Huh. I thought 'bloody' was akin to 'very'. I've heard so many versions of 'bloody marvelous', 'bloody good', etc.

I'm listening to the final cd of HP6...for the manyeth time. I'm still pathetic with the but...but...it says that Hagrid carried something in his arms at the funeral that "Harry knew to be Dumbledore's body." It doesn't say Hagrid carried Dumbledore's body! dammit.

Ah well, my grief will cycle to resolution soon I suppose.

(Wishing I'd been born somewhere without school spirit...even without the sexy accents. Or at least that I might have done the voice so people might have stopped breaking my ovaries over lack of same."We don't do that where I come from.")

I think you should add the caveat "for kids". Bloody and bugger are about as rude as Shit, I'd say.

Given the context, I didn't think that was neccesary. I'm talking about the language used by an 11 year old to his teacher in a Harry Potter film. I say 'fuck' all the time, and 'cunt' without flinching, but I was shocked. I wouldn't say 'bloody'* in front of my students, or expect them to say it to me. My impression was that it was being used with the intention of having the kind of impact of 'Flipping' or 'Ruddy', whereas it's a lot closer to the magnitude of 'fucking'. (Note I say closer, not the same magnitude.) Still, perhaps 'fuck' has greater shock value for other people.

Fuckwits.

I thought 'bloody' was akin to 'very'.

In that it's used in the same way, yes. But so is 'fucking'. 'Bloody' isn't as strong as 'Fucking', but it's closer to that than it is to 'Very', imho.

Granted, I swear pretty much nonstop, so perhaps I'm downplaying the naughtiness of the word 'fucking'.

*er. or 'fuck' or 'cunt', obviously.

Again I say, I'm sure Dumbledore is not only merely dead but clearly and sincerely dead -- otoh, a) the thing is full of phoenix imagery; b) the first potion they make in class is Draught of the Living Death; c) Dumbledore offered to fake Draco's death; d) it would be tactically sensible for Voldy to think Dumbledore was dead; e) there was ENDLESS talk of silent spell-casting; and d) Snapes Avada Kedavra blew his victim off the tower -- and AK doesn't generally do that.

Frankly, it could go either way and I wouldn't be surprised.

I've always thought "snogging" sounded dirtier than "shagging".

"Snogging" implies a sound (like "wanking") where "shagging" sounds like you've gone shopping for wall-to-wall. Won't get into the whole "laying carpet" aspect.

Finished the book over the weekend. I'm thoroughly convinced that Snape is one of the good guys and was acting on DDs orders. The telling thing for me is I can't think of a reason for the argument Hagrid overheard if Snape's still a Death Eater. What could Dumbledore be asking that Snape would object to so strongly if he's planning on helping to kill him?

Sadly, I also think that means that he's dead as a Dumbledorenail. If they were going to somehow fake DD's death, why would Snape be arguing about it? I suppose he might be tired of trying to pass as a Death Eater (what did Hagrid say he was saying - he didn't wan't to do it anymore?).

The one thing I do know is, I'm going to be more put out if the reason DD trusted Snape is because he knew he would betray and kill him, rather than on his orders or something (or even the Vow). As much as I don't want Harry right all this time and DD so very wrong, I'd prefer that to other. I just don't see why Rowling would ignore the most intriguing possibility (Snape as a tormented, nasty, and now near tragic fighter of the good fight), but her comments on being astonished how popular Snape was as a character have always worried me.

Saying "cunt" in the USA is a MASSIVE deal...I was monumentally shocked on my first viewing of"The Committments" when one of the guys described soup as "cuntish"(Of course, I was seventeen and a geek so I doubt I could be so shocked by anything ever again, no matter what.)

I dunno, what my gran might have considered 'cursing' seems to be nothing more than audio punctuation anymore.

I'm of the mind that words can't hurt us unless we choose to be afraid of them. So, not much shock going on over here.

Oh, one more thing, I thought the the ending of this book packed all the punch that Sirius' death so painfully did not in OotP (and that I thought it was supposed to). Doubly odd since DDs death (when I was spoiled for it) didn't surprise me in the least, where the idea of Sirius going so soon took me aback (though him being such a prat in OofP took all the punch out of the actual event). Unfortunately, if DD was wrong about Snape he'll be just as much a victim of his own bloody-mindedness as Sirius (to carry the slang talk forward).

Trudy and Frank give me hope.

And I loved Dumbledorenail ...sadly loved, but loved none the less.

And I'm so completely with Frank on the concern about reasons for trust.

Clearly that is one of, if not the, biggest question left pending for HP7. Lots of pressure for a good/agreed upon payoff. Oddly, I'm much more interested in THAT resolution than I am in the great Harry/Voldy show down. Huh! I didn't realize that until just this minute. I'm way, way more interested in Snape's journey than in the big bad. Whaddya know?

eta: And YES! Sirius' death was very Hollywoodized, it seemed. "He's dead? Huh. Move along...nuthin' to see here." Whereas, the impact of DD's death was much more fully realized, despite the lack of surprise.

And YES! Sirius' death was very Hollywoodized, it seemed. "He's dead? Huh. Move along...nuthin' to see here."

And it seemed so pointless. We keep hearing how upset and angry Harry is about it, and this is the closest he's come to losing family he cares about since he's become aware of such things, but it keeps seeming like she's telling rather than showing.

On the other subject as much as I'd love for Lily to somehow be the reason for DDs trust in Snape (and given Plei's baby, I now want the title of book 7 to be "Harry Potter and the Man who Loved Princess Ticky-box"), I can't easily reconcile his lashing out at her as a "mudblood" when she was defending him with that whole scenario. I can still see a few ways Rowling can get there, but, as I said, her comments on Snape have always worried me. On the other hand, I just don't see why a true betrayer would be such an obvious villain for 6 books, but NOT be one for 6 books, if you get my meaning. How shocking would it have been if, say, MacGonnagal had been the secret Death Eater.