charms, Percy, twins

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

So, remember how Percy described the fifth year Charms class's treasure hunt? I'm guessing the twins took note of his discussion of revealing spells and that's why they nicked his textbook. Smart boys: they're going to figure out the Marauders' map any day now! (That's my guess, anyway.)

Comments

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

Oh! And that's also the answer to the question of why they didn't use the Marauder's Map to help them win AK (although they might not have anyway, because it would be sort of cheating.)

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

I think they'd have used it in some way if they'd had it, but after reading their post about their team approach to the game, I think they couldn't have won even with the map. They stalled out once one of them got the other. That was bound to be the result, I guess. I hadn't thought about it from their perspective until they explained it, but I really love that they only wanted to play as a unit and were just sort of done once the game narrowed enough to pit them against one another. That's cool twin stuff!

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

Stuff like that makes Book 7 so sad all over again!

So what do you think Macnair's deal is? Teaming up with Quirrel to overthrow Voldemort but not willing to go far enough to actually hurt kids (like Quirrel is)? Or... teaming up with Quirrel to try to find the Philosopher's Stone? Or... not teaming up with anybody, and working toward a yet-to-be-revealed secret purpose?

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

Good question about Macnair. McG seems fuddled about it, too. Thanks for printing out the scene from the book with Snape and Quirrell; that highlights the fact that while things that happen in the book are happening here, they are happening very differently, involving different characters, with different motives and to different ends.

My thoughts are running along these lines:

In the book, we are made to think that Snape is evil and is trying to kill Harry. Rowling very carefully misdirects us through the scenes she makes us party to (like Harry's eavesdropping on S&Q) and by filling our minds with Harry's (and the trio's) speculation about Snape.

The game is not running in true parallel to the books.

The game is setting up Quirrell as a sinister figure who seems to be trying to kill Harry. Macnair is a known Death Eater, who nonetheless is Head of Gryffindor House and whose entries in the journals have been surprisingly mild and reasonable and teacherly, though a bit odd in tone when commenting to McG and Sinistra. (I agree with McG that he's currently an enigma -- I don't know enough about him to jugde.)

As I think you suggested in your earlier post, it would be easy to see Macnair as the game's parallel to Snape (he's the established teacher; Quirrell is the outsider; Macnair seems to have played a defensive role during the two Quidditch matches - as Snape did in canon).

However, the game has not set us up to think Macnair is the threat... and misdirection was so important in the book that I really wonder if the game isn't following *that* aspect of Rowling's story rather than playing on the more obvious parallels between the characters.

I continue to believe that the Lord Protector (and Bellatrix) know only that the Philosopher's Stone is no longer at Gringotts but do not know it's at Hogwarts. If Quirrell were trying to enter Hogwarts to search the building, I'd think he might be playing a parallel role to the one he plays in canon (though controlled by Imperius rather than bodily possessed by Voldemort). In that case, I'd figure that Voldemort has a suspicion the Stone *might* be at Hogwarts and is using Q to find out.

However. Quirrell seems, instead, to be attempting to kill Harry, which would completely contravene this AU's tenet that the Voldemort believes his life and Harry's depend on one another.

Unless. The attempts to kill Harry are not real attempts but merely diversions meant to give Quirrell (or someone else) a chance to slip into the castle to search for the Stone.

Canonically, killing Harry and obtaining the Stone were paired objectives for Voldemort/Quirrell. In the game, Voldemort has strong reason to protect Harry, so if V is behind these events, the attempts on Harry must not be real.

If V. is NOT behind these events, then as you've said in other places, there are a whole host of other possible motives for an independently acting Quirrell or for Quirrell and other conspirators (perhaps including Macnair) or for Macnair/someone using Imperius'd!Quirrell to pursue one or both of these objectives either to impress or to subvert Voldemort.

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of the possibility of Quirrell controlled by Voldemort. That would be an appealing book parallel. Though I suspect it's sneakier than V needs to be, considering the power he has. If he suspected something was up at Hogwarts, couldn't he just have Amycus or someone else he trusts check into it? Or Imperio a teacher or student who already is inside?.

Speaking of trust, I actually find it odd that Voldemort trusts McG so much, considering that (as I interpreted it) he can't actually see into her thoughts that well because of the Animagus thing. You'd think that would make him constantly suspicious, and yet he seems to have given her a position of significant power, and trusts her with, basically, his life. (If we are still accepting the premise that V thinks harm to Harry would mean harm to himself. Which I think we should.)

What did she do to get him to trust her so much, I wonder? Is it nothing more than long years of helping him out in little ways? Or is there something bigger there that is going to come out eventually?

