I've participated in and watched from the sidelines plenty of "blog swarms" in my time.

Bloggers on the political side of the blogosphere constantly swarm around issues important and trivial. On the business side, bloggers can get pretty nasty with the flaming, if you can believe it (Business blogging seems so benign, doesn't it?).

There's one currently brewing in, for lack of a better word, the literary side of the blogosphere. Some college kid writing for The Stanford Daily Online tried to be clever with a malicious, un-funny bit of satire titled, A guide to effective terrorism?, written by Christopher Lin, who must be regretting his decision to write it by now.

The site will probably be slow-loading because Melissa Anelli at The Leaky Cauldron (impressive stats) got wind of it, wrote an excellent response, and linked. Here's an excerpt of Child Christopher's piece:

Just when international tension is running at fever pitch, the terrorists should move in with their piece de resistance — kidnap J.K. Rowling and hold her hostage. It’s the perfect climax for this unfortunate series of events. The world has gradually nursed a cancerous addiction to Harry Potter over the last decade, and tension is running high as the entire world awaits the seventh chronicle with bated breath. When the terrorists release footage of Rowling gagged and tied to a chair, surrounded by vaguely Middle Eastern-looking men carrying large firearms, blood will run in the streets as Potter fans accidentally stab each other while waving plastic wands in an attempt to curse the terrorists to death. Meanwhile, soldiers at the front, terrified that they’ll die before Ron gets a chance to pork Hermione, will lay down their arms, and fighting will come to a standstill until Rowling is safely recovered. Angry citizens throughout the United States and the United Kingdom will rally at their capitals, demanding concessions to all terrorist demands.

Pretty offensive stuff (the part about JKR, not Middle Eastern-looking men). Here's an excerpt of Melissa's response (wait for the jump):

It is highly inflammatory, vivid and at times grotesque, and purports to give ideas to terrorists who wish to run effective terror campaigns. Press being (thankfully) free, it does of course have every right to exist and be published - but that precious, sacred right does not exempt anyone from responsibility for what they pen.
…

I was a college journalist, and so I know where Mr. Lin is coming from; it's an exciting thing, to get your first taste of free speech, to test the boundaries with your audience, to be inflammatory because you can be, and not because it contributes something intelligent and worthwhile to the national debate. In our college newsroom we were as arrogant as any other college newsroom - we were right, the world was wrong, and why could no one see that? That time is important - it's an exhilarating and crucial pressure cooker, during which many journalists develop their tone and sense of responsibility.
…

You don't like Harry Potter? Fine, that's your right, and your right to say. You think a Harry Potter love is something to be called cancerous? Fine, that's your right, and your right to say. No one is asking everyone in the world to understand why this series has such an avid following - no one is making apologies for loving it, either. But to use such a love, such an example of fun and goodness in literature, a worldwide community who are rarely anything but understanding and loving, and the figure who means the most to them, as a reason to will violence, is horrendous.

Are HP fans too sensitive? Perhaps. To understand the weight of it all, read Melissa's entire post.

With a high-profile and beloved site like Leaky blogging about the article, I predict the mainstream media will get in on the action by tomorrow morning.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008: Prince Caspian Christian symbolism and movie news updates.
———————————————————————–

Prince Caspian, the fourth (or second) book of The Chronicles of Narnia series, will be made into a movie.

The characters Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy Pevensie return in this tale, as well as the actors from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

In Prince Caspian, more than 1,000 years have passed since the four ruled Narnia, which has been taken over by men from a place called Telmar. The animals have been banished. Prince Caspian, the rightful heir of Narnia, calls the four, and they return to help him retake his domain.

Sources:

• Disney to make Narnia 'Prince Caspian' for 2007
• "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" Begins Pre-Production
• 'Narnia' Sequel Will Be 'Bigger and Better'
• Adamson Back for Prince Caspian

Update (2/22): For reasons unknown, the Potter Index is no longer available.
———————————————————————————————————————————

David Haber at Wizard News has created a searchable index for all the HP books:

The Potter Index has been created by Harry Potter fans for Harry Potter fans, students and teachers, to assist them in their Potter debates and studies. The Potter Index contains a complete catalog of every word and phrase in every Harry Potter book. This site does not display the Harry Potter books in any way. What it does do is let you enter specific search criteria and tells you exactly where this text can be found in the Harry Potter books.

Where in the books does Dumbledore mention his scar that resembles a map of the London Underground? (Click here.) Who's Stubby Boardman? (Click here.) Where is McLaggen first mentioned? (Click here.) That's only a small sample of what you can learn with the help of the Potter Index.

Bloody brilliant!

Attention, Harry Potter fans!

Have you seen the movie Gosford Park? The 2001 flick is an English manor mystery in the genre of the "cozy" mystery, Agatha Christie-style. The ensemble cast in this slow-moving and indulgent story is superb. Appearing in "Gosford Park" are three Harry Potter actors and one narrator.

If you saw the movie, perhaps you missed them: Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Geraldine Somerville (Lily Potter), and Stephen Fry (UK narrator). See Somerville's Wikipedia entry for a screenshot from "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

Gambon plays arisocrat Sir William McCordle, who is hosting the weekend party at his home. Smith plays his hard-up sister, Constance, Countess of Trentham, Somerville plays Louisa Stockbridge, sister of McCordle's wife, and Fry is Inspector Thompson.

I saw the movie before I was charmed by Harry Potter, so there was no connection to make. A couple of weeks ago I was researching something and discovered the four in the same movie.

Pictured above is Michael Gambon; below are Maggie Smith, Geraldine Somervile (redhead on the left with Kristin Scott Thomas, who plays her sister), and Stephen Fry.

This is the second post in a series on one of John Granger's articles. See the first post, The Cave: Was Dumbledore Set Up?

Granger, author of Looking for God in Harry Potter and numerous articles on the series, asks 20 crucial questions left answered as of Book 6 of the Harry Potter series in Why Half-Blood Prince is the Best Harry Potter Novel: Stoppered Death, EVIL Slughorn, and What Really Happened. J.K. Rowling may choose to answer all or some of the questions in the final book, but no Harry Potter theory-obsession would be complete without reading this article.

Let's begin with question #1:

1. How do you make a Horcrux, that is, what is the spellwork procedure, and what are the four remaining Horcruxes? We learn a lot about what a Horcrux is in Half-Blood Prince but not about how one is made or what the four Horcruxes remaining are. Until we know this, it is impossible to speculate meaningfully about what can and cannot be a Horcrux…

Is Harry a horcrux, what are the other four, where are the other four, when did Voldemort make them, and how does one make a horcrux? We don't need to ask why because we already know. Voldemort seeks physical immortality, so he split his soul in several parts (seven?) by committing murder.

I don't believe that Voldemort made an "accidental" horcrux when he tried to kill Harry, and I was hoping I could find canonical proof that horcrux spells are complicated. I defer to Granger, who says Book 6 contains no details about how a horcrux is created. If he doesn't know, JKR probably didn't make it explicit in the books.

I'll speculate. I imagine killing someone is not as easy psychically as it seems, let alone murdering them in cold blood. For Voldemort to have murdered because of hate and to cheat death indicates a selfishly depraved mind, wouldn't you agree? Such a mind would have the mind (pardon the pun) to learn and memorize the most difficult of spells when the reward is "eternal life." We know that splitting your soul is no walk down Park Avenue since it diminishes the life you have left. Wouldn't it follow that horcrux creation necessarily involves some convoluted and out-of-the ordinary dark magic? How can one inadvertently create a soul bearer?

Based on my own impressions and not anything nothing explicit in the canon, Harry Potter (including his scar) can't be a horcrux. Although Voldemort satisfied the murder requirement (James and Lily Potter) just minutes before he advanced on Harry, he didn't have time to perform any complicated spells, and JKR wouldn't spring a "lost minutes" scenario on us in Book 7 whereby Voldy uttered some dark incantation before he struck the boy wizard; that is, if she's playing by the rules of the mystery genre.

In the next post, I'll add more thoughts about question #1 before moving on to question #2: What is the nature of Harrys scar?

Update (2/11): I spoke too soon about "spending this week blogging…"

I've been busy preparing for and attending a big political conference in Washington, DC. Check for updates next week. Granger's article is fascinating, and I can't wait to blog about his other theories.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

I don't remember who told me about John Granger, but I'll always be grateful. I've read mostly all his articles, and his site is where I first read about the "stoppered death" theory. I agree with it wholeheartedly.

A woman named Cathy Liesner from Granger's Barnes and Noble University discussion raised this issue. She theorized that Dumbledore's attempt (and success) to secure the ring horcrux lethally injured him. He called on the Potions Master, Severus Snape, for treatment. In light of what I think the treatment entailed, that's an understatement. Liesner believes that Snape "stoppered" Dumbledore's inevitable death, allowing him more time (a year?) to tutor Harry while trying to get to the bottom of Lord Voldemort's plans.

I wrote about it a few months ago in this post.

I plan to elaborate on the theory, but in this post I want to blog about something that I, much to my chagrin, have never thought about before: the whole cave horcrux deal was a set-up for Dumbledore as a false lead and to kill him with the poisonous phosphorescent green potion.

I think I'm in the minority when I say that R.A.B. is not Regulus Black. I haven't fleshed out my theory yet, but I think the initials stand for more than one wizard. I thought Snape had something to do with it. If he did, however, I don't think he would have sent Dumbledore and Harry on such a dangerous mission to retrieve it…unless he didn't know about Dumbledore's plans or that he's indeed evil. I'm firmly in the Snape-is-good camp, though.

Sirius didn't think too highly of his brother, who was only 19 when he died and presumably wasn't a very good wizard. Based on what I've read, only an accomplished wizard could have retrieved the locket and mixed the potion. The main reason I don't think Regulus is R.A.B. is this: I just don't think JKR would make it so easy.

Let's turn to Granger's theory. In Why Half-Blood Prince is the Best Harry Potter Novel: Stoppered Death, EVIL Slughorn, and What Really Happened, he writes

We know that an accomplished wizard has switched out the Horcrux [Interesting that he uses the word as a proper noun] in the basin and left a faux Horcrux with a note seemingly from Regulus Black as well as an impenetrable emerald green potion that Dumbledore “assumes” he must drink.

If Regulus Black left the faux LV Horcrux necklace in its original spot (not the cave) and Slughorn or Voldemort found it, Slughorn could have created with Voldemort’s help the trap in the Cave, to include the poisoned potion. Slughorn would only then have to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and cue Dumbledore to the Cave adventure (and tell him to be sure to bring a crystal goblet) on the night of the Death Eater invasion of Hogwarts. The trap would then be sprung.

Either Horace tips Dumbledore about the Cave and tells him something about a potion (information he might have through Slug Club” and Slytherin alumni?), or, more likely, Severus Snape is given information by Voldemort that he knows – perhaps even pointedly “allows” – Snape will pass on to Dumbledore.

The article is filled with lots of good stuff, including a list of 20 questions not answered in Half-Blood Prince that Granger attempts to answer in the article. Highly recommended.

Granger believes that on the night of Aragog's funeral, Slughorn was getting ingredients for the cave potion. When Harry runs into him, he comes up with some story about getting greens for the class. When he learns about Aragog's death, he seizes the opportunity to acquire some of the spider's poisonous venom. The venom idea is too coincidental, though, so don't I think it was necessary for the potion.

Most important in all this is who told Dumbledore about the cave.

I'll spend this week blogging about Granger's article. So many theories, so little time.