Okay.
This isn't going to be a long, thought out post. It's more of a question.
Of course, we all remember (and probably cried) when we found out that Fred Weasley died. Some of us even set the book down for a while to grieve.
Its perfectly understandable.
What about the Patils?
According to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, one of them dies. There is no other explanation for one Patil being comforted by Trelawney because "she" is gone.
Here's the problem . . .
I've read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at least 20 times. I have searched the last few chapters at least twice that many times, but couldn't find any reference to either Padma or Parvati dying.
Does anyone out there have information on this because it's driving me nuts not knowing.
Please help.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Whose Wand Is It Anyway?
alrighty . . .
Jumping into the Deathly Hallows . . . one in particular -- the Elder Wand.
A friend and I argued about the Elder Wand and whether or not the wand exists given the confusion of Elder Wand Mastery in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
She ended up winning because I couldn't figure out how to phrase my views. I've been thinking about it ever since and I've finally found my words.
So here we go . . .
At the time, it sounded like I didn't believe the wand existed at all. Instead, the right of Mastery is passed down to people and there is no official, tangible Elder Wand in existence . . .
but that's not what I was trying to say.
I acknowledge that the wand exists and truly is the most powerful wand in the world BUT you don't need the wand to be master.
As we all know . . .
Draco never touched the Elder Wand in his life, but the Elder Wand aligned itself to him anyway. Therefore, the power of the Elder Wand was given to Draco.
In that same fashion, Harry stole Draco's unremarkable wand and earned Mastery of the wand at Malfoy Manor.
Again . . . this is stuff we already know.
The confusing part is what happens from this point. I am probably weird and odd in my thinking, but here it goes anyway.
Draco doesn't touch the Elder Wand, but he has mastered it, therefore Draco's wand is the new Elder Wand.
In taking Draco's wand, Harry becomes master of the Elder Wand.
Also, the actual Elder Wand never works for Voldemort. It's power comes solely from Voldemort, a great wizard. So, wouldn't Voldemort need Draco's wand to be master?
I know I'm crazy -- In the book, Harry puts the wand back with Dumbledore. In the movie, Harry breaks the wand in half.
Meaning that there MUST be a tangible wand, but the mastery doesn't necessary rely purely on ownership of the wand.
Does that make any sense at all? Or have I honestly lost my mind?
Thoughts?
Jumping into the Deathly Hallows . . . one in particular -- the Elder Wand.
A friend and I argued about the Elder Wand and whether or not the wand exists given the confusion of Elder Wand Mastery in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
She ended up winning because I couldn't figure out how to phrase my views. I've been thinking about it ever since and I've finally found my words.
So here we go . . .
At the time, it sounded like I didn't believe the wand existed at all. Instead, the right of Mastery is passed down to people and there is no official, tangible Elder Wand in existence . . .
but that's not what I was trying to say.
I acknowledge that the wand exists and truly is the most powerful wand in the world BUT you don't need the wand to be master.
As we all know . . .
Draco never touched the Elder Wand in his life, but the Elder Wand aligned itself to him anyway. Therefore, the power of the Elder Wand was given to Draco.
In that same fashion, Harry stole Draco's unremarkable wand and earned Mastery of the wand at Malfoy Manor.
Again . . . this is stuff we already know.
The confusing part is what happens from this point. I am probably weird and odd in my thinking, but here it goes anyway.
Draco doesn't touch the Elder Wand, but he has mastered it, therefore Draco's wand is the new Elder Wand.
In taking Draco's wand, Harry becomes master of the Elder Wand.
Also, the actual Elder Wand never works for Voldemort. It's power comes solely from Voldemort, a great wizard. So, wouldn't Voldemort need Draco's wand to be master?
I know I'm crazy -- In the book, Harry puts the wand back with Dumbledore. In the movie, Harry breaks the wand in half.
Meaning that there MUST be a tangible wand, but the mastery doesn't necessary rely purely on ownership of the wand.
Does that make any sense at all? Or have I honestly lost my mind?
Thoughts?
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Cedric and the Priori Incantatum *Corrected and Updated*
One of the most important and anticipated scenes in the Harry Potter series happens in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire when Voldemort gets his body back and fights Harry once more.
We're all wrapped up into the story, after all, Voldemort is back alive and well in a new body. Furthermore, Harry has to duel Voldemort to escape. In doing so, Priori Incantatum came into effect, thus giving Harry enough time to take Cedric's body and the Triwizard Cup back to Hogwarts.
It's a very powerful and important scene and the movie brings Rowling's words to life perfectly.
So all should be fine, right?
Yeah . . . no.
Does anyone else see the problem with this scene?
Bear in mind, I am not referring to the bloop appearing in the first edition of the book where James appears first instead of Lily, opening a plot hole because James died first.
Still don't know what the problem is?
Lets look at the shades/ghost-like people coming out of Voldemort's wand during the Priori Incantatum. Cedric Diggory, Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Lily Potter, and finally James Potter.
BUT one of these things is not like the other.
While Cedric died in the graveyard, Voldemort didn't kill him; Wormtail did. So, unless Wormtail was using Voldemort's wand at the time, Cedric should never have appeared from Voldemort's wand.
The only thing to do is to ask why. Perhaps Cedric appeared only to ask Harry to take his body back to his father?
But if that's the case, Rowling could have written that Harry grabbed Cedric's body and used the portkey -- it fits well within his personality, especially given the Second Task where he waited to make sure that everyone was rescued.
So why? Why did Rowling choose to write the scene the way it is when it could be confusing as to who killed Cedric Diggory?
Thoughts, anyone?
A friend pointed out the error I made in this post and I apologize for any confusion that caused.
Anyhow, she did make a point. Wormtail could have been using Voldemort's wand when he killed Cedric, thus tying up this problematic plot hole.
We're all wrapped up into the story, after all, Voldemort is back alive and well in a new body. Furthermore, Harry has to duel Voldemort to escape. In doing so, Priori Incantatum came into effect, thus giving Harry enough time to take Cedric's body and the Triwizard Cup back to Hogwarts.
It's a very powerful and important scene and the movie brings Rowling's words to life perfectly.
So all should be fine, right?
Yeah . . . no.
Does anyone else see the problem with this scene?
Bear in mind, I am not referring to the bloop appearing in the first edition of the book where James appears first instead of Lily, opening a plot hole because James died first.
Still don't know what the problem is?
Lets look at the shades/ghost-like people coming out of Voldemort's wand during the Priori Incantatum. Cedric Diggory, Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Lily Potter, and finally James Potter.
BUT one of these things is not like the other.
While Cedric died in the graveyard, Voldemort didn't kill him; Wormtail did. So, unless Wormtail was using Voldemort's wand at the time, Cedric should never have appeared from Voldemort's wand.
The only thing to do is to ask why. Perhaps Cedric appeared only to ask Harry to take his body back to his father?
But if that's the case, Rowling could have written that Harry grabbed Cedric's body and used the portkey -- it fits well within his personality, especially given the Second Task where he waited to make sure that everyone was rescued.
So why? Why did Rowling choose to write the scene the way it is when it could be confusing as to who killed Cedric Diggory?
Thoughts, anyone?
A friend pointed out the error I made in this post and I apologize for any confusion that caused.
Anyhow, she did make a point. Wormtail could have been using Voldemort's wand when he killed Cedric, thus tying up this problematic plot hole.
Book Review(s): Baptizing Harry Potter into Spirituality
Baptizing Harry Potter: A Christian Reading of J.K. Rowling by Luke Bell
Once more, this is another book about combining Harry Potter and Christianityc-- the one topic written most about when discussing Harry Potter. Luke Bell is just bringing his own ideas into the equation.
Bell drives straight into his exploration by discussing the series' structure; going beyond the things we understand, such as Heaven; good and evil; life and death; power and weakness; love and sacrifice; freedom and determination; truth; and purity of heart.
Bell is successful at intelligently evaluating and explaining these topics to their fullest. It was well-thought out and engaging.
I loved it.
A Charmed Life: the Spirituality of Potterworld by Francis Bridger
Bridger's book falls neatly in line with Bell's book.
It was enjoyable.
**sorry for the lame review. I read these a while back.
Once more, this is another book about combining Harry Potter and Christianityc-- the one topic written most about when discussing Harry Potter. Luke Bell is just bringing his own ideas into the equation.
Bell drives straight into his exploration by discussing the series' structure; going beyond the things we understand, such as Heaven; good and evil; life and death; power and weakness; love and sacrifice; freedom and determination; truth; and purity of heart.
Bell is successful at intelligently evaluating and explaining these topics to their fullest. It was well-thought out and engaging.
I loved it.
A Charmed Life: the Spirituality of Potterworld by Francis Bridger
Bridger's book falls neatly in line with Bell's book.
It was enjoyable.
**sorry for the lame review. I read these a while back.
Book Revirew: Fact, Fiction, and Folklore
Fact, Fiction, and Folklore in Harry Potter's World: An Unofficial Guide by George Beahm
It's definitely a guide. Like one of those guides you pick up when you're traveling to another state or country.
First, Beahm picks out all of the Beasts/Critters, the important Wizards , Magical Objects, and Enchanting Places mentioned in the series.
He then defines and explains each item in the book much like an encyclopedia.
Good for reference, but not much else.
It's definitely a guide. Like one of those guides you pick up when you're traveling to another state or country.
First, Beahm picks out all of the Beasts/Critters, the important Wizards , Magical Objects, and Enchanting Places mentioned in the series.
He then defines and explains each item in the book much like an encyclopedia.
Good for reference, but not much else.
Book Review: Muggles and Magic
Muggles and Magic: an Unofficial Guide to J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter Phenomenon (Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition) by George Beahm
In this book, Beahm makes it his mission to unravel the mystery of Rowling's series by looking at her life; her life as a writer; Harry Potter in films (through Goblet of Fire); Harry Potter books (through Half-Blood Prince);a transcription of a reading featuring Rowling, Stephen King, and John Irving in 2006; and various Harry Potter websites.
All in all, the book is very informative and offers up a similar foundational background to the one provided in Anelli's Harry: A History.
What really makes this book stand out is the photos taken at various Harry Potter conferences around the world.
Even having read Anelli's work, Beahm's book is still enjoyable. I would definitely recommend reading it.
In this book, Beahm makes it his mission to unravel the mystery of Rowling's series by looking at her life; her life as a writer; Harry Potter in films (through Goblet of Fire); Harry Potter books (through Half-Blood Prince);a transcription of a reading featuring Rowling, Stephen King, and John Irving in 2006; and various Harry Potter websites.
All in all, the book is very informative and offers up a similar foundational background to the one provided in Anelli's Harry: A History.
What really makes this book stand out is the photos taken at various Harry Potter conferences around the world.
Even having read Anelli's work, Beahm's book is still enjoyable. I would definitely recommend reading it.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Thestrals -- Why Didn't Harry See Them Until Cedric's Death?
Okay.
The first time Harry is recorded as seeing the thestrals pulling the carts is in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix after witnessing the death of Cedric Diggory.
I have no problem with this by any means. Cedric died and Harry saw it happen, thus he can see thestrals right now. It makes perfect sense.
HOWEVER, this is not the first time Harry saw death.
In both the book and the movie, it appears that baby Harry watched Voldemort kill his mother.
In the books, Voldemort showed up just as Lily was putting Harry to bed. James ordered her to take Harry and run upstairs to hide just before being hit by the Avada Kedavra curse. Lily runs upstairs, lays Harry in the crib, and is immediately hit by the killing curse as well. There is no time for Harry to fall asleep between his parents' deaths. Furthermore, Hagrid says that Harry fell asleep on the trip to Privet Drive, implying that Harry was awake when Hagrid picked him up.
In the movie, the scene is portrayed the same way. We see Harry in his crib standing up, watching his mother die in front of him as she protected him from Voldemort.
So what the heck?
Of course he couldn't have seen the thestrals in Sorcerer's Stone (on boat) or in Chamber of Secrets (flying the car into the Whomping Willow), but what about the carriage rides in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire? Why couldn't he see the thestrals those years?
Even Neville has the same problem. He saw his grandfather die, but the scene in Order of the Phoenix implies that he couldn't see them either.
Seriously, what is going on?
The only explanation I can think of is that the thestrals are ignored until this point to introduce Luna Lovegood -- the strange, odd girl who can see and believe in things that no one else does. When Harry starts asking about them, she tells him that he isn't mad because she can see them too. "You're just as sane as I am."
This plays into the attitude of Order of the Phoenix. Is Harry crazy like the Daily Prophet insinuates? After all, he's seeing what Luna does and Luna's nickname is "Loony Lovegood." Thus, one may guess that Harry is losing his mind as well.
But is waiting until Order of the Phoenix and Luna for the thestrals to appear worth a possible plot hole within the series?
I'm just not sure . . .
The first time Harry is recorded as seeing the thestrals pulling the carts is in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix after witnessing the death of Cedric Diggory.
I have no problem with this by any means. Cedric died and Harry saw it happen, thus he can see thestrals right now. It makes perfect sense.
HOWEVER, this is not the first time Harry saw death.
In both the book and the movie, it appears that baby Harry watched Voldemort kill his mother.
In the books, Voldemort showed up just as Lily was putting Harry to bed. James ordered her to take Harry and run upstairs to hide just before being hit by the Avada Kedavra curse. Lily runs upstairs, lays Harry in the crib, and is immediately hit by the killing curse as well. There is no time for Harry to fall asleep between his parents' deaths. Furthermore, Hagrid says that Harry fell asleep on the trip to Privet Drive, implying that Harry was awake when Hagrid picked him up.
In the movie, the scene is portrayed the same way. We see Harry in his crib standing up, watching his mother die in front of him as she protected him from Voldemort.
So what the heck?
Of course he couldn't have seen the thestrals in Sorcerer's Stone (on boat) or in Chamber of Secrets (flying the car into the Whomping Willow), but what about the carriage rides in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire? Why couldn't he see the thestrals those years?
Even Neville has the same problem. He saw his grandfather die, but the scene in Order of the Phoenix implies that he couldn't see them either.
Seriously, what is going on?
The only explanation I can think of is that the thestrals are ignored until this point to introduce Luna Lovegood -- the strange, odd girl who can see and believe in things that no one else does. When Harry starts asking about them, she tells him that he isn't mad because she can see them too. "You're just as sane as I am."
This plays into the attitude of Order of the Phoenix. Is Harry crazy like the Daily Prophet insinuates? After all, he's seeing what Luna does and Luna's nickname is "Loony Lovegood." Thus, one may guess that Harry is losing his mind as well.
But is waiting until Order of the Phoenix and Luna for the thestrals to appear worth a possible plot hole within the series?
I'm just not sure . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)