Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Book 7 traitor theory
Book 7 traitor theory [message #265420] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 02:57
scenario_dave  
In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
it.

Who would be the most likely traitor? One rule is that the traitor has
to be a fairly important character. For example, Kingsley Shaklebot
can't be the traitor because he's only had about 10 lines in all 6
books and he's not at all close to Harry. This would not affect Harry
or the readers very much. It's kinda like when LV talked about killing
Bertha. Was anyone really upset that Bertha or the caretaker died? Not
really, but when Cederic died, I for one was affected, because Cederic
was a fairly important character in the book. He doesn't have a lot of
lines but he did seem like a person to me.

So I decided to go through the characters to see which one would be the
most likely to be traitors.
I looked for traitors that both would fit the logic of the books and
could most emotionally affect both Harry and the readers.

Ron and Hermione - No way - Too important to Harry - Totally out of
character

DD in one form or another - No way - If he wanted to be on LV side they
would have won the war years ago

Hagrid - See Ron and Hermione - (I can see him being tricked into
betraying Harry but not being a traitor)

Professor McGonagall - I seriously doubt it, out of character.

Tonks - An outside possibility. She's a big enough character and close
enough to Harry to be a shock but she hasn't really shown any signs yet
that I can think of.

Lupin - Another outside possibility.

Snape - Too obvious - No shock value

Mad eye - outside possibility - not likely - fought in first war - Was
already used as traitor in another book, why repeat yourself?



Then there's the Weasleys

Mom and Dad - I doubt it - they both fought in the last war and they
are portrayed in too good of a light in all of the books. They don't
seem to have an evil bone in their bodies. They can't even discipline
their own children very effectively.

The two older brothers - outside possibility - There talked about quite
a bit but they're not actually in the books very much so I doubt that
they'd be good characters to make traitors.

Percy - Not in order and too obvious

Ron - no way

Ginny - Outside possibility but she's already been used as the traitor
so why use her twice?

Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
Plus, it only has to be one of them. What if one of the twins is on LV
side. You could have a fight where Ron has to choose which twin lives
and which dies, which is the evil one and which is the good one? Ron
knows that one of the twins betrayed them but which one? If done
well, this could be a very powerful scene. It also fits LV pattern.
He'd enjoy playing people off of each other and using pain to sow
confusion in his enemies.

This would also be the sort of thing that changes the way you look at
the characters in the earlier books when you reread them.

ps. I got this thought from another thread which discusses many of the
bad things that F&G did and whether or not they are really good guys.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #265426 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 05:35
sjmcarter  
"Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the
twins
a traitor. "

Oooohhh..sounds deliciously eeeeevil. I can see one of the twins being
captured and toirtured by Voldemort's minions, and the other twin is
instructed to betray Harry or else the brother gets it. Recall in
OotP, that the twins werer so conserned about their father after
learning of his attack, that they were willing to risk others knwoing
about the Order just to see him. And it could be such a great
build-up; the order knows that one of the Weaseleys is a traitor and
evryone assumes it's Percy (even though he isn't a membver, he could
have some knowledge), but wham!--it's Fred.

I can also see Ron being the traitor, but not intentionally. Waht if
someone casts an imperious on him, and in that final crucial moment,
the curse kicks in and he betrays Harry. That would definitely have
some impact, Harry being impeded by his best friend. Can't wait for
Book 7!
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267641 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 10:24
Toon  
On 16 May 2006 17:57:37 -0700, "scenario_dave"
<scenario_dave [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Who would be the most likely traitor? One rule is that the traitor has
>to be a fairly important character. For example, Kingsley Shaklebot
>can't be the traitor because he's only had about 10 lines in all 6
>books and he's not at all close to Harry. This would not affect Harry
>or the readers very much. It's kinda like when LV talked about killing
>Bertha. Was anyone really upset that Bertha or the caretaker died? Not
>really, but when Cederic died, I for one was affected, because Cederic
>was a fairly important character in the book. He doesn't have a lot of
>lines but he did seem like a person to me.

Who knew Peter was so important way back when. And he's featured
heavily throughout POA's back story of The Marauders and the night the
Potters died.


>Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
>a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
>antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
>frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
>in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
> Plus, it only has to be one of them. What if one of the twins is on LV
>side. You could have a fight where Ron has to choose which twin lives
>and which dies,

That'd only work if he has a talking pie for a buddy. And they
arrived from the future after figuring out one of the twins betrayed
them that fight.

>which is the evil one and which is the good one? Ron
>knows that one of the twins betrayed them but which one? If done
>well, this could be a very powerful scene. It also fits LV pattern.
>He'd enjoy playing people off of each other and using pain to sow
>confusion in his enemies.
>
>This would also be the sort of thing that changes the way you look at
>the characters in the earlier books when you reread them.
>
>ps. I got this thought from another thread which discusses many of the
>bad things that F&G did and whether or not they are really good guys.

The only problem is both wanted in to the Order, an organization
dedicated to defeating V, and sold protection for wizards, which kinda
prevents V form hurting them.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267642 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 11:43
cwlNO  
In article <1147827457.941832.253080 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"scenario_dave" <scenario_dave [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