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of the possibility of Quirrell controlled by Voldemort. That would be an appealing book parallel. Though I suspect it's sneakier than V needs to be, considering the power he has. If he suspected something was up at Hogwarts, couldn't he just have Amycus or someone else he trusts check into it? Or Imperio a teacher or student who already is inside?

I agree that it seems more convoluted than necessary. I do think even V. would need to have the person before him in order to cast the Imperius curse, but I agree that Amycus or Macnair would be logical alternatives to sending in an outsider like Quirrell, unless there's a concern for deniability ... but why would there be? And why, if he really suspected the Stone were there would he not send Bellatrix to demand the thing from McG (or why not have done it in person)? For just those reasons, I really don't think the LP has a clue it's at Hogwarts. McG was very worried in the run-up to the Halloween feast that her Occlumency would prove faulty and she'd give away important secrets to the LP. I thought then and think now that it's the Stone she's worried he'll find out about. If he already knew, I don't think he'd wait around to take it and I don't think McG would have to squirm through so many interviews with him hoping it's still her secret. (And I don't think Bellatrix would currently be encamped at the Flamels' cottage if the LP knew where the Stone is. Etc., etc. Still, it's worth working through the possibilities in trying to figure out Quirrell's place in it all.)

I'm with you in wondering about V's trust in McG. She has, after all, taken the Mark, but his inability to read her should make him uncomfortable, shouldn't it? The only explanation I can think of is that V. doesn't know when his Legilimency fails on a subject like McG here (or Snape in canon). Perhaps he sees enough in such minds to think that he sees all. In other words, Snape's example suggests to me that the real masters of Occlumency do not throw up the equivalent of a brick wall, blocking V. out and their minds do not appear to him like blank slates -- that would tell him immediately that the person has tried to shield herself/himself. It must, instead, be that Occlumency is a matter of hiding pieces of memory and knowledge without leaving a discernible gap in the mental picture that V. sees when he invades the mind.

What do you think?

I do like (and shiver at the thought of) your idea that McG might have done something(s) to prove herself to V. beyond taking the Mark. This McG does seem pragmatic enough about what she must do that I could believe she might have been pushed into doing some terrible things along the way.

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

I thought then and think now that it's the Stone she's worried he'll find out about.

Along with her forgery of the Book where names of magical children born in England are inscribed at their birth.

("In Hogwarts there's a magical quill which detects the birth of a magical child, and writes his or her name down in a large parchment book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, and sends owls to the people who are turning 11" source (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0200-scholastic-chat.htm))

In canon, the book is probably incredibly secret. Otherwise, why would Neville ever need to worry about possibly being a Squib? He could just write to Hogwarts and ask them to check the book. I suspect Dumbledore doesn't want Wizarding parents to know that they can find out whether their children are Squibs the day they're born. Maybe that would lead to a rise in infanticide, which Dumbledore does not want to condone. And it also puts Muggleborn babies and their families in a certain amount of danger, even before V becomes LP.

Anyway, in Alternity, several people including V know about the book. And McG has a forged version where she leaves out the names of all the kids rescued at Moddey Dhoo. I wonder... are there enough Muggleborn babies that they are unable to smuggle out for one reason or another that the list still includes many Muggleborns? Or does Voldemort think that there are fewer and fewer Muggleborn babies being born, because so many are left off the forged list? And if he does, does he take that as evidence that his plan is working, and that he is stopping Muggles from stealing magic finally?

Actually, I doubt Voldemort believes the stealing magic theory. It sounds like such obviously nonsense propaganda. But I wonder how he does explain the (possible) decline of Muggleborn births, according to the list.

I also wonder how long he has known about the magical book. There was a conversation where Boot said he was taken from his parents when he showed magic at age 4, which implies to me that Voldemort didn't have access to the book at that time, or else why would he have to wait for a child to *show* magic to remove them to the Mudblood camps? So how long did McG keep the book hidden, and what made her finally reveal it? I suppose it's quite possible that her Occlumency has failed her before, and one previous failure outed the existence of the book. It would explain why she is so very nervous about V even after a decade of fooling him.

All this is really just throwing thoughts around and see if they turn into anything interesting. I like your explanation of good Occlumency being about selective showing of memory instead of brick wall... though that makes it a bit hard to understand why being an Animagus would help McG. (Aha! I just checked back, and my memory was a little wrong. She actually says this (http://alt-mcgonagall.livejournal.com/4615.html?thread=25607#t25607). So I'll just guess Sirius's Animagus theory is incorrect, and actually McG's Occlumency is just good in a normal, Snapey way).

also, WHERE IS SNAPE? I don't think we've even had the tiniest clue in-game.

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

I like your explanation of good Occlumency being about selective showing of memory instead of brick wall... though that makes it a bit hard to understand why being an Animagus would help McG.

I agree that her statement that it's "sheer animal instinct" that keeps V. at bay is equivocal and that Sirius needn't be right when he wonders if her animagus nature makes her a better Occlumens. She could simply mean human-animal instinct, emphasizing that it's not all practiced skill, but instinctive self-protection that allows her to outmatch V. Still, I wonder if Sirius might not be right: it would make sense to me that an animagus' brain, even in human form, might be differently mapped than a normal witch's brain -- and that difference might make it harder for V. to tell whether he's reading her fully. And, again, her literal animal instinct may give her an edge that ordinary human witches don't have when it comes down to instinct and will-to-survive. I don't know.

Tangential dithering:
I do gather from the books that it takes more than practice to be a really masterful Occlumens: Snape and Dumbledore are held up as the only ones who can really stand up to Voldemort's mastery of Legilimency. Obviously, Dumbledore hopes Harry can learn enough to protect himself (or at least to become more consciously aware of what it feels like to be probed by V.) from V's attempts to read, deceive, and control his waking and sleeping minds. I don't think that there's an implication that the only thing that makes Harry bad at Occlumency is his refusal to practice what Snape assigns: that makes it certain that he'll remain crap at it, but he may also prove to have no more than average ability to learn it anyway. One of the things I respect about the books is that Rowling doesn't make magic easy to learn, and she makes it clear that few wizards or witches are naturally super-endowed and few are really brilliant at learning the skills that can be taught -- and some types of magic require a lot more power or aptitude or study than most folks will ever have or master. I think Occlumency and Legilimency are meant to be in that category.

also, WHERE IS SNAPE? I don't think we've even had the tiniest clue in-game.

THAT is the $64,000,000 Question, is it not?! I would love to have even a tiny hint about him. (And, of course, I'm aching to have him enter play: we totally need Snape's cranky presence. I miss him!)

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

I love dithering.

Agree totally about JKR's magic being hard, and Occlumency being a cool example. I think potions is another nice example of that idea.

Drat. I feel we've exhausted this line of conversation for the moment. Well, let me flail about for some more topics. What's your opinion on Owain Pritchard (http://alt-owain.livejournal.com/986.html), and how he'll fit into the story?

And/or, any additional clue on what Amycus's (http://alt-amycus.livejournal.com/3912.html) project is?

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

Why not make a new alt_fen post about Owain? Then maybe other fen will see it and jump in. I think we may be talking only to each other on this thread now. (I've got nothing on Amycus -- he's amazing in a really terrifying way; his range of criminal thinking is absolutely astounding; and I find him utterly unpredictable. My only observation is that I think he implies that Elizabeth Short, the Black Dahlia, was a witch or was killed in a magical ritual -- perhaps tidbits fate is to be like hers.)

xo

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

Why not make a new alt_fen post about Owain?

Mostly because I feel like it's difficult to get a conversation started in alt_fen, so now that we have one it seems easier to continue it than to try to start something new. A lot of posts lately are getting only one or two comments, and I don't really know how to turn that into a discussion.

Have you noticed that? I don't really know what to do about it. Maybe instead of having posts about a specific topic, have a weekly post like DISCUSS HERE and see if that works better to get people talking? I do get the impression that people want to talk, but that somehow nobody really knows how to get it started.

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there's a firm pattern, but my impression has been that the fen posts about specific plot issues or character events elicit more discussion than those that raise a number of things at once. There may not have been enough of the latter to really judge that.

I also think that people have peaks and valleys in the amount of free time they have: sometimes that means I've gotten way behind on the game and can't post to alt_fen because of it; other times I'm keeping up with the game but don't have enough time left to post here; other times I just don't have an idea about the topic that's being discussed (like Amycus -- he's beyond me a lot of the time).

Not sure. Don't get discouraged, though!

[longstrider.livejournal.com]

"I wonder... are there enough Muggleborn babies that they are unable to smuggle out for one reason or another that the list still includes many Muggleborns? Or does Voldemort think that there are fewer and fewer Muggleborn babies being born, because so many are left off the forged list? And if he does, does he take that as evidence that his plan is working, and that he is stopping Muggles from stealing magic finally?"

I would posit that the decrease in Muggle population would be all the explanation he needs. We've already established that the population maths are fuzzy in this world, so that would seem like a sufficient explanation to me.

[brimtoast.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's quite likely. I wasn't saying it was a plot hole or anything, just that it would be interesting if he did have a theory for it, especially if V was taking it as evidence that Muggles had been stealing magic for their kids all along, and that he had successfully intimidated them into stopping. A sort of unintentional backfiring, where the resistance is helping reinforce V's sense of rightness.

Anyway, just playing around with the idea.