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.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
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 . . .
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Fleur Delacour -- Token Female?
While Hermione constantly reminds us that females can be strong and powerful, Fleur Delacour obliterates this message in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
When she is chosen by the Goblet of Fire to be a champion for her school, the reader (especially if they are girls) might get excited because there is a girl competing against the boys and she could possibly win. As it turns out, however, Fleur's only strength is her beauty.
First Task - The Dragons
While we do not have details about how she fared against the dragon, she was able to collect the golden egg. When we hear about the ranking at the Third Task, we are left to assume that Fleur, being in last place, did not do very well in this task.
Second Task - The Lake
Despite working out the clue from the egg and successfully using the Bubble-Head charm, Fleur gets attacked and isn't strong enough to fight back against them, so she is brought up to the surface and disqualified.
Even worse, in the movie, Harry also comes across some grindylows and uses his wand to blast them far enough away that he can escape and complete the task. Where was Fleur's wand? Why didn't she find a way to fight back, especially since she is several years older and has more magical knowledge then Harry?
Pathetic.
Third Task - The Maze
Through no fault of her own, Fleur is also disqualified from this task as well due to Krum cursing her. But, once again, we hate to ask -- why didn't she fight back?
Also, in the movie, we see her running through the maze, clearly distressed and afraid. The boys, however, though possibly nervous, seem to be holding themselves together quite well as they navigate towards the Triwzard Cup.
So . . . why was Fleur competing when she clearly is outmatched by all her male competitors, including Harry who is significantly younger and less prepared than her?
I propose that Fleur was only there because Rowling found it necessary to have a girl character compete in the Tournament so that she wouldn't be labeled as an anti-feminist. But, really, making Fleur lose every task can arguably be used as proof that Rowling is anti-feminist because all she is is just another pretty face.
In the end, Hermione gets to be smart because she is plain looking and Fleur exists only to be a beautiful girl who somehow, by a miracle of God, became a Triwizard Champion.
When she is chosen by the Goblet of Fire to be a champion for her school, the reader (especially if they are girls) might get excited because there is a girl competing against the boys and she could possibly win. As it turns out, however, Fleur's only strength is her beauty.
First Task - The Dragons
While we do not have details about how she fared against the dragon, she was able to collect the golden egg. When we hear about the ranking at the Third Task, we are left to assume that Fleur, being in last place, did not do very well in this task.
Second Task - The Lake
Despite working out the clue from the egg and successfully using the Bubble-Head charm, Fleur gets attacked and isn't strong enough to fight back against them, so she is brought up to the surface and disqualified.
Even worse, in the movie, Harry also comes across some grindylows and uses his wand to blast them far enough away that he can escape and complete the task. Where was Fleur's wand? Why didn't she find a way to fight back, especially since she is several years older and has more magical knowledge then Harry?
Pathetic.
Third Task - The Maze
Through no fault of her own, Fleur is also disqualified from this task as well due to Krum cursing her. But, once again, we hate to ask -- why didn't she fight back?
Also, in the movie, we see her running through the maze, clearly distressed and afraid. The boys, however, though possibly nervous, seem to be holding themselves together quite well as they navigate towards the Triwzard Cup.
So . . . why was Fleur competing when she clearly is outmatched by all her male competitors, including Harry who is significantly younger and less prepared than her?
I propose that Fleur was only there because Rowling found it necessary to have a girl character compete in the Tournament so that she wouldn't be labeled as an anti-feminist. But, really, making Fleur lose every task can arguably be used as proof that Rowling is anti-feminist because all she is is just another pretty face.
In the end, Hermione gets to be smart because she is plain looking and Fleur exists only to be a beautiful girl who somehow, by a miracle of God, became a Triwizard Champion.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Mommy Dearest . . .
When reading/watching Harry Potter, the two moms that come to mind are Lily Potter and Molly Weasley.
Lily -- the mother who willingly die to protect her son when she was given the option of escaping to live on (supposedly. This is Voldemort we're talking about . . . )
Molly -- the mother who had more children than anyone else in the series, but had enough love for her six sons and one daughter as well as Harry and Hermione, even before they married into the family.
Both of these women are to be admired as strong, good mothers.
. . . But what about Narcissa Malfoy? Just because she is a Malfoy serving Voldemort (possibly only under the influence of her husband) doesn't mean she is an evil or bad mother.
Lets look at the evidence:
1. She disobeys Voldemort's direct orders to protect her son in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. She appeals to Snape, knowing that she could be punished or killed for speaking about the plan, so that Draco will not die in his attempt to kill Dumbledore so that he won't die.
2. In the same book, she defends Draco at Madame Malkins. She may have been snooty and rude, but it was all for Draco's benefit and protection.
3. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, she is the one to check if Harry was dead or not. She pronounced Harry as being dead because he was able to tell her Draco was still alive in the castle. We have to question what she would have done if Harry said Draco was dead, but that is not the point. The point is that the question was asked out of concern for Draco.
4. In the movie (Part Two), Draco seems to be debating on whether or not to walk over to the Death Eaters. When Lucius pleaded him to join their side again, Draco remained still. It wasn't until his mother called gently and offered her hand out to him that he crossed to the other side. This could be because Draco loves his mother more than his father, but logically, that reason is because Narcissa is a good mother who knows how to take care of and speak to her son. Then, she takes Draco by the hand and ditches all the Death Eaters because she never cared for the war or Voldemort; her dedication was to Draco alone. Of course, Lucius ends up leaving with them, he does it looking over his shoulder to make sure he wouldn't be killed for leaving; Narcissa, on the other hand, never turns back. She was able to remove her son from danger and that's all that mattered to her.
I feel like quoting Wreck-It Ralph -- "Just because you're a Bad Guy doesn't mean you are a bad guy."
Just because your family serves Voldemort doesn't mean you are a bad person or Death Eater. Either way, Narcissa is still a good mother, Death Eater or not, because being a Death Eater has nothing to do with the kind of mother you are and Narcissa is a good mother.
Lily -- the mother who willingly die to protect her son when she was given the option of escaping to live on (supposedly. This is Voldemort we're talking about . . . )
Molly -- the mother who had more children than anyone else in the series, but had enough love for her six sons and one daughter as well as Harry and Hermione, even before they married into the family.
Both of these women are to be admired as strong, good mothers.
. . . But what about Narcissa Malfoy? Just because she is a Malfoy serving Voldemort (possibly only under the influence of her husband) doesn't mean she is an evil or bad mother.
Lets look at the evidence:
1. She disobeys Voldemort's direct orders to protect her son in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. She appeals to Snape, knowing that she could be punished or killed for speaking about the plan, so that Draco will not die in his attempt to kill Dumbledore so that he won't die.
2. In the same book, she defends Draco at Madame Malkins. She may have been snooty and rude, but it was all for Draco's benefit and protection.
3. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, she is the one to check if Harry was dead or not. She pronounced Harry as being dead because he was able to tell her Draco was still alive in the castle. We have to question what she would have done if Harry said Draco was dead, but that is not the point. The point is that the question was asked out of concern for Draco.
4. In the movie (Part Two), Draco seems to be debating on whether or not to walk over to the Death Eaters. When Lucius pleaded him to join their side again, Draco remained still. It wasn't until his mother called gently and offered her hand out to him that he crossed to the other side. This could be because Draco loves his mother more than his father, but logically, that reason is because Narcissa is a good mother who knows how to take care of and speak to her son. Then, she takes Draco by the hand and ditches all the Death Eaters because she never cared for the war or Voldemort; her dedication was to Draco alone. Of course, Lucius ends up leaving with them, he does it looking over his shoulder to make sure he wouldn't be killed for leaving; Narcissa, on the other hand, never turns back. She was able to remove her son from danger and that's all that mattered to her.
I feel like quoting Wreck-It Ralph -- "Just because you're a Bad Guy doesn't mean you are a bad guy."
Just because your family serves Voldemort doesn't mean you are a bad person or Death Eater. Either way, Narcissa is still a good mother, Death Eater or not, because being a Death Eater has nothing to do with the kind of mother you are and Narcissa is a good mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)