ARIZONA, HERE WE COME!

We woke up to a white Christmas yesterday -- with our hilltop completely shrouded in clouds and about 15' visibility. It was eerily beautiful.

And, despite a difficult house guest, we had a lovely Christmas. We told the kids they couldn't wake us up till 7:30 -- so, even though they were up at about 5:10, it wasn't till 7:30 -- on the nose!! -- that they burst into our room squealing and proceeding to bounce on us for a good 10 minutes. I can't imagine being wakened in a more delightful way!

Great presents. Sabrina got a sewing machine, and we had her first dress design made for her by the tailor who does our alterations -- think of it as "grade school couture"! She was delighted. And Grandma gave her her very own GameBoy, so she doesn't have to wait for Cory to put his down. Equality at last!.... And Cory got a drum kit -- he's been dying to take drum lessons, and we got a good deal on eBay. That plus some Harry Potter Legos, and he's a happy boy. Plus we gave them a bag of cat food as a down payment on the kitten we'll adopt in the new year (after the Christmas tree is down!).

As for me... I got books. Many, many books. In fact, I think I have virtually all my reading for the new year (and I mean all the new year!) already in hand. I did a lousy job getting through my 2005 reading list, barely getting through a dozen books, what with moving and being so sick and all. So I'm hoping to do a better job in 2006. I'm halfway through Dorothy Sayers' "Murder Must Advertise" right now...

And we're off to Arizona for a couple of days... We are going to the Grand Canyon, where the kids have never been, and to Sedona. Why, you ask? Well, if you ask that, you must live somewhere other than Los Angeles. Suffice it to say that when people sing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" they are never talking about L.A. This is the place everyone leaves for Christmas. It is a lonely, empty place for two weeks (though the freeways certainly rock!)... so we like to get out of town too, when we can. And since skiing is a bit pricey this time of year (and there's no snow locally yet anyway), off we go to the desert.

So I hope you will excuse me if I'm not here till next weekend. (Heck, you're probably on vacation and not online yourselves!) I'd like to say I'll be working on my Horcrux post the whole time, but actually I'll probably be finishing Dorothy Sayers and then moving on to, um... "Gidget."

We will get back New Year's Eve, and head straight for a party hosted by some parents from our kids' school. We haven't tended to socialize with other school parents, so we were delighted to be invited to this party. And we don't even have to get up early for the Rose Parade on New Year's Day, since it gets bumped to Jan. 2nd whenever New Year's Day falls on a Sunday!

I look forward to blogging more in the new year... and to all sorts of writing, I hope, in the new year. So may I wish you a joyous Second Day of Christmas (turtledoves, anyone?), an exceptionally Happy New Year...

...And may your days still be merry and bright!

GOD REST YE MERRY, HIPPOGRIFFS

Somehow pulling together my notes on Horcruxes has seemed a little anti-festive. I try, but I keep ending up wrapping presents instead!

So, more in keeping with the season, and yet still keeping Harry Potter in mind, I wanted to share with you all these wonderful lyrics.

You may remember that Sirius Black, when he was so happy that everyone was going to be at 12, Grimmauld Place for Christmas, walked around singing Christmas carols. Although J.K. Rowling neglected to give us the lyrics (now there's a book she could write for charity!), someone from the Barnes & Noble chat room did so (Beth? Was it you?). And, like Sirius, I've found myself humming them as well. I think they're really well done, and I know you will appreciate them too!

God rest ye merry, hippogriffs,
Let nothing you dismay
Remember Him, the double King
Whose nature you portray
And save us from dementors' power,
Rise up and fly away
On your great wings of comfort and joy...

In alchemy, in wizard lore,
A mighty Stone is found
And secrets are discovered where
Philosophy is sound;
Though builders have rejected it,
'Tis still savation's ground,
O tidings of comfort and joy...

If lost ye be upon your way
Where darkness lays a snare,
Cry out for aid and ye shall see
All shining white and fair
A guiding stag, and safety find
Within your father's care
O tidings of comfort and joy...

Fear not at ending of your days,
Let nothing you afright
For lo! the Phoenix dies indeed
And rises up alight;
This fire that burns chill death away
May yet set all things right
O tidings of comfort and joy...

Merry Christmas!

THE GRINCHES WHO COULDN'T STEAL CHRISTMAS

Look, I've been as bugged as the next person by what I called, a few posts ago, the "holidayization" of Christmas. It was one thing when governments decided they couldn't put up Nativity scenes, but to call a Christmas tree a "holiday" tree is beyond ridiculous. (Someone name me the other "holidays" on which we decorate a tree!!)

And I'm not offended when someone wishes me "Happy holidays." But I am offended when underpaid store clerks are forbidden to wish me "Merry Christmas." And I'm offended at the sheer idiocy of pretending it's "the holidays" and not Christmas when 96% of the people in the U.S. celebrate Christmas, and all those shoppers clogging the malls are sure not shopping for the Winter Solstice.

And yet...

I'm also starting to feel a little overly political whenever I respond to "Happy Holidays" with "Merry Christmas." And I don't like that feeling.

And I'm starting to be embarrassed by the too-large fuss being made over the "War on Christmas," with members of that 96% acting like a beleaguered minority. My favorite (wrong word, I realize) was the professing Christian from the "Church of the Divide" (oh please let that be a geographical reference) outside Sacramento, who staged a loud, apparently nasty protest outside a Wal-Mart, insisting that people were ignoring "the true meaning of Christmas"... while wearing a Santa suit.

(Am I the only one who remembers when "the true meaning of Christmas" meant something other than Santa?)

But as I've squirmed back and forth regarding the whole issue, something funny happened...

I saw, for the umpteenth time, "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" on TV. But for the first time, it made me cry.

Because it made me realize: It really doesn't matter a whit what corporations and businesses do as they attempt to exploit "the holidays" to pad their bottom line. Because no matter what, they can't take Christmas -- the real Christmas -- away from us.

He stared down at Who-ville! The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise!

Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any presents at all!
He HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
Maybe Christmas...perhaps... means a little bit more!"

And what happened then...? Well... in Who-ville they say
That the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day!...

Merry Christmas!

MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

You all know the story well. Heck, by now, you've probably all seen the movie.

I know the story, too. Maybe too well. Because I liked the movie. I liked it a lot.

But I didn't absolutely, overwhelmingly love it. And, boy, did I want to. But I didn't have one moment in the movie where my jaw dropped, where I found myself saying "Wow!"... Back to that in a moment. First let's look at the many, many things that worked.

There's a lot to like about Narnia. It is indeed faithful to the book, almost painstakingly so in a beat-for-beat way. No surprises here. (Is that it? Did I want a surprise?)

The performances are excellent across the board. In a performance reminiscent of the Borg Queen, Tilda Swinton is perfect as the White Witch. I read in an interview that she didn't think of her character as being human at all (those of us who've read the books know she isn't, in fact, human), and that really comes through, um, chillingly.

And the children's performances are equally good. I felt from the beginning that these were truly siblings, I believed their interaction throughout. (And I hate to say it: Their performances beat the Harry Potter kids in terms of subtlety and inner depth.)

Other performances are also right on the money. Mr. Tumnus. Father Christmas. The Professor. All excellent.

I liked the opening, in which we economically see and thoroughly understand why and how these children are being sent out of London (necessary for a modern-day audience). Visually and elegantly done.

The movie looks great. The production design is right on the money, both in England and in Narnia. Costumes are uniformly outstanding -- that chain mail dress of the White Witch's is worth an Oscar nomination right there. The forest looks right. The transition from the wardrobe to the forest, which could have been utterly unbelievable, is absolutely credible and beautifully done.

The effects are mostly excellent. There is some overly obvious green screen work during the trek to the Stone Table. Some of the CGI fighting seems too fast to be believable, with animals who should move with more weight instead practically flying across the screen. The gryphons, cool as they are in concept, also moved without enough weight, I felt.

The CGI characters are by and large pretty good. The Beavers are excellent -- such personality in photorealistic characters (and ones with fur, no less!) is an exceptional achievement. As for Aslan... well, he's fine, I guess. (And here's where the movie ceases to wow me.

Aslan (less well executed than the Beavers, IMHO) feels on a par with the other CGI creatures. And shouldn't he be more? Shouldn't he leave us in awe? (A really unfair task to ask of the effects folks, but...) Liam Neeson did a great job of voicing him, but somehow I didn't see anything behind his eyes most of the time. I was just too often aware that he was, in essence, a cartoon character.

But these are quibbles. Mere quibbles. The movie is a masterful achievement overall.... So why didn't it "wow" me? (And here comes the part where I bring down all your wrath on my head...)

I think the story is fundamentally flawed, at least from a dramatic point of view.

LWW has all the trappings of a hero story. But in a hero story, the hero is the one who fixes the problem.

Who's the hero of LWW? Well, we certainly are set up to believe it's Lucy (or a good case could be made that the four children constitute a group hero). We see the story through their eyes from the beginning, we journey with them, we understand what they're going through.

So what's the problem to be solved in LWW? The problem is that the White Witch is in control of Narnia -- "Always winter but never Christmas."

But -- here's the flaw -- the children don't solve the problem. Aslan solves the problem. The children are bit players, really, in the final solution of the problem (more so in the movie than in the book, exacerbating the flaw).

In essence, Aslan functions as a deus ex machina. We hear about him for 2/3 of the movie, he appears, he deals with the problem in three beats (Edmund, the Stone Table, the final battle), and the movie's over. And all the kids -- the putative heroes -- really didn't do much in any of it. The girls accompany Aslan to the Stone Table, but they actually do nothing. The boys fight in the battle, but again, they're not really crucial to its outcome.

All of this plot is fine in the book, where dramatic considerations aren't paramount. But once it's transformed into drama... it becomes a problem. Because Aslan is essentially a deus ex machina, the story violates Aristotle's laws of probability and necessity (again, this is not a serious problem in the novel because it is a different art form with different rules governing story construction). Because the laws of probability and necessity are violated, we don't get the emotional response we could.

(Yes, I'm aware of people who have had powerful emotional responses to the movie -- but from listening to them, it sure sounds to me as if they took their emotional responses in with them when they bought their popcorn, because they were laying Jesus, and their personal relationship with Him, on top of the character of Aslan.)

Finally... the oft asked question: "Is this a Christian movie?"

I'm not sure. I certainly see why Disney marketed it to Christians, given its pedigree. But I also see the point of the people who see the movie and say they don't see the Christian allegory/analogy.

"The devil is in the details," they say. Well, in this case, I think God may be in the details. And possibly some of those details were left out. (As they were in the movie versions of "The Lord of the Rings," which don't carry the spiritual power of the books because of the details left out.)

It would be fascinating to compare the shooting script to the book and see what didn't make the cut. What tiny beats, what tiny descriptions help us feel the Christian power and hidden message in the book? And which of those actually made it into the movie...?

Bottom line: If you haven't seen it, you definitely should. And I did like the movie a lot. I sort of loved it, I guess. I love the fact that it exists, I love that it was so faithful to the book (unlike previous efforts to bring the story to the screen in Hollywood). I love that a movie openly marketed to Christians is a bona fide hit. I love it that there will be a sequel.

Maybe it's just me... but I just wanted to love it more

.

HALLELUJAH!

I'm working on my Horcrux set-up and payoff post...

But in the meantime, in total opposition to it, and more in the spirit of the Season...

I have been rehearsing the "Hallelujah Chorus." We sing it every year at church on the Sunday morning before Easter, and Sabrina takes it very seriously indeed. Somehow, when she was 6, she got it in her mind that she'd like to learn it (I think they were learning about Handel in music class at school), so we practiced and practiced. We pulled out a recording to sing along, we dug out the sheet music and picked out the soprano part on the piano...

And she really learned it! So tiny she had to stand on a chair to see the choir director when the hundred or so amateurs filed up front during the service to sing, but I could hear her, and she got (just about) every note!

So we practice every year. And I tell the kids the story of how Handel wrote the whole "Messiah" in about 3 weeks. And about how when his landlady broke in on him just after he wrote "Hallelujah," he said to her, "I have seen the face of God!" And about how the King stood up when he first heard it, and so ever since everyone stands.

We had a scare last week at church when someone told us (incorrectly) that the Chorus was a week earlier than usual. "Oh no!" gasped Sabrina. "We haven't rehearsed!"

So this week, on the way to school, we slap on the Hallelujah Chorus and screech along (early morning, you know. And I'm really not a soprano anymore...)

And the other day, as we booted it up (track 22, set to replay indefinitely)... I started sobbing. There we are, driving along, singing away -- and I'm crying my eyes out.

I don't know why. But I've started crying every time we've practiced since. I just hope I can get through Sunday morning without crying... with Sabrina standing on a chair, singing proudly next to me.

All I can say is, I sure look forward to the day, in heaven, when we can hear, oh, a couple of million or so singing it, rather than just a couple of questionable sopranos trying to keep up with a CD.

And He shall reign forever and ever!

COLOR-BLINDNESS

I learned yesterday that a friend of mine is color-blind.

Now, somehow the primary meaning of "color-blind," at least for me, has become the metaphorical, positive meaning of someone who isn't a racist. And that metaphor has, um, blinded me to the fact that "color-blind" is not a positive thing, really.

I don't think I've ever met someone who's color-blind before. (Well, probably I have. I just didn't know it.) It was quite odd, asking him what colors the Christmas lights were (pink, blue, yellow, green), and having him say, "sort of reddish brown, and sort of brown." He talked about how he couldn't figure out growing up how his sister knew what color crayons were without reading the labels.

It made me think how very very glorious it will be for him when he reaches heaven and actually sees real color! I can just see him wandering around, for several years at least, saying "This is what indigo looks like? This is hot pink? And what about this? Is this burnt umber?"

But we all have areas of blindness -- things we just don't get. Like how I don't get the great Russian authors. Will I finally figure out what makes them so great when I have a chance to maybe hear or read them in the original language?

And what other blindnesses, I have to wonder, will be revealed when we hit heaven? Is there a whole new color range waiting to be found for all of us? New musical scales that we just can't hear now? What things are right in front of us now that we just don't see, because we're blind to them?

I can't wait!

MORE ON SNAPE: LEGILIMENCY AND LOYALTIES: SET-UPS AND PAYOFFS

There is so much that can be said about Snape, and I know I'm not really doing him justice in these Set-Up and Payoffs posts. I've already talked about him in length in my 7/31/05 post, as well as posting Helen Ketcham's in-depth analysis of Snape, which is posted in full here.

But I do want to make a few more brief comments regarding set-ups and payoffs in two areas, the first being Legilimency.

We get set-ups from the very beginning about Snape's command of Legilimency and Occlumency, initially without our realizing what they're pointing to. Harry has the feeling that Snape can read minds during the search for the Sorcerer's Stone [SS-13]. He has the same feeling when Snape is the one to greet him and Ron after they fly the Ford Anglia to Hogwarts [CS-5]. Again when Snape questions him about Draco having seen Harry's head in Hogsmeade [PA-14]. And again when Harry arrives at Hogwarts covered in blood after Draco beats him up on the train [HBP-8].

He uses Legilimency legitimately and openly, of course, during his ill-fated Occlumency lessons with Harry, in which he has pretty free access to Harry's mind, including to images Harry might choose to block, such as the more embarrassing moments with the Dursleys, and the image of Rookwood before Voldemort [OP-26].

And of course, we see Snape use Legilimency overtly, as a sort of weapon, when Harry lies to him about how he knows the Sectumsempra spell [HBP-24]. Note that here, Snape's use of the spell has a flavor of the Imperius Curse to it. Harry knows what Snape is about to do, wants to keep Snape out of his mind, but simply lacks the skills to do so. This is also the only time (other than in Occlumency lessons) when Harry is explicitly aware of Snape's presence in his mind.

It's a good reminder for us (and Harry) of just how much Harry needs to learn the one thing which Snape, in admittedly hostile circumstances, warned him he needed as virtually his last words to Harry: To close his mind [HBP-28]!

We know from Dumbledore that the key element of Legilimency is the ability to know when one is being lied to [OP-37]. Snape of course uses this skill to know that Harry is lying to him about the Potions book [HBP-24]. But Snape needs this skill, and its corresponding skill of Occlumency, much more in his dealings with Voldemort.

Snape is a "superb Occlumens," we learn as soon as we learn what Occlumency even is [OP-24]. And he must be, since his Occlumency skills evidently allow him to get away with lying to Voldemort. Not only does he get away with it, he flaunts it:

"...Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?"

[Bellatrix] hesitated.

"I know he believes you, but..."

"You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?" [HBP-2]

But that's exactly what Snape appears to have done... which, in my book, makes Snape the most accomplished Occlumens the world has ever seen.

However, it's important to note: Snape couldn't block Harry's fledgling attempts at Legilimency [OP-26], when Harry sees the images of Snape as an abused child. This set-up points out that Snape's Legilimency isn't flawless. What would happen to, say, the Order of the Phoenix if the wall of his Occlumency were to be breached by Voldemort?

Another payoff we might see from Snape's talents in Legilimency and Occlumency could come about in further confrontations between Snape and Harry. Note that in the Battle at Hogwarts, Snape was able to block Harry's every curse, Harry's every spell, before Harry could cast it. Snape even blocks Harry's nonverbal attempt to cast Levicorpus, making it very clear that he is using Legilimemcy to do so [HBP-28].

If Snape can do this, then Harry can't fight him. Or at least, he can't fight him and win. Snape will best Harry every time... until Harry learns to close his mind... This tells us that the Harry-Snape confrontations and even denouement cannot take the form of any kind of duel or battle.

Occlumency is, of course, key to the mystery of Snape's loyalties, as Lupin makes clear in his assumption that Snape kept the Order of the Phoenix from knowing his true loyalties through Occlumency [HBP-29]. (Note that this raises the probability that several, even most, of the Order are also Legilimens.)

Okay, I've talked about Snape's loyalties in much more detail in the post linked above, but let's at least brush by the subject here.

It's common knowlege that Snape is a former Death Eater, as Dumbledore testifies for the record:

"Snape!" [Karkaroff] shouted. "Severus Snape!"

"Snape has been cleared by this council," said Crouch disdainfully. "He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore."

"No!" shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains that bound him to the chair. "I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!"

Dumbledore had gotten to hsi feet.

"I have given evidence already on this matter," he said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." [GF-30].

Note that the Wizengamot's clearing of Snape's name is based on Dumbledore's testimony, not on Snape's. Throughout the series, we see that Dumbledore's reiterated trust in Snape is the primary reason anyone else is willing to trust him.

In fact, Dumbledore's trust in Snape is so well-known that even the Death Eaters, despite their natural suspicions, know of it and have no argument against it. Snape's position appears to be unassailable:

"And through all this we are supposed to believe Dumbledore has never suspected you?" asked Bellatrix. "He has no idea of your true allegiance, he trusts you implicitly still?"

"I have played my part well," said Snape. "And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness: He has to believe
the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest remorse when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he embraced me with open arms.... through all these years, he has never stopped trusting Severus Snape, and therein lies my great value to the Dark Lord."

Bellatrix still looked unhappy, though she appeared unsure how best to attack Snape next..." [HBP-2]

So why? Why does (did) Dumbledore trust Snape?

We simply don't know. Or we don't know much. A few people might know more: Barty Crouch, Jr. for one:

"'Course Dumbledore trusts you," growled Moody. "He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me -- I saw there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?" [GF-25]

But Barty, his soul neatly sucked out by the dementors, isn't around to tell us (or Harry) what those "second chances" might have involved.

But no one else really seems to know much of the details. It's up to Harry to spill what little Dumbledore has told him to others of the Order:

"[Dumbledore] always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape," muttered Professor McGonagall, now dabbing at the corners of her leaking eyes with a tartan-edged handkerchief. "I mean... with Snape's history... of course people were bound to wonder... but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance was absolutely genuine.... Woudlnt' hear a word against him!"

"I'd love to know what Snape told him to convince him," said Tonks.

"I know," said Harry, and they all turned to look at him. "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Vodemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead."

They all stared at him.

"And Dumbledore believed that?" said Lupin incredulously. "Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James...." [HBP-29]

This is one of the key exchanges that make my dramatic senses quiver. The set-up, I believe, is in what isn't said.

Lupin is absolutely right that Snape wouldn't be sorry that James was dead. Given the depth of the hatred we've seen Snape express for James, I can't believe Snape would feel any need to repent of any action that would lead to James's death. I can't imagine that being the motivation for him to switch sides. And Lupin's quite correct to be incredulous about it.

But James isn't the only one who died that night. Lily died, too. So if James's death can't be what drove Snape to switch loyalties, at the potential cost of his own life, there's a high probability that it was Lily's death that caused him to do so.

As I said in my 7/31/05 Snape post, that, plus the fact that Snape never mentioned Lily to Harry, even when she was a great potions student, make me think that Snape had feelings for Lily -- feelings so strong as to give him the courage to switch to the side of good and become a clandestine warrior against the side of evil.

So why wouldn't Dumbledore tell Harry the whole story about Snape's repentance? Harry asks point blank just before Voldemort returns to his body:

"What made you think he'd really stopped supporting Voldemort, Professor?"

Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, Harry is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." [GF-30]

Perhaps it's understandable why Dumbledore doesn't spill the beans here. Voldemort has not yet returned, so we are not at the crisis stage in the overall battle that we will be later. Snape's repentance is a thing of the past, not as relevant as it will shortly become.

But after Harry learns that it was Snape who told Voldemort about the prophecy, after he knows the very information Dumbledore has striven to keep from him all these years, Dumbledore still refuses to tell Harry information which Harry could easily insist he has the right to know:

"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned --"

"But he's a very good Occlumens, isn't he, sir?" said Harry, whose voice was shaking with the effort of keeping it steady. "And isn't Voldemort convinced that Snape's on his side, even now? Professor... how can you be sure Snape's on ourside?"

Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." [HBP-25]

So what was Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about there? Was he toying with the idea that maybe he shouldn't have trust Snape so implicitly, tempted to change that trust? Or was he considering whether to tell Harry what he knows?

Given the solidity of Dumbledore's trust in Snape throughout, given that there is no new knowledge provided to him by Harry, I believe it is the latter. Which raises another question: Who was Dumbledore trying to protect by not telling Harry what he knew? Harry? Or Snape? (Or both?)

Why Dumbledore trusted Snape continues to be the unanswered question of the whole series. I trust that J.K. Rowling will not leave this thread hanging in Book 7!

The follow-up question is, of course, was Dumbledore wrong to trust Snape? On the surface, the answer is apparently yes, as everyone in the Order of the Phoenix clearly feels at the end of Book 6.

However, if one accepts, or even wants to consider, the theory of "Stoppered Death" proposed by Cathy Liesner of The Leaky Cauldron, then everything apparent is turned on its head.

The Stoppered Death theory, which I go into in much more detail in my 8/19/05 post basically points to Snape's comments in that first Potions class in year one that he could "stopper death." It then posits that when Dumbledore captured the Ring Horcrux, he was killed -- but Snape was able to "stopper" his death, keeping its effects to that burned and unhealable hand. Dumbledore has thus been Dead-Wizard-Walking for all of Half-Blood Prince, and knows his final death is coming soon (which explains why he is so forthcoming to Harry about things he would never discuss with him in previous books).

It also means that Snape did not kill Dumbledore with the Avada Kedavra on top of the Astronomy Tower, because "they cannot kill you if you are already dead." Dumbledore was already dead. All Snape did was pull the "stopper," the cork, if you will, that kept that death quiescent in his burned hand.

The Stoppered Death theory, to my mind, makes Snape's actions make sense -- and is fully set-up throughout the books (check out that 8/19 post to see how). It answers the question "Was Dumbledore wrong to trust Snape?" with a resounding no.

Now all we need to know is the rest of the answer to the question "Why did Dumbledore trust Snape?" We have set-ups, but not enough for JKR to truly show her hand. So that's one for conjecture until, oh, say, 2007.

--------------

More could be said about Snape (some of you, I'm sure, will say it in the comment boxes!)... But my next HP post will switch to a discussion of set-ups and payoffs as regards Horcruxes.

GOD REST YE MERRY, GENTLEMEN

I used to pick out one Christmas carol a year that I would focus on, try to get lodged in my brain, and meditate on during Advent. However, I quickly realized not all of them have the same punch. I'm probably the only person I know who really doesn't like "Silent Night," and even cringes when someone starts singing it (usually too slow and too high).

One carol that has stayed with me, and gives me the same punch every year, however, is "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen." It dates back to 1833, which is why the language seems a bit archaic, and why it gets misinterpreted. For instance, note the placement of the comma. The first line isn't saying "God give you rest, happy guys." It's saying "May God keep you joyful, dudes."

I think what does it for me with this song is the linking, in the first verse, with the birth of the baby Jesus to the defeat of Satan. Wow! How many Christmas carols remind us of such a powerful reason to rejoice!

Usually we get one to two verses of "God Rest Ye" before we segue on to "Silent Night" or something, um, sappier. So as a public service, I thought I'd print here all the verses. Just in case you need something to sing while trying to find a parking place at the mall.

(And for those of you saying, oh come on, get back to Harry Potter --- I will post a tie-in between these lyrics and HP very soon... and for those of you who were on the Barnes & Noble group and know what I'm talking about, someone remind me who wrote it!)

Anyway, once again, Merry Christmas!--

God rest ye merry, gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

In Bethlehem, in Israel,
This blessed Babe was born
And laid within a manger
Upon this blessed morn
The which His Mother Mary
Did nothing take in scorn
O tidings of comfort and joy...

From God our Heavenly Father
A blessed Angel came;
And unto certain Shepherds
Brought tidings of the same:
How that in Bethlehem was born
The Son of God by Name.
O tidings of comfort and joy...

"Fear not then," said the Angel,
"Let nothing you affright,
This day is born a Saviour
Of a pure Virgin bright,
To free all those who trust in Him
From Satan's power and might."
O tidings of comfort and joy...

The shepherds at those tidings
Rejoiced much in mind,
And left their flocks a-feeding
In tempest, storm and wind:
And went to Bethlehem straightway
The Son of God to find.
O tidings of comfort and joy...

And when they came to Bethlehem
Where our dear Saviour lay,
They found Him in a manger,
Where oxen feed on hay;
His Mother Mary kneeling down,
Unto the Lord did pray.
O tidings of comfort and joy...

Now to the Lord sing praises,
All you within this place,
And with true love and brotherhood
Each other now embrace;
This holy tide of Christmas
All others doth deface.
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy...

"CAN YOU COME?"

We held our traditional Christmas party this Saturday. And I do think it was the best one we have ever had...

We started our Christmas parties because, frankly, I just don't like trimming the Christmas tree. I love buying the tree, I love having the tree... But I get frustrated after hanging about the fifth ornament, and end up resenting the tree. So when we were first married and lived in a smallish apartment, and then in a truly tiny house, we invited friends over to a tree-trimming party and put them all to work. And to be extra economical, we'd invite all the friends whom we were giving presents to, so we could make all the deliveries at once. The parties usually consisted of about 15 people (all we could fit in our 250 sq. ft. living room!).

And then we moved into a bigger house, and there were people we wanted to invite who weren't necessarily on our gift list. So we dispensed with the tree-trimming and just invited people to a party. And because we lived in the hills and parking was horrible, we made it an afternoon party so people could actually find their cars. And because we had developed the tradition of gift-giving in conjunction with our tree-trimming parties, we started giving out little party favors to one and all. Our parties at this point numbered probably about 50 people.

And then we had kids. And the kids went to school. And they had friends. And their friends had families. And all of a sudden our party mushroomed into a huge event. We invited everyone -- people from church, people from school, people from the neighborhood, people from the various fellowships and ministries we're involved with, people from the entertainment industry, all crushed together in a house that was plenty large for a family of four, but not necessarily the best-designed for entertaining on that scale.

And we saw something interesting happen. People from all these different walks of life began striking up friendships at our parties. The actress friend would show up asking if one of our neighbors was coming this year, because she wanted to see her again. The writer friend would show up asking if a parent from school was coming because they had hit it off so well. People began asking months ahead of time if we were throwing our party this year.

Last year, in our straitened circumstances, we had to cut waaaay back on the party -- almost (not quite) back to the tree-trimming days. But this year, in the new house, we decided to pull out the stops.

We invited everyone. We decorated as we never had decorated before (as the new house demanded, really), with twinkle lights hanging from the high ceilings, and trees and bushes light up in the back yard, and floating candles in the pool, and luminarias lighting the front walk and the edge of our cliff. And we set food all over the place, rather than cramming it all into the tiny dining room. And God obliged us nicely by giving us one of the most spectacular sunsets we've had since moving in to the place (people were rushing their families over to take family pictures against it).

It was the best party we ever had. And while we still had the dozens of people making the annual connections they only seem to make at our party, really we were the ones who got the biggest blessing. Because for the first time, we felt absolutely, irrevocably at home here.

But here's the one thing I can't quite figure out (and the reason for the title of this post).

We had 121 people at the party. But 168 RSVP'd.

Now, to their credit, 3 people e-mailed just as the party started to say they couldn't come because they were sick.

But what about the other 44? Why didn't they call or e-mail? We bought food for them, we bought party favors for them... And they just didn't show.

Here's what I want to know: Is this just an L.A. thing? In other parts of the country (or world), do people RSVP in such numbers and not show? Is the rudeness limited to us on the Third Coast? (Or to us in Hollywood -- I have to note that only two of those no-shows came from the kids' school, where "code of conduct" issues, including manners, are a priority.) Or is it pandemic?

A petty thought, perhaps. But I was just wondering.

In the meantime, with the party out of the way, it's all downhill for the rest of the Christmas season! Woo-hoo!

SEVERUS AND HARRY: SET-UPS AND PAYOFFS

I've already spoken at length about the most fascinating character in the whole Harry Potter canon, the Half-Blood Prince himself, Professor Severus Snape. But I want to return to him, even at the risk of repeating myself, to run through some of the set-ups and payoffs I find most interesting.

As I've remarked before (and will come back to again as I conclude this section on Snape, probably in one or two more posts), one of the most interesting areas to explore is what is not set up: namely, his potential relationship with Lily Evans. Here, we can largely only surmise from what is not said. But let's start by looking at what is set up.

Much has been written about Snape's treatment of Harry, and I have excerpted here Helen Ketcham's excellent essays on Snape (which are posted in full at John Granger's website. The most interesting contrast here, I think, is in the difference between how Snape treats Harry when in the same room with him, and how this is totally at odds with his persistent conduct in protecting Harry.

Snape hates Harry. That is very clear, even from their first encounter in Potions class, when Snape makes Harry look stupid and mocks him in front of everyone: "Our new -- celebrity" (a moment which is even better in the movie! -- thank you, Alan Rickman!) [SS-8]. Harry draws the logical conclusion:

Harry told Hagrid about Snape's lesson. Hagrid, like Ron, told Harry not to worry about it, that Snape liked hardly any of the students.

"But he seemed to really hate me."

"Rubbish!" said Hagrid. "Why should he?"

Yet Harry couldn't help thinking that Hagrid didn't quite meet his eyes when he said that. [SS-8]

Harry's suspicions about Snape's feelings toward him are confirmed by Quirrell:

"But Snape always seemed to hate me so much."

"Oh, he does," said Quirrell casually, "heavens. yes. He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he never wanted you dead." [SS-17]

Okay, so Snape hates Harry. As we see, it's established early on in the series, and we could print chapter after chapter of confirming behavior on Snape's part.

But while Snape may be talking the talk of hatred, he doesn't always walk the walk. In fact, he goes out of his way repeatedly to protect Harry. Let's take a look at how.

In the most obvious example (and one of J.K. Rowling's prime examples of narrative misdirection!), Snape saves Harry's life during the Quidditch match in Sorcerer's Stone, muttering the countercurse against Quirrell's curse. Quirrell does indeed confirm that he was trying to kill Harry [SS-17], and even confirms that in fact, Snape was suspicious of him throughout the story, and pursued him even as he (Quirrell) was, under the influence of Lord Voldemort, pursuing Harry [SS-17].

Snape's next major attempt to protect Harry comes in Prisoner of Azkaban. Harry in fact needs no protection from Sirius Black, but no one knows this. We see that Snape is aware of the overall efforts to protect Harry, and seems to be part of them [PA-14]. Snape even insists that, in following Harry and friends to the Shrieking Shack, he not only protected Harry from possible death at the hands of Sirius, but also from possible attack from werewolf Lupin [PA-19]. Again, we know that Harry was safe, and we can see ulterior motives in Snape's actions -- but from Snape's point of view, it's certainly quite credible that he put himself at risk to follow and protect Harry.

Moving on to Goblet of Fire, we see that Snape searches the fake Moody's office. Hermione links this to Snape's looking after Harry [GF-26]. Hermione actually mentions the fact that Snape saved Harry's life in their first year several times [GF-27] -- Why, we have to ask, does she keep bringing this up? Is she serving as the voice of the author, reminding us of something we need to remember... or is it another exemplar of narrative misdirection?

In Order of the Phoenix, Snape takes several explicit steps to protect Harry (and the Order itself). When Umbridge goes after him, Snape provides fake Veritaserum [OP-37], thus keeping Harry from spilling secrets that should not be spilled, but also protecting Harry from further punishment by the sadistic Umbridge. And when Harry spits out a coded message while being held captive in Umbridge's office, Snape, though pretending he doesn't know what Harry means, actually takes him quite seriously, warning the Order and setting in motion the steps that do indeed save Harry's life (not to mention Hermione, Ron, Luna, Neville, and Ginny) [OP-37].

Finally, in Half-Blood Prince, even as Harry is justifiably filled with hatred for Snape, who has just (apparently) killed Dumbledore, Snape continues to protect Harry. He repeatedly keeps him from performing the Crucio curse [HBP-28], the Unforgivable that Harry seems to find the most tempting. He gives Harry a very sensible warning that, were Harry to heed it (unlikely, given the person speaking and the circumstances), would save Harry a lot of trouble:

"Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" sneered Snape, deflecting the curse once more. [HBP-28]

And there's one more thing that Snape does here... Or actually that he doesn't do. With Harry in his hands, at his mercy, Snape does not take him to Lord Voldemort.

This negative set-up, as it were, is a clue of the highest order, it seems to me. We must ask ourselves: If Snape is really in the service of the Dark Lord, why would he not deliver Harry Potter to him? Oh yeah, he has an excuse, which he gives to the other Death Eaters on the scene who do indeed want to take Harry to Voldemort:

"Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" [HBP-28]

Well, maybe in the heat of the moment the Death Eaters buy this, but to those of us who remember set-ups from previous books, it's totally bogus!

Have we forgotten how badly fake Moody wanted to deliver to Voldemort the one thing the Dark Lord wanted above all else: Harry.

Moody's face was suddenly lit with an insane smile. "Tell me he told them that I, I alone remained faithful... prepared to risk everything to deliver to him the one thing he wanted above all... you. [GF-35]

(Note, by the way, that fake Moody's desire to deliver Harry to Voldemort is not, as in the movie, on Voldemort's orders, but of his own volition.)

Fake Moody clearly knows the value of Harry to Voldemort, and makes it clear that the Dark Lord would not object to having a servant do the dirty work of capturing Harry:

"The Dark Lord didn't manage to kill you, Potter, and he so wanted to," whispered Moody. "Imagine how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for him. I gave you to him -- the thing he needed above all to regenerate -- and then I killed you for him. I will be honored beyond all other Death Eaters. I will be his dearest, his closest supporter... closer than a son...."[GF-35]

Note also that through the entire battle at the Ministry of Magic in OP, the working assumption of the Death Eaters is that turning Harry over to Voldemort is a good thing. So why in the world does Snape fail to do the one thing which would indeed, if he is truly "the Dark's Lord's man through and through," give him power, reward, honor and fame? Why does he fail to do the one thing which failure could, arguably, lead to Voldemort's wrath and even Snape's death at Voldemort's hands?

One (weak) answer could lie in the concept of the life-debt. I've already discussed Peter Pettigrew's life-debt to Harry at some length. But could Snape also have a life-debt to James, which is now only payable through Harry? Dumbledore seems to imply so at the end of SS:

"...And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."

"What?"

"He saved his life."

"What?"

"Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt.... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace...." [SS-17]

When James saved Snape's life, it would make sense that it created a life-debt between them, as Harry's saving Pettigrew's life creates a life-debt acknowledged by Dumbledore. Could this be the reason (or a reason) why Snape is so consistently protective of Harry, despite his obvious hatred of him?

Or is it the case that Snape protects Harry, that Snape does not turn Harry over to Voldemort because he is in fact working secretly against Voldemort -- as we are explicitly led to believe in OP, but which does seem rather contradicted by his apparent killing of Dumbledore. We'll come back to a discussion of Snape's loyalties a bit later, but for now, we should just admire the complexity of the set-ups we've been given.

Snape hates Harry. True. Snape protects Harry. Also true. The contradiction between these facts is, I would say, the great tension pulling at the fabric of the entire HP story.

Oh, and how does Harry feel about Snape, we should ask. Well, duh. He hates him. And after Snape's putative murder of Dumbledore, Harry hates Snape with a depth of hatred unseen previously in the books.

And yet... And yet...

Harry deeply appreciated the Half-Blood Prince, valued him, saw him as a sort of mentor. Will Harry shove these feelings and thoughts to the background of his mind? Or will he explore them, try to reconcile this parallel contradiction between his feelings (hatred of Snape) and his actions (appreciation and use of the Prince's hints and help)?

Snape is on the run. Harry is not likely to run into him for some time, one would think, in Book 7. But he does have access to Snape, if he chooses to take advantage of it. That potions book is still sitting there in the Room of Requirement [HBP-24]. Maybe Harry will want it for its obvious spell-casting value. Or maybe he will find it more valuable for what it might tell him about his nemesis and savior, Severus Snape.

It's all set-up, for us and for Harry. All he has to do is go get it. (And all we have to do is wait!)

...Next post, more on Snape and Legilimency.

THE HOLIDAYIZATION OF CHRISTMAS

As I finish cobbling together my posts-to-come on Severus Snape's set-ups and payoffs, I have snuck in a little Christmas shopping and other such festivities.

I'm sure we're all aware of the so-called "war on Christmas." While I think the verbiage being used there is quite over-the-top, it is certainly the case that Christmas's presence in the "public square" is being more and more commercialized and secularized. I prefer to think of it as the "holidayization" of Christmas. We have "holiday" trees now, "holiday" sales, etc.

We've all heard about how various major stores (Target, Costco, Wal-Mart, etc.) no longer permit their employees to say "Merry Christmas" to customers... which is just stupid, in my opinion. When a customer is in line at Target, as I was this morning, to buy a Christmas tree stand, I think it's a good bet that "Merry Christmas" would not be offensive!

Well, the holidayization of Christmas moved into a new sphere for me this weekend. Sabrina and I went up to church for our church's annual Women's Christmas Tea -- over 1000 women attend a Christmas program (speakers, carols, etc.), then go down to a huge party tent erected in the parking lot, where over 100 tables are individually set by hostesses (who cart massive amounts of china, etc. from home for the occasion), and 150 tuxedoed butlers (guys from the church roped into it) serve tea and tiny food. It's all very lovely.

And as Sabrina and I were climbing the hill to church for the Christmas tea, to sing Christmas carols and then head home with our cute Christmas tree decorations... Another woman passed us, smile nicely, and said, "Happy holidays!"

Um... If you can't say "Merry Christmas" at that particular time and place, when can you say it? Are we really that indoctrinated already?....

Along the same lines, but looking back 40 years, I read a lovely article in the L.A. Times about how the Charlie Brown Christmas special came to be. I found it interesting that 40 years ago, when "Christmas" was still very much taken for granted, the producers found themselves up against a situation we might expect to find today...

Here's a snip from the article:

[Charles] Schulz [creator of "Peanuts"], [Lee] Mendelson [producer of the special], and [Bill] Melendez [the animator] scrambled to draw up an outline for teh show, complete with a school play with Nativity scenes, a stubby tree, and an undercurrent of anti-commercialism.

Mendelson suggested adding a laugh track, a popular device in the 1960s, but Schulz said no. Schulz also decreed that only children's voices would be featured.

Schulz, a Midwesterner who had taught Sunday school, wanted Linus to quote a passage from the Bible about the birth of Jesus to present the "true meaning of Christmas."

His collaborators worried it might feel preachy.

"I was dead set against it," Melendez, now 89, recalled during an interview at his Serman Oaks office. "It was too religious, too dangerous."

Melendez has never forgotten Schulz's response: "Sparky said, 'Bill, if we don'ty do it, then who will?' "

...Who will, indeed?

So, with that reminder that the Christmas story can indeed be "dangerous," may I wish you all an early and defiant Merry Christmas!

BEATLEFEST

Every year, on the last night of our church's Family Camp, a very cool, slightly clandestine event is held. The event is called "Beatlefest," and it basically consists of anyone who hears about it and wants to come ganging together to sing Beatles songs until, oh, usually 2:00 a.m. or so.

While there are musical clunkers like myself in the group, the majority of the people there are very skilled vocally and instrumentally, so out come the guitars and the bass and the keyboards (Lee sometimes sitting in there) and the tambourines and last year even an accordion. And the organizers hand out the lyrics, and the four-part harmony clicks in. And it is a truly beautiful thing.

...And that makes me think of a story told by John Fischer at a retreat he spoke at a couple of years ago. He told about being a high school kid and loving the Beatles and loving God, and having a problem reconciling the two.

One night after a marvelous worship time, he got into his car and the radio came on automatically, playing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." Feeling it would be wrong to listen to secular rock and roll after worship, he stretched out his hand to turn off the radio. But there was an invisible physical obstacle blocking his way to the radio -- he simply couldn't touch the dial.

And he felt God saying to him, "How do you feel after worshipping Me?" And John said, "Happy and free." And God said to him, "And how does this music feel?" And he said, "Happy. And free." And God basically responded, "Well...?"

All this to say that Lee and I had the privilege to attend the last night of Paul McCartney's U.S. tour a few days ago. Some 20,000 people, I would guess, all in one room. And it was marvelous.

Knowing we were about to go out on our movie-pitching marathon, Lee insisted he was not going to sing along. He needed to protect his voice, after all. Well, that lasted about one and a half songs. There he was, singing along so loud the people at the end of the row were leaning over to see who was singing so loud!

To pull an overused word out of the lexicon, it was an amazing evening of community. The people behind us didn't even speak English (they were speaking some dialect of German), but they knew all the words. 20,000 people, all sharing the same moment. All the "required" songs were there -- Hey Jude. Let It Be. Live and Let Die. Band on the Run. Yesterday... Stuff from his new album, "Chaos and Creation" (Lee was the only one who knew all those words, and I didn't even know he'd bought the CD -- oh well, there's one Christmas gift crossed off the list). And songs we didn't expect, that were just plain fun to sing along with. I Will. Benny and the Jets. Please Please Me.... Paul was a very generous performer -- 3 hours w/o an intermission.

Basically, it was just like going to Beatlefest at camp. Except for maybe 19,975 extra people in the room. And fireworks. And oh yeah, a real live Beatle leading the singalong.

We thrashed our voices, needless to say. Lee sounded horrible when we went out to pitch the next morning. But for those three hours, we were happy. And free.

Makes me wonder what it'll be like to join the singalong of the heavenly hosts.....

PLUGGING BEHIND THE SCREEN

Lee and I have been out pitching our new story ("Shakespeare's Curse") to just about every major producer in town the last few days, and it has been absolutely exhausting (I slept 11 hours last night -- I can't even begin to remember the last time I did that!).

So that is the (very good, IMHO) excuse as to why I haven't started my Severus Snape posts. They're coming. I promise.

In the meantime, you might want to click on over to check out this review of Behind the Screen, the book written by various faculty members of Act One. I post the link because I am, well, quoted on the article.

And wouldn't Behind the Screen make a terrific Christmas present, she asked rhetorically. (All the royalties to go Act One.)

AND A FEW MORE WIZARDS: SET-UPS AND PAYOFFS

First, let me offer my excuses for not finishing up the set-ups and payoffs regarding various wizards sooner -- Thanksgiving, everyone in the house is sick except me, Christmas is coming, we're supposed to go out on a string of career-crucial meetings this week. Okay, excuses over. Here we go.

Mundungus Fletcher

Mundungus, funny though he may be, is a pretty scummy character. Although he's a member of the Order of the Phoenix, he's a petty thief [OP-5], and he plies his trade pretty diligently throughout the books. So diligently, in fact, that he can't even be trusted to stand guard reliabily [OP-1].

We learn that Mundungus is personally loyal to Dumbledore, who rescued him once [OP-5]. That loyalty, however, doesn't seem to extend to anyone Dumbledore cares about, given that Mundungus's devotion to his trade takes him back to 12, Grimmauld Place to steal items Harry has inherited after Sirius's death [HBP-12].

Somehow Dumbledore stops Mundungus from doing so [HBP-13], and Mundungus goes into hiding. Not very well, apparently, or maybe the lure of thievery was just too strong for him, as we learn he's been thrown into Azkaban for impersonating an Inferius during a burglary [HBP-21].

Well, it's a good thing we know where he is, because I wouldn't be surprised if Harry might need to have a chat with Mundungus in Book 7. At some point, Harry will have to remember the locket he saw during the cleaning up of 12, Grimmauld Place, and he'll have to remember that Sirius's brother was named Regulus, and he'll have to put the two together and wonder if that very locket mightn't be the locket Horcrux "R.A.B" stole from the Cave.

And what if he goes back to 12, Grimmauld Place and finds the locket missing? Well, first thing, he should check Kreacher's stash. But if it's not there, I'd say Mundungus is the first stop in the search for the locket.

And one more set-up about Mundungus, who's already someone we really wouldn't want to trust with our lives. We know he joined the Order out of loyalty to Dumbledore. But where do his loyalties lie now that Dumbledore is dead?

Given all the secrets of the Order that he must know, maybe it's a really good thing that he's in Azkaban.

Rufus Scrimgeour

We first met Scrimgeour in Half-Blood Prince [HBP-1]. But we were actually introduced to him back in Order of the Phoenix, and it wasn't an introduction that should make us feel comfortable with him. We learn, in a throwaway line, that Scrimgeour is suspicious of the Aurors who are members of the Order [OP-7].

That suspicious nature continues once Scrimgeour comes into power. We see early on that he and Dumbledore are in disagreement [HBP-4], and Scrimgeour overtly sets himself against Dumbledore every time we see him after that.

We know that Scrimgeour, cynical manipulator that he is, wants Harry to serve as a public relations shill for the Ministry. We also know that he wants information that he can't get, specifically about Dumbledore [HBP-16]. (Just think how many avenues he must have tried before dragging Percy to the Weasleys so he could corner Harry!)

And we know that Harry's got his number:

"...You never get it right, you people, do you? Either we've got Fudge, pretending everything's lovely while people get murdered right under his nose, or we've got you, chucking the wrong people into jail and trying to pretend you've got 'the Chosen One' working for you!"

"So you're not 'the Chosen One'?" said Scrimgeour.

"I thought you said it didn't matter either way?" said Harry, with a bitter laugh. "Not to you anyway."

"I shouldn't have said that," said Scrimgeour quickly. "It was tactless--"

"No, it was honest," said Harry. "One of the only honest things you've said to me. You don't care whether I live or die, but you do care that I help you convince everyone you're winning the war against Voldemort..."

What will we see from Rufus Scrimgeour in Book 7? More of the same, I would expect. He has clearly drawn battle lines between himself and Dumbledore, just as strong, perhaps, as the lines drawn against Voldemort. And as Harry has made it quite clear that he is "Dumbledore's man through and through" [HBP-16, 30], undoubtedly Scrimgeour will continue the adversarial relationship against Harry.

However, with all the storylines to be fulfilled in Book 7, I have to think that any obstacles thrown up against Harry's quest on the part of the Ministry of Magic will play minor roles compared to the quest itself.

Ollivander and Florean Fortescue

Both Ollivander and Fortescue disappeared at the same time [HBP-6]. But there was a big difference between them: Fortescue, based on the state of his shop, was clearly dragged off kicking and screaming. Ollivander, on the other hand, left his shop in good shape, with absolutely no signs of any struggle having occurred. So one must ask: Did he leave with the Death Eaters voluntarily?

In any event, as Mr. Weasley points out, it's not good for Voldemort's side to have Ollivander in their clutches. As the best wandmaker around, he could be uniquely valuable to them.

I expect that we will see Fortescue again, probably at the end of Book 7, as part of the celebration of Voldemort's defeat. Ollivander... I'm not so sure about.

Wizard qualification

I didn't really have another category to put this topic in, and as I only have a brief thought about it, I thought I'd just slip it in here.

We know that coming of age and being "qualified" as a wizard are two different things. It seems that one becomes qualified upon taking one's NEWTs. Hagrid is certainly "of age," but, having been expelled from Hogwarts, never became "fully-qualified." The Weasley twins, having dropped out of Hogwarts, presumably are also unqualified, despite their extreme skill as wizards.

So Harry, who has announced his intention to also drop out of Hogwarts, will also presumably not be a "fully-qualified" wizard. Which makes the following statement by Dumbledore (said at the Cave) of interest:

"Voldemort will not have cared about the weight, but about the amount of magical power that crossed his lake. I rather think an enchantment will have been placed upon this boat so that only one wizard at a time will be able to sail in it."

"But then--?"

"I do not think you will count, Harry: You are underage and unqualified. Voldemort would never have expected a sixteen-year-old to reach this place: I think it unlikely that your powers will register compared to mine." [HBP-26]

So Harry slips through under Voldemort's radar, as it were, because he is underage and unqualified. Now he will be of age, of course, when (or shortly after) the final book begins. But will it make a difference that he is unqualified? Will that somehow help him to avoid any of Voldemort's traps?

One can only hope...

........

That finally wraps up my thoughts on set-ups and payoffs regarding the various wizards of Harry Potter. Obviously I have cherry-picked among the wizards and haven't covered everyone. (Feel free to weigh in with thoughts on wizards I should have touched on!)

Next... On to the most fascinating wizard in the whole story... the Half-Blood Prince himself, Professor Severus Snape.

MOVIE THOUGHTS: HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

I didn't even want to see the Lord of the Rings movies. The books meant so much to me, I didn't want someone else's interpretation, someone else's images, taking over my mind.

Somehow, much as I love the Harry Potter books, I haven't felt the same way about the movies. Maybe because the movies are coming out so quickly after the books, maybe because the books have been such a sensation asbooks, maybe because I cement my own interpretation of the books right away by reading them out loud to Lee and the kids, (and okay, maybe because I'd sure love to be involved with one of the movies myself), I haven't had any concern about the movies overtaking the images in my mind. The movies are cool, but the books remain paramount in my mind.

It is hard, in an odd way, for me to see the movies because I see the books so strongly in my mind, and because I know them so well. By my second or third read-through of each book, my subconscious is plotting out the screenplay, cutting scenes, telescoping scenes together, mentally marking the "must-keep" lines.

And here's how I would adapt Goblet of Fire (or, reallyk, any book): I would make a list of every plot beat in the story. Not just every scene, but every beat. Every single thing that happens. For a book as plot-dense as GoF, I would expect a final list of 1000 beats or so. I would start at the end of the story and go backwards, marking every beat that was necessary to get to the end of the story.

Next I would start thinking about the theme(s) of the book (not necessarily the same as the theme(s) of the movie, but in the case of a book so well-loved, chances are the themes will stay pretty close!). Now while the series has several themes running through the books (sacrifice, choices, love, etc.), each book also has its own themes. For Goblet of Fire, I'd say the dominant theme is that of identity. Look at all the characters this theme is reflected through: Voldemort regains his identity as he regains his body. Mad-Eye Moody has an identity crisis going on, one might say. Harry and Ron are trying to figure out who they are in terms of girls. And so on...

So my next step would be to go back through that list of 1000 beats and mark every beat that reflected each theme. And from there, I'd start cutting scenes and sequences.

Wait a minute, I hear you saying. Shut up already about how you'd adapt the book, and tell us what you think about how the filmmakers actually did it!

Well, the long prologue is basically to say I'm probably the wrong person to review it. I know too much, I've thought too much about it. There's no way I can have a real visceral reaction to the movie.

But I'll share a few thoughts (Finally! I hear you say...).

I thought the movie was too short. Not anyone's fault: With a book this long and this dense, any movie would have been too short.

I thought the cuts were well chosen. To get to the Quidditch World Cup (and through it!) so quickly, and without missing any crucial plot points, was breathtaking in its economy.

I thought the decision to reveal Barty Crouch, Jr. from the beginning was the right choice. The Barty-Crouch-Pensieve episode in the books is extremely problematic from a dramatic point of view, as it stops the story dead to raise and answer questions right at the most emotional moment in the story. The real temptation would be to do away with the Polyjuice Fake-Mad-Eye storyline altogether -- and in a less well-known story, there's a good chance a studio would have gone for that option. Given the problems, I think the filmmakers handled it very well indeed.

I thought the fight with the Hungarian Horntail was fabulous, and I understand why the filmmakers wanted to "open it up" and have the dragon chase Harry around the castle. The chase was well-done, and frankly it was fun to see part of the movie where I didn't know already exactly what was coming next. But I probably would have chosen to spend those minutes later in the movie.

The Yule Ball was well done, I thought, and very satisfying throughout. I liked the addition of the dancing lessons -- it felt like something McGonagall would do. I could tell the sequence really worked because Cory, who's now 11 and intensely uncomfortable with the whole concept of "girls," suddenly became incredibly squirmy, felt a sudden need to run to the bathroom, and didn't settle down till we got back to something more comfortable like, oh, threats to one's bodily existence.

Loved Moaning Myrtle and how they milked that comparatively small moment in the prefect's bathroom.

I was glad they kept the Second Task fairly brief (at least it felt that way) -- the least interesting in the book, I thought.

I thought the choice to make the maze itself the real danger of the Third Task was very smart. In the book, when we don't know where the maze is leading, we get into the blast-ended skrewts, and the puzzles, etc. But given that the Third Task is itself ultimately meaningless in terms of the plot, I thought getting rid of all those elements was a smart choice. Note that all the important character bits are there: Fleur being disabled and out of the race, Krum being Imperiused (though they didn't explained it that way -- possibly because those cloudy eyes would be inconsistent with the idea that you can't tell when someone is Imperiused -- yet the cloudy eyes were a nice visual shorthand for the moment in the maze), Diggory being injured. We just get to what really matters more cleanly. Nicely done.

Then we come to the graveyard. Here's where I would put those minutes we spent with the dragon chasing Harry. Don't get me wrong: What we saw in the graveyard was terrific. I just think we needed more time. More time for Harry to be afraid, especially. One of the most important moments to me in all the books is the moment when Harry makes the decision to stand up from behind the gravestone and face Voldemort. That moment was on screen -- but it went by so fast, we never got to feel Harry's fear, feel his decision, feel the fear become courage.

Ralph Fiennes was terrific. I loved his reaction to his new body. I know people have objected to the lack of red eyes, but I think that's the right choice for the movie. An actor only has four tools to work with: his face, his body, his voice and his eyes. Fiennes has already lost most of the use of his face under all that make-up. To take away his eyes as well would really be to handicap him -- and to ruin our response to him.

That being said, again, I wanted more. I wanted more time. I wanted to feel more of the chill that Lord Voldemort's return means. I wanted more Death Eaters -- somehow I'm not all that scared of 5 guys.

On to the unraveling -- I thought it was very well handled, given how difficult the plot becomes to follow once we get to the fake Mad-Eye Moody (a wonderful performance, btw). (And props to the filmmakers for making sure we had all the set-up we needed, in the scene in Snape's supply cupboard.)

Finally, I was pleased they did include the one line I had to hear in the movie -- choosing between "what is right and what is easy" -- though I was disappointed that Dumbledore said this to Harry in private, rather than proclaiming such an important message before the whole school.

So basically, I liked the movie.

What did I miss? What did I think they left out? (Other than more time in the graveyard?)

I missed Dumbledore saying to Snape, "You know what I must ask of you" and Snape taking off to be the spy for the Order of the Phoenix (though Snape's role may not even have been known at the time this screenplay was being written). I missed any interaction between Harry and Ginny, especially his inviting her to the Yule Ball and her reaction.

And I missed Richard Harris. For my money, Michael Gambon simply doesn't have the chops as Dumbledore. He's weak, he's a little foolish. When he wants to portray Dumbledore's hidden power, he just gets angry. Right now it's hard to believe this guy is "he only one he ever feared." He was better this time around than in Prisoner of Azkaban -- but he has a long way to go to make the finale of Order of the Phoenix believable. Here's hoping he pulls it together!

But these are quibbles. The movie basically worked. It's not the book. It can't be the book. But it doesn't have to be. Because we still have the book.

And ultimately, that's what matters.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-CRAZED BUREAUCRACY

Kit, who reads this blog, passed on to me this link to an essay from, of all places, the Michigan Law Review. It's a libertarian analysis of the Ministry of Magic called Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy.

I got a kick out of reading it, if only to feel assured that there are other people out there taking Harry as seriously as I am... though in rather a different direction!

Hope you are all enjoying your Thanksgiving weekend! (At least you Americans....)

HAPPY THANKS-GIVING

Some 10 years ago or so, I was in a small group where the leader had us number a page from 1 to 100. We then had to write down 100 things we were thankful for. I loved the exercise, and took it to heart.

Now, at the beginning of every month, I sit down and make a list of 50 things I am thankful for from the previous month. Some months it's harder than others. And I've had two longish stretches where I simply forgot to do it at all... not surprisingly, those ungrateful times have been some of the toughest patches we've gone through. But it's the months when I really really don't want to do it that it somehow seems the most important.

Anyway, here, pulled totally at random from my thank you notebook, as a Thanksgiving reminder for myself, are some things I have been grateful for, working my way back through the past year. And may I pass this little exercise on to you, for the joy, chastisement, and surprises it may bring you.

For this I am thankful:

1. The surprisingly accomplished artworks the kids at our school did for an art-related fundraiser.
2. Being healthy again.
3. My skin cancer scar being almost gone.
4. Having enough money to keep the bills paid.
5. Cory getting the part he wanted in our church's Advent show.
6. Getting to try out a new "set etiquette" class for Act One.
7. Getting a new pool maintenance guy after the old one flaked out and the pool became a toxic waste site.
8. My dermatologist.
9. How hard Lee worked on the script we just finished.
10. Act One's new short film project (and the funding for it!)
11. Liking the room parents I'm assigned to work with this year (not true in previous years!)
12. The kids' excitement about Christmas in the new house.
13. The Sermon on the Mount
14. How high my blog is rated on Google (at least on Harry Potter-related topics)
15. Mango-a-Go-Go smoothies from Jamba Juice
16. An afternoon hanging with my friend Barb.
17. IMing with my friend Pete in Chicago
18. The "posse" of really good kids Cory hangs out with at church.
19. Finding babysitters when needed.
20. The upcoming road trip our writers' group is taking to Baja California in February.
21. Our kids' school.
22. The Barnes & Noble Harry Potter "class"/chat room.
23. The fact that our kids want to hang out with us.
24. Our friends' liking our new house.
25. The view from the new house.
26. Reading "Half-Blood-Prince" out loud to Cory and Lee.
27. Our new agents.
28. Cory and his best friend Max stealing the show at the Family Camp talent show.
29. Friends who pray for us daily.
30. The growth and blessings God is showering on our church.
31. Getting a new cell phone with better coverage.
32. The discipline of Lent.
33. The "Soaring Over California" ride at Disney's California Adventure.
34. Good guidance from a wise senior entertainment exec about changing agents.
35. Hope.
36. Possibilities of actual work.
37. Cory getting to go to our church's Junior Winter Camp (even though there wasn't any snow).
38. The computer game "Alchemy"
39. Almost daily IMs of encouragement from my friend Marion.
40. Being flooded with notes of encouragement from friends when times were tough.
41. People actually reading this blog.
42. Time to read books.
43. Having a clean house.
44. Sabrina selling over 200 boxes of Girl Scout cookies
45. Cory winning a code of conduct award at school.
46. Richard Foster's compilation book "Spiritual Classics"
47. The hotel we stayed at in Carmel when visiting the mission for Cory's class project
48. Having enough time to process the loss of our home.
49. Watching "White Christmas" with the kids.
50. Grandma taking Sabrina clothes-shopping.

Thank you for allowing me this year's worth of recollection. And now, random and grateful, I wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving...

ACT ONE IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY

Even though we have no publicist, no press relations person, nothing like that, Act One continues to get great press. This month it's a nice article in The Atlantic Monthly. Check it out.

And because you asked... No, I haven't seen Goblet-of-Fire-the-movie yet. I hosted two big parties this weekend (one for Act One, one for Premise), and somehow didn't get to the movies in all that. And I have a script due today and here comes Thanksgiving. But I will post my thoughts as soon as I see the movie. In a few days. I promise.

I CONFESS

Barbara Nicolosi has tagged me with the "I Confess" meme going around... So here goes...

I confess to writing several night-before-due papers in college that were essentially paraphrases of the Cliffs Notes, all on books or plays I never bothered to read.

I confess to playing "asleep" in the wee hours of the night when my daughter wakes up and yells, holding my breath in the hopes her shouts will wake my husband, who is too nice to play "asleep" when his daughter is yelling.

I confess to liking almost any high-fructose-corn-syrup-partially-hydrogenated-trans-fat treat made by Hostess.

I confess to skipping a year's worth of orthodontia appointments when in high school, and to hiding the letters sent home to my parents so they never knew (obviously in the days before voicemail!).

I confess to wishing someone would read my blog and offer me a book deal, because it would just be so easy.

I confess that if I lost my Bible, I'd shrug and order a new one from amazon, but if I lost my organizer, I'd first panic and then post a very, very large reward.

I confess to shaving my legs dry when I am really really in a hurry.

I confess to an inordinate love of high-end hotels. With big fluffy bathrobes. And Jacuzzi tubs. And room service. And twice-a-day maid service. And mints on the pillow.

I confess to regifting at Christmastime. (But never to you! Really. I swear.)

I confess that I cannot stand the great Russian authors. That even something as relatively short as "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" felt like one year to me. And that I wrote my paper about it using the Cliffs Notes.

I confess to having had a teenage crush on (of all people) Paul Simon.

I confess that I once went 32 days without washing my hair just to see how long it would take for people to comment (not realizing that someday people would earn a million dollars for doing just that).

I confess to practicing my own Oscar acceptance speech after the awards are over.

I confess to being addicted to the computer game "Big Money." And to "Alchemy." And "Rocket Mania." And to swiping my kids' Game Boy so I can play "Little Mermaid Pinball" without them knowing about it.

I confess that I always thought I wouldn't mind if I never had kids, but now I think maybe I would have.

AND MORE WIZARDS!: SET-UPS AND PAYOFFS

I'm done with jury duty! Hallelujah! I could vent here about what a waste of time it was, a case that should never have come to trial (a guy accused of stealing trash!)... but I lost three days of my life over it, and why should you lose even three minutes reading about it?

So back we go to various Wizards of Interest, and the payoffs we might expect from them:

Rubeus Hagrid

I have to be honest up front and say that I have never fully understood the deep affection people feel for Hagrid -- in or outside of the books. I don't understand the incredibly amount of time we have spent with him, with remarkably little plot payoff (Buckbeak, a lot of set-up for Grawp to scare away the centaurs... and, um, that's about it). He has always struck me as essentially comic relief -- but we've spent too much time with him for that. I hope some of you out there who are passionate about Hagrid will speak up, because I do keep feeling like I'm missing something about him.

Rita Skeeter refers to Hagrid's "mysterious influence" over Harry [GF-24] -- and I have to say that, for once, I sort of agree with her. I don't get it.

So, given what we do know about him, why should he be important in Book 7?

First, I want to refer you all to John Granger's website for his discussions on alchemy. If Sirius Black represents the "black" stage of alchemy, and Albus Dumbledore the "white" stage, and if J.K. Rowling is indeed following an alchemical pattern in her books, I think it likely that Rubeus Hagrid will represent the "red" stage (despite the Weasleys' red hair: It seems to be the names of the characters that identify them alchemically, not their appearance). Go read John's stuff to make sense of all this -- and in the meantime, just know that an alchemical interpretation assures us that Hagrid will be important in Book 7.

Okay, back to more traditional set-ups and payoffs.

We know that Dumbledore would trust Hagrid with his life [SS-1]. And indeed, though we've never seen Dumbledore do so, he has certainly entrusted Hagrid with some incredibly important tasks, including the transportation of the Sorcerer's Stone [SS-5], and of course, Harry himself, several times. Dumbledore entrusted the infant Harry with Hagrid (on a flying motorcycle, no less!) [SS-1], entrusted him to pick up Harry and bring him to Hogwarts [SS-4], and, when danger was much higher, entrusted him to escort Harry safely through Diagon Alley even when the Ministry of Magic wanted to send a squad of Aurors for the task [HBP-6].

But why? We never learn why Dumbledore trusts Hagrid so very deeply (especially given how bad Hagrid is at keeping his mouth shut!). Is it because of his impermeability to spells [OP-31, HBP-28]? Is it because of something in Hagrid's past? We just don't know.

One has to wonder what Hagrid's life would have been like without Dumbledore. We know that Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts after the Chamber of Secrets incident, was banned from doing magic and had his wand snapped [SS-4]. We know that Dumbledore found a place for him at Hogwarts, and has been his staunch supporter and defender ever since. There are plenty of reasons for Hagrid to trust and love Dumbledore. But not much to show us why that trust goes both ways.

So what will happen with Hagrid in Book 7? Well, we haven't been given much to go on. The alchemical reading would say Hagrid has to die -- and frankly, I agree. All Hagrid has done for six books has been show his faithfulness -- and what more faithful act can he serve than to die for those he loves? I don't see how else he can serve the story... and given that our trio has already started separating from him emotionally, I think it even more likely.

Will he die due to a mistake he makes by talking too much? Maybe. That wouldn't be a kind way for him to go, however, and I think JKR likes him too much to let him be responsible for his own death. (But she's been pretty ruthless with her characters, so we can't let that weigh too heavily.)

The biggest set-up we have for Hagrid is the sheer amount of time we have spent with him. For that reason alone, he needs to play an important role in Book 7. We just don't have set-ups as to what that role might be.

Ludo Bagman

Ludo Bagman is floating out there in the Wizarding World just waiting for some Death Eater to exploit him.

We saw how lax he was about security at the Quidditch World Cup [GF-7]. We've seen his rather extreme gambling problem, even extending to wanting to help Harry cheat at the Triwizard Tournament all so he (Ludo) could win a bet [GF-24].

And we've seen that he's skirted serious trouble in the past. When accused of passing information to Death Eaters [GF-30], he didn't deny it, but claimed ignorance of the Death Eaters' involvement with Voldemort, and traded on his fame as a Quidditch player.

This is a guy who is extremely susceptible to blackmail, I have to say. If he knows any useful information at all, he's very likely to spill it to the next person to come along.

We can say he's just weak, feel sorry for him, make excuses (as the Wizengamot clearly did). But look where he is now: On the run [GF-37] after the goblins refused to honor his shady bet on Harry. On the run, just like our other notable weak character, Slughorn, was at the beginning of Half-Blood Prince.

Weak? Sure. But Ludo's weakness is the type that gets people killed ("Loose lips sink ships," one might say). I think Winky was right when she called Ludo a "bad wizard" [GF-382].

Will we see him again in Book 7? We certainly don't have to -- he can stay on the run until Voldemort is really truly dead. But if we need a character to pass information along to the Dark Lord, he's certainly handly... and nicely set-up for the job.

Victor Krum

Victor Krum was a fascinating character to have around in Goblet of Fire to add some juice to the beginning of the Ron/Hermione relationship. And of course his legendary Quidditch playing [GF-8] was a lot of fun. But I think he may be worth more than that, plot-wise.

The interesting things about Victor have to do with his school, Durmstrang. We learn early on that they actually teach the Dark Arts there [GF-11]. One would expect a bunch of Slytherins, stuck-up with pride. But Victor, we learn, actually prefers Hogwarts to Durmstrang [GF-24]. I have to think that he is the primary one Dumbledore was speaking to when he offered all the foreign students a permanent welcome to Hogwarts after Voldemort returned [GF-37].

And then there's Hermione. First, there's the fact that she thinks he's nice [GF-24]. Can we really imagine Hermione going out with someone who was really evil? She certainly is smart enough to have Cormac McLaggen's number in Half-Blood Prince! And she has continued an epistolary relationship with Victor. Why? I think it's because we'll see him again in Book 7, bringing his Dark Arts skills to the fight -- and providing a little juice to Ron's jealousy as a bonus.

... Okay, time to stop and do some real work. More random wizards next post, and then we'll move on to the most interesting wizard in the whole HP world: Severus Snape.

Don't forget to comment!

JURY DUTY

There's a guy in Hollywood who somehow makes a living pitching high concept ideas that get set up at studios but rarely rarely get made. And I remember quite some years ago he sold two sentences for way too much money: "What are the two words that strike fear into the heart of any American? 'Jury Duty!'"

Well, I didn't think much of it at the time... But I've got to say, he had a point.

I am on jury duty. I really don't want to be, but I just can't lie to get out of it (unlike some of the booted jurors I heard today, let me say!).

I tried really hard. It's a criminal case, so I made sure they knew that I had been a victim of a violent crime. Unfortunately, this is a non-violent crime. So it didn't seem to matter.

I found myself very saddened for the rather good-looking defendant (good-looking enough to have been an actor at one point -- several people thought they recognized him, but couldn't place him, and evidently that was why). Either he totally messed up his life, or he is being wrongfully accused. Either way, not very pleasant for him.

I also found myself somewhat sad (and sometimes a little appalled) to hear the prospective jurors answering questions. Several had clearly been coached on what to say to get out of jury duty, and just kept repeating the same answer regardless of the question ("Have you yourself ever been involved with the criminal justice system?" "I think that I would automatically believe anything a policeman says and trust that they always tell the truth, no matter what.")

Others were, well, to be charitable, less than Einsteins. A lot of people had trouble rephrasing "reasonable doubt" in their own words. Fine, I would too. But a couple of people couldn't even understand the simplest question, and/or couldn't get a coherent answer out that anyone in the room could follow. I was greatly relieved when the lawyers booted them off the jury! As much as I don't want to serve at this current time, I'd rather lose my week than have someone sitting in judgment who can't formulate a simple sentence!

(Let me just say: I have done jury service before and will again. I just feel such pressure right now because of losing a whole month to pneumonia. And I already postponed once -- they called me for our moving week! -- so am stuck now.)

Anyway, thanks for letting me feel a tiny bit sorry for myself... All to say, please forgive me if I'm not blogging overly much this week. (Who knows? Maybe they'll boot me when we return tomorrow -- they booted the other two women who had been victims of crimes, after all. One can hope.)

If I can find Internet access at the courthouse, I'll plug in and blog away. Promise.

WIZARDS, WIZARDS, WIZARDS: SET-UPS AND PAYOFFS

On we go, in no particular order, to talk about the set-ups and payoffs for wizards that caught my attention on my last read-through of Harry Potter.

Neville Longbottom

I actually expected a lot more from Neville in Half-Blood Prince. I wanted to see him be a true Gryffindor, I wanted to see him prove himself, I wanted to see him kick some serious Death Eater butt. And, as we know, I got virtually none of what I wanted.

I guess I didn't realize Neville had already fulfilled his promise in Order of the Phoenix. He's changed so radically from the wuss we met at the beginning of the saga, but somehow I didn't recognize what I was seeing when I saw it.

I do think we'll see more of Neville. But as for proving himself -- I have to admit, he's already done it.

The big question regarding Neville is, of course, why did the Sorting Hat put him in Gryffindor (after taking quite a long time to decide) [SS-7]? We only get the barest of hints that he might actually belong there in Book 1, when Neville shows courage in standing up to Harry, Ron and Hermione as they venture forth in quest of the Sorcerer's Stone [SS-16], and is honored for this by Dumbledore [SS-17].

But after this one moment, it takes several years for Neville to show his stuff again. Finally, in OotP, he takes a step toward courage. He joins the DA [OP-18]. He joins the fight at the Ministry of Magic, even though Harry wants to leave him behind [OP-34]. And he acquits himself well there, even though both his nose and his father's wand are broken [OP-35].

And, drumming home the fact that I should have recognized, the fact that Neville has already proven himself as a Gryffindor, McGonagall comes right out and says so, pretty directly:

"It's high time your grandmother learned to be proud of the grandson she's got, rather than the one she thinks she ought to have -- particularly after what happened at the Ministry." [HBP-9]

And remember -- Neville did all that with the wrong wand -- and we know that a wizard can't get good results with another wizard's wand [SS-5].

We see more evidence of Neville's incipient courage in HBP: He longs for the DA to start up again [HBP-7], he's one of the only people to keep the enchanted coin from the DA in his pocket, just in case [HBP-30]. And he again acquits himself well in the Battle for Hogwarts [HBP-28].

All Neville's major set-ups have been paid off. So we don't need to see much of him in Book 7, we don't need to play out any storylines involving him...

I just sort of hope we do, anyway.

Percy Weasley

If the question about Neville is 'why did the Hat put him in Gryffindor?' the question regarding Percy has to be: 'Why didn't the Hat put him in Slytherin?'

From the moment we meet Percy, we learn than he has the kind of ambition that generally drives Slytherins. In fact, right up front, Ron tells us that Percy wants to be Minister of Magic someday [CS-4]. Percy is pompous about being a prefect [CS-3] and he has his sight set on being Head Boy, enough to be worried that Ron will somehow hurt his chances [CS-9]. (Shouldn't he be worried about the twins hurting his chances? Just asking.)

Percy's ambition takes a step forward in each book. He becomes Crouch's personal assistant as a first step [GF-23], then quickly moves up to become Junior Assistant to the Minister of Magic [OP-4]. Given the amount of stifling bureaucracy and political games we've glimpsed at the Ministry of Magic, Percy sure is moving up quickly.

One would think his family would be proud. But no. Ron has his finger on Percy pretty well. Not only does he peg Percy's ultimate ambition for us right away, but he states his assumption that Percy would do anything --even commit murder -- to get a promotion [GF-24]. Yeah, it's a joke, but one of those jokes that's just a little too uncomfortable because it's too close to the truth. Ron also thinks Percy would throw his family to the dementors to advance his own career [GF-27]... and again, he's hitting too close to the truth.

Percy starts down the road Ron has mapped out for him when he turns his back on his family, calling them "traitors" [OP-4], accusing them of hanging with "petty criminals" [OP-14]. (He also turns his back on Harry when it is politically expedient to do so [OP-14].) He's clearly chosen where his loyalties lie: the Ministry of Magic. Arthur Weasley even thinks Percy has been assigned the task of spying on his own family [OP-4]. And to top it all off, Percy shows how corrupt he has become when he describes Dolores Umbridge as "delightful" [OP-14].

Nothing changes in HBP. Percy is still hanging in the corridors of power, still a flunky to the powerful, as we see when Rufus Scrimgeour forces him to accompany him to the Weasleys for a "Frosty Christmas." Note that Percy doesn't even have the integrity to refuse to visit the "traitors," but bends to the wishes of whoever can get him his next promotion.

I don't think Percy's story is over. All this power-grubbing has to have a payoff. Could we see Percy actually become Minister of Magic? (People have asked J.K. Rowling if Arthur Weasley would become Minister, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has asked this about the more likely candidate of Percy.) It'd take a lot of wiping out of senior levels at the Ministry, but Voldemort is certainly capable of that.

I admit, that's a stretch, if only because of Percy's relative youth. But I expect to see Percy with yet another promotion in Book 7. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of Ron's prophecies come true: I wouldn't be surprised at all if the set-ups that Percy would harm (kill?) his family for his own advancement have a payoff.

I also expect Percy to be killed in Book 7. No real set-ups here... just wishful thinking...

Next post, we'll move on to talk about Wormtail and Hagrid... maybe more...