>In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
>the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
>is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
>it.
>
>Who would be the most likely traitor? One rule is that the traitor has
>to be a fairly important character. For example, Kingsley Shaklebot
>can't be the traitor because he's only had about 10 lines in all 6
>books and he's not at all close to Harry. This would not affect Harry
>or the readers very much. It's kinda like when LV talked about killing
>Bertha. Was anyone really upset that Bertha or the caretaker died? Not
>really, but when Cederic died, I for one was affected, because Cederic
>was a fairly important character in the book. He doesn't have a lot of
>lines but he did seem like a person to me.
>
>So I decided to go through the characters to see which one would be the
>most likely to be traitors.
>I looked for traitors that both would fit the logic of the books and
>could most emotionally affect both Harry and the readers.
>
>Ron and Hermione - No way - Too important to Harry - Totally out of
>character
>
>DD in one form or another - No way - If he wanted to be on LV side they
>would have won the war years ago
>
>Hagrid - See Ron and Hermione - (I can see him being tricked into
>betraying Harry but not being a traitor)
>
>Professor McGonagall - I seriously doubt it, out of character.
>
>Tonks - An outside possibility. She's a big enough character and close
>enough to Harry to be a shock but she hasn't really shown any signs yet
>that I can think of.
>
>Lupin - Another outside possibility.
>
>Snape - Too obvious - No shock value
>
>Mad eye - outside possibility - not likely - fought in first war - Was
>already used as traitor in another book, why repeat yourself?
>
>
>
>Then there's the Weasleys
>
>Mom and Dad - I doubt it - they both fought in the last war and they
>are portrayed in too good of a light in all of the books. They don't
>seem to have an evil bone in their bodies. They can't even discipline
>their own children very effectively.
>
>The two older brothers - outside possibility - There talked about quite
>a bit but they're not actually in the books very much so I doubt that
>they'd be good characters to make traitors.
>
>Percy - Not in order and too obvious
>
>Ron - no way
>
>Ginny - Outside possibility but she's already been used as the traitor
>so why use her twice?
>
>Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
>a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
>antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
>frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
>in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
> Plus, it only has to be one of them. What if one of the twins is on LV
>side. You could have a fight where Ron has to choose which twin lives
>and which dies, which is the evil one and which is the good one? Ron
>knows that one of the twins betrayed them but which one? If done
>well, this could be a very powerful scene. It also fits LV pattern.
>He'd enjoy playing people off of each other and using pain to sow
>confusion in his enemies.
>
>This would also be the sort of thing that changes the way you look at
>the characters in the earlier books when you reread them.
>
>ps. I got this thought from another thread which discusses many of the
>bad things that F&G did and whether or not they are really good guys.

You're throwing around a lot of names that are not known to be in the
Order and leaving out quite a few who are.

I think you should take a look at the Wikipedia list to round off this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix#Known_memb ers_of_the_reconstituted_Order_of_the_Phoenix
--
Chris
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267645 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 12:25
DM  
scenario_dave wrote:
> In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
> the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
> is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
> it.
>
> Who would be the most likely traitor? One rule is that the traitor has
> to be a fairly important character. For example, Kingsley Shaklebot
> can't be the traitor because he's only had about 10 lines in all 6
> books and he's not at all close to Harry. This would not affect Harry
> or the readers very much. It's kinda like when LV talked about killing
> Bertha. Was anyone really upset that Bertha or the caretaker died? Not
> really, but when Cederic died, I for one was affected, because Cederic
> was a fairly important character in the book. He doesn't have a lot of
> lines but he did seem like a person to me.
>
> So I decided to go through the characters to see which one would be the
> most likely to be traitors.
> I looked for traitors that both would fit the logic of the books and
> could most emotionally affect both Harry and the readers.
>
> Ron and Hermione - No way - Too important to Harry - Totally out of
> character
>
> DD in one form or another - No way - If he wanted to be on LV side they
> would have won the war years ago
>
> Hagrid - See Ron and Hermione - (I can see him being tricked into
> betraying Harry but not being a traitor)
>
> Professor McGonagall - I seriously doubt it, out of character.
>
> Tonks - An outside possibility. She's a big enough character and close
> enough to Harry to be a shock but she hasn't really shown any signs yet
> that I can think of.
>
> Lupin - Another outside possibility.
>
> Snape - Too obvious - No shock value
>
> Mad eye - outside possibility - not likely - fought in first war - Was
> already used as traitor in another book, why repeat yourself?
>
>
>
> Then there's the Weasleys
>
> Mom and Dad - I doubt it - they both fought in the last war and they
> are portrayed in too good of a light in all of the books. They don't
> seem to have an evil bone in their bodies. They can't even discipline
> their own children very effectively.
>
> The two older brothers - outside possibility - There talked about quite
> a bit but they're not actually in the books very much so I doubt that
> they'd be good characters to make traitors.
>
> Percy - Not in order and too obvious
>
> Ron - no way
>
> Ginny - Outside possibility but she's already been used as the traitor
> so why use her twice?
>
> Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
> a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
> antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
> frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
> in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
> Plus, it only has to be one of them. What if one of the twins is on LV
> side. You could have a fight where Ron has to choose which twin lives
> and which dies, which is the evil one and which is the good one? Ron
> knows that one of the twins betrayed them but which one? If done
> well, this could be a very powerful scene. It also fits LV pattern.
> He'd enjoy playing people off of each other and using pain to sow
> confusion in his enemies.
>
> This would also be the sort of thing that changes the way you look at
> the characters in the earlier books when you reread them.
>
> ps. I got this thought from another thread which discusses many of the
> bad things that F&G did and whether or not they are really good guys.
>

Mundungus.

--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267650 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 14:25
scenario_dave  
> You're throwing around a lot of names that are not known to be in the
> Order and leaving out quite a few who are.
>
> I think you should take a look at the Wikipedia list to round off this thread:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix#Known_memb ers_of_the_reconstituted_Order_of_the_Phoenix
> --
> Chris

This list was never meant to be a complete list. I know that people
under 17 are not allowed in the order so Harry, Hermione and the
younger Weasleys are not in the order but they've lived at the Orders
headquarters for an extended period of time so they are in the inner
circle of the order even if they are not officially members. I'm sure
that if LV kidnapped and tourtured any one of them, he could get a lot
of information about the order.

Unless my memory is faulty, everyone that I mentioned was in the
headquarters of the Order at some point in the story, except for Percy
and the older Weasleys boys. I mentioned that Percy was not part of
the Order and I vaguely remember Mr. or Mrs. Weasley saying that the
older Weasleys were part of the Order, but I may be wrong on that one.


One of my main points is that the traitor has to be Harry's friend and
well known to Harry. Peter was just outside the main circle of James,
Sirius and Lupin but was still a close friend to all of them when he
became a traitor. To have a strong emotional impact on Harry and on
the readers, the traitor cannot be one of the more obsure members of
the order. I never tried to list every character because most of
them,like Mundingus,are not close enough to Harry to have any kind of
emotional impact. I'm sure that I missed someone, maybe someone
imporatant, but what I wanted to get to is why the twins would be a
good candidate and why some of the others whould not be.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267651 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 14:39
scenario_dave  
> Who knew Peter was so important way back when. And he's featured
> heavily throughout POA's back story of The Marauders and the night the
> Potters died.

Peter is my main model of how LV works. He was close to the inner
circle of James, Sirius and Lupin. Noone suspected him of being a
traitor.

> >Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
> >a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
> >antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
> >frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
> >in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
> > Plus, it only has to be one of them. What if one of the twins is on LV
> >side. You could have a fight where Ron has to choose which twin lives
> >and which dies,
>
> That'd only work if he has a talking pie for a buddy. And they
> arrived from the future after figuring out one of the twins betrayed
> them that fight.

I'm not sure what you mean. There are a million ways that Harry, Ron
and Hermione could figure out that someone is a traitor but not really
be sure who it was. I can just see Ron and the twins in a room during
a fire fight, where he can't get any help and Ron finally figures out
that one of them has to be the traitor but he's still not sure which
one.

> >
> >ps. I got this thought from another thread which discusses many of the
> >bad things that F&G did and whether or not they are really good guys.
>
> The only problem is both wanted in to the Order, an organization
> dedicated to defeating V, and sold protection for wizards, which kinda
> prevents V form hurting them.

Of course the traitor wants to be in the order. Either he has been with
LV for a while and he's trying to get more information for his
boss,(like Peter), or he is thinking about it but cannot decide which
side to go on, (like a Snape for the new generation).

Why not sell protection for Wizards, what better cover can you get?
Plus you may be able to get inside information about Wizards defences
that way. Traitors work best if they don't look like traitors.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267652 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 14:41
scenario_dave  
>
> Mundungus.
>
> --
> DM
> ---
>
Not close enough to Harry and kinda obvious. I can easily see him
playing both sides, but he wouldn't have the emotional impact on Harry
or the reader that the twins would.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267654 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 15:18
scenario_dave  
> Unless my memory is faulty, everyone that I mentioned was in the
> headquarters of the Order at some point in the story, except for Percy
> and the older Weasleys boys. I mentioned that Percy was not part of
> the Order and I vaguely remember Mr. or Mrs. Weasley saying that the
> older Weasleys were part of the Order, but I may be wrong on that one.
>

I thought about it a little and Hagrid was never at headquarters but he
was on a mission for the order during the beginning of the OOTP so I
know he was in the order even though he was never at Grimmald Place.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267659 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 16:39
wadkin2000  
scenario_dave wrote:
> > Unless my memory is faulty, everyone that I mentioned was in the
> > headquarters of the Order at some point in the story, except for Percy
> > and the older Weasleys boys. I mentioned that Percy was not part of
> > the Order and I vaguely remember Mr. or Mrs. Weasley saying that the
> > older Weasleys were part of the Order, but I may be wrong on that one.
> >
>
> I thought about it a little and Hagrid was never at headquarters but he
> was on a mission for the order during the beginning of the OOTP so I
> know he was in the order even though he was never at Grimmald Place.


I don't necessarily think that book seven is going to contain a traitor
scenario. JK already did the storyline with Peter Pettigrew (who, IMO,
will have his life debt to Harry called into play in the last book). JK
sort of nonchalantly put in DD's line about sometime in the future
Harry would be grateful to have Pettigrew owe a life debt to him.

There are obviously going to be twists and turns to book seven
otherwise she wouldn't be doing her job well, but IMO, I don't know if
the traitor storyline will play out again.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267660 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 17:03
scenario_dave  
> I don't necessarily think that book seven is going to contain a traitor
> scenario. JK already did the storyline with Peter Pettigrew (who, IMO,
> will have his life debt to Harry called into play in the last book). JK
> sort of nonchalantly put in DD's line about sometime in the future
> Harry would be grateful to have Pettigrew owe a life debt to him.
>
> There are obviously going to be twists and turns to book seven
> otherwise she wouldn't be doing her job well, but IMO, I don't know if
> the traitor storyline will play out again.

You may very well be right. I'm just thinking that history has a way
of repeating itself. James fought LV and was betrayed. Maybe James's
son fignts LV and is betrayed but it plays out differently this time.

Plus it makes sense. LV almost destroyed the Order once by using a
traitor. Why not try the same trick again? The traitor got rid of 3
members of the order at once, James, Lilly and Sirius. It also would
have made everyone suspicious of everyone else. If LV hadn't been
destroyed trying to kill Harry, the traitor might have given him the
tools he needed to win.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267666 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 19:13
Onyx Alpha  
You know, I would say Neville Longbottom except for one thing... His
parents fought against LV and he hates him for that. Other than that he
fits Peter's description, just outside of the main circle.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267667 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 19:17
Onyx Alpha  
Does anyone have an idea who R.A.B. is? The person who left their
initials inside the fake horcrux. I think it might be Sirius' brother
Regulus but we don't know his middle name. Other than him I have found
no one that has any of those initials. Do you think it might be
possible that Regulus is actually still alive? And another thing I've
thought of is that Dumbledore is such a powerful wizard maybe he found
a way to make a type of horcrux without all the dark magic and Snape
killing him was just a ruse to convince LV he was dead.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267672 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 20:21
Zolak of Twylo  
On 2006-05-17 13:17:45 -0400, "Onyx Alpha" <Onyx_Alpha777 [at] Yahoo.com> said:

> Does anyone have an idea who R.A.B. is? The person who left their
> initials inside the fake horcrux. I think it might be Sirius' brother
> Regulus but we don't know his middle name. Other than him I have found
> no one that has any of those initials. Do you think it might be
> possible that Regulus is actually still alive? And another thing I've
> thought of is that Dumbledore is such a powerful wizard maybe he found
> a way to make a type of horcrux without all the dark magic and Snape
> killing him was just a ruse to convince LV he was dead.

Most agree that it probably is Regulus or their uncle, also an RAB.
JKR's recently revealed Black Family Tree showed the uncle's
name. Most likely it was Regulus, The Younger, who fell in with
the DEs, got cold feet when he found out just how deep he had
to go, found the locket, destroyed it, and then was killed by
LVs lackies for trying to bow out of the group.

--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #267698 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 04:10
Joe Curwen  
In article <1147827457.941832.253080 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
scenario_dave says...
>
>In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
>the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
>is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
>it.
>
>Who would be the most likely traitor?

Thank you for a most entertaining thread.

I, of course, have known for quite some time that there must be an heretofore
unknown traitor working within the Order. What's more is that I know the
identity of this traitor, and have known it since the second book.

So far you have surmised that the traitor will be a character to whom Harry
feels emotionally connected. In this you are correct.

But you might have noticed that a traitor in the midst of the Order would have
other attributes as well.

What other attributes, you ask?

Rowling will want the unmasking of the traitor to be a surprise, but she will
also want the reader to recognize the skill with which she laid down clues to
the traitor's identity throughout the books. Therefore, the traitor will not be
a new character and will not be a character loyal in previous books. The
character in question will be shown to have always been a traitor.

The traitor is working for Voldemort. Voldemort will want the traitor positioned
close to Harry. That can only mean that the traitor lives at Hogwarts.

If we eliminate - as I think we must - Hermione, Ron and Ginny, plus all the
other residents at Hogwarts to whom Harry has no special connection, and Fred
and George because they have been loyal in the past and they do not live at
Hogwarts, then the identity of the traitor becomes clear.

Have you guessed? If not, then ask yourself the following questions:

Who, when caught in a lie by Harry in Book Two, told a completely ridiculous
cover story?

Which character could have helped Harry most in uncovering the dasterdly plot
against Dumbledore, but didn't do anything to help?

Which character has tried to kill Harry already?

Who has a deep connection, perhaps an unbreakable connection, to a Death Eater?

Which character gave Harry something in Book 4 that furthered Barty Crouch Jr.'s
plot?

Which character disappeared, only to reappear when Voldemort began to regain his
corporeal body?

Who is so above suspicion that no one has even mentioned his name in this
thread?

The answer is obvious. The traitor is...

SPOILER SPACE























SORRY DROPPED MY PIPE




















Dobby.

--
Joe


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269599 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 07:00
Toon  
On 16 May 2006 21:42:20 -0700, sjmcarter [at] gmail.com wrote:

> I can also see Ron being the traitor, but not intentionally. Waht if
>someone casts an imperious on him, and in that final crucial moment,
>the curse kicks in and he betrays Harry. That would definitely have
>some impact, Harry being impeded by his best friend. Can't wait for
>Book 7!

Don't think it's time delayed.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269600 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 07:02
Toon  
On 17 May 2006 05:41:26 -0700, "scenario_dave"
<scenario_dave [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> Mundungus.
>>
>> --
>> DM
>> ---
>>
> Not close enough to Harry and kinda obvious. I can easily see him
>playing both sides, but he wouldn't have the emotional impact on Harry
>or the reader that the twins would.

New OOP Leader: We've uncovered a spy. It's Mundungus.
Harry: Uh huh. So what else is new? You have got him to stop selling
my stuff, right?
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269601 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 07:02
Eric Bohlman  
"Onyx Alpha" <Onyx_Alpha777 [at] Yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1147886007.970844.193400 [at] 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> You know, I would say Neville Longbottom except for one thing... His
> parents fought against LV and he hates him for that. Other than that he
> fits Peter's description, just outside of the main circle.

*Just* outside of the main circle? That's a *whopping* difference right
there. Peter always sought out the "biggest bully on the block." He
deliberately ingratiated himself with those he perceived as powerful in
order to make up for his own inadequacies. Neville does *not* do that. He
doesn't seek out vicarious power, even for pure security. He may come off
as a "loser" but the one thing he does *not* come off as is a suck-up. And
it was being a suck-up that turned Peter into a traitor. He perceived,
rightly or wrongly, that sucking up to Voldemort would be better for him
than continuing to suck up to the Marauders, and so he betrayed the latter.
He found a bigger bully on the next block. I don't see anything in
Neville's background or personality that would suggest that he'd ever
behave in the same way.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269602 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 07:24
Eric Bohlman  
Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com> wrote in
news:e4gl3j04bc [at] drn.newsguy.com:

> Have you guessed? If not, then ask yourself the following questions:
>
> Who, when caught in a lie by Harry in Book Two, told a completely
> ridiculous cover story?
>
> Which character could have helped Harry most in uncovering the
> dasterdly plot against Dumbledore, but didn't do anything to help?
>
> Which character has tried to kill Harry already?
>
> Who has a deep connection, perhaps an unbreakable connection, to a
> Death Eater?
>
> Which character gave Harry something in Book 4 that furthered Barty
> Crouch Jr.'s plot?
>
> Which character disappeared, only to reappear when Voldemort began to
> regain his corporeal body?
>
> Who is so above suspicion that no one has even mentioned his name in
> this thread?

In a previous post, I mentioned that while Neville might have some
accidental resemblences to Peter, he isn't a suck-up like Peter was. But
if we ask who sucks up to Harry in the way most similar to how Peter
sucked up to James, we get the same answer as the one to the questions
above. I think you're on to something.

In fact, I think Harry has a rather unhealthy attitude towards Dobby.
While he's probably not consciously aware of it and would deny it if
pointed out to him, he treats Dobby as his tool. He assumes that because
he "rescued" Dobby, everything Dobby does for him is the result of his
gratitude. He doesn't treat Dobby with the *contempt* that most wizards
show to house-elves, but there's still an element of patronization and
condescension. I'm not sure he truly recognizes Dobby's personhood. In
a way, it's similar to Arthur Weasley's attitude towards Muggles; he's
sympathetic, but to a great extent he regards them as "noble savages" who
exist to amuse him. And if Harry doesn't truly recognize Dobby as a
*person*, that means he can easily be taken in by any false persona that
Dobby might want to construct. Harry seems to think he has Dobby wrapped
around his finger. But might Dobby think the same thing of Harry?
Remember Dumbledore's remark about how tyrants are at the most danger
from those they oppress? I think that applies to "benevolent dictators"
as well, and that phrase pretty much sums up Harry's relationship with
Dobby.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269607 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 10:03
dsueme  
scenario_dave wrote:

One thing LV
> is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
> it.

