COS Chapter Twelve: "The Polyjuice Potion"
Dec. 6th, 2010 08:53 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
for-diddled.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslock* Sincere apologies for the lack of postage over the past few weeks; suffice to say that, whilst I’d be happy to log on regularly, RL seems to have other ideas.
* Slytherin are so evil that even the thought of being there is enough to make Harry feel sick. These books are such a good argument for tolerance, don’t you think?
* “Harry was just thinking that all he needed was for Dumbledore’s pet bird to die while he was alone in the office with it” just makes him sound so self-centred. Never mind about the dead bird, or Dumbledore losing his beloved pet, I might get in trouble for it! Even though I’d have no motive in killing it and it was pretty obviously sick before I came in.
* Fawkes is usually very pretty, just in case we were worrying that Harry might end up having his life saved by something ugly.
* Given what we now know about Dumbledore’s views on personal loyalty, the emphasis on the word “faithful” looks rather sinister.
* Any guesses on why exactly Hagrid needs to carry the rooster around with him in the castle?
* That’s right, Harry, don’t tell DD about that mysterious voice you heard! Heaven forbid that you might actually help him solve the mystery before anybody is seriously hurt.
* I think it’s rather sweet that Crabbe and Goyle are staying behind with Malfoy. They really do seem to care about each other. (Well, until the abomination that is DH, that is.)
* Harry’s glad that most people are leaving, despite the fact that this’ll narrow down the potential list of suspects and make it more likely that they’ll be caught.
* “[Harry] was tired of people skirting around him in the corridors, as though he were about to sprout fangs or spit poison; tired of all the muttering, pointing and hissing as he passed.” I wonder if that’s what the Slytherins feel like all the time?
* I have to admit, F&G’s heir of Slytherin routine is pretty amusing. But since it’s so different to their usual brand of “humour”, I think I can like it without feeling too guilty.
* I wonder why Fred, George and Ginny have decided to stay? Is it because the fine Mr. Weasley had to pay means they can’t afford to take them, and they’re too proud to admit the real reason?
* I’m sure that the teachers of Hogwarts appreciate Percy staying behind to help them, even if Harry doesn’t.
*How rude of the Dursleys to send him a toothpick like that, especially when Harry gave them an expensive luxury hamper bursting to the brim with Honeyduke’s finest chocolate. Or nothing. I forget which.
* BTW, it seems odd to go to all the trouble of sending Harry such a silly little present. Unless DD sent Hedwig to keep bothering them until they sent something…
* Ron gives Harry a book about Ron’s favourite Quidditch team, rather than something Harry would be expected to be interested in.
* I hope Mrs. Weasley gave her real children presents which were at least as good as the ones she gave Harry.
* F&G have bewitched Percy’s Prefect Badge to make it say “Pinhead”. Oh, the hilarity!
* Crabbe and Goyle eat four helpings of pudding. Harry and Ron, who aren’t greedy pigs, limit themselves to three.
* Hermione’s telling the Slytherins that Millicent Bulstrode came back would backfire spectacularly once they realised that Millicent had not in fact returned, and that they had, therefore, been tricked.
* It’s a shame that nobody’s written a HP/Hercule Poirot crossover fic, in which Poirot investigates the Polyjuice incident. He’d probably solve the mystery within half an hour, and then work out who’s petrifying all those students for good measure.
* Ron and Hermione are prepared to knock out two of Draco’s friends based on extremely flimsy evidence. Remember this is HBP, when they refuse to believe that Draco’s up to something, despite having much better evidence than they do here.
* At least Harry and Ron didn’t strip Crabbe and Goyle. Be grateful for small mercies, I suppose.
* Millicent Bulstrode is “no pixie”, apparently, which seems like a polite way of saying “fat”. Outside of fandom, are there any pretty Slytherin girls, or are they all fat and ugly?
* You’d have thought it wouldn’t have been beyond the Trio to change into their new clothes before taking the Polyjuice Potion.
* Ever since reading Draco Dormiens, I’ve always imagined Harry surreptitiously checking to see whether Goyle is bigger than he is.
* And now they’ve got to find the Slytherin common room. Gee, guys, would it have been impossible to find that out before you took the Potion? Even if you don’t arouse suspicion by not knowing where it is, you’ll waste valuable time trying to find it.
* All this makes Ron’s quip about Goyle being dumb look rather silly.
* I don’t know why, but I’ve always thought that this Ravenclaw girl was Penelope Clearwater. Perhaps she’s just been meeting Percy in one of the disused dungeons.
* Whoever she is, her reply to Harry and Ron is rather rude. Is that what the Slytherins are treated like all the time? It’s a shame Harry and Ron never consider this, and maybe get a bit of sympathy for the Slytherins.
* The Slytherin password is “Pureblood”, just to remind us that they’re all racists, and, therefore, evil. Never mind that Slytherin’s most famous alumni, Tom Riddle and Severus Snape, were both halfbloods, and in Tom’s case, there was no way to know whether he was a muggleborn, pureblood or half-blood.
* The Slytherin common-room doesn’t look particularly luxurious, which seems odd for a supposed bastion of aristocratic privilege. Perhaps it’s like that to try and inculcate some humility into the children, like the fag system in old British public schools.
* I think it’s rather sweet of Mr. Malfoy to send his son newspaper clippings like that. “Here, Draco, let’s both laugh together at these guys!” I still think it odd that such an evil bully as Draco apparently is wouldn’t make greater use of it to humiliate Ron. Maybe he’s not so bad after all.
* Mrs. Weasley has threatened to set the family ghoul on reporters, apparently not realising that that sort of action is extremely bad publicity.
* Draco’s theory about DD hushing up the attacks is probably correct; at any rate, nobody seems to refer to them much in later books.
* Do racists normally go on about how much they hate [insert ethnicity here] as much as Draco’s doing in this scene? It just comes across as really false and over-the-top, at least to me. Perhaps he’s twigged that there’s something wrong with “Crabbe” and “Goyle”, and is deliberately acting oddly in order to see if they notice.
* Draco wishes that Hermione would get killed by the monster. Knowing what she’s going to become in later books, I can’t help but wonder whether that might not be for the best after all.
* For all Harry and Ron’s jokes about C&G being thick, they seem to be arousing Draco’s suspicions by being slower on the uptake.
* Harry and Ron are “hoping against hope that Malfoy hadn’t noticed anything.” I wouldn’t count on it, guys; he seems like a good Potions student, so he probably remembers what Snape said about the Polyjuice Potion; Harry and Ron were the least convincing Crabbe and Goyle imaginable; a boy who can notice Harry’s foot slipping out of the invisibility cloak for a split second would almost certainly notice his best friends changing into somebody else before his eyes; and the real Crabbe and Goyle would tell him that they weren’t there. He probably knows what happened, and feels really annoyed that DD doesn’t do anything about it.
* What’s the point of Cat!Hermione? It doesn’t advance the plot, it doesn’t contribute to characterisation, and it doesn’t add to the atmosphere of the story. Perhaps it’s to stop people questioning her plan by making them feel sorry for her.
* “Madam Pomfrey never asks too many questions…” Given what goes on in Hogwarts, maybe it’s time she started.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 12:03 am (UTC)Yes, so Salazar was against Muggle-borns, but for valid reasons. Nothing was ever established saying he set out to kill them, FFS! He wouldn't have left, he would've been KICKED OUT. Or else how were the other Founders good people if they let a guy pick off students stick around?
Harry's telling Voldie to try for some remorse came across as nothing more than a taunt to me.
YES. I cannot stand people talking about how heroic he was and trying to reason with him and showing empathy and all that. Wtf, he was clearly being snide and facetious. Worse yet is that the VILLAIN makes more sense, with his comments about other people dying for Harry and succeeding through luck. What a godawful mess.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 12:34 am (UTC)RE Salazar: exactly. Plus, what would it say about beloved pure Godric if he were *best friends* with and even wanted to start a school with someone who advocated murder?
