|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 12, 2012 10:10:06 GMT -5
Oh well, maybe it's a cultural difference (as an example, here, if a child did something wrong and a neighbor saw him, he can scold him and discipline him if his parents aren't present. While, in other country, it would be seen as someone getting involved in what doesn't concern him) but I don't see a problem if Molly took some decisions for Hermione and Harry. I mean, of course, the parents' authority prevails, but when they aren't there, I don't see the problem when a responsible adult take the decisions for the children. It's not used to harm them but to protect them.
Now, normally Sirius' authority would prevail on Molly's for Harry, but she didn't trust his judgment and told him so, even if she was tactless and said it the wrong way. Plus, Hermione's parents weren't there, but they trusted the Weasley to take care of their daughter in their absence and it includes taking those decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Sept 12, 2012 10:34:11 GMT -5
For Harry and Hermione... Well, she should have let someone else to make that decision. She should, but would probably throw a tantrum if they did come to a different decision than she herself thought right. Oh well, maybe it's a cultural difference (as an example, here, if a child did something wrong and a neighbor saw him, he can scold him and discipline him if his parents aren't present. While, in other country, it would be seen as someone getting involved in what doesn't concern him) Cultural difference indeed ... some parents here would be ok with it, particularly if the child is endangering itself, but in most cases, the parents would lay into the other adult, IMO. Particularly the younger ones - I've been noticing for a long time now that manners go down the drain more and more, and parents see it as completely alright when their kids do things that my generation would have gotten into trouble for. Yes, it would have been Sirius's decision, and in the end, he was right. Sadly, it cost his life. I always wanted to throw it into Molly's face that her 'they are too young to know' endangered her two youngest and the two she claimed to be like her own children plus two more and made the rescue mission necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Sept 12, 2012 11:07:14 GMT -5
Yes, it would have been Sirius's decision, and in the end, he was right. Sadly, it cost his life. I always wanted to throw it into Molly's face that her 'they are too young to know' endangered her two youngest and the two she claimed to be like her own children plus two more and made the rescue mission necessary. Yes, he was right that Harry should have known more because he need to understand Voldemort and that important for him to survive, but I don't see it as the cause of Sirius' death, I mean, how can we be sure that Harry wouldn't have gone to save Sirius regardless if knew about the prophecy or not? After all, he had the confirmation from Kreature that Sirius wasn't at Grimmauld and the way Kreature said it suggested that Sirius was in danger and he was already aware that Voldemort could send him false visions, so I believe that Harry would have gone regardless. For me the ones responsible of Sirius' death are Voldemort and Bellatrix. |
|
Chameleon
Headmaster/Headmistress
Call me Headmistress Chams.
Posts: 1,873
|
Post by Chameleon on Sept 12, 2012 11:16:47 GMT -5
Yeah, it's probably culture thing. I've never been scolded by anyone except my parents, grandmothers, friends and one teacher. Actually two, since I kind of said that I hated another teacher to her face, when I was twelve (and pretty childish).
I don't know how my parents would react if anyone else would have scolded me, probably not care very much, but we prefer to let other people care about their own business, how the children act, although we can get very annoyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by G. Novella on Sept 12, 2012 11:55:45 GMT -5
IMO, I think if you hate Molly, you'll hate her. That's a bad way of putting it, but basically, the more you hate a character, the less you want to see her perspective/his perspective or put light to it. To be honest, I'm really not that big of a Sirius fan. I used to love him a lot, but now I'm sort of meh on Sirius. He had his strong points, but Molly and Hermione were very right in OOTP that he wasn't seeing Harry for Harry. A lot of what he expected from Harry was to be the link to James. (Cue Sirius lovers smashing me to death)
But Molly wasn't right in saying it the way she did. However, I can give her this. She's just entered a war and is plagued with nightmares about her family dying. I doubt she had a lot of sleep or was in her right mind either. That entire book was about people going over the edge with paranoia and fear, and well, Molly expressed it in her way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miss Wings on Sept 12, 2012 13:42:16 GMT -5
No, he just didn't reveal at once that Lord Black and Sirius Black were one and the same person. You might think of "Forging Destiny" by White Angel of Auralon, where Sirius went as 'Comte de Jarjais' while clearing his name? Found it  www.fanfiction.net/s/8203627/1/Island-of-Hope |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 12, 2013 9:53:54 GMT -5
I think part of the harassment Molly gave to the twin and Bill steam from her own lifestyle.
Being poor isn't easy, being Weasley-poor is taking it to a new level. So Molly pushed her sons to be ambitious but also to choose a safe career, that way they wouldn't live the life she had with their father. I wouldn't be surprised if Molly resented Arthur a little, in a way, if Arthur had been more ambitious and had stopped his muggle-obsessions, he probably could have had promotions and therefor much more gold.
Buying everything second hand, not being able to afford nice things for her children and for herself, hearing people laughing at them was probably really hard.
But being the archetype of the wife and the mother who sacrifice her own desires for those of her family, she kept silent about those feeling but started to live through her sons lives and accomplished her own ambition trough them.
As for Fleur, I think Molly saw her as too much superficial to be a good wife for Bill, Fleur was a young, girly, opinionated woman.
And as Molly own marriage had ups and downs, and knowing that her downs were deep, it could explain why she was so against that marriage, she believed that if Bill ever found himself in a bad situation, Fleur would leave him for someone else and wouldn't have the force of character to stand by him.
|
|
|
|
Post by melodypottersnape on Oct 12, 2013 19:00:18 GMT -5
In the first book I liked the few times I saw her. She came off as loving and a bit frazzled at the business of Kings Cross and I loved it.
Second year I didn't care for the fact that she compared a child to another. My mom has done it a few times and nothing hurts more than your mother telling you she prefers another sibling to you. I hated how in the movie they made her crack a joke at Harry having bars on his window.
Third year the only thing I didn't like was her not wanting Harry to know someone was after him. In trying to save him from mental anguish her decision could have put him into physical danger. I think she should have been a bit more practical. Though I understand that she wanted Harry to have a chance for a normal year. I still like her though.
Fourth year I again hated the comparing of children and how she said where did she go wrong. That was too far. I also disliked how she treated Hermione because of Rita's article when not five minutes before she reprimanded Diggory for doing the same about Harry. Though as humans there will be times were we are all hypocrites so it proves that she is human and not the perfect mother.
Fifth year she disgusted me. I attribute most of her bad behavior to stress and terror of Voldemort's return but that doesn't excuse her. She behaved very ill mannered in Sirius's home. Sirius didn't have to let her live there as the rest of the order didn't(Hermione's parents weren't) and she treated him like crap. I wanted to slap her when she indicated that Sirius chose to go to Azkaban than take car of Harry. She insulted Harry's parent as well. She essentially said that Harry's parents were bad parent for choosing Sirius to take care of him. I love Molly usually but She really ticked me off in this book.
Sixth Book I can't remember much of cause I read it once and never watched them movie. I guess my hope of forgetting it worked. She really wasn't mentioned in the Seventh.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 13, 2013 0:49:46 GMT -5
Molly through the books.
1st book: Didn't pay much attention to her, I was too focused on the adventure. She was the mother of his best friend, but nothing much.
2nd book: She seemed to confirm what I thought about the wizarding world, they just don't believe what they children told them, but again with those twins, she may have heard a lot of cover-stories. Also how she had a crush on Lockhart, foreshadowing his popularity with some women.
3rd book: She was also a representative of the wizarding world who believed that Demontors would protect their children. I didn't knew if should laugh or cry, I still don't know.
4th book: Again the same representative, believing what she read in the press despite knowing Harry and Hermione better than Skitter ever will foreshadowing the power of the press on the wizarding world and the 5th book.
5th book: Here I have to say that even if I didn't like the way she did it, I still think that she had a point. Sirius had left Harry to get revenge, he was reckless to go after Peter when he know that Peter was DE and Sirius was the only one who know the truth.
I saw him like she did, even with all his good intentions Sirius has serious problems, his trauma from Azkaban (just that would be enough to destroy a man), his alcoholism, and it seems that he didn't learn much from those experiences.
I think it exasperated Molly and frighted her that Sirius got too much influence on Harry, Harry was reckless most of the time but she feared that Sirius would even encourage it more.
6th book: it was like an Algerian comedy, her son got a bride and she didn't like her. It felt like home.
7th book: I liked that she tried to stop them from going alone at first, she was the only one.
I liked that she had avenged Sirius by killing that crazy Bellatrix. And it broke my heart to see her loose Fred only few hours before the end of the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Oct 13, 2013 1:38:08 GMT -5
Molly through the books. 1st book: Didn't pay much attention to her, I was too focused on the adventure. She was the mother of his best friend, but nothing much. Same here. She was nice to Harry with the jumper and fudge at Christmas, so I rather liked her. Found it questionable how she dismissed the bars and starving so easily while at the same time stuffing Harry with food because he was so skinny. Can that woman put one and one together?? And that crush on Lockhart *rolls eyes* But I still liked her a bit. Cry, dear, cry. Honestly, what is more dangerous to a school full of children - one single person who probably has not even a wand - or a hundred hungry Dementors completely out of control? Dementors that would make everyone miserable just by being in the vicinity? Besides, we are talking about teenagers. These warnings about Sirius were way too vague to be taken seriously - if Harry had known why Sirius was supposedly after him, he might have been more careful. But would you personally be careful just because some convict has escaped from prison somewhere in the country? You know what is funny? Before the summer, Harry fought a basilisk to save Ginny, and Molly should know that, right? And still she thinks the same boy who did that would die from fright if he knew about Sirius. That left me rolling my eyes. Honestly, when it was turned against Arthur, she knew perfectly well that you can't believe a word that scandalmonger writes - but the moment it's against Hermione, which she knew and claims to see like a child of herself, she believes the rubbish? Embarrassing, Molly, embarrassing. The way she destroyed the products of the twins and talked about them in front of guests was really bad. She couldn't make it any clearer that her love for her children depends on if they have straight O's in all subjects and do what Mummy tells them for the rest of their lives. For me it sounded as if Hagrid was the first and already had Harry when Sirius came? In that case, how was Sirius supposed to get Harry in the first place? Hagrid had order from Dumbledore to take the baby, and you'd have needed much more than one wizard to keep him from that, Hagrid is blindly following Dumbledore's orders, no matter what. And Sirius wouldn't want to hurt Hagrid. Sure, going after Peter was reckless, but Sirius had just lost his family, and Hagrid had taken the baby from him, what do you expect him to do under these circumstances? And being nasty to him was going to help with his problems big time! If they had tried to help him feeling more useful and responsible, then he might have been different. But putting that banshee into charge of his own house who insulted him and tried to drive a wedge between him and the only reason for him to life did so much for his sanity and feelings of self-worth. No, that was the point when my opinion of Molly went down the drain. While I am with melodypottersnape here - read it once and tried to forget it. Ugh. As for Molly, the way she treated Fleur was disgusting. Even if she didn't like her, to call her names and let the girls get away with it was VERY bad manners. And that's the same woman who would yell at the twins for calling Snape a git ... She meant well, but all she achieved was that they went even more unprepared than necessary. Considering that she had her head so far up Dumbledore's ass and his word was law for her, I always found it funny how she tried to keep them from fulfilling his last orders. Never saw it as avenging Sirius, but a cheap way to make Molly bigger and dumb Bellatrix down. I always wanted Neville to kill that animal, not a housewife. That disappointed me. |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 13, 2013 13:23:17 GMT -5
Oh my! let start  1-Yes it was nice of her. But I forgot her completely until the end of the book when she came to take her kids home, and then I remembered that they were kids. 2-Yes and no. You see they are the same people who after seeing an 11 year old being maimed, devoured, toasted and everything, said: "well that was fun, let do it again next year". They had to have a death toll to stop and how much do you bet it was more of a demographic problem than a safety conscience? What's a little "bars and starving" compared to that. Fan-girls  3-Demontors were more of the protection for Fudge, he was showing that he was going all arms out to please his public. He had arrested Hagrid the previous year while he was innocent and Sirius escape had humiliated him the year after. Wizards are illogical. They got frightened, not by Sirius, but by the fact that Sirius escaped from Askaban, they believed the prison perfect, and rather than trying to understand how he did it, they put demontors at Hogwarts. They were lucky Demontors weren't allowed inside the school like Fudge wanted. Though they would probably have killed the kids who were kissed, because those monsters has no restrain and accused Sirius of it. Also Sirius was a remainder of Voldemort, and they just panic when they hear about anything linked to Voldemort, it was irrational. 4-Maybe she liked the idea of Harry being the poor victim of girls scheme. Maybe she likes those type of novel. And she forgot that it wasn't a novel, like all those people who believe that the people they see in magazine owe them something or they think they know them because they read some articles. She deal with anger, deception and fear by shooting. It wasn't the OWL but the fact that if they weren't talented, lucky and didn't find a lot of money, they had just ruined their future. She still should try to tone it a bit. Sure, but what if Hagrid was attacked while he was traveling with Harry. A responsible godfather would have followed Hagrid, two wizards, of which only one has a wand, would be better if they encountered DE. I am not convinced. I have the same problem with McGo. Sure Hagrid wouldn't give Harry to Sirius and whatever plan Dumbledore had concocted, Sirius Duty as a godfather was : 1- unsure that the last family he had, the only part of it still alive would arrive safely to destination. 2-speak to Dumbledore about Peter so Dumbledore would understand who was the spy, the DE and the traitor and use of his authority as godfather to get Harry. Giving up after two seconds is the same as not trying at all. And yes, asking Hagrid to retrieve Harry alone was dangerous. Yes, you can put it in Dumbledore's bad ideas column. I understand that he wanted revenge, but that is the recklessness that frightened Molly. She was trying to help him, she just didn't know how. They are all left to deal with their problem. "Deal with it" she was saying. That how they all do. The "banshee" wasn't trying to wedge between Sirius and Harry, though she didn't like Sirius influence on Harry when Sirius was depressive and under alcohol influence and wanting Harry to be more like his father so he could forget his own problems. And again he was alone in that house most of the time, and if he wanted to help, he could have. But he was waiting for Dumbledore's permission so that if something happened to him again, he could blame it on Dumbledore, it wouldn't be his fault this time, he wouldn't have recklessly abandoned Harry to fight the war. Also she may have been territorial, it's in her personality. Here, it's like a tradition for a mother-in-law to criticize or call name her daughter-in-law. Maybe that why I am not that angry. In the end they got along. Once she realized that Fleur really loved Bill. I can give her that point. She wasn't too stubborn. Well, she couldn't do much, even more when Arthur and the order weren't backing her up. She hoped that she could slow them down until they would saw reason. Oh, they believe Dumbledore's word is law because it's easier for them to just follow and think someone know better. Also it was more "they haven't finished their school years yet" problem than "they have a secret mission, we should do something instead of them". Sigh, I take back what I said, she is no different of the others Incapacitated Order of the Phoenix. AS for the final, well, it's question of POV, I liked how Bellatrix died. It could have been Neville too. But I don't really have a problem with Molly killing Sirius' murderer. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Oct 14, 2013 3:58:08 GMT -5
One thing I'm curious about, and I apologise if this has been tackled (my internet is not the best right now, so I'm not even going to try reading through the rest of the thread).
Why the hell does Molly have access to Harry's bank account?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Oct 14, 2013 5:30:13 GMT -5
You are asking something I have been wondering about, too. Sure, in GoF she seemed to have his key - but how is she allowed to take money without him giving any more consent? I mean, if I used someone else's credit card without permission, it wouldn't be legal, either. And in OotP we don't even hear about her getting his key, she just took money. (It wasn't mentioned that she gave it back in GoF, either, if I were really mean I'd say she just kept it ...)
To me that ties in straight with the beginning of the series. Hagrid had Harry's key, and was given it by Dumbledore. How did that one get the key? Did he even have the right? He always acts as Harry's guardian, but throughout the whole series, there's not a shade of proof that he is legally his guardian.
And do the wizard not have bank account statements? Harry never got one, after all. Would have been interesting to see what his revealed ...
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Oct 14, 2013 6:42:35 GMT -5
Actually, is there any indication that Harry gets to keep his key at all? Hagrid has it, Molly has it etc etc.
I don't have my copy of PS to hand, can somebody check and see whether it's mentioned that Harry actually gets his key in the first place?
I know Hagrid takes it out but I can't remember if it's then handed over to Harry or if Hagrid takes it back or if it's just not mentioned. You would think a kid like Harry would want his key but I'm not sure. I think I'd remember it but again, I don't have PS to hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 14, 2013 7:21:34 GMT -5
Would the Goblins let anyone access to the volt? Does having the key suffice?
Harry is a minor. His guardians are The Dursleys but They don't know about his gold, for a good reason.
Though, I believe he has his key, because in the 3rd book he was able to buy all his school fournitures himself as well as pay his stay in the auberge in Diagon alley for 15 days.
Maybe Dumbledore was the one supervising his bank account, like he did for his invisibility cloak.
But why would Molly steal Harry's money and face problems if she was caught when she could just ask? Harry wouldn't say no. He had already risked his life for half her family, he wouldn't cheap on them for few galleons?
Edit: I just read the part with Gringott in PS (I have the Frensh edition), they doesn't mention the key after giving it to the Goblin for examination anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Oct 14, 2013 10:56:58 GMT -5
That is something we never really learn for sure, but which I would like to know. It seems rather unsafe, IMO - particularly with minors still in school where the possibility of other students getting at the keys in the dormitories isn't that small. Yep, in the third book he had his key himself, and in the second too, but in fourth and fifth book, it was Molly who went shopping. Possible, but shouldn't he have told Harry that he does it? That's what makes me feel uncomfortable. It's the same after Sirius died, Dumbledore went to the will reading and did stuff in Harry's name, who wasn't even informed that there was a will, never mind a will reading that made him the sole heir. That doesn't feel legally right to me. We're all reading too many Molly bashing fics  But seriously, with her having the key and Harry never getting statements, she'd have had the chance and Harry wouldn't even notice. And with Dumbledore making himself guardian, he could have allowed her to take money. It's not as if Harry was ever asked his opinion on anything regarding his private life. Just theoretically speaking, mind you. |
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 14, 2013 11:32:14 GMT -5
Well. You are right, but there is another problem and more important one, the Goblins has the magical world's gold, all of it. Imagine another Goblin's rebellion?
Didn't she ask Bill to intervene to facilitate the access? Isn't that mentioned in the book? I always thought that Bill had something to do with it.
But is's true that nobody ask for Harry's permission for anything. Again, maybe as a minor, Harry didn't really have regard in the matter. We will never know, it's true we don't know anything on minor status in the magical world.
And does a minor have to be present in a testament reading or does his guardian suffice? Does it in the magical world?
The only other example was Dumbledore's testament and the three kids mentioned in it were 17 already.
As I don't read bashing, I can only respond using what I know from the book, it's still theoretical, because we don't know much:
The Weasleys are poor but also really proud and have a strong sens of moral. Sure they make mistakes and can be hypocritical from time to time. But who doesn't?
I see it as an antithesis, if they weren't proud and had principles, they wouldn't have those money problems. It's because Arthur and Molly know that what he is doing in the MoM is important that they are patiently suffering trough poverty and the misprise of his chiefs.
The fact also is that their children aren't thieves too. Ron is often jealous, but he never took Harry's gold, he was upset when he realized that he didn't give Harry his money back in the 4th, a thieve wouldn't have mentioned it at all; the twins didn't accept Harry money until he threatened them and said that he was going to throw it away.
If the parents are thieves, then some of the children would have the same behavior, even if not all of them, kids often copy their parents behavior.
Now if you were to ask where did the Malfoys get their money? It would be another story.
Dumbledore is chummy with Nicolas Flamel. If he needs some gold, he can ask him rather than stealing an orphan, no? Plus he has three jobs and that means three salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Oct 15, 2013 7:46:20 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, just because you're a minor doesn't stop your bank account being yours.
And I would think any bank employee who helped 'facilitate' access to somebody else's bank account would be very very fired (possibly literally in the case of the goblins).
Then again, for all that Gringotts is supposedly the most secure bank ever they don't exactly have any kind of identity recognition. Nobody asks why the owner of the account doesn't have the key. Nobody asks Hagrid for any identification. Why yes, of course we believe this easily forged note.
My student loans company is more secure - they actually ask secret questions before telling me how much I owe them (and really, they shouldn't care who's paying them - just that it's happening).
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 15, 2013 8:17:41 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, just because you're a minor doesn't stop your bank account being yours. And I would think any bank employee who helped 'facilitate' access to somebody else's bank account would be very very fired (possibly literally in the case of the goblins). Then again, for all that Gringotts is supposedly the most secure bank ever they don't exactly have any kind of identity recognition. Nobody asks why the owner of the account doesn't have the key. Nobody asks Hagrid for any identification. Why yes, of course we believe this easily forged note. My student loans company is more secure - they actually ask secret questions before telling me how much I owe them (and really, they shouldn't care who's paying them - just that it's happening). The wizarding world is too archaic. I am not saying you are wrong, even as a minor what is yours is yours, but your tutor is the one having regard on it until you are a major. It also depends of how vigilant you bank is and how honest your tutor is and what laws are applied in your country. "Facilitating" could be vouching and being himself a guaranty and any problems should raise from the "facilitation" would be on Bill, with interests of course. Also you are right, they don't ask for any identification unless they are asked for it(Bellatrix volt)or maybe they were already warned by Dumbledore that Harry was coming, if Dumbledore was acting as Harry "Civil law notary" or "lawyer". Yes I know he should have said something about it to Harry, but that's the Muggle's world. The Magical world is another story. As for the Goblins I don't know much, and maybe it's the most secure bank ever because it's the only bank ever? |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Oct 16, 2013 3:50:00 GMT -5
Why and when would Bill have to facilitate access? He was in Egypt in most cases. Besides, he's a curse breaker, not a teller. It was none of his business.
When my father died while my brother and I weren't of age, we had to sign off our mother's decisions about the inheritance. At that time I was 16 and my brother was 11! Harry, when Sirius's will was read, was one year away from coming of age. And even if he did not have the right to sign anything yet, shouldn't he have to be informed at least? If no one even bothers to inform the heir, it would be way too easy for any guardian to steal whole inheritances. And no, I am not talking about Dumbledore here, but in general. The war left more orphans than just Harry. That whole system seems rather insecure and illogical to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 16, 2013 5:41:46 GMT -5
You are confusing your world and the wizarding world. We don't know much about the wizarding laws or what right they give to kids or orphans, but from what I see of them, I can see that they are not pro-human rights. And the magical world in the 90 isn't the same as the muggle's one around the same time.
You were protected by laws, thankfully. What are the wizards laws concerning inheritance and minors? when most of them think that what happen in the family stay in the family and believe in the pureblood supremacy and "toujours pur" and still do the arranged marriages? Do you think a minor could emancipate himself? can he go against his parents? The only ones we know of had to run away.
So I can conclude, even if I can't be sure, that there is a great chance that Harry wasn't lied to because he was stolen his money but because it's not in their procedures to inform minors about everything.
And I am not saying they are right.
As for Bill, maybe I am wrong. I thought I read that Bill had helped her; both times she accessed the volt, he was in England and I thought he helped with paperwork or vouched for her.
And The Wizards are Illogical. As is the nature of Magic. It's indomitable, dangerous and mysterious.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Oct 16, 2013 9:47:35 GMT -5
This isn't just 'a pureblood family' though. This is Sirius. Who broke out of Azkaban, came back to England, stayed in a house he hated, risked his life and then died all for Harry. Who spent his entire life giving the middle finger to pureblood customs. Who was an animagus and ran away at 16. Sirius taking his last opportunity to speak to Harry.
Can you really say that he didn't want Harry at his will reading? Whether Harry was legally necessary or not, he would have wanted Harry to be there.
Magic isn't illogical though. Word + gesture + magic = predictable result. Ingredient + ingredient + stirring + magic = predictable result. When you start experimenting, then things start getting dangerous but no more so than weapons testing would be in our world.
Wizards are just stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Oct 16, 2013 11:10:34 GMT -5
This isn't just 'a pureblood family' though. This is Sirius. Who broke out of Azkaban, came back to England, stayed in a house he hated, risked his life and then died all for Harry. Who spent his entire life giving the middle finger to pureblood customs. Who was an animagus and ran away at 16. Sirius taking his last opportunity to speak to Harry. Can you really say that he didn't want Harry at his will reading? Whether Harry was legally necessary or not, he would have wanted Harry to be there. Magic isn't illogical though. Word + gesture + magic = predictable result. Ingredient + ingredient + stirring + magic = predictable result. When you start experimenting, then things start getting dangerous but no more so than weapons testing would be in our world. Wizards are just stupid. If you are sure that reckless Sirius, Sirius who spent his last year drinking and brooding had specifically asked for a 16 year old Harry to be present for his will reading and Dumbledore refused that right to Harry then I won't say anything. Because as much as I know, in such a situation if he didn't, they would proceed the standard way. Magic is illogical because it's the antithesis of science who is logical. JKR wanted to give it some reasoning and the fact that it's "taught" could give you the illusion that the thing had some intrinsic structure, but it doesn't. You separated the words and ingredients and gestures from the magic but they are intricate. Is the word not magical? Is the gesture not magical too? Or is magic just energy? So how do you control it? why do you need gestures and words then? and what about arithamancy and ancient run and astronomy? And more precisely the fact also that you can pass from word + gesture + magic (which basically means it-s-just-a-non-understood-thing-that-we-are-naming-like-that)to something totally different is illogical. The fact that they learn to use it and can reproduce it doesn't make it a logical matter they understand. As for experimenting, it is as dangerous as any unknown experiment, but for all I know at school I couldn't decapitate my friend or set him on fire if I spelled the words wrong or got the wrong gesture and my lab experiences in high school couldn't potentially explode our classroom. And they seem stupid because what is evident for you isn't for them, and of course some people are just stupid in both worlds. |
|
|
|
Post by Alice on Jun 28, 2015 15:15:03 GMT -5
JK Rowling doesn't understand such things, in an interview she seriously said that Harry was not being abused by the Dursleys, only neglected. Oh, if it's just neglect...wait what? I had a much nastier thought. We know that since before Ginny met Harry she wanted to marry him. At least that's the impression I get. I bet that many little girls wanted to marry the hero, but what if Molly encouraged her? I could imagine Molly wanting Harry as a son-in-law. "The poor, little orphan with no parents and no family, a hero and so courageous, he will need someone to give him love, etc." The way Molly treated Harry always irked me. She seemed always too eager to please Harry, while shouting at her own kids. I can't help but suspect that her wish to adopt Harry ("He's like a son to me") has something to do with the fact that Harry is famous and rich. Molly is very ambitious. She wanted Arthur to get a better job, she was not happy with the twins' plans for the future, she was always gushing about Percy's achievements, i.e. Fact is, the first time she met Harry she was nice, but paid him no special attention, it was only after the twins informed her that he was the Harry Potter, that she suddenly started caring about him being all alone in Kings Cross. "The poor boy!" It does make no sense for Molly to believe Skeeter's article, but maybe she believed there might be some truth to it (and she did fall for Lockhart's lies before). Like Harry being a poor, sensitive soul that needs a mother figure (she certainly gives me the feeling in OoP) and Hermione playing with poor, impressionable Harry's heart. Certainly she would believe that Harry deserved better, and Ginny would be a much better choice in her eyes. (Also she might have noticed Ron's crush?). Molly was obviously displeased with Hermione--she sent everyone an giant chocolate Easter egg with filling, but only a small simple chocolate one to Hermione. This was right after the article and Hermione was clearly hurt by Molly's behaviour. I also think Molly felt threatened by Sirius and felt she might get replaced. It would not do to loose her hold on Harry, would it? The whole time in OoP Molly was challenging Sirius' authority over Harry and became downright mean and offensive. She was awful and I wished so much Sirius would kick her rude ass out of his house! |
|
|
|
Post by Scarlet Woman on Jun 28, 2015 16:27:03 GMT -5
With the way Molly was behaving, I'd probably have thrown her out of the house in Sirius' place. Agree about Fleur, that was way beyond the pale. My only explanation would be that Molly was much more prejudiced than she wanted people to believe a,d didn't want a part-veela, and that she believed that Fleur had used her veela powers to ensnare her precious son. And of course, Hermione - who looks up to Molly - and Ginny had to go along with it. I was disappointed when Harry picked up on the 'Phlegm' name - in that case, I had really expected better of him. I had the feeling Molly believed Fleur to be shallow one, because she was a veela, pretty and likely a scarlet woman to boot (see: Hermione). She didn't understand what her son would see in a veela, since she is so clearly prejudiced against them. Pure jealousy, the same with Ginny. |
|
|
|
Post by SlytherMeIn on Jun 29, 2015 6:00:03 GMT -5
Jessieanne, I completely agree with you. Don't forget how Dumbledore did nothing to enforce proper trials under Veritaserum for all the Death Eater who bought their way out of prison by pleading Imperius. He probably even knew about the Dark Mark, which should have been a clear sign who was a member of Voldemort's merry band of assassins, but didn't use that. Just wondering ... the basilisk only petrified muggleborn. Was that the reason why Dumbledore sat on his bony arse and did nothing? Would he have acted if his precious junior Death Eaters had been petrified, which need to be redeemed at all costs? I think Veritaserum can be fooled, just like lying detectors in the muggle world. The Dark Mark disappeared after Voldemort had been banished. Snape made a big deal out of the Dark Mark reappearing. Remember the scene with Karkaroff? Also theoretically it would be possible to mark someone under Imperius? I doubt that Voldemort would do something this stupid, but Death Eaters could still plead to be innocent. Plus, I doubt that Sirius was the only person that was thrown into Azkaban without trial. I really don't agree with Dumbledore caring about Slytherins. Throughout the books he showed that he was very prejudiced against Slytherins. In the first book alone, DD had the bright idea to send the Slytherins off into their common room which lies in the dungeons where the troll was supposed to be. Then he ridiculed Slytherin at the end of the year by letting them think they had won the House Cup, only to turn it around and give the victory to the Gryffindors. At the feast. It is no coincidence that he gave Gryffindor just enough points to overtake Slytherin. That was a slap in their faces. Throughout the books DD shows blatant favouritism to Gryffindors and Harry especially. Dumbledore wanting to "redeem Slytherins" (Draco, Severus) had nothing to do with sympathy, but him wanting chessmen in the war against Voldemort. He never showed interest in them before they became Death Eaters. Dumbledore never showed any concern towards Snape's well being and at the end Dumbledore was the one responsible for his death (remember the Elder Wand?). It was obvious that he wanted to turn Draco into another spy just like Snape. The incident with the basilisk is not the only time DD endangers the students, in first year he set up a trap for "the most dangerous Dark Lord of all times" just to test his precious weapon. He was endangering the whole student body, the teachers and remember the poor Unicorns? So much for caring about other people. Despite preaching about love the whole time, Dumbledore seemed to care about nobody. I really don't understand where you get the notion that DD cared about Slytherins. Slytherins, not junior Death Eaters. There is a big difference. Besides not every Death Eater was in Slytherin. |
|
|
|
Post by PoisonLove on Jun 29, 2015 7:21:11 GMT -5
I read the summary and i cringed/laughed at it. Its amazing how far Harry/Hermione shippers will go to prove that Harry and Hermione are meant to be. I found the summary cringe worthy, too. I don't ship either Hermione/Harry or Ginny/Harry, but I also think that it makes sense that Ginny would use a love potion on Harry just like Molly did on Arthur to get his attention. The way Molly giggles about it to Hermione and Ginny one would think it was nothing bad at all. Then the Wizarding World's attitude regarding love potions always made me cringe, it is as if to them there is nothing morally reprehensible about roofing your love interest. In the muggle world we call this rape. Poor Mr. Weasley, I doubt that Molly is still using it, but I wonder if Arthur would have married her without the love potion? Back to Harry and Ginny, the way he suddenly acted towards Ginny was very weird, suddenly he started obsessing about Ginny and was acting the jealous boyfriend, despite never giving her a second thought before. He was always excluding her from his little Golden Trio and often just forgot about her. It was just weird. He seemed so bipolar when it came to Ginny. And don't get me started on the whole flowery smelling thing. It could have just been her perfume, but the way Harry acted was just creepy, he acted a lot like Ron did under the influence of a love potion. The whole romance felt so forced, and JK Rowling admitted as much when she said Hermione and Harry should have ended up together. It is no wonder it was so badly written if the author herself feels that she screwed up the pairings. Not that I agree. I don't think Harry ever showed interest in Hermione in a romantic way outside of the one time in GoF where he thought that she looked pretty, and promptly forgot about her. Harry is often describing her negatively and while he obviously thinks of her as a friend he is shown to be often annoyed with her bossiness and know-it-all attitude. Unlike Ron who is always bickering with her Harry prefers to ignore her. At least she has some chemistry with Ron, though I don't think that even their pairing will work out. Ron is just too lazy and inconsiderate and she is too ambitious and overbearing. There would be a lot of ill will is what I think. Ron has often hurt her feelings before, and Hermione has made him often feel that he is not good enough. I cannot see him getting a good job (if it wasn't for JK favouritism, or maybe Ron leeching off Harry's fame?) and I don't think Hermione would put up with his lazy, self-entitled attitude for long. (Ron always seems to expect everything to just fall into his lap without him having to work for it. His attitude always annoyed me.) |
|
|
|
Post by ASensitiveSoul on Jun 29, 2015 7:43:15 GMT -5
I don't buy the bullshit that it was the love potion that did it. Not one bit. Tom just had a superiority complex of some sort that got out of hand as he got older. I think it was because he never received any love. Not even as a baby. Mrs. Cole admits that even as a baby she thought he was the devils child, because he would never cry. I can totally see her and the other adults being influenced by her delusions and ignoring baby Tom. Which makes her whole badmouthing Tom even worse. And DD let himself be influenced by a lunatic who thinks that there are children who are evil, because they won't cry. Ugh. Not to forget Tom's fear of being put in the loony bin, which was worse than prisons back in his time. He must have had that idea from somewhere, most likely from Mrs. Cole who disliked him and could do nothing because she had no prove of any wrongdoings. There are studies that prove that children who didn't have an adult figure they could bond with as a baby often have trouble later on bonding with other people. It would explain why Harry is still receptive towards friendship, since he was loved and coddled for the first 15 months of his life, while Tom who had no such thing decided love was for weaklings (though I wonder if he decided this before or after he met his father). |
|
|
|
Post by LovePoison on Jun 29, 2015 10:48:00 GMT -5
I was more wondering if Harry used a love potion on Ginny (or vise versa) would the one who has the love potion used on them become really overt about their feelings or would the love potion have almost no effect on them? I don't see why it wouldn't. It fakes feelings and forces someone to act in a certain way by altering the way they feel and lowering their inhibitions. It is basically a magical roofie. Feelings existing beforehand doesn't change the fact that one is being drugged. I could imagine an infraction of trust like that destroying any feelings of love the victim might have felt before. After the effect of the potion vanishes and they realize what happened. Love potions are really awful. |
|
|
|
Post by Alice on Jun 29, 2015 11:28:03 GMT -5
Something else about having access to Grimmauld Place, Dumbles has been there many times between OoTP and HBP and he never noticed the locket, even when they were cleaning up the place. To be fair, he wasn't present during the cleanings, but I'd have expected him to have a look at the dark stuff anyway. He brought a lot of schoolchildren into the house without bothering to make sure they can't be harmed. And really, Molly was an idiot. She's dead afraid to tell the kids anything at all about the war, BUT she forced them to help cleaning a house full of dark objects. And I can guarantee you, naive, simple Molly wouldn't know how to deal with it if something bad happened, you can't counter dark magic with household charms! Actually, that's one of my main reasons why I doubt Dorea was James' mother. Sirius should have mentioned them when he talked with Harry about that family tree. Always saw that as an one-time occurence, and influenced by the fact that they were already at the bottom of the pecking order in the Death Eater ranks after Lucius and Draco failed. She had nothing to lose. I found it really annoying how Molly acted like the house was hers, commandeering everyone around and throwing out stuff she disliked. Personally, I would really like to explore Grimmauld place with all of its interesting artefacts. It was such a waste to just throw everything out. Dorea should be his grandmother, since JK said that James' parents got him really late and wizards can live longer than muggles. They wouldn't have been that old if Dorea was James' grandmother instead of his mother. She had her life to loose. She did not lie to Voldemort for herself, but for Draco. And there lies the difference. She obviously loved her son. If she had taken Harry in as a son I can see her doing the same for Harry, too. |
|
But seriously, with her having the key and Harry never getting statements, she'd have had the chance and Harry wouldn't even notice. And with Dumbledore making himself guardian, he could have allowed her to take money. It's not as if Harry was ever asked his opinion on anything regarding his private life. Just theoretically speaking, mind you.