Dude, fiction authors don't step in the same puddle twice because it is
BORING! JKR did the traitor in the OOP once. His name was Kreacher.
It's done.

smarter_Dave
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269613 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 11:31
Lily  
Hi!
I like this thread!! :-)

I hope I have'nt misread all the posts: I think you miss one important
thing: what about girls?

It could perfectly be Cho, for example. One girl close to Harry, and
jealous. There you mix up two elements present in most "noir" novels:
you kill your not-to-be-lover (if not mine, no one's), and you have the
respect of the bad guys. Or Parvati sisters. Something like that. Or
one of the quidditch team.. don't remember their names... not
Gryffindor, not Slythering... in between.

Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affected
in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?

I think that, assuming there is a traitor, it would be same age as
Harry.

PD: Forgive my english!! :-))


scenario_dave ha escrito:

> In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
> the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
> is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
> it.
>
> Who would be the most likely traitor? One rule is that the traitor has
> to be a fairly important character.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269614 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 12:19
Zolak of Twylo  
On 2006-05-18 05:31:09 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:

>
> Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affected
> in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?

We have come to realize that JKR selects her names carefully.
Now again, how is Seamus pronounced?

--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269617 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 13:29
devnull  
David Sueme wrote:

> scenario_dave wrote:
>
> One thing LV
>> is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
>> it.
>
> Dude, fiction authors don't step in the same puddle twice because it is
> BORING! JKR did the traitor in the OOP once. His name was Kreacher.
> It's done.

I'd say she has done it more times:

1. The first year DADA professor (can't remember his name, Squirrel?).
2. Fake moody.
3. Scabbers/Wormtail.
4. Barty Sr. under imperius
5. Rosmerta under imperius

Some of these aren't proper determined traitors, but they are in the sense
that they are people expected to be in the "good" side who ends being
working for the evil dudes, and the effect is quite similar.

And people is still debating if Snape is a traitor or not, and indeed it's
going to be one of the principal things to look for in B7. Too much for
this meme.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269621 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 13:45
devnull  
Joe Curwen wrote:

> SORRY DROPPED MY PIPE

LOL XD

I hope you're right, and good points. I have always disliked that silly,
jar-jar wannabe secondary character. Sadly, he has made it to the last
book, which means that, traitor or not, he will appear in a presumably
important moment and ruin my day.

The movies incarnations were, in effect, still worse. I hate that kind of
lousy CGI.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269623 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 14:11
Lily  
Zolak of Twylo ha escrito:

> On 2006-05-18 05:31:09 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:
>
> >
> > Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affected
> > in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?
>
> We have come to realize that JKR selects her names carefully.
> Now again, how is Seamus pronounced?

Ohhh.... First time I see this way..
Seamus =3D =BFSame as? :-O

>=20
> --=20
> Enjoy,
>=20
> Zolak of Twylo
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269633 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 15:44
Zolak of Twylo  
On 2006-05-18 08:11:30 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:

>
> Zolak of Twylo ha escrito:
>
>> On 2006-05-18 05:31:09 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affected
>>> in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?
>>
>> We have come to realize that JKR selects her names carefully.
>> Now again, how is Seamus pronounced?
>
> Ohhh.... First time I see this way..
> Seamus = ¿Same as? :-O

Um...no.

It's properly pronounced "Shame-us".

But your sarcasm was very well placed.
[rolling eyes]

--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269636 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 16:17
karnak17  
Zolak of Twylo wrote:
> On 2006-05-18 08:11:30 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:
>
> >
> > Zolak of Twylo ha escrito:
> >
> >> On 2006-05-18 05:31:09 -0400, "Lily" <elena [at] nubes.zzn.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affect=
ed
> >>> in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?
> >>
> >> We have come to realize that JKR selects her names carefully.
> >> Now again, how is Seamus pronounced?
> >
> > Ohhh.... First time I see this way..
> > Seamus =3D =BFSame as? :-O
>
> Um...no.
>
> It's properly pronounced "Shame-us".

Well, it is the Irish version of JAMES. Which might be significant.
But I would REALLY be surpirsed if he was a bad guy. He might be
blackmailed into it, if LV got ahold of his mother.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269637 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 16:57
karnak17  
Joe Curwen wrote:
> In article <1147827457.941832.253080 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> scenario_dave says...
> >
> >In book 7 the fight between the LV/ DE and HP/OOTP will come out into
> >the open even more. What tactic is LV most likely to take? One thing LV
> >is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
> >it.
> >
> >Who would be the most likely traitor?
>
> Thank you for a most entertaining thread.

Yeah! Thanks Dave.

> I, of course, have known for quite some time that there must be an heretofore
> unknown traitor working within the Order. What's more is that I know the
> identity of this traitor, and have known it since the second book.
>
> So far you have surmised that the traitor will be a character to whom Harry
> feels emotionally connected. In this you are correct.
>
> But you might have noticed that a traitor in the midst of the Order would have
> other attributes as well.
>
> What other attributes, you ask?
>
> Rowling will want the unmasking of the traitor to be a surprise, but she will
> also want the reader to recognize the skill with which she laid down clues to
> the traitor's identity throughout the books. Therefore, the traitor will not be
> a new character and will not be a character loyal in previous books. The
> character in question will be shown to have always been a traitor.
>
> The traitor is working for Voldemort. Voldemort will want the traitor positioned
> close to Harry. That can only mean that the traitor lives at Hogwarts.
>
> If we eliminate - as I think we must - Hermione, Ron and Ginny, plus all the
> other residents at Hogwarts to whom Harry has no special connection, and Fred
> and George because they have been loyal in the past and they do not live at
> Hogwarts, then the identity of the traitor becomes clear.
>
> Have you guessed? If not, then ask yourself the following questions:
>
> Who, when caught in a lie by Harry in Book Two, told a completely ridiculous
> cover story?
>
> Which character could have helped Harry most in uncovering the dasterdly plot
> against Dumbledore, but didn't do anything to help?
>
> Which character has tried to kill Harry already?
>
> Who has a deep connection, perhaps an unbreakable connection, to a Death Eater?
>
> Which character gave Harry something in Book 4 that furthered Barty Crouch Jr.'s
> plot?

OH.

<hits head really hard>

> Which character disappeared, only to reappear when Voldemort began to regain his
> corporeal body?
>
> Who is so above suspicion that no one has even mentioned his name in this
> thread?
>
> The answer is obvious. The traitor is...
>
> SPOILER SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SORRY DROPPED MY PIPE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dobby.

BRAVO

<bowing deeply>

And thanks for letting us guess instead of telling. That was fun.

Here I have been obsessing on the suspicion that Kreacher might
secretly "belong" to the Malfoy's instead of to Harry, and just have
been faking his obedience in "Will and Won't". Where all the while
Dobby is actually the more likely to be in that postion, and it never
occurred to me. Wow.

What was the lie in book 2, though?
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269640 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 17:26
karnak17  
Eric Bohlman wrote:
> "Onyx Alpha" <Onyx_Alpha777 [at] Yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1147886007.970844.193400 [at] 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You know, I would say Neville Longbottom except for one thing... His
> > parents fought against LV and he hates him for that. Other than that he
> > fits Peter's description, just outside of the main circle.
>
> *Just* outside of the main circle? That's a *whopping* difference right
> there. Peter always sought out the "biggest bully on the block." He
> deliberately ingratiated himself with those he perceived as powerful in
> order to make up for his own inadequacies. Neville does *not* do that. He
> doesn't seek out vicarious power, even for pure security. He may come off
> as a "loser" but the one thing he does *not* come off as is a suck-up.

Hear, Hear.

>And
> it was being a suck-up that turned Peter into a traitor. He perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, that sucking up to Voldemort would be better for him
> than continuing to suck up to the Marauders, and so he betrayed the latter.

Exactly. His obsequious sucking up to James doesn't imply to me much
genuine affection. Or if there was, there would HAVE to be a lot of
resentment there too. Especially since James just lapped it up as if
it was his due, which even Sirius found nausiating.

> He found a bigger bully on the next block. I don't see anything in
> Neville's background or personality that would suggest that he'd ever
> behave in the same way.

Nor I. I don't consider Neville an option at all. Not even for being
blackmailed or bullied into it.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269648 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 18:07
Joe Curwen  
In article <1147964263.080827.154340 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Karnak17
says...
>
>
<<SNIP>>

>What was the lie in book 2, though?
>

In Book 2, Dobby tells Harry that Voldemort is not involved in the going-ons at
the school. This was a lie. At the end of the book, Harry points this out to
Dobby and asks for an explanation.

Dobby, in the most convoluted and unconvincing manner possible, tells Harry that
he wasn't lying, but giving Harry a clue that Voldemort was involved. To the
reader (and Harry), Dobby's explanation made no sense at all.

In writing such a non-sensical explanation for Dobby's lie, was Rowling merely
covering a plot hole? If that was her intention, she made a bad job of it, as
many of her fans have pointed out.

Poor writing may be the explanation for all of this, but I think it more than
possible that Rowling was masterfully imbedding an important clue to Dobby's
true allegiances.


--
Joe


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269649 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 18:11
Joe Curwen  
In article <Xns97C740AA56A9ebohlmanomsdevcom [at] 130.133.1.4>, Eric Bohlman says...
>
>Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com> wrote in
>news:e4gl3j04bc [at] drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> Have you guessed? If not, then ask yourself the following questions:
>>
>> Who, when caught in a lie by Harry in Book Two, told a completely
>> ridiculous cover story?
>>
>> Which character could have helped Harry most in uncovering the
>> dasterdly plot against Dumbledore, but didn't do anything to help?
>>
>> Which character has tried to kill Harry already?
>>
>> Who has a deep connection, perhaps an unbreakable connection, to a
>> Death Eater?
>>
>> Which character gave Harry something in Book 4 that furthered Barty
>> Crouch Jr.'s plot?
>>
>> Which character disappeared, only to reappear when Voldemort began to
>> regain his corporeal body?
>>
>> Who is so above suspicion that no one has even mentioned his name in
>> this thread?
>
>In a previous post, I mentioned that while Neville might have some
>accidental resemblences to Peter, he isn't a suck-up like Peter was. But
>if we ask who sucks up to Harry in the way most similar to how Peter
>sucked up to James, we get the same answer as the one to the questions
>above. I think you're on to something.
>
>In fact, I think Harry has a rather unhealthy attitude towards Dobby.
>While he's probably not consciously aware of it and would deny it if
>pointed out to him, he treats Dobby as his tool. He assumes that because
>he "rescued" Dobby, everything Dobby does for him is the result of his
>gratitude. He doesn't treat Dobby with the *contempt* that most wizards
>show to house-elves, but there's still an element of patronization and
>condescension. I'm not sure he truly recognizes Dobby's personhood. In
>a way, it's similar to Arthur Weasley's attitude towards Muggles; he's
>sympathetic, but to a great extent he regards them as "noble savages" who
>exist to amuse him. And if Harry doesn't truly recognize Dobby as a
>*person*, that means he can easily be taken in by any false persona that
>Dobby might want to construct. Harry seems to think he has Dobby wrapped
>around his finger. But might Dobby think the same thing of Harry?
>Remember Dumbledore's remark about how tyrants are at the most danger
>from those they oppress? I think that applies to "benevolent dictators"
>as well, and that phrase pretty much sums up Harry's relationship with
>Dobby.


Indeed.

When I said that Dobby was "above suspicion" I made a typically American
mistake. In the British mystery writing tradition, the only thing better than
being above suspicion is to be below it.

--
Joe


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269651 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 18:34
Onyx Alpha  
Eric Bohlman wrote:
> "Onyx Alpha" <Onyx_Alpha777 [at] Yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1147886007.970844.193400 [at] 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You know, I would say Neville Longbottom except for one thing... His
> > parents fought against LV and he hates him for that. Other than that he
> > fits Peter's description, just outside of the main circle.
>
> *Just* outside of the main circle? That's a *whopping* difference right
> there. Peter always sought out the "biggest bully on the block." He
> deliberately ingratiated himself with those he perceived as powerful in
> order to make up for his own inadequacies. Neville does *not* do that. He
> doesn't seek out vicarious power, even for pure security. He may come off
> as a "loser" but the one thing he does *not* come off as is a suck-up. And
> it was being a suck-up that turned Peter into a traitor. He perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, that sucking up to Voldemort would be better for him
> than continuing to suck up to the Marauders, and so he betrayed the latter.
> He found a bigger bully on the next block. I don't see anything in
> Neville's background or personality that would suggest that he'd ever
> behave in the same way.

You know, I never quite thought of it that way. Thank you for
helping broaden my narrow-mindedness. When I really think of it, no
matter what way, Neville doesn't seem the type to betray Harry and I
thought that before your post I'm just not sure I explained it right.
Neville is one of Harry's biggest allies because of what has happened
to him and since they are so similar.
I'm just wondering though, has anyone ever thought that Neville
might be the one to finally kill LV? I know the prophecy says
differently but there have been other discrepancies in the storyline
before. (Don't ask me what they are for I can't remember and I no
longer have the first four books because my sister gave them away.)
I think some of these other posts have better ideas anyway, like
Dobby for instance. I don't think Dobby really would betray Harry but I
think it is possible. All I know is that it will be someone that we
won't expect and all the guessing and speculating in the world probably
won't get it right.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269654 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 18:39
Onyx Alpha  
Joe Curwen wrote:
> In article <1147964263.080827.154340 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Karnak17
> says...
> >
> >
> <<SNIP>>
>
> >What was the lie in book 2, though?
> >
>
> In Book 2, Dobby tells Harry that Voldemort is not involved in the going-ons at
> the school. This was a lie. At the end of the book, Harry points this out to
> Dobby and asks for an explanation.
>
> Dobby, in the most convoluted and unconvincing manner possible, tells Harry that
> he wasn't lying, but giving Harry a clue that Voldemort was involved. To the
> reader (and Harry), Dobby's explanation made no sense at all.
>
> In writing such a non-sensical explanation for Dobby's lie, was Rowling merely
> covering a plot hole? If that was her intention, she made a bad job of it, as
> many of her fans have pointed out.
>
> Poor writing may be the explanation for all of this, but I think it more than
> possible that Rowling was masterfully imbedding an important clue to Dobby's
> true allegiances.
>
>
> --
> Joe
>
>
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

LV wasn't directly involved, he didn't even know about it until a later
book, Lucius was acting on his own behalf so Dobby wasn't lying. Dobby
was hinting that while LV was the one in the book it wasn't the real
LV, it was a shade of his 16 year old self feeding on someone else's
life force to sustain a physical form and it was in fact Lucius that
was truly behind it.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269659 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 19:11
Onyx Alpha  
How do we actually know there's going to be a traitor? I haven't heard
anything about any traitor being in book 7 but I haven't followed
interviews and stuff. Anyone know the name of book 7 yet? Let's hope
it's not "the last battle"... (Chronicles of Narnia, seven books...
magic... another world(the separated muggle and magic "worlds")...
anyone else seeing any vague connections here?)
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269660 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 19:17
karnak17  
scenario_dave wrote:
> > Who knew Peter was so important way back when. And he's featured
> > heavily throughout POA's back story of The Marauders and the night the
> > Potters died.
>
> Peter is my main model of how LV works. He was close to the inner
> circle of James, Sirius and Lupin. Noone suspected him of being a
> traitor.

"Voldemort doesn't march up to people's houses and bang on their
front doors, Harry," said Sirius. "He tricks, jinxes and blackmails
them. He's well-practiced in operating in secrecy." OotP ch 5

> > >Fred and George - Ah, this is a real possibility. Make one of the twins
> > >a traitor. Their behavior in all of the books has always been
> > >antisocial. They never follow any of the rules of society. They have
> > >frequently been cruel to people but everyone still likes them. They're
> > >in the order and close enough to Harry to have a real emotional impact.
> > > Plus, it only has to be one of them.
<snip>
> > The only problem is both wanted in to the Order, an organization
> > dedicated to defeating V, and sold protection for wizards, which kinda
> > prevents V form hurting them.
>
> Of course the traitor wants to be in the order. Either he has been with
> LV for a while and he's trying to get more information for his
> boss,(like Peter), or he is thinking about it but cannot decide which
> side to go on, (like a Snape for the new generation).
>
> Why not sell protection for Wizards, what better cover can you get?
> Plus you may be able to get inside information about Wizards defences
> that way. Traitors work best if they don't look like traitors.

Well, here is my first EVIL TWINS theory from way back.

1) The twins business is doing suspiciously well.

2) They will be taking over Zonko's shop in Hogsmeade next year, close
to Hogwarts and Harry.

3) Other joke shops are conveniently going out of business (at Diagon
Alley and Hogsmeade) just as the twins are going into
business/expanding. Seems awfully convenient.

4) It is possible that Voldemort has an interest in Diagon Alley.
Otherwise, why have two Diagon Alley shopkeepers disappeared (three if
you add the joke shop suddenly going out of business). All of these
establishments were in the business of serving children at Hogwarts
(Jokes, Wands and Ice Cream).

5) The twins' business involves sneaky dodgy items past Hogwarts
security as part of their setup.

6) Hagrid says in the first book that it was surprising Voldemort had
never tried to recruit James, because James would have been so
desireable to him. We may safely assume that Fred and George, who are
compared constantly to James and Sirius, and whose magical abilities
are "extraordinary", would also be desireable recruits.

7) Note this suspicious exchange from HBP

"We've just developed this more serious line," said Fred. "Funny
how it happened..."
"You wouldn't believe how many people, even people who work at
the Ministry, can't do a decent Shield Charm," said George.

Is George completing Fred's thought, or interrupting it? Is there
something a lot "funnier" about how they got into this line than we are

aware of, and that George doesn't want people to know? I think there
is definitely something very crooked and fishy about the twins DADA
operation. And I think that George is the one aware of it, and not
Fred.

8) They are in a position to sabotage Ministry orders, and to learn
about Ministry strengths and weaknesses through the kinds of orders
they place with WWW.

9) The twins are highly qualified to be behind the cursed DADA items
being planted by Death Eaters. (As discussed by Arthur in Book 6.)

10) The Weasley family's "Mortal Peril" seems to stem from about the
same time the twins got into the DADA business.

---
I feel certain that Fred would never sell out his own family
deliberately. I consider it possible that George, the "nice" twin,
might be genuinely evil and do so. But it is also possible that both
twins have been "tricked" or "blackmailed", as Sirius describes above.
(Or indeed, that they are double agents trying to trick LV.)
------

Well there is my theory. But I also think that Joe Curwen was right.
The traitor should be someone who was a traitor all along. And to be
honest, the twins are so nasty it almost seems like a big stinking red
herring at this point. Whereas Curwen's candidate is a real Dark
Horse.

It is possible that the twins' role in the story will be as the "evil"
characters on the side of GOOD, the ones who use their devotion to the
"right" cause as an excuse to do evil things like torture or murder bad
guys. (I'm thinking Draco here, since they have a personal motive.)
That might be far more dramatically powerful than their just turning
Death Eaters. That would leave the Dark Horse as the actual traitor.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269664 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 19:41
floydthebarber  
Could George be under the Imperious Curse?
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269678 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 21:39
scenario_dave  
David Sueme wrote:
> scenario_dave wrote:
>
> One thing LV
> > is sure to try is to create and use a traitor in the OOTP to destroy
> > it.
>
> Dude, fiction authors don't step in the same puddle twice because it is
> BORING! JKR did the traitor in the OOP once. His name was Kreacher.
> It's done.
>
> smarter_Dave

Kreacher was not a traitor. He was never on Harry's side in the first
place. He told Serius and the gang many times that they was loyal to
Mrs. Black. He was always loyal to LV ideals if not LV directly. He
couldn't do anything about it because he was, in effect, owned by
sirius.

Good authors can do the same thing twice, just not in the same way.
Harry and his friends fought with LV at the end of book 1,2,4, and 5.
Does that mean he won't fight LV at the end of book 7 because he's
already done it? Maybe he will and maybe he won't but it won't be
because its already been done.

I agree that she can't do something like have Mad-Eye kidnapped and
replaced with a death eather as the main mystery of the book, but I can
see her having a minor characther being kidnapped and replaced and the
gang figuring it out fairly quickly because its been done before as a
subplot. Real people do repeat themselves if something worked in the
past. they do it again. Whey shouldn't ficticious characters do the
same?

Harry has never had someone he really trusted betray him like his
father and mother were betrayed in any book.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269679 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 21:46
scenario_dave  
Onyx Alpha wrote:
> How do we actually know there's going to be a traitor? I haven't heard
> anything about any traitor being in book 7 but I haven't followed
> interviews and stuff. Anyone know the name of book 7 yet? Let's hope
> it's not "the last battle"... (Chronicles of Narnia, seven books...
> magic... another world(the separated muggle and magic "worlds")...
> anyone else seeing any vague connections here?)

We don't know there's going to be a traitor. It just seems like its
possible. My thought is that Harry is told that he's just like his dad
over and over again. If his dad was betrayed, why not him? Also this
book tends to follow archtypes, (like arthur and the knights of the
round table) and most of these type books in the past have a traitor at
some point. Also having a traitor in the book has a lot of dramatic
potential.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269680 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 21:52
scenario_dave  
Lily wrote:
> Hi!
> I like this thread!! :-)
>
> I hope I have'nt misread all the posts: I think you miss one important
> thing: what about girls?
>
> It could perfectly be Cho, for example. One girl close to Harry, and
> jealous. There you mix up two elements present in most "noir" novels:
> you kill your not-to-be-lover (if not mine, no one's), and you have the
> respect of the bad guys. Or Parvati sisters. Something like that. Or
> one of the quidditch team.. don't remember their names... not
> Gryffindor, not Slythering... in between.
>
> Another possibility. A boy that, all the books trough,has been affected
> in a bad way by Harry's popularity. Seamus?
>
> I think that, assuming there is a traitor, it would be same age as
> Harry.
>
> PD: Forgive my english!! :-))
>
(Your English is excellent, thank you for posting)

None of the girls mentioned are in the Order, so they would not be in
position to betray the Order. Of the ones that you mentioned, only Cho
is close enough to Harry to have an emotional impact. I do like the
idea very much.
Re: Book 7 traitor theory [message #269682 ] Do, 18 Mai 2006 22:22
Fish Eye no Miko  
scenario_dave wrote:

> I agree that she can't do something like have Mad-Eye kidnapped
> and replaced with a death eather as the main mystery of the book,
> but I can see her having a minor characther being kidnapped and
> replaced and the gang figuring it out fairly quickly because its
> been done before as a subplot. Real people do repeat themselves
> if something worked in the past. they do it again. Whey shouldn't
> ficticious characters do the same?

Indeed. I hate when fictional characters have to have a new scheme every
time, even if their last scheme almost worked, and could work if it were
just tweaked a bit. And actually, the Moody scheme DID work! It got Harry
to the graveyard, and he almost killed Harry afterwards. The trick it to
change it up ju-u-ust enough that the other side doesn't catch on.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Vorheriges Thema:Book 7 Deaths Spoiler
Nächstes Thema:A Thought
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:57:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13548 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered