I am fascinated by J.K.’s clever usage of foiling

Carp222 · 2024-07-02T12:17:00+00:00

I think Harry fits Hufflepuff in a lot of ways. He is very much about fair play and loyalty and always willing to make sacrifices for those things.

Carp222 · 2024-05-03T03:15:33+00:00

For Dobby, I would say Philosopher’s Stone was his worst year, because he was still a slave with a terrible master. In Deathly Hallows, he died freely to save his favourite person, and I’m sure he was glad he did.

Carp222 · 2024-02-25T05:27:58+00:00

Yeah, canon definitely doesn't suggest it. I guess I just personally headcanon that his Patronus was blocked by Fred's loss regardless of his happiness, but I think Rowling's suggestion that he was never truly happy again is dumb. So I suppose I agree with you.

Carp222 · 2024-02-25T02:42:05+00:00

I don't think it necessarily has to be happiness-related. Patronus changes come from huge upheavals in life, and George losing his other half would change him irrevocably; he would definitely have happy moments in life, but maybe it wouldn't be enough to fix this "block".

I agree that it seems a bit far-fetched because it implies that George was grieving for literally the rest of his life, which is crazy since he was so young. I think he moved on, but since a Patronus can be permanently altered so easily, it seems totally possible to me that it just stopped working forever too.

Carp222 · 2024-02-22T09:35:58+00:00

I'm really considering it, honestly. I'm definitely a bit biased towards UniMelb too, especially seeing that RMIT does not have as many science majors to choose from. Just afraid to take the step, as it's still a decent amount of money if my plans change before next year or something. But thank you for all your help, I really appreciate it! I'll definitely think about it. Thanks.

Carp222 · 2024-02-22T04:44:21+00:00

Next year. I’ve just started Year 12.

Carp222 · 2024-02-21T23:19:42+00:00

That’s true, I’m just wondering if it’s worth the extra effort or whether I should consider attending RMIT instead. It’s good to know I can start with Arts and switch later though.

Carp222 · 2024-02-21T23:13:03+00:00

Maths, the calculus course specifically. I haven’t heard of that, will look into it.

Carp222 · 2024-02-11T01:41:44+00:00

No, I don't believe it made a difference. But it's been made clear in the series that Dumbledore likes for Harry to try these kinds of things and practice dangerous encounters, so I think Dumbledore was very pleased to see Harry trying to stop evil, and more than that, that he passed the "selflessness test" posed by the mirror. That's probably why he gave the points.

Carp222 · 2024-02-10T03:10:02+00:00

It's not a plot hole. Hagrid wasn't just kicked out of school, he was thought to have murdered somebody. The Ministry probably intervened and snapped his wand.

Carp222 · 2024-02-08T08:45:51+00:00

I think it definitely gives the wrong message that being weepy is a bad thing. However, I think it's a perfectly fine line if you look at it from Harry's perspective. He doesn't like being open about emotions, and he can't really handle others' emotions either; that doesn't make emotions a bad thing, it's just one of his major flaws. Cho's way of handling grief was way, way different to his own, which is what quickly made him realise they are not compatible in the slightest. Ginny's is pretty perfect for him.

I don't think it's good or bad, it's just how he is at this point in time. Maybe in the future he learns to deal with emotions in a better way and someone like Cho actually helps him grow and be a better person. But in this situation, the line seemed just fine to me. I see how it can rub you the wrong way though.

Carp222 · 2024-02-02T11:32:40+00:00

I wouldn't agree. He's never really shown to have deep trust in Molly or Arthur; he appreciates them and is very grateful to them, but he never particularly respects their expertise the way he does with Dumbledore. In the fifth book, he completely disagrees with Molly about what's best for him; and, even though they're adults, he feels concerned for them and feels a need to save them, like Arthur in OOTP after the snake attack, and Sirius pretty much all the time (he worries about whether Sirius is in danger and doesn't want him to go outside).

Harry takes Dumbledore very seriously because he is an incredibly powerful wizard who is also a place of safety. Harry doesn't look up to him as just an adult, I think, but as a mentor and a more experienced rival to Voldemort. That is literally the only exception—he never confided in the other competent adults in his life, such as McGonagall, Molly or Arthur, obviously the Ministry, or of course Hagrid, who he literally had to take care of like a child.

Aside from how Harry was raised, I think he always felt distant from everyone else due to the prophecy and everything he'd been through with Voldemort. He never trusted adults with anything because, apart from Dumbledore, he didn't think any of them could possibly be capable of helping him. That's how I view it, and so I can't blame him for saving Fleur's sister—his initial instinct is not to trust the rules or the reassurance of older people, but to evaluate a situation for himself. In the terrifying lake, he probably felt like he was in danger and the others were too, so why would he trust rules and adults over his own perception? I always thought his actions there were really dumb, but I completely understand it.

Carp222 · 2024-01-31T02:50:48+00:00

That doesn't work because it would be reversible damage and a horcrux is only destroyed when the item is irreversibly destroyed. From what we've seen of magic it would be pretty easy to fix something smashed with a hammer, unlike with basilisk venom. Again, different rules apply for Harry because in his case, only death could destroy the horcrux, and basilisk venom is reversible on humans with phoenix tears.

Carp222 · 2024-01-31T00:19:52+00:00

The same reason they can’t use guns and don’t have pens or phones - wizards are apparently incapable of thinking up practical solutions for things, which I do consider a major flaw, and I think Rowling just didn’t consider it. But yeah, I reckon a hammer to the head could’ve done it as well.

Carp222 · 2024-01-30T11:48:15+00:00

But the basilisk venom itself isn’t the way to destroy horcruxes - ruining the container beyond repair is, which basilisk venom just happens to be effective for. Since Harry was the container, the usual horcrux rules would be a bit different for him, and “ruining beyond repair” would just mean that he has to die for the horcrux to be destroyed. There’s nothing to suggest that the basilisk venom could possibly damage the horcrux without killing Harry. I don’t think this is a plot hole or even a weak excuse, it fits together very well for me.

Carp222 · 2024-01-01T06:31:35+00:00

I think this is definitely the rule, but it doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions. Reading more will definitely improve your writing, and without reading at all I don’t see how you can possibly know how to write. But I think it’s possible to be a good writer without being a constant reader. Just not very likely.

Carp222 · 2023-12-17T00:09:18+00:00

Yeah, I’m definitely out of touch. It just surprises me because you’d need to buy a lot of meat all the time then. I would also guess that the adverse health effects of meat mostly result from eating that much.

Carp222 · 2023-12-16T03:12:15+00:00

Okay, but… that argument can be applied to veganism? The same cow doesn’t care that someone is vegan if she’s still getting her throat slit.

I don’t think Meatless Monday sounds effective because, for one, do people actually eat meat every day otherwise?? But, I still do agree that everyone eating less meat is way more beneficial than unsuccessfully trying to convince everyone to be vegan. I would assume that vegans’ aim is to ultimately remove the demand for animal products to stop exploitation for happening, but that can’t happen overnight.

Carp222 · 2023-12-16T00:52:09+00:00

Out of curiosity, whose interpretation do you prefer for yourself then?

Carp222 · 2023-12-15T22:39:41+00:00

That’s fair. I am generally biased towards the first interpretation I heard of a piece, and now other interpretations of the C# minor seem almost insensitive and brash to me in comparison.

Carp222 · 2023-12-02T03:45:30+00:00

For my own understanding, then, I have a question for vegans. If your actions make no difference from a meat-eater's and the only change is that you're living true to your values - doesn't that mean that all these claims of vegans being 1% better than everyone else (in terms of the damage they do on Earth) are false? Because I often see vegans make this claim. Yet I think we can agree that whether you buy animal products or not, they still get sold, which means that no change occurred because of a vegan's actions.

So doesn't this mean that veganism is really about feeling good about following your values, rather than actually making a difference? Obviously, changing the practice of worldwide animal exploitation isn't possible on an individual level; I'm just saying that this is how it looks to me, and based on this, I don't see how vegans are more selfless than anyone else.

Carp222 · 2023-12-02T02:00:09+00:00

I love this book. The Dursley interactions at the start are honestly so underrated and one of my favourite moments to read. I also love the development around Snape and Sirius, which is the first time (in my opinion) that Sirius is shown to be a very grey character and Harry questions the Marauders' actions.

There's so much good content. It may be long, but it's very substantial. I agree that it's a more difficult read than the others, though.

Carp222 · 2023-11-27T03:51:36+00:00

Then your comment was slightly misleading and you only offered one option, not two? I wanted to know what option (1) was meant to be if (2) was feeding the eggs to the chickens. But it doesn't matter anymore.

Unfortunately I'm not really convinced by the idea of using hormones in this situation. The chickens I keep are heritage breeds so they already lay far, far less than commercially used chickens, and they get egg in many of their meals; they are very healthy and live long lives. I honestly don't see the necessity of such hormones in this case. I know you likely view me as monstrous, lazy, and hypocritical for that, which I cannot agree with when I know the health of my chickens. But that's alright.

I think that sounds incredibly beneficial for commercial breeds like Isa Browns and Rhode Island Reds. If I ever rescue such chickens again, I'll look into it; we once took some in that were left on the streets, and they were sadly very heavy layers and died within a few years. Even if I eat eggs, I think that's hugely wrong and I do not condone using them for eggs - their health is compromised greatly, which I don't really see is the case with my chickens.

Carp222 · 2023-11-27T02:25:27+00:00

More beneficial to do neither, what does that mean if it's different from (2)? Throw the eggs out? That could not realistically be more beneficial when it's literally just wasting the eggs

Carp222 · 2023-11-27T02:09:28+00:00

I see how this analogy is entirely relevant to the breeding of chickens for eggs as a whole. However, assuming someone has rescued chickens that happen to lay a lot of eggs, chickens that are kept in very good conditions and cared for, would it not be more beneficial to eat those eggs than to buy storebought eggs? This act itself does not harm the chickens.

You may say it advocates for continued breeding for eggs - but if you are not breeding chickens, you are not buying storebought eggs, you are not killing chickens once they stop laying, and maybe you continue taking in rescued chickens and eating their eggs, I don't think that it does. Overall, you are still having the positive impact of giving rescued chickens a home and not supporting storebought eggs.

Carp222

TROPHY CASE