How did Fred and George know how to use the Marauders Map? They were most likely magically gifted to figure out what kind of enchantments that had been applied to it, thus figuring out exactly how it works. They possibly were able to recognize it's potential when the first laid eyes on it
That also brings up another question How did Snape not know what it is? Most likely he knew it was more than an ordinary piece of paper and it's doubtful that he bought Lupin's exclamation that it was a Zonko's product. Given enough time he would have likely figured out how to use it.
Rowling has said that James Sirius Potter eventually took it from Harry's desk at home. Most likely he had heard about it and knew how it worked which seems most likely why he took it in the first place or Harry simply told him how to use it after he discovered that James had taken it also He might have also recognized it that same way Fred and George did when that first found it.
Later in the series, the book actually communicates with somebody. Fred and George probably found it and managed to convince it to tell them the password. They are the perfect candidates, after all.
The page of wand wood lore just adds a whole slew of this. For instance, Holly wands often choose wizards engaged in dangerous or spiritual quests.
Beware, lots of unmarked horcrux spoilers to follow: The inconsistency of Harry's scar always bugged me. He's glimpsing Voldemort's plans from a distance in book four when the only thing that happens in book one is some pain? Not to mention book seven, where it steadily gets harder for even Voldemort to block the connection, to the point where Harry only has to close his eyes during the final battle to view what Voldemort's doing, as opposed to book five where it only happened when Harry was asleep. Then I realized that the strength of the connection corresponds with the destruction of the horcruxes! Think about it:
Book One: Harry only feels minor pain when in close proximity to Voldemort.
Book Two: Tom Riddle's diary is destroyed, strengthening the connection.
Book Four/Five: Harry can now glimpse Voldemort's thoughts and actions while asleep. Voldemort can send false messages, but in the end starts employing Occlumency to block Harry out.
Book Six: Another horcrux is destroyed.
Book Seven: Voldemort can't block Harry out of his mind out anymore. Harry now glimpses Voldemort's and even memories while awake, though only when Voldemort's feeling strong emotions. The locket and the cup are destroyed, and during the final battle all Harry has to do to activate Voldy-vision is basically just close his eyes. Voldemort is completely unaware of this, and has no control over it. This suggests that as the horcruxes are destroyed, Harry's control over the connection gets stronger and Voldemort's gets weaker.
It's not just their control that's changing: previously Voldemort has been the more powerful wizard, but not only is he literally losing fragments of his soul, his reliance on the Horcruxes that still exist is growing AND he's doing more damage to the Elder Wand with every spell he casts, making his magic increasingly erratic. Harry, on the other hand, has been undergoing some pretty awesome Character Development to become a cool-headed, mature wizard who chooses to open the connection, rather than having it forced on him.
In the first book, it's stated that Draco reminds Harry of Dudley. The comparison makes sense - both kids are heartless, spoiled-brat bullies with lackeys who verbally and physically abuse everyone and get away with it. But as the series commences, the parallels end up going further than that. Both get just barely redeemed and turn out to not be all bad. Both have mothers who turn out to truly care about them and not be all bad themselves (each of them has issues with her sister). Neither Draco nor Dudley's fathers get redeemed at all. The difference? The Dursleys (mostly Vernon) are intent on remaining a hundred-percent muggle, not acknowledging the magical world in the slightest, and they hate all wizards and regard them as freaks. The Malfoys (mostly Lucius) want to kill off all the Mudbloods, whom they regard as utterly worthless, and place wizards in control. The families are perfect mirror images of one another, but on opposing sides.
Adding to this, we can infer that both Lucius and Vernon are more similar than either would care to admit. After all, they are both shown (Vernon with the gun, as mentioned above, and Lucius throughout Book 7) to have the same single redeeming quality: their love for their families.
It used to really bother me how awful the "Dursley" sections of each book were, compared to the chapters in-between. The Dursleys seemed to me to be underdeveloped, derivative, irritating, and ridiculously lacking in redeeming qualities. I wondered why J.K. couldn't have made them slightly more sympathetic—or at least cranked their villainy up into so that they'd be delicious, fascinating, shudder-worthy "love-to-hate" types. But then I realized: these are people who have spent their whole lives struggling to be boring. And it's working very well. Harry feels just the same way we do.
Along the same line, the painfulness of those chapters make you ache for Harry's return to Hogwarts just as much as Harry himself is surely feeling.
Neville spent the best part of six years being told that he wasn't brave enough to belong in Gryffindor, and we know it hit home. We also know that Godric Gryffindor's sword presents itself to any member of its House it views as worthy of receiving it, going with Dumbledore's statement that "help will always be given at Hogwarts to those that need/deserve it". During the first part of Book Seven Neville becomes the leader of an underground resistance against the Death Eaters, taking several level in badass as he goes: this basically involves him standing up to Snape - the man whose form his Boggart used to take (i.e. his greatest fear). He then proceeds to talk down VOLDEMORT HIMSELF and fight half of the Battle of Hogwarts armed with only a sword. To reiterate - he pretty much brought a knife to a gunfight, albeit a magical one. The Fridge Brilliance comes in when you remember him standing up to the Trio back in Book One, and realise that Neville has been so brave, and so deserving of the Sword, all along.
"It's the quote from Dumbledore that it "shows great courage to stand up to our friends and not just our enemies" that is also evidence to him always being brave. Not to mention that that's exactly what Dumbledore felt he hadn't been able to do in regards to Grindelwald.
Hermione's parents are dentists. They fix people's teeth, fixing a part of their faces. In book 1, Hermione fixes Harry's glasses, and in book 7, she disguises him by disfiguring his face with a Stinging Jinx. Her cat Crookshanks has a squashed looking face. Also, remember it's Hermione who masterminded the effort to make the polyjuice potion in book 2, which changes how people's faces look, as well as the rest of them.
Hermione changes Harry's glasses in the first movie, not the first book.
People have said its illogical for Arthur to be perplexed by Muggle money when it uses a base ten system, as opposed to their nonsensical denominations. As anyone who's ever tried to explain metric to an American can tell you, this is nowhere near the case.
It's not so much that we're perplexed, but that, 1) some people have difficulty remembering all the prefixes (especially those which have similar sounds), or 2) we have no immediate frame of reference, as opposed to Imperial, which we grow up with and for which we constantly find new references. A better explanation I've heard is that he wouldn't be familiar with the pound sign, and that could confuse him in that it can be seen as a very fancy five.
Headscratchers has an entry asking why Dumbledore never gave Snape an attitude adjustment, despite the fact that he very obviously needed one. JKR said it's because Dumbledore believes "that people in authority aren't always good" is a lesson the students have to learn. That's not the brilliant part; the brilliance comes in when you realize that every single book has featured at least one person at Hogwarts far, far worse than Severus Snape. First year, there was Quirrel, who has Tom Riddle stuck to the back of his head. Second year, we have Lockhart, an arrogant buffoon who can't teach at all (say whatever you want about Snape, he is at least more competent than Lockheart). Third year, we get introduced to the man who actually sold the Potters to Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew, a true coward and murderer. Year four has Karkaroff (coward) and Fake Moody, plus Cornelius Fudge, who refused to believe that Voldemort was back. Year Five: Umbridge's period of misrule, 'nuff said. Year six, Draco Malfoy joined the Death Eaters and cooked up at least two Russian Roulette-esque plans to kill Dumbledore, which nearly resulted in the deaths of Katie Bell and Ron Weasley. Oh, and he let other Death Eaters, like Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback, into the castle, too. Draco, ya little shit! And in Year Seven, the Carrows become the Muggle Studies and Dark Arts teachers, while Snape is made Headmaster and actually spends all of his time and energy making sure the Carrows can't torture and kill the students who defy them, and at the end of the book, Lord Voldemort himself enters Hogwarts. I bow to the brilliance. -TenderLumpling
Resident Slytherin Libby Pansy Parkinson is always described as being "pug-faced" by Harry in the books. Pugs are a kind of dog. In other words, Pansy Parkinson has a bitchy face! -Aether Master
Possibly unintentional but Pansy Parkinson is also a pure-blood and British pugs are so inbred that the 10,000 in the UK have the gene pool of only 50 indiviuals.
It always seemed like some what weak writing that Harry never showed any curiosity about his family or the wider wizarding world, requiring Hermione to explain everything to him (and us) at every turn. I just accepted that Harry wasn't too bright until I remembered that the Dursleys spent a decade beating any curiosity out of him and never answered his questions honestly. He's not dumb, he just still hasn't gotten over that part of his horrible childhood, poor kid. -Math Camel
Also, the Dursleys were very authoritarian, and Hermione is pretty authoritative.
Voldemort's NAME, for heaven's sake. In French, "vol-" means "escape," "-de-" means "from" and "-mort" means "death." His entire name is a mashup of the phrase "escape from death." — gravedancer121
In Latin, "vol" means "wish", "de" means "of", and "mort" means "death". So in Latin, Voldemort with "death wisher" or "one who wishes death". Tie that in with the French translation meaning "escape from death", and J.K. Rowling is a genius on so many levels.
"Vol" can also mean "flight." This troper always thought the name meant "flight of death" and was just a really Badass sounding name. But this is just so much cooler!
"Vol" can be thief, or theft, too; