Wizard romance? Theories abound

Is Snape evil? Who will die in Book 7? What clues has J.K. Rowling herself dropped? Who — besides Michael Gambon — should have been cast in the movies to play Dumbledore? See previous posts if you’re interested in those topics.

Ah, romance. I’ve offered my theory that Snape was obsessed with Lily Potter and that’s his motivation to try to kill Voldemort. But other theories involving romance exist, too.

Was Snape in love with Draco Malfoy’s mother, Narcissa Malfoy, not Lily Potter? Several online theorists point out the similarity of the Unbreakable Vow ceremony in the opening of Book 6 (Half-Blood Prince) to a wedding ceremony. Snape even says “I will.”

Here’s one lengthy essay that offers evidence for that theory — and other interesting tidbits as well, including a mention that St. Hedwig (Harry’s owl is named Hedwig) is the patroness of a small charitable order whose “chief aim is the education of orphaned and abandoned children.”

Yet another romance-related theory comes from a friend: Having a romantic relationship will protect the characters from death. So Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione won’t die. But those who aren’t blessed by love are at risk.

Some theorize that if Lupin dies, Tonks will die, too.

Finally, a prediction from a co-worker is that by the end, love will survive but so will evil. Just like real life. But I think Voldemort will have to die, and Snape along with him.

One ending word about Draco Malfoy, the weasel-faced boy who tried to kill Dumbledore but wimped out. Rowling has said she’s saddened by hearing about teenaged and preteen girls who think Draco is hot. She concedes the actor, Tom Felton, is a nice fellow and nice looking. But Draco? Yuck. What, she says, are those girls thinking?

If you want to explore more about this fascination with the rich, snobby bad boy, take a stroll on the fan fiction Web site page listing 1,574 pages written about Draco Malfoy and various romances. Warning: Fan fiction is a genre that is notoriously bad. Sticklers for punctuation, grammar and spelling should take pain medication beforehand.

The movie: Who should have been cast?

Is Snape evil? Who’s going to die in Book 7? And what clues has J.K. Rowling herself dropped? See previous posts if you’re interested in those topics.

First, a disclaimer: I’ve never thought the Harry Potter movies came close to the books in emotional power, verbal hijinks or general richness of experience. That said, I’ve seen them all (except No. 5, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” ) and enjoyed them.
But for years I’ve been mentally casting the movies. Sometimes my preferred actors even got the roles for which God seems to have intended them.
— Alan Rickman was born to play Snape.
–Maggie Smith was perfect for McGonagall. (In fact, I keep expecting McGonagall to take on some Jean Brodie-esque qualities. Don’t you think she was carrying a torch for years for Dumbledore?)
–I’d have cast Alec Guinness as Dumbledore except for the little problem of his having died. Richard Harris was quite good. And he died, too. This is not a good omen. Michael Gambon is not right. He lacks a necessary twinkle. And he’s wearing a beanie, for crying out loud!
At least a few of you agree, based on comments below. (As of 12:42 p.m.)
Ian McKellan was busy, I guess. Which leaves Peter O’Toole. He’d have hammed it up wonderfully.
Sirius Black was a role made for Daniel Day-Lewis. Thin, dark, intense, romantic but dangerous. That Gary Oldman guy just misses the point.
–Ralph Fiennes would have made the perfect Lupin — sympathetic, with undertones of nervous despair and tragedy, and just the faintest wolfish cast to his features. (Note the adjective that describes a wolfish kind of face is lupine.) Fiennes is wasted as Voldemort. With all that makeup, who can tell what the guy underneath looks like anyway?
–And the actor playing Lupin — David Thewlis — is wrong, wrong, wrong. “He’s just kind of ugly and he has a bad haircut,” says one of my friends.
–I’m looking forward to Imelda Staunton as Umbridge. I just hope she’s prissy enough. My midnight-movie source reported today that she was fabulously evil and twisted.
Slughorn? I envision Richard Griffiths. Too bad he was already snapped up to play Uncle Vernon.
–Helena Bonham-Carter may be too petite and too curly-haired to play Bellatrix Lestrange, who is described as having long, sleek black hair. But her face is suitably cavernous, with eyes that bore into you, so maybe that will work out. Again, my midnight-movie source, who is a very tough critic, approved, saying Bonham-Carter was suitably “deranged.”
Who’s in your dream cast for the movies?