We're told in canon that Salazar *distrusted* Muggleborns and for that reason was wary of admitting them to Hogwarts. Nothing more. No genocidal intentions, no theories about stolen magic or the necessity of keeping blood "pure." Just distrust - which, given wizards' recent history with Muggles, was a rather understandable sentiment. So why on earth would a man committed to the education and safety of young wizards unleash a *lethal monster* inside his own school? Especially a monster whose lethal effect is instantaneous to *anyone* who looks at it - Parselmouth or no, Salazar couldn't have prevented anyone who met the basilisk's gaze from being killed; all he could have done was tell the basilisk what to do. The beast would have been equally dangerous to anyone, regardless of blood.
Not to mention, setting a monster like that loose with the intention of killing Muggleborns would not only have the rest of the WW out for his blood for the danger to themselves and their children, it also would have made the danger he anticipated from the Muggle/born quarter even worse and more likely to occur. And Slytherins are supposed to be *cunning,* no?
I call logic fail. On JKR's part.
And yes. The 'inherently evil and selfish' villain is NOT supposed to be able to throw accusations like that at the pure loving hero and have any of them even *seem* to be applicable in the least. Fantasy, ur doin it wrong.
RE assumptions: omg yes. And rarely are the heroes made to actually realize they ought not to make such assumptions and act on them. There is the appearance of this, with Snape in PS/SS and Sirius in PoA, but the lessons never stick. In PS/SS Dumbledore particularly ensures this, with his *lie* that Snape did it out of a life dept to James and his insinuation that Snape is acting only out of his inability to 'heal' his feelings about James. Never does he signal to Harry that Harry, as a student, has a responsibility to treat Snape with minimal respect or that Snape is capable of acting out of a proper sense of duty towards a student under his care regardless of personal feeling. Telling Harry that Snape was acting as any responsible teacher would would not have revealed the oh-so-important Lily plot element, would not have encouraged Harry to take an inappropriate attitude towards an authority figure, and would have been *true.* Instead, Dumbledore subtly but effectively undermine's Snape's authority with Harry, and I don't buy that he did it accidentally.
Harry thus promptly goes back to hating, disrespecting, and being suspicious of Snape, and putting 100% of the blame for their hostilities on him even though it takes two to tango, and is never forced to confront the fact that his own behavior 1) is not always right and 2) often exacerbates the situation. Snape's being ultimately on the Order's side doesn't replace this, because Harry is never forced to re-examine *himself* in relation to Snape. Snape's relationship to Harry and role in the war is an external puzzle to be solved, not something that reflects upon *Harry* in any way.
The situation with Sirius, of course, is slightly different, given that everyone in the WW believed Sirius guilty and Sirius himself apparently never made any real attempt during or after his arrest to get the truth out (nor was he helped by those like Dumbles who ought to have seen he had his day in court). But normally even such a situation would, you'd think, teach one to realize that just because 'everyone' believes something does not necessarily make it factual, that appearances can be deceptive and that accusations =/= guilt. But again, Harry fails to take any broader lesson from the episode, like everyone around him too.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 04:38 am (UTC)Oh, except for this:
Sirius himself apparently never made any real attempt during or after his arrest to get the truth out (nor was he helped by those like Dumbles who ought to have seen he had his day in court).
No, no, Dumbles had too much to lose! I think it was terri_testing who wrote an essay, something like 'The Dog Who Wasn't Exonerated in the Night' (am I mixing this up with 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time'? It was something like that), about how if Sirius had gotten to speak in his defense, all of Dumbles' dirty laundry would've been aired.
See, Sirius knew Peter wasn't dead because he was a rat Animagus.
He knew this because three of their group were all Animagi.
This was because their friend was a WEREWOLF and they wanted to keep him company...out in the open, when they went frolicking around with a WEREWOLF, who would've attacked any person it came across, specifically, any students that were at school with this WEREWOLF...
