The Challenge for January 2011:
Lily revisited
Lily revisited
Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alicekinsno1 suggested to take a closer look at Lily's character:Maybe something that discusses the character of Lily more deeply? I'd love to see what some of your ideas are for just how Lily went from treating Snape so harshly and talking back to James, to being the stereotypical "saintly mother" at the end of her life. There's something about her personality that doesn't add up.
That is to say, how her apparently selfless decision to die for her baby makes sense in light of the way she treated Severus or even James. With possibly a side comment about how despite being so powerful and gifted she didn't really show any of that by dying pleading for her baby's life without even trying to take on Voldemort.
Please post your entries here or in a separate post. I'm looking forward to your entries.
If you have ideas for new challenges, please post them here. (This is a new list, your earlier suggestions are still in the old post).
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Like any nurse in any casualty centre. It *is* all in a day's work for them. But some of the patients die, and *that's* part of their day's work too.
"the kids at the Quidditch World cup flying around on their toy brooms."
They were a bit older, probably two or three. They're described as "barely older than" the "tiny boy no older than two" who'd pinched his dad's wand.
"When my niece was a baby we had a baby walker for her, she used to back up against a wall and then take off on a run across the room. She never hurt herself, she was watched at all times, and she used to miss the dog by inches. She was also walking by her first birthday."
You were lucky.
Canada has banned baby-walkers and Australia is moving towards that. Their government advisory site (ACCC) states "Baby walkers can be dangerous as they allow infants
to move more quickly around the house and grab things
normally out of their reach. Their new mobility and added
height can place your child in dangerous situations with
access to bench tops and the potential to pull boiling
kettles or irons down onto themselves, fall down stairs or
reach open fi res or heaters. A baby in a walker can also tip
over on uneven surfaces ... Child safety experts recommend a
stationary play centre as a safer alternative."
I've known plenty of babies that could walk by their first birthday. One of mine was walking at eight months. But a responsible parent removes hazards *before* a baby is tall/mobile enough to reach them. Clearly Lily did *not* do so.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
We did not worry about stairs as the home was on one floor. It is wise to child proof a home but sometimes somethings get overlooked.
As you say you have a child who was walking by the time he/she was 8 months old perhaps that child rode on a rocking horse or a tricycle. Young children do like riding toys. I am aware that children have accidents. We simply cannot childproof every single aspect of their young lives and wrap them up in cotton wool. For one thing such treatment is not good for the child. And of course sometimes tragedies happen. But not it seems to a lot of the WW's children. We do not hear of a single child dieing in a home accident. They seem to be very safe and this is probably due to the child being magical. with built in safety cushions. What I am trying to say is that judging this aspect of the books by our standards just doesn't work. We are not magical and neither are our children. We have to be constantly on the lookout against broken bones and bad cuts, it seems that magical parent have other worries. Such as spell damage.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
It also says nothing whatsoever about why the level of such accidents (whatever it is) is what it is; saying it's got to be low because the kids are magical is pure speculation. We do know that children don't usually manifest magic during their first year, so at that point Lily and James did not actually know for certain that Harry *was* magical, so it's a moot point anyway.
The point about safety cushions on brooms is an assumption. There is nothing denying it in the books (absence of evidence), but nothing supporting it either (no evidence either way). So you are defending a canon incident on the basis of an assumption that is allowed but not necessary and which not everyone feels comfortable making. Probably we're all going to have to agree to disagree, since we're arguing on the level of assumptions each is making instead only on textual evidence.
Re: Pearlette to Duj