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}
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
Date: 2010-12-12 06:16 pm (UTC)By 'unblockable' I was talking specifically about its ability to break through *magical* barriers - such as the enchantments on a Horcrux. Obviously shooting an AK at a Horcrux on the other side of a wall isn't going to do anything *anyway,* just like going after that Horcrux with the sword wouldn't do anything either, because of the wall - but there the Potterverse is consistent.
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
Date: 2010-12-12 09:50 pm (UTC)The second question is sort of answered if we go with the notion that it's only things capable of breaking through strong magical protections that can harm horcruxes, and the soul-bit harming or moral aspects are merely explanations of why they can do that. Because then the basilisk venom needs only to be exceptionally strong against specifically magical protections, which wouldn't make its effect upon Harry necessarily worse. We may even have seen this (IMO BS) super strength in action without realizing it, IF the basilisk would have counted as Voldie attempting to harm Harry directly - if it did, then it broke through the Lily Love Power. And we do see that using a snake to kill is at least believed to be able to transfer wand mastery and the like, so maybe there is something there....
However, that still doesn't explain WHY basilisk venom is so super-special-strong.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 10:26 pm (UTC)Well, there are two issues THERE, as well! LOL
First off, Voldemort utilizes Nagini as nothing more than a weapon in killing Snape; conceivably, Voldy smashing Snape's skull with a castiron cauldron would have accomplished Wand Mastery Transfer just as well.
Secondly, Nagini is actually a horcrux, which means she had one of Voldy's soulbits that the basilisk did NOT have -- only the diary was a horcrux, not the basilisk.
So the basilisk is a basilisk is a basilisk is NOT a horcrux; the basilisk (or its ancient ancestor) perhaps had belonged to Salazar Slytherin, and so Riddle/Voldy may have had some claim to OWNING it, but he (or a part of him) was not the basilisk itself.
Rowling (lamely) established that only the nonhorcrux basilisk's venom and no other type of venom has some sort of magikal power to destroy horcrii/soulbits...
And since Harry had one of Voldy's soulbits within himself, I still say that the basilisk's bite should have had more than a purely physical poisonous effect on him.
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 11:03 pm (UTC)Maybe Dumbles was secretly not so pleased with Fawkes there. It would have solved his Harrycrux problem....and the BS about showing loyalty to Dumbles bringing Fawkes? WTF was Fawkes when Snape was dying of, again, SNAKEBITE because of his loyalty to DD!?
Oh, wait. Clearly Harry's loyalty is Purer and Better than Snape's because Harry is a Gryffindor and Pure Of Heart while Snape is just a miserable Slytherin who messed up and agreed to pay the price, yes? Oh, and he was Mean To Harry(TM).
Sorry, the cynicism is showing again, isn't it?
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-12 11:30 pm (UTC)Well if it had gotten rid of the Harrycrux, Rowling's series would have been a lot shorter! LOL
I don't say the basilisk's bite would have (or should have) completely destroyed the soulbit, but one would think that some sort of significant damage would have been done to it -- and it would have been a much more interesting series to have then seen the results of such damage over the final 5 books.
WTF was Fawkes when Snape was dying of, again, SNAKEBITE because of his loyalty to DD!?
Fawkes seems to have taken a powder upon DD's death; perhaps Fawkes had a condo in Cancun to retire to... ;-)
Sorry, the cynicism is showing again, isn't it?
Darlin', the drifts of cynicism around here are so high, what's a tad more? LOL
Re: Same Monster 1,000 years later
Date: 2010-12-13 02:24 am (UTC)There wouldn't have been a need for Harry to die because the Horcuxes bit should have already been destroyed in book 2. In fact, it should have been destroyed considering thats what the basilisk venom did to the diary.
Fawkes seems to have taken a powder upon DD's death; perhaps Fawkes had a condo in Cancun to retire to... ;-)
what was the deal with Fawkes and Dumbledore anyway? Maybe the damn bird was just as much of a captive creature as Severus was and once he got the chance to get the hell away from Dumbledore the bird split and said Fyouall.
Darlin', the drifts of cynicism around here are so high, what's a tad more? LOL
I like the cynicism here (builds a tower of beautiful DTCL cynicism to protect me from the evil hord that is the general population of HP fandom)