry, he was rather obsessed with having him expelled - which would protect him nicely. He may have said that he wanted Harry expelled, but I don't think he ever truly meant it. He never said as much to Dumbledore, which he would have done if he had truly wanted Harry out of the school. As for saving Harry's life; as well as the broom incident in first year, he did volunteer to referee the Gryffindor/Hufflepuff match, just to try and mae sure QUirrell didn't try again. And don't forget, he did rush to the Shrieking Shack in third year, when Remus left the map open, and then in fifth year, he not only gave Umbridge water when she asked for Veritaserum, he also lied to her about the message Harry gave him just before they went to the DoM. And the murder complott - well, what good did it do, seeing as Dumbles allowed himself to be killed anyway? Dumbledore was already dying when he was told about the murder plot, so I always thought that he'd planned for Severus to kill him, because he knew that Draco couldn't do it. The memories that Severus gave Harry proved that Dumbledore asked Severus to be the one to strike the final blow, and they found out about the plot after Dumbledore put the ring on, so he knew he wouldn't have more than a year left anyway. But what I was thinking about was something else. Numbers are all good and well, but it would have been more useful to be apprised of planned attacks to lay traps for the Death Eaters. But if these were derailed, then Snape would have been suspected so he couldn't really do and say too much. Besides, we all know that Dumbledore couldn't harm any bad guy, they need to be redeemed so they can kill more good guys. I can see your point, but I do disagree. Dumbledore believed in the sanctity of life, and he knew that if the Order interrupted too many of Voldemort's plans, Severus' cover would have been blown, so he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Both Dumbledore and Severus were, in fact, and they did the best they could, but they are only human, and humans make mistakes. As for self-sacrifice and bravery - well, the alternative would have been Azkaban. He only stayed out because Dumbledore vouched for him, IIRC. And it gave him a good, nice, safe place to life out his grudges for 14 years before Voldemort came back. I don't see why he would have to be that nasty from day one. See, and that's where I don't agree. If I had been Dumbledore, I would have told Snape to tell Lucius that he had threatened to fire Snape if he didn't behave better to the non-Slytherins. Snape would have to tone his nasty attitude down if he wanted to stay at Hogwarts and supposedly spy for the Dark Lord any longer. That's something the Death Eaters would have had to accept But obviously, Dumbledore keeping his spy entertained and playing his political games was worth destroying the careers of a whole generation? I always got the impression that while Severus was nasty in public, to maintain the charade of being a loyal Death Eater, Dumbledore wouldn't have allowed him to stay if he had been truly that bad. Maybe Dumbledore and some of the other teachers, like Minerva and Flitwick, restored at least some of the points Severus removed, in private. Plus, I can't really see Dumbledore being willing to fire someone who was as good at potions as Severus, so maybe the students were learning, despite not believing that they were. As for loving Lily ... that's something I always rather doubted. If he truly loved her, why was he so nasty to her son? As I said, I don't buy the spy excuse. And I never got the impression Snape would have cared one bit if James and Harry died, but Lily survived that attack in 1981 and expected her to fall into his arms now that he had set Moldyshorts to kill her family. To be honest, the idea of Snape loving Lily rather creeps me out. I don't think he loved her as anything more than a sister. She was the one to try and protect him from the Marauders when she could, she gave him someone to talk to during the summer holidays so he could get away from his father. Maybe he did, when their hormones started appearing, see her as a potential girlfriend, but I'm almost sure that by the time he died he saw her as a sister. No, Snape's not the only one who got away with too much. Personally, I don't think Harry should have just accepted Ron's behaviour so willingly, he should have told him off now and then. And the same goes for Hermione. Or Molly, and even more Dumbledore. It is amazing me how many people think these people can do no wrong. Can you tell that I am as biased, just into the other direction? ;D The books don't mention absolutely every single day during the seven years they are about, so maybe, there were days when Harry did get up the courage to give Ron and Hermione a piece of his mind, especially after fifth and sixth year, when he was sure they would stick with him and not abandon him. As for Molly and Dumbledore, I figured that the end of fifth year would be enough for Harry to show his displeasure at the headmaster, and I can't see him wanting to alienate Molly, even if he did disagree with her. That's just my opinion though, feel free to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Apr 13, 2013 12:52:56 GMT -5
Kitty, I actually agree with Nahara, but then, that might be because Severus is one of my favourite characters too. [/url] Don't I know that  It's not keeping me from disagreeing, of course  He may have said that he wanted Harry expelled, but I don't think he ever truly meant it. He never said as much to Dumbledore, which he would have done if he had truly wanted Harry out of the school. As for saving Harry's life; as well as the broom incident in first year, he did volunteer to referee the Gryffindor/Hufflepuff match, just to try and mae sure QUirrell didn't try again. And don't forget, he did rush to the Shrieking Shack in third year, when Remus left the map open, and then in fifth year, he not only gave Umbridge water when she asked for Veritaserum, he also lied to her about the message Harry gave him just before they went to the DoM. You don't know what he said to Dumbledore in private, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Any good he did in PoA there was undone for me by the way he was raging, wanting to get both Sirius and Remus kissed and his refusal to listen. You can't put that just down to him wanting to protect the kids, he was completely out of control. And with the DoM ... did you ever wonder why it took the Order so long to show up when Snape could send a Patronus straight away to warn them that something was afoot? Maybe I am paranoid, but it took a bit too long for my taste. You misunderstood me here, I wasn't talking about killing Dumbledore, but that Draco in his attempts to do that was nearly killing Katie and Ron. The fact that Dumbledore knew who was behind it and still didn't do anything, and even rebuked Harry's suspicions, made me uncomfortable. It's not just about interrupting attacks, but taking the DE's out of the fight a bit more permanently. And while I understand that Dumbledore didn't want to take a life, and I'd not want any innocents to die, either, he didn't seem to do anything about all the DE's walking free - which in turn meant that more innocent lifes were taken. But that's a problem of the magical world in general - stunners only get you that far when the downed opponents are instantly revived by their buddies. But then, I never really got why Dumbledore's word was enough to keep Snape out of Azkaban, but not to force some Veritaserum down the throats of proven Death Eaters or after third year enforce a trial for Sirius. That's one of the inconsistencies of the books in my eyes. Can you see any *real* headmaster keeping a teacher that's the worst bully at the school? He was truly that bad, belittling his students at every turn, insulting them, intimidating them. Even restoring some points would not make up for that. Snape might have been a good Potions Master, but he was a horrible teacher and would be better off researching potions, not teaching it. Many students would be learning better if they'd not be so afraid of the teacher or hating him for his bullying. Possible. Or he just wanted her for himself. Possible, though that is something JKR should have shown, as it would throw a different light at their relationship. While I understand that Harry due to growing up at Durskaban feared that they would abandon him, it still annoyed me that he took everything lying down. Wasn't enough, he still went on to blindly do what he was told. Would you follow someone who tells you to trust the man who caused Voldemort to kill your parents? After that man already ruined your life and kept repeatedly important information from you? I'd have expected a bit more doubts and distrust. As for Molly, I see your point, but it still annoys me that she was the only mother figure for Harry. Oh well, I am not a huge Molly fan, either, so that's clear anyway Oh, I am happy to do just that ;D It's clear that we will never really agree on that topic, but what's a discussion forum for if not to argue a bit about it now and then? |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 12, 2013 12:25:24 GMT -5
I don't think Voldemort tabooed his birth name as really little people know it and even fewer call him with it. I believe that Dumbledore was the only one. "Tom" is too "human" for calling such a monster.
As for why they never used the taboo for localize the unforgivables? It's a good question. Maybe because in 70's, even Aurors were using them; and maybe in the 2nd war they gave them the right to use them too? It wouldn't help much if the two camps use them.
A for Snape, I believe his mission of protecting Harry was the only reason he got to live. It wasn't a redemption but a revenge for what happened to Lily, at last in the beginning. For the rest I believe he was really bitter. He had thrown away his life at 17, yes, it was his fault, his choice, nobody forced him, it make it worst, he had no one to blame but himself. He killed the only person he ever had affection for, yes, it it was his fault, his choice, and nobody forced him here too, it make him more than guilty, it make him most monstrous, I don't know how he was able to live with himself but he coped by emptying that hate and disgust on innocents kids, making even worst human.
The only other person who has similar life was Regulus, who choose suicide. I always saw it as desperate way to run from what he did, maybe the deception and remorse and even depression when he realized who Voldemort was really and the atrocities that he committed for that psychopath became too much to bear.
I think it was one of the reason Dumbledore didn't enforce more discipline on Snape, Snape was probably going to loose it if he didn't let some of the steam out, he needed be bitter and mean and sarcastic and as the wizards don't know anything about psychotherapy, they have to cop as they could.
Here I am not defending anyone, I just wish, things could have been different.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19811945 on Oct 20, 2013 7:36:26 GMT -5
If they did put a taboo on the name "Tom Riddle" - either as Tom or as Riddle, then his DE would have been working overtime as there are quite a few people in the world named Tom or people like solving riddles.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Oct 20, 2013 7:44:47 GMT -5
Don't forget that Voldemort hated his birth name. He took on the name Voldemort when he was still in school, purely because he didn't want anything that connected him to his father, who was non-magical, and hid his less-than-pure roots as much as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if he made sure that the Death Eaters who knew that his original name was Tom Riddle, didn't tell anyone, either by threatening to kill their families if he found out that they did, or by forcing them to swear oaths to not mention it.
I doubt he would put a taboo on his birth name, since he didn't want anything to do with it, and knew that the name Tom was exceptionally common. Remember his reaction to finding out the fact that the owner of the Leaky Cauldron was also called Tom.
|
|
|
|
Post by melodypottersnape on Oct 21, 2013 21:05:12 GMT -5
I've always wondered about something. Did he taboo his name in the first war. It would explain the fear of the name. Even after the war there would be a reflex action of 'oh no they can get through our wards and kill us now' anytime the name was used. Not to mention did it go away as soon as he was defeated in '81. Could that be how DEs got into the Longbottoms home. They thought he was gone so used his name not thinking of the DEs.
I mean they didn't fear Gellert name and he was probably just as terrifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Oct 24, 2013 1:58:32 GMT -5
Had been wondering about that, too. BUT: If his name was tabooed in the first war, then it was pretty nasty how Dumbledore demanded of Minerva to use the name Voldemort one day after the monster was supposedly dead - just because Voldemort was out of the way doesn't mean that his Death Eaters could not still attack people in retaliation. They could have popped up on Privet Drive straight away, and it would have been the height of irresponsibility to cause an attack there and give them an inkling where the BWL was kept.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 24, 2013 7:02:05 GMT -5
I will have to disagree again. I know, what a surprise Well I think that the taboo name is something that need the ministry approval because you have to set it on their territory and need their facilities/intelligence/Magical-GPS-system to install and fellow the surveillance of the taboo-breakers. I believe that is because it was set up at the same time the MoM fell at the hands of the DE. And if it wasn't, then why didn't Voldemort put the taboo name in Harry's 5th or 6th year when everybody knew he was back? Also it's obvious that the MoM never fell before that year, so I don't think Voldemort used the taboo name before. As for why the wizards feared Voldemort more than Grindelwald? 1- Grindelwald was avoiding England because of Dumbledore (they were avoiding each other) and was killing in the other Europeans countries. It's possible that the English wizards fear more Voldemort than Grindelwald because they were the direct victims of the first and only partially or indirect victims of the second. 2- Grindelwald tactic was : a- getting the Elder wand and becoming invincible. b- getting supporters. c- imprisoning or killing any opponents himself, he even built a prison for them. 3-Voldemort tactic was: a- making Hoxcruxes (plural) and becoming immortal. b- getting supporters. c- using supporters as spy to kill (not imprison)any opponents and stopping any plan of the MoM to defeat him. For me it's clear that while Grindelwald was somewhat feared because he was strong and violent, Grindelwald was blinded by the power of the Elder wand and didn't fear fighting a fair duel with Dumbledore and that caused his defeat. Voldemort was more feared because he was strong, violent and seemingly everywhere at the same time. His supporter weren't just fighters and spies, they were his Armour. A web that entangled around his enemies in particular and all the English people in general. He became some sort of a ghost that could surge at any moment, you just had to say the wrong thing about him or be not respectful and one of his man could hear you and Voldemort would visit you that night with his DE and kill you and your family and put his mark above your house. It could make anyone paranoiac to do point of never repeating his name in public and then even in private. And that fear pushed them to distrust anyone they didn't know and probably distrust even people they knew. The fear would continue to grew each time there was a new rumor: "You know that wizards living in that house, I heard that he was boasting about You-Know-Who being a coward, well he got killed with his wife and 5 kids". The fact he was always unseen and acted in the dark also made him some surreal and terrifying creature and people forgot that he was "human", well sort of. It makes me think that the only reason Crouch SR. authorized the Unforgivables wasn't because the Aurors needed them, but to save face and cover the fact that any tentative to stop Voldemort was probably sabotaged from the inside. Why would an Auror need the Killing curse, when you just had to use a cutting curse and decapitate the enemy? And don't tell me Aurors never killed or hurt a opponent before that day. Even more that the killing curse need you to literally concentrate on wanting it to death if you want it to work. It the same with the pain curse. For me, it's more of a flashy announce than a real change in the MoM strategy to win the war. Even if there could be some occasions when you could use Impero or the other two, they could probably be replaced by other curses like the explosion curse or the confusion jinx...Nothing to make such a fuss about. |
|
There is my rant. If you can't tell, Severus is one of my absolutely favorite characters. So, I might be a bit biased 
It's not keeping me from disagreeing, of course 