JK Rowling’s own clues

You may know what you think will happen, but J.K. Rowling knows. Here are some hints she has dropped that may shatter your illusions:

–Harry’s grandparents are all dead, and they aren’t important to the plot. Rowling calls that part of her backstory “mundane territory.” She said she thought it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. James’ parents, she said in an interview, “succumbed to a wizarding illness. That’s as far as it goes. There’s nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them.”

–That means, she said, Harry is not the heir of Gryffindor.

–The gum wrappers that Alice Longbottom gives to her son, Neville, at St. Mungo’s in Book 5 (Phoenix) are just gum wrappers, a sad depiction of how an insane mother tries to offer something to her son.

Dumbledore’s death was always planned to happen. (That has to mean it must be integral to the outcome.)– More about Dumbledore: “I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in Books 5 and 6 that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes, and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that.”

–Ron’s eyes are blue. Hermione’s are brown. Ron’s Patronus is a small dog. (Those aren’t necessarily clues, but just small details that haven’t been revealed yet.)

–The color of Harry’s eyes (green, like his mother) is significant and important.

–In Book 4 (Goblet) the “gleam of triumph” on Dumbledore’s face when Harry tells him what happened with Voldemort is, Rowling said, “enormously significant.” And, she points out, “I haven’t told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free there.”

–Question: Why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her live? JKR: “Mhm. … [silence] Can’t tell you.”

Umbridge will reappear. Rowling: “She’s a pretty evil character … It’s too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more, before I finish.”

–If Dumbledore looked in the mirror of Erised, what would he see? Rowling: “I can’t answer that.”

–What would Dumbledore’s boggart be? JKR: “I can’t answer that either, but for theories you should read Book 6 again.”

–Bellatrix Lestrange will play a significant role. See the article in today’s Observer about what JKR told actress Helena Bonham Carter, who plays Lestrange in the movie that opens today.

Who’s gonna die?

So, who dies? (Sorry, blogger.com won’t let me title this. I’ll try later when the software wakes up from its midday nap.)

It was Emerson Spartz’s comment (see the 2005 interview with J.K. Rowling) that got me thinking about who will be killed off in Harry Potter No. 7, “The Deathly Hallows”: “The wise old wizard with the beard always dies.” (Think Obi-Wan Kenobi.)

An aside: But remember Gandalf, in Lord of the Rings. He came back. On the other hand, Rowling has said that in her books, when you’re dead you’re dead. I don’t think Dumbledore will come back. And I really hope he doesn’t come back as a blue-green hazy ghost floating around to impart wisdom at important plot junctures, as Obi-Wan did.

My buddy Dave Enna says that if you’re ever watching a low-budget movie and you see a beat up ’72 Pontiac, you know the car will explode sooner or later. Or if you’re watching a cheesy thriller and a blonde takes a shower early on, you know she will not survive.

Rowling has said two main characters will die in Book 7. There’s been much speculation about whether Harry will be one of them. As I wrote previously, I’m not sure he will live. But given the heroic genre, I don’t think he will.

That brings me to Remus Lupin. He’s one of my favorite characters — maybe my very favorite, after Dumbledore. He’s thoughtful, principled, brave, noble, has good taste in women (Tonks) and he’s living with a deathly illness for which polite society shuns him — werewolf-hood. Many AIDS parallels. Anyway, sorry to say, but soon as I met him in Book 3 I knew he’s too good to live. The only question is whether Rowling considers him a “main character.”

Ron — I don’t think both Harry and Ron will die. That means, I’m so sorry, Ron will have to. Maybe Harry will have to choose whether to kill Voldemort and at the same time kill Ron, or save Ron and let Voldy go.

Updated paragraph (4:21 p.m. Monday): In my haste I neglected to say that of course, Snape will die. Whether he’ll die as an act of noble sacrifice in order that Voldemort will die, or die battling the forces of good, or die some other way (this is my hunch), I don’t think he’ll survive.

Who else? Maybe Hagrid? At least one other Weasley, possibly more. Bill is probably toast, I fear. And Mr. Weasley, too.

Who’s gonna die?

So, who dies? (Sorry, blogger.com won’t let me title this. I’ll try later when the software wakes up from its midday nap.)

It was Emerson Spartz’s comment (see the 2005 interview with J.K. Rowling) that got me thinking about who will be killed off in Harry Potter No. 7, “The Deathly Hallows”: “The wise old wizard with the beard always dies.” (Think Obi-Wan Kenobi.)

An aside: But remember Gandalf, in Lord of the Rings. He came back. On the other hand, Rowling has said that in her books, when you’re dead you’re dead. I don’t think Dumbledore will come back. And I really hope he doesn’t come back as a blue-green hazy ghost floating around to impart wisdom at important plot junctures, as Obi-Wan did.

My buddy Dave Enna says that if you’re ever watching a low-budget movie and you see a beat up ’72 Pontiac, you know the car will explode sooner or later. Or if you’re watching a cheesy thriller and a blonde takes a shower early on, you know she will not survive.

Rowling has said two main characters will die in Book 7. There’s been much speculation about whether Harry will be one of them. As I wrote previously, I’m not sure he will live. But given the heroic genre, I don’t think he will.

That brings me to Remus Lupin. He’s one of my favorite characters — maybe my very favorite, after Dumbledore. He’s thoughtful, principled, brave, noble, has good taste in women (Tonks) and he’s living with a deathly illness for which polite society shuns him — werewolf-hood. Many AIDS parallels. Anyway, sorry to say, but soon as I met him in Book 3 I knew he’s too good to live. The only question is whether Rowling considers him a “main character.”

Ron — I don’t think both Harry and Ron will die. That means, I’m so sorry, Ron will have to. Maybe Harry will have to choose whether to kill Voldemort and at the same time kill Ron, or save Ron and let Voldy go.

Updated paragraph (4:21 p.m. Monday): In my haste I neglected to say that of course, Snape will die. Whether he’ll die as an act of noble sacrifice in order that Voldemort will die, or die battling the forces of good, or die some other way (this is my hunch), I don’t think he’ll survive.

Who else? Maybe Hagrid? At least one other Weasley, possibly more. Bill is probably toast, I fear. And Mr. Weasley, too.

Is Snape evil?

For a couple of weeks – or maybe less, depending on reactions – I’m going to veer away from the usual Naked City topics here and instead offer this blog up for theories, comments and philosophizing about Harry Potter and the upcoming seventh and last book.

Why? Because for a lot of readers, it’s more fun than public policy, planning and transportation arguments. And because it’s July.

And because despite the mountains of hype, some very interesting Potter facts are out there, if you know where to look.

First, you have to endure my theory about what’s going to happen. I promise, it isn’t long.

For years I didn’t think J.K. Rowling would kill off Harry Potter in the end. Now, I’m not so sure. After all, the main character, Nathaniel, was killed off at the end of Jonathan Stroud’s Bartimaeus trilogy about wizards in England. And I didn’t dream she would kill off Dumbledore.

Silly me. Rowling said in an interview in 2005, “In the genre of writing that I”m working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That’s the way it is.”Or, as MuggleNet.com creator Emerson Spartz then said, during the interview, “The wise old wizard with the beard always dies.”

As I wrote in my column today (see www.charlotte.com/opinion), I think Snape’s out to kill Voldemort, because he was in love with Lily Evans Potter. When Voldy killed Lily, Snape snapped. He’s playing both ends against the middle, loyal to nothing but his rage. Dumbledore knew that and trusted Snape to protect Harry, since Harry must be the one to kill Voldemort.

So let’s hear it. Snape – good or evil? Comments below.

If you have topics you’d like to propose, put them in comments or e-mail me. I’ll be checking in daily, adding links and theories.And if you’ve time, read the lengthy Rowling interview on MuggleNet. Plenty of room for speculation in there. Such as when she says, “Dumbledore’s family would be a profitable line of inquiry …”

“The Chamber’s study”?

If you are under the belief that the recent study by UNCC’s Center for Transportation Studies was paid for by the Charlotte Chamber, or somehow was connected with the Chamber: What are you smoking?

It was paid for by UNCC and done by a nonpartisan UNCC transportation study center whose director has a lengthy background in transportation studies.

Here’s what happened: Chamber President Bob Morgan suggested to UNCC Chancellor Phil Dubois that the topic would be a good one to study. That’s sort of like mentioning to Bob Johnson, “Say, you might want to get your players to practice shooting.” I mean, Duh! You’ve got a center of transportation studies. Studying transportation is what it does.

Some people are offering up UNCC Professor Emeritus David Hartgen’s studies as being more objective. Yet several of his most recent studies were paid for by interest groups with a specific position to advance: The Reason Foundation and the John Locke Foundation, two Libertarian think tanks that have funded a variety of studies opposing rail transit and Smart Growth. Those nonprofits have a point of view, and they use their money to advance it, hiring researchers who share those points of view. How is that somehow purer than a short report from UNCC’s Center for Transportation Policy Studies, beholden to no one?

If you bother to read the UNCC study — in contrast to most advocacy group studies such as those from Reason or the JLF — you’ll read no conclusions and no recommendations. Indeed, some of the information it offers will probably be of more use to people opposing light rail transit, such as the comparison of highway and transit spending since 1998.

“Our research has revealed a need for a comprehensive study of the economic, societal, environmental, land use and business impacts of LRT,” it says. Gee, that’s clearly a biased, tainted and suspect statement if I ever heard one.

I suppose some people are going to see dark conspiracies in such statements. Remember, there are more than a few people out there who think Commies in pink robes are hiding under the bed, or they put on tinfoil caps to keep the alien transmissions out of their brains. But the rest of you? Get a grip.

Some people who don’t like mass transit are deliberately trying to plant the idea that light rail mass transit is a creature of the Charlotte Chamber. Though it’s misleading, it’s also a clever political stunt, because a lot of people here are suspicious of the Chamber. But if you think I blindly follow everything the Chamber proposes, well, you haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing for more than a decade.

If you’re thinking mass transit is a creature birthed and nurtured by Charlotte’s business oligarchy then you are uninformed about Charlotte. For about, oh, the past century or so it was the conservative business oligarchy here that fought the concept of any government-funded public transit. They kept a pitiful bus system running on fumes and pennies — and extremely high fares — because business leaders didn’t want their taxes raised just to make life easier for low-income mill workers and black people. It’s still the ultra-right-wing descendants of those anti-tax businessmen who are fighting the transit tax now.

One last thought. Rick, I appreciate your devoted readership and your civility, but it’s blindingly naive to say we can just get another transit tax in 2010, if we decide we want one again. State legislators from outside Mecklenburg just cackle if you mention that possibility.

What Mecklenburg voters do or don’t want doesn’t make a rat’s patootie’s worth of difference unless the legislature allows it. It took years to get permission to hold the 1998 referendum. If we have a transit tax and kill it, it will take years — if ever — to get permission for another one.

Get another transit tax in 2010? It would be easier, and about as practical, to just get hold of the pot of gold at the end of the next rainbow.

Transit foes ‘grass roots?’ One point of view

I spent a couple of hours last week talking with Robert FitzPatrick, who spent much of the 1970s helping Charlotte neighborhoods and grass roots groups organize to fight City Hall.

My Saturday column told of his efforts to prevent Freedom Park from being plundered by an ill-conceived canal project. The project would have dredged Little Sugar Creek and trapped it into concrete embankments and locks – and would have richly rewarded land owners and real estate developers who were pushing the plan.

In those days FitzPatrick and the folks he organized mostly fought City Hall and the business oligarchy that backed city government. Among the leaders of the group that fought the canal project were a roofer and a truck driver.

FitzPatrick helped organize the North Charlotte Action Association, which focused on code enforcement and trash pickup. He helped organize the Association for Better Public Transportation, a citizen group that fought (unsuccessfully) a bus fare increase that made Charlotte’s fares among the highest in the country. (40 cents in 1974, equivalent to $1.66 today.) The group also wanted the city to take over the bus system, because the private company running it was providing, as FitzPatrick termed it, “nasty, dirty buses that were never on time.”

So I asked him what he thought of the folks who had organized to get the repeal of the transit tax onto the Nov. 6 ballot. They say they’re “grass roots,” because the Charlotte Chamber and most elected officials here support the transit tax.

“I hope you will not link the group I was involved in with them,” he said. “We were not financed by somebody anonymous throwing a lot of money. To me that’s not real grass roots.” (Businessman Jay Morrison, who says he’s running for school board, paid to hire professional petition-gatherers to get 48,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot. Morrison hasn’t said how much he paid. “Those close to Morrison say he’s paid for about half the cost for the petition drive,” a June 7 Observer news report said.)

And, FitzPatrick pointed out, “We didn’t have a single elected official anywhere within a hundred miles of us.” Co-chairs of the anti-transit tax petition are former school board member and former county commissioner Jim Puckett, former City Council member Don Reid. Helping them is former U.S. attorney Tom Ashcraft. None holds those positions now, of course.

FitzPatrick is not looking at CATS through rose-colored glasses. He said the single-issue interest groups, like the one formed to fight the transit tax, are a symptom of a government (including CATS) that doesn’t take the time to be responsive to the public.

Is Charlotte different, I asked him, from the days when the business community ran the city?

“If it is,” he said, “it’s imperceptible to me. Just look at the sprawl. It’s a disgrace. Is that vision? … Nobody ever takes responsibility for disasters, like the death of the west side, or the university area. You can’t even walk around up there. Whose vision was that?”

Transit foes ‘grass roots?’ One point of view

I spent a couple of hours last week talking with Robert FitzPatrick, who spent much of the 1970s helping Charlotte neighborhoods and grass roots groups organize to fight City Hall.

My Saturday column told of his efforts to prevent Freedom Park from being plundered by an ill-conceived canal project. The project would have dredged Little Sugar Creek and trapped it into concrete embankments and locks – and would have richly rewarded land owners and real estate developers who were pushing the plan.

In those days FitzPatrick and the folks he organized mostly fought City Hall and the business oligarchy that backed city government. Among the leaders of the group that fought the canal project were a roofer and a truck driver.

FitzPatrick helped organize the North Charlotte Action Association, which focused on code enforcement and trash pickup. He helped organize the Association for Better Public Transportation, a citizen group that fought (unsuccessfully) a bus fare increase that made Charlotte’s fares among the highest in the country. (40 cents in 1974, equivalent to $1.66 today.) The group also wanted the city to take over the bus system, because the private company running it was providing, as FitzPatrick termed it, “nasty, dirty buses that were never on time.”

So I asked him what he thought of the folks who had organized to get the repeal of the transit tax onto the Nov. 6 ballot. They say they’re “grass roots,” because the Charlotte Chamber and most elected officials here support the transit tax.

“I hope you will not link the group I was involved in with them,” he said. “We were not financed by somebody anonymous throwing a lot of money. To me that’s not real grass roots.” (Businessman Jay Morrison, who says he’s running for school board, paid to hire professional petition-gatherers to get 48,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot. Morrison hasn’t said how much he paid. “Those close to Morrison say he’s paid for about half the cost for the petition drive,” a June 7 Observer news report said.)

And, FitzPatrick pointed out, “We didn’t have a single elected official anywhere within a hundred miles of us.” Co-chairs of the anti-transit tax petition are former school board member and former county commissioner Jim Puckett, former City Council member Don Reid. Helping them is former U.S. attorney Tom Ashcraft. None holds those positions now, of course.

FitzPatrick is not looking at CATS through rose-colored glasses. He said the single-issue interest groups, like the one formed to fight the transit tax, are a symptom of a government (including CATS) that doesn’t take the time to be responsive to the public.

Is Charlotte different, I asked him, from the days when the business community ran the city?

“If it is,” he said, “it’s imperceptible to me. Just look at the sprawl. It’s a disgrace. Is that vision? … Nobody ever takes responsibility for disasters, like the death of the west side, or the university area. You can’t even walk around up there. Whose vision was that?”