Random Ramblings and the Deathly Hallows

[Giovanni Schwartz]

That's okay. My name is in there often enough, because you all swoon for me so often. Sorry I'm a premie so I'm out of play. ] =

That would be either preemie, or pre-mee. If you spell it that way, it makes me think of premio, which is Spanish for prize, which you definitely are not.

Oh, but I'm a prize to be won. That's why they gossip about me.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Just in case all y'all are wondering, it was Cognoscente that I unintentionally stalked the other day.

[Unit of Energy]

I don't want to go to this interview. Don't get me wrong, I want the job. But I don't particularly feel like the two hour bus ride it is going to take to get there.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Ew... Two full hours?

[Unit of Energy]

Yep. I spent five hours away from my apartment for a single interview.

[Dragon Lady]

We were all just sitting down to dinner. Dragon Baby was in her high chair just chilling out. (Keep in mind that she doesn't talk yet. Any real words she says are just lucky chance of gibberish.) I had just finished eating and was just sitting there chilling, pulling faces at and talking to Dragon Baby. I asked Yellow, speculatively, what it would be like to be a baby. Dragon Baby reached up to her temple and kind of pinched at it and pulled her hand away. So being the Harry Potter nerd I am, I asked her if she was pulling out a memory for me. She grinned, said "Yeah!" and handed me the nothingness she just pulled out of her head.

For the record, I put it in my temple, but I still don't know what it's like to be a baby. Perhaps I'm a Muggle and she's a Muggle-born witch?

[Dragon Lady]

I keep thinking we should actually start discussing Deathly Hallows on this thread.

Let's see . . .

What was the difference between Snape being in on the Fidelius secret of Grimmauld Place and when Hermione let Yaxley in on the secret? When it was just Snape, they were only worried about Snape himself showing up, but knew he could not tell other Death Eaters the location. But when Hermione accidentally led Yaxley there by side-along Apparition, they decided they could no longer go back to the house because "he could be bringing other Death Eaters in there by Apparition."

Ok. Here are my thoughts. I'm guessing the trio didn't know you could bring someone in via side-along apparition. So they weren't worried that Snape would. All of their worries were based on Snape telling the Death Eaters where it was. That's why Moody put up charms to bind his tongue. (Which indicates the Order didn't know you could bring people via side-along apparition either. Remember, folks, the Fidelius Charm is a very difficult and not very common piece of magic.) But when Hermione did bring Yaxley in (purely by accident) they found out that, "Hey, btw, we just did a bad thing!" They just assume that Yaxley has access and can bring other Death Eaters in the same way. We never see them do that, so we can't be for sure that he could, but it's a good assumption either way. And one they couldn't afford to risk not assuming it to be valid.

Does that make sense?

[TheAnswerIs42]

Interesting. I think I like it. I think the funny part is that, at least the way I read it, they didn't stick around long enough to see if Yaxley did make it there. Maybe she Apparated him there, but he couldn't see where he was. After all, the Fidelius Charm protects a secret, and the secret was "The Headquarters of the Order of the Pheonix is at 12 Grimmauld Place" or however it was phrased. Without being told the secret, he might not have actually made it in the house, but been stuck on an invisible doorstep. Without JKR telling us what happened to Grimmauld Place, we don't know if any Death Eaters actually showed up.

But in any event, that would explain why Hermione thought they needed to leave, which was my question. I don't know that it is THE answer, but it just might work.

[Dragon Lady]

True, they didn't know. But they really couldn't take the chance of returning now, could they? (Which is, I think, one of the saddest moments of the entire book. They have somewhere comfortable. Kreacher has finally become likable and wants to serve them. And right at that very moment, it's all ripped away from them.)

Also, I think that the doorstep is under the Fidelius Charm, too. So once you get to the doorstep, you can get inside. Whether he can get BACK inside once he leaves is unknown to me, though. I would love to have seen the events of Yaxley going inside though. What do you think he did when he saw Dumbledore coming after him? The thought makes me a giggle a little bit.

[C is for]

True, they didn't know. But they really couldn't take the chance of returning now, could they? (Which is, I think, one of the saddest moments of the entire book. They have somewhere comfortable. Kreacher has finally become likable and wants to serve them. And right at that very moment, it's all ripped away from them.)

Also, I think that the doorstep is under the Fidelius Charm, too. So once you get to the doorstep, you can get inside. Whether he can get BACK inside once he leaves is unknown to me, though. I would love to have seen the events of Yaxley going inside though. What do you think he did when he saw Dumbledore coming after him? The thought makes me a giggle a little bit.

I thought it was really a bit too cautious of them to never once go back. I understand it though. (And, yeah, the doorstep was under the charm. At least, that's what Hermione said, and if we can't trust exposition by Hermione, who can we trust?)

How stupid they must have felt when [speculation]they go back after the war to find that Kreacher disposed of Yaxley with a frying pan to the head, used house-elf magic to Obliviate him (why not? For the sake of the master? I'm sure he could!) and just had to wait, keep the house clean, and wait some more.[/speculation]

Of course, they did a lot of stupid things in that book in the name of the plot. Breaking into the Ministry instead of Umbridge's own house? Or a street on Diagon Alley where she was known to pass by occasionally? Yeah. Still loved that scene.

[Dragon Lady]

That's part of what I love about the books. (Which a lot of people hate.) These kids were stupid. They weren't brilliant heros out to save the world. They were stupid kids (stupid logically; not educationally) that were doing what they simply had to do. That means that I could be a hero if I needed it. It makes me relate to the books a lot better, because they were really just normal kids.

And dude, I love your description of Kreacher whacking Yaxley with a frying pan. That made me laugh right out loud. Sadly, I don't think we can assume that Kreacher got the best end of it, simply because Kreacher never came and found Harry. Why didn't he? My guess is that he couldn't. (Which is also really sad. I really wanna know what happened to Kreacher.)

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Let me tell you a story. Remember my question a while back (okay, like three days ago) about how I don't love my bishop? Here's a story for you.

You know how the church asked us to stop doing "homecomings" and "farewells", where just the missionary and his family speak and do the musical number and stuff? Yeah, so our stake REALLY.FIRMLY.BELIEVES that. And so that means no musical numbers by family members, or even the missionary apparently. I asked him, oh, two months ago if I, Craig, and a group of my friends could sing "I Know That My Redeemer Lives" in sacrament meeting at one of our twice a month meetings that cannot be held on Sunday, even though I never talk to him for more than 10 minutes at one. But that's another rant. Anyway, I asked him on a Tuesday night if it would be okay that I got this group together for a musical number. He said "Normally I would say no, but I'll think about it." So on Sunday, he tells me "Sorry. No musical number for you." Great. Okay. I understand. We've already got both my brother and I speaking, and I guess maybe that could be construed as a little to close to a farewell, even though every single one of my choir friend's farewells they had them singing in musical numbers. Great. So today, the ward music director (who loves me, and annoys the heck out of me) calls me and asks what hymns I'd like sung in our farecoming. I give her the 3 that me, mother, and brother decided on. She says "and what about the rest hymn?"

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!? I CAN'T SING A MUSICAL NUMBER IN SACRAMENT MEETING, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FREAKING REST HYMN INSTEAD, BECAUSE NO ONE IN OUR WARD POSSESSES ANY MUSICAL TALENT? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK.

Seriously. Rest hymn instead of musical number? On our homewell, of all Sundays? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm kind of ticked off about it. (Although if any of you are in the Mesa area on Sunday and want to come see me and my brother speak, feel free.)

But a freaking rest hymn. Seriously.

[Gimgimno]

I think you should sing #233 for the rest hymn.

[Unit of Energy]

I'm sorry. My current ward our bishop has asked that we have two musical numbers every Sunday. I think the last time that we sang a rest hymn was when we planned it into our Easter program. My home ward tried to never have a rest hymn for a while, but it didn't work out so well.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I think you should sing #233 for the rest hymn.

You're so funny. All the time.

[Marduk]

The only bishop I've ever had the slightest issue with was one who could not for the life of him remember my name, even though I had three callings (one of which included being the Sunday school teacher every single Sunday), lived less than a block away from him (even though it was a single's ward) and his son is married to my sister.

[Gimgimno]

I think you should sing #233 for the rest hymn.

You're so funny. All the time.

The best part is that you probably got up from your computer to get a hymnbook. That just makes me laugh inside.

(hymns.lds.org wouldn't be quite as funny, but it's still pretty humorous.)

[ahem.]

So I have a friend. When we talk about people or things in our life (other drivers, waitresses, politics, world events, etc.), it often seems like I'm the nice one and she's the mean one. I assume people do what they do because they are trying to do the right thing. She assumes people will do the right thing, and is disappointed if they don't live up to that standard.

The other day we were discussing this. I told her I think I'm nice because I always give people the benefit of the doubt. She said she just expects a lot out of people, and isn't that the same thing?

What do you all think about that?

[stargirl]

I assume people do what they do because they are trying to do the right thing. She assumes people will do the right thing, and is disappointed if they don't live up to that standard.

It's not the same thing. People have different expectations of what's "right," and this, if you ask me, is probably the foremost reason people get into conflicts. While i agree that there are plenty of people out there who are self-centered jerks, i think too many people assume that someone is intentionally wronging them (the assumers) rather than just doing what werf (the someone) feels is "right," or at least "neutral." Personally, i'm on your side. One can't expect every single person to just automatically live up to the stand one sets for werf, especially if it's not stated directly.

[C is for]

I think you should sing #233 for the rest hymn.

You're so funny. All the time.

The best part is that you probably got up from your computer to get a hymnbook. That just makes me laugh inside.

(hymns.lds.org wouldn't be quite as funny, but it's still pretty humorous.)

*didn't have to check the hymnbook*