Am I the only one who seems to be a tad miffed at the latest update, using howlers to conquer a dragon? When the teaser came out, I hoped HP would use his parselmouth abilities to charm the dragon. After all, wasn't Jbern's description of the Chinese Fireball:

I admit that the use of howlers is a nice contradiction to my logical conclusion, but still the idea seems a tad stale. There is nothing in that particular approach that shows James Potter's apparent transfiguration skills nor does it show Harry Potter's gift of the serpents, if anything it shows HP as nothing more than child playing in the big leagues. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the making of howlers a household spell, after all if the Weasly matriarch could unleash them, couldn't a properly versed school child do the same?

 

I think that was the entire point of HJ's strategy - to complete the task and overcome the dragon using only household spells.

He tried to be overly clever and got a shit score because of it.

 

Howlers are a mail spell - just because Molly Weasley casts it on a frequent basis doesn't automatically make it a household spell. A cleaning charm is a household spell, i.e. it's used in and around the house. Who sends Howlers to each other within a household? I'll agree with the howlers =/= transfiguration skill though: aside from the conjured extra parchment, it was a combination of charms (Summoning, Fireproofing, and Howler) that beat the dragon.

I think the general idea was not to highlight his skill at Transfiguration, but to highlight James Potter's skill over Harry's; many other wizards (including Harry) wouldn't have been able to defeat the dragon in that way, and in that short amount of time.

The "parselmouth to communicate with dragons" plot device is full of so much failure that it's ranks up there with building up immunity to the Cruciatus Curse. A dragon, no matter how snake-like, is not a snake.

 

I think all of you are giving JKR too much credit in her character. After reading the last 2 books you should know better than to read too deeply into the people in the HP universe.

There are so many loopholes there that it just seems stupid to argue who is right and wrong in this matter.

 

I'm curious, how is speaking to snakes being not equal to speaking to dragons a "plot-hole"?

 

Well, because we don't really know what makes parseltongue so special, how it works, why it works... and who it works on. After all, if Ron Weasley can speak it, Dumbledore can not only speak it, but understand it... then it seems that Parseltongue is less of a magical talent, and just a very scarcely spoken language.

If it is just a language, then what, for want of a better expression, is its cultural boundries? Is 'serpantine' dragon close enough for such a creature to know it or at least understand it? Who the hell really knows.

As is, parseltongue speaking to dragon into allowing one to take its eggs is still a fail tactic, and this was much better, even if it resulted in a shitty score.

 

Most you could have done with parseltongue without failing is having Harry trying to convince the dragon to give up one of its eggs which would obviously result in failure.

Maybe Harry and the dragon could understand each other brokenly, permitting some communication but not much.

 

I actually think what HJ did is quite clever and showed more ingenuity than some of the methods the other contestants used. He used employed everyday spells in an ingenious fashion in order to overcome a dragon. I find that more impressive than the use of high powered spells to accomplish the same task.

I think it sucks that the judges screwed him over in the scoring.

 

As far as parseltongue goes, I remember quite well the connection between it and "dark wizards." It apparently is not overly unique, if a recognizable amount of past dark wizards had employed it as a skill.

 

Just Herpo the Foul, Gaunt Line and anyone tracing linedeage to Salazar. Herpo also breeded the first basilisk?

 

Herpo the foul might have been well-known, but I doubt the Gaunt family would qualify in that area. The general public holds a common belief that there is a link between parseltongue and dark wizards, not just Herpo. For it to be a general suspicion, known even by school children, it cannot be as uncommon as to be limited to what amounts to a family living secluded in the boonies and the creator of the basilisk.

 

Actually, most stereotypes are conceptualized in a specific era, rarely make it out of it and are not necessarily passed down from father to child/one generation to the next. And if they do, their children are less motivated to continue the pattern. For instance, Anti-Muslim sentiment is created heavily by 9/11. Few people before that daycould probably locate Iraq or Afghanistan on a map.

It's perfectly feasible for people to believe parseltongue is a Dark attribute because the most feared Wizard of their time used it - Lord Voldemort. He weighed heavily on the hearts and minds of wizards and witches for quite some time and people were aware of his ability to speak to snakes.

Another example would be "Krauts" for either WW1 or WW2. Or Reds or Communists. A history is not needed for someone to create a statement declaring something absolute. In fact, the less history or fewer cases involved, the better.

Meaning if parseltongue was more common, there'd be a counter movement. Because there are only 5-10 million Muslims in America, there is no counter movement to the "Muslims are evil" fearmongerers. Because there was only one parseltongue until Voldemort imparted his soul onto Harry, it was easy to make the jump from "Voldemort is evil and happens to speak to snakes" to "people who can speak to snakes are evil".

That the only two other examples that make it into the history books - Herpo the Foul and Salazar Slytherin - are also known to be trouble-makers (one of them creating the basilisk and the horcrux) helps for people to more easily make the case. Mohammed was a bloodthirsty person and oh yeah, read the Hadith. It's a connecting thread and certainly does nothing to suggest there are "hundreds" of other parselmouths who are capable of speaking the language.

But this goes beyond the point. Serpents are used to represent evil and if we are to take Rowling at her word, the obvious connection is made. It's further compounded by the sad canonical fact that Harry loses his ability to speak easily with them once Voldemort's soul is removed before the BoH.

 

Ah, I see. That is a good point. When the only two are Lord Voldemort and Salazar I see how it would be "OH NOES !!!1 all are ev1lz." I usually expect that there are good reasons for commonly held beliefs, I guess I just have too much faith in the reason of humanity.

 

It all biblical.
Snakes have always been seen as evil. Eve spoke to the snake and was led to do something evil.
So a Parselmouth is just someone that speaks to evil. Any one that can speak Parseltongue is evil.

 

This thread accounts for over 10% of the posts in the Independent sub-forum.

The serpentine comment was a lure.

 

That's because this story si amazing.

 

Seriously?

 

Yeah, and second place in number of views is jbern's Bungle, I believe.