And then Dumbles would've been in so much trouble. Can't imagine people would've been too happy with that revelation. So yeah, Dumbles was covering his own ass.
And...I just realized you probably meant his day in court PRIOR to PoA. Um. Hmm. Yeah, IDK what his reasons were in that case. 'coz if, say, Hermione were accused of betraying Harry, you think nobody would believe it and they'd be trying to prove her innocence. Sirius was James' closest friend, it's ridiculous to think that Dumbledore wouldn't have even had a conversation with him- oh, wait! But then Sirius would've been Harry's legal guardian! And Dumbles couldn't let that happen, he had to mentally break this kid down in an abusive home so that he could come in and be the big ~savior~ that rescues him and wins his loyalty! There you go, mystery solved.
Never does he signal to Harry that Harry, as a student, has a responsibility to treat Snape with minimal respect or that Snape is capable of acting out of a proper sense of duty towards a student under his care regardless of personal feeling
I've heard that since Snape is snide to Harry, he has no obligation to show Snape any respect. 'coz Snape being impatient with a kid that doesn't pay attention, that messes up in class, that causes disruptions and challenges his authority, well, that's totally uncalled for. Not saying Snape didn't provoke him at times, but how arrogant is Harry to believe he's allowed to cheek a teacher? Oh, how dare Snape not worship at the Chosen One's feet!
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 06:29 am (UTC)Regarding the time of the original incident in 1981, I think (IIRC) it's stated that Sirius was laughing manically when they arrested him, he didn't deny the charges, and he later explains that he thought he really had killed Peter and deserved to rot in Azkaban for ever suggesting the switch - he did blame himself to a degree for the Potters' deaths (an unusually responsible aspect of Sirius coming to the surface there). So he didn't protest. But yes, DD at least ought to have checked, argued for a trial. Even if he thought, like Severus, that he ought to have realized Black was the traitorous sort from the "Prank" and his behavior towards Remus there, he had a duty to ensure whatever passes for due process in the WW took place. But, true, that would have complicated his own plans.
The people who make that argument wrt Harry and Snape are, I think, confusing two senses of the term "respect." One is that sort of personal feeling of admiration for someone, looking up to them as a person. A feeling. The other is a behavior, a certain baseline type of acceptable behavior based on one level on a sense of shared humanity (the behavior one ought to use wrt all people, simply for being human), and on a second level based on a relationship of authority - here, teacher and student - that depends for its functioning and for the well-being of all involved a certain type of behavior.
Regardless of personal feeling, a student simply should not say or do certain things. A teacher likewise should not say or do certain things. But the two aren't dependent upon each other, but upon the simple fact of the relationship. Even if the student is an arse, a teacher shouldn't punish the student (for example) by hanging them from the ceiling or bouncing them against the floor. (Also, a teacher should not undermine another teacher by, for example, encouraging the students to mock a representation of the teacher.) Likewise, even if the teacher is horribly insulting, a student should not cheek or disobey the teacher. There are proper procedures for dealing with these things and don't excuse the other participant from holding up their end of things.
Now, a student is not required to personally admire their teachers. They are expected to behave properly in their presence, speak to them courteously, and obey them (obviously with exceptions for insanity, immoral orders, and the like - I mean reasonable orders). Even if they hate the teacher, even if they are convinced the teacher is mean and only wants to torment them, the student has this responsibility. When Snape fans and others critical of Harry argue that Harry doesn't treat Snape with respect, this I think is what they mean. The ones who argue that 'why should he, Snape is mean' take it to mean that Harry ought to *feel* admiration/respect for Snape, when that's not what is being argued, and so fail to address those times when Harry does, in fact, behave in a disrespectful manner as being at all problematic, and the Snape fans then feel that the Harry fans are just excusing Harry with the same tired 'but Snape is just MEEEAAN' trope. Stating that Harry has an obligation to be respectful does not excuse Snape from those occasional times that he crosses a line, just as pointing out times where someone thinks he's crossed the line as evidence of his 'meanness' does not excuse Harry in his repeated disobedience and cheek. If Harry really is supposed to be held up as being so much better than Snape, why don't people wonder why he never takes the *high road*? Why give Snape the merest excuse to scold him - if Snape really is totally biased and always unfair, having Harry behave perfectly and get punished for something that is 100% clear even to his haters as not being his fault would make that screamingly clear, no? Rather than having to buy the crap that Harry sassing a professor somehow doesn't really deserve a loss of a few House points?
Or, to avoid the black-and-white version, how about an occasional change from "he's so mean" to Harry thinking "well, I did throw fireworks into Malfoy's cauldron, I can't really argue that the detention is unfair even if I hate it." Just once, you know. To show us how mature Harry really is.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 05:53 pm (UTC)It should be viewed like how it's done in the military -- the rank-and-file soldiers may hate their CO, the CO may actually be an asshole, but the grunts damn well better show respect to him/her even if they hate his/her guts!
Hogwarts should have been run as a military school, Snape would have had a much better time of it! LOL
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 06:54 pm (UTC)I really put a lot on blame on Dumbles for this, really, because he consistently either turns a blind eye or actually *rewards* Harry for behaving as he does and subtly but effectively undermines Snape's authority around Harry, Snape being the teacher who most consistently and vocally attempts to discipline Harry and make him obey the rules. Minerva does attempt to impose discipline off-and-on (she's happy to bend or break rules for Harry if it benefits her House), so Harry's opinion of her is "strict" but not "mean" and he doesn't usually argue with Minerva or go on and on about how unfair she is. And never does Dumbledore suggest in any way that Minerva is not to be respected.
Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-11 07:16 pm (UTC)Personally I call logic fail because how can the monster that lives in the chamber in the 1990 be the same monster from over 1,000 years ago?
If they really live that long then maybe Voldemort should have been drinking basilisc blood instead of Unicorn.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-11 07:57 pm (UTC)Unless it was only an itty bitty brand-new baby basilisk, maybe, and they have a really slow maturation process?
Also, WTF is up with basilisk venom destroying Horcruxes? For some reason it just doesn't work for me - there's no symbolism that works there. Fiendfyre I can just about buy if it is actually demonic in nature - but why on earth should the venom a perfectly natural (for a magical ecosystem) creature has have any power whatsoever to destroy soul-bits?
See, the Sword of Gryffindor works, because the symbolism of the pure knight's sword (which is shaped like a cross) destroying a cursed object works - because of the way the moral and symbolic weight attached to each thing works against the symbolism of the other thing. (Here JKR fumbled the ball by having the sword work not because it's an artifact of incredible mystical power, but because it's soaked in Horcrux-destroying juice. Fantasy, ur doin it wrong.) And phoenix tears having healing properties works because the phoenix is a symbol of mystical regeneration and of Christ.
But basilisk venom? WTF JKR?
This is a problem I find throughout the series: sometimes JKR has things do what they do because that's how the *symbolism* works, while other times she feels a need to invent a BS materialistic/mechanical explanation for how they work, and the two get mixed up and then it all falls apart. Same thing with how she things of souls (as like bits of paper you can physically diminish), of emotions (I could rant forever about how Dementors don't feed on HAPPY emotions)...etc. And the whole Harry=Christ thing: again, the levels get mixed up there and so she thinks she can have her pure loving Christ-replacement be an unrepentant torturer without it impacting his pure loving Chosen-One-ness.
Sigh.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-11 08:14 pm (UTC)Perhaps the 1990 basilisk is the latest generation of the original basilisk. Perhaps basilisks migrate to breed, like salmon and turtles do, and after the offspring is born/hatched, it travels back to the "home" territory of its parent and stays there until the next breeding cycle, which could be every 100 years or longer.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-11 09:09 pm (UTC)Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:09 am (UTC)A basilisk isn't exactly natural for a magical ecosystem - it hatches from a chicken egg that is incubated by a toad - so it is an engineered being (just like Hagrid's skrewts). I wonder if the flame of a skrewt can also destroy a Horcrux?
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:32 am (UTC)And nothing in the magical engineering of the being, given the rules of the Potterverse or the traditions JKR is making use of, would in and of itself necessarily imply that this makes basilisk venom, unlike most other substances, harmful to *souls* or possessed of particular properties linked to the moral element of life. When Harry is bitten, it's a normal, if difficult to heal, physical wound - NOT a spiritual wound, and not in any way itself some sort of moral contest or injury (Harry's only at risk of regular death, not corruption). Yet that same venom is supposed to also have a special rare power of destroying Horcruxes: inherently evil/morally corrupting objects created with soul bits that, so far as we know, can only otherwise be destroyed through 1) seemingly demonic (supernatural) fire, 2) (in accordance with tradition and classical moral symbolism) the sword of a legendary brave and good knight, or 3) a curse expressly designed to have no other effect than of separating a soul from its physical housing, without which the soul-bit in a Horcrux cannot continue existing. All of these have at least a moral/symbolic or magical-mechanical explanation supporting them, explaining why they can either affect souls or destroy specifically evil objects. Basilisk venom has neither.
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't match up, engineered being or no. There's no magical-mechanical explanation that holds up (the difference between its effect on Harry and on the Horcrux shoots this down), and there is no moral/symbolic stratum to support it either, as there traditionally IS regarding the swords of brave knights. JKR would have been fine having Godric's sword work simply because it is what it is, not the BS with it working because it was marinated in (self-contradictory!) Horcrux-destroying juice.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:44 am (UTC)So you think Potterverse toads go out and seek chicken eggs to incubate? I think this should require human intervention.
As for the sword of Gryffindor - it only works *because* it is supposed to be imbued with basilisk venom. We never saw it destroy a Horcrux before Harry used it to kill the basilisk. (I wonder if Nagini could ahve been killed by any sharp enough and long enough blade.) Of course since Harry didn't stick the sword through the basilisk's venom gland it is possible the whole thing about it being imbued with venom is BS and it is the sword on its own that destroyed the ring and the locket.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:51 am (UTC)And RE the sword: that is PRECISELY my PROBLEM with the sword. I think it *does not fit* and was *unnecessary* to give us the venom explanation - the sword *ought* to be capable of it simply for being *what it is.* My entire issue here is how Rowling's tendency to mix up magical-mechanical and moral/symbolic explanations for things renders many things like the basilisk venom/Horcrux issue unstable and unsatisfying, IMHO. Not a confusion over what is actually written on the pages of canon - but why canon does not satisfy me.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:29 pm (UTC)That depends on how exactly a Horcrux works - I got the impression that the soul fragment in a Horcrux is infused into the Horcrux's physical, so I think that it would just take the Horcrux being destroyed (whatever that means - would cutting a link out of the locket's chain, or pulling a page out of the diary have worked?) to get rid of the soul fragment. Maybe the basilisk venom was necessary to get through the protective spells? As you say, there's no evidence that basilisk venom should affect a soul, but by your theory, would that mean that Fiendfyre (or however it's spelled) would destroy the soul of a sapient being killed by it?
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 05:45 pm (UTC)Not that I like the idea of souls being destructible things, but with the Dementors and the Horcrux-bits getting destroyed (not sent beyond the veil), that is an established aspect of the Potterverse that is at least semi-consistent, so I'll buy it as a possibility.
However, you've made me think about it slightly differently. See my comment to majorjune below for the whole thing, but basically: Yes, it does have to do with destroying the physical casing. So what if we think of the soul-destroying and moral-symbolic aspects not as explanations for why they can affect Horcruxes at all, but specifically supports for why things can break the protective enchantments on Horcruxes? Because in that case, anything that can sever soul and body can destroy a Horcrux *provided* it can get past the enchantments (which we know are there and are difficult to break)?
So all that would be needed would be an explanation of how/why basilisk venom can get past those enchantments - the sword can because of the mystical powers it has in accordance with myth and fantasy tradition, fiendfyre can because it destroys *everything* and is nearly unstoppable (demonic or not), the AK can because it is unblockable.
Now, there's no existing tradition I know of that basilisk venom is so potent and corrosive that only, say, phoenix tears can render it inert, otherwise it will eat through any protective enchantment and kill anything it touches. But if Rowling had established such a fact as a feature of the Potterverse between PS/SS and DH, then that would solve things.
But she didn't. There is no explanation of how it could get past those enchantments. And the diary must be protected in some way, because being flushed down the toilet would destroy a normal diary.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 04:05 pm (UTC)As you point out, the bite that Harry receives from the basilisk has basically the same effect on him as a very bad venomous snake bite, but no other effect...
And as you also point out, JKR goes on to establish that for some reason basilisk venom can destroy soul bits anchored to an object...
So since we later learn that Harry himself has a soul bit anchored within himself, shouldn't the basilisk's bite have had more of a psychological/moral effect on him?
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 05:36 pm (UTC)Another way of thinking about it suggests itself to me that would explain why Harry's wound is just what it is...but it still doesn't completely satisfy me RE the Horcrux.
Let's say it's not only about destroying soul-bit or moral symbolism. Lets also say that Horcruxes can be destroyed by things capable of splitting a soul from its container/body, *provided that the object or force is strong enough to overpower the protective enchantments of the Horcrux.* Now, we are told/know of four things in canon that destroy Horcruxes, and all of them possess this feature: basilisk venom, the sword, fiendfyre, and an AK (at least with living Horcrux-carriers).
Basilisk venom is deadly just as a physical venom; it can separate soul and body, without needing to have special spiritual powers to affect a soul in this one particular way.
The question that arises then is: why is basilisk venom, unlike the venom of other magical species and most other forms of death, strong enough to break through the Horcrux's protections? Fiendfyre might be strong enough given that there is *nothing* it apparently can't destroy, and is unstoppable by normal means (in this reading it can but doesn't have to be demonic). The AK we know is unblockable. The sword would be strong enough because of the mystical moral-symbolic aspect (being a unique sword, not in its normal sword-ness). The tradition of the mystical sword in myth and fantasy literature is extensive enough that at this point it can be accepted as a given.
But why basilisk venom? There's nothing magical-mechanical or moral-symbolic about it to rest the notion of it being strong enough to overpower the Horcrux protections on, so far as I can see. A basilisk isn't known for being linked to any mystical power to defeat evil, and we aren't told that basilisk venom can destroy anything or overcome any and all protective enchantments. Had Rowling put some thought into *developing* and *supporting* such a notion in canon, then it would work for me. But it seems to me that she decided she needed an easy way to destroy the diary and something that would fit her snakes = evil pseudo-Christian symbology, to stand against the traditional phoenix symbolism. So she thought, 'aha! basilisk venom! giant snake, yeah!' - but then did not pursue this line of reasoning any further until the need for Horcrux-destroyers suddenly popped up in DH (and then made it worse with the explanation for why the sword works). So, given the lack of an established tradition in literature for basilisk venom being an all-destroying substance, she ought to have put lots of support for that notion into her text, as a unique feature of the Potterverse. But she didn't. So it falls flat.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 06:12 pm (UTC)I think Rowling just didn't want Harry to use the sword both to kill the basilisk and to destroy the diary to avoid repetition, hence the venom as a separate destructive power.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 07:38 pm (UTC)There are really two separate issues here; the first, as you ask, is why would basilisk venom have any special power regarding Horcrux destruction?
The second issue is, Rowling having established, for whatever reason, that the venom DOES destroy a Horcrux/soulbit, why didn't the basilisk bite have more of an effect on Harry than it did?
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 04:55 am (UTC)Aww...a itty bitty baby Basilisk - Now see, if it happened in Hagrids day, we wouldn't think it was so unusual for a Hogwarts Staff member falling in love with a highly dangerous poisonous animal that kills people. Since it's the creator of the most high evil house Slytherin - well...it's a 1,000 year old Snake with only evil intentions on it's mind.
You'd think after being locked up since the last time it was set free by Tom, it'd be wanting some dinner. How come it didn't eat the people it petrified? I guess it doesn't like muggleborn aftertaste.
I could even put forth the argument that the creature Tom let loose on the school is not the same basilisk Salazar Slytherin had. I don't see how it could possibly be the same animal unless there was some magic spell on it to make it live 1,000 years.
AND if Salazar had a spell that could make something live that long then wouldn't Tom/Voldemort be more interested in finding out what his great-great-great-great-great grandfather came up with that spell since he was all powerful interested in living forever.
And don't get me started on Dementores. My biggest problem with them is JKR made a comment that they cannot be destroyed. Yes in an interview. I hate the idea of an indistructable being. SOMETHING can kill them, I don't care what she says, especially if they things can 'breed'
The mist...the mist, don't go in the mist. IF they can't be destoyed the the whole world should be overrun by dementores.
Indistructable...bullcrap JKR!
!rants!
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 06:08 am (UTC)The short version of my main problem with the Dementors: we are supposed to believe 1) that they feed on positive emotions and so make their victims feel badly, and 2) they can be driven off by throwing a REALLY REALLY happy memory at them.
Er, whut?
Say you have a jar with all different kinds of cookies in it. You don't deter a toddler bent on eating all the chocolate chip cookies in the jar from going near the jar by giving it giant handfuls of chocolate chips every time it puts its hand in the jar. That is giving the toddler what it wants.
Same with Patroni and Dementors. If Patroni drive off Dementors, then logically Dementors *hate* positive emotion and do *not* feed on it. They feed on *negative* emotion, which they cause the victim to feel *in order* to feed off of it. But JKR gets mixed up because she seems to think of emotions as discrete finite things, like cookies in a jar, that when they are 'fed' off of disappear for a time, leaving a space and only other kinds of emotions left. No. Emotions don't work that way, even in her own story. Harry is *overwhelmed* by actual, new, bad feelings when Dementors are near, not just drained of positive emotion. The Dementors encourage negative emotions to rise because *that* is what they feed on and the ones that are best at causing bad feelings will have the most food, and thus be strongest. Emotions, of course, here don't act like discrete 'chunks' of something, but as continuously-renewing energies that can be summoned up or pushed back in one's consciousness, and the Patronus acts as a sort of barrier to the Dementor and the roots of any negative emotion it could cause.
Harry is particularly affected by Dementors for the same reason that he is horrible at Occlumency and rarely thinks before acting: he has a tendency to let himself be *overwhelmed by emotion.* With the Dementors, it's negative emotion. And so he feels the effects more keenly and it's harder for him to access the happy memories that drive off Dementors than for a normal/less emotionally out of control person. In this Harry's character is quite consistent and he responds as logic and common sense would dictate someone of his character would, to a stimulus that prompts negative emotion.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 03:48 pm (UTC)Cookie monster want to eat your soul!!!
Quote:'And there breeding, thats what is causing all this mist.'
To quote Lego Snape, my eyes are burning (and I can't get the photo to work so I put the link for my version on how to distract dementors)
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n260/karentheunicorn/e2p2p4.jpg
did JKR really have to go that far and imply they breed? Like I ranted in my other post, if they are creatures you cannot destroy AND they can breed - then wouldn't logic promote they would overrun the planet by now?
Dementors having mist sex is just...wrong!!
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 07:31 pm (UTC)Makes you wonder about those areas of the world known for being foggy...London...San Francisco...any seashore...
There's an area here in the central part of Connecticut known for getting foggy, even when there's no fog anywhere else in the state. There are even large signs on I-91 along that section proclaiming "Fog Area"...
Wonder if it could really be a Dementor-breeding area? It IS close to a state park called "Sleeping Giant", so who knows? :-P
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 09:53 pm (UTC)Or maybe that's just my life speaking. Heh.
Clearly, however, this student is insane because now I want to write weather-pr0n instead of 20 pages on Nietzsche and Jon Stewart.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From:Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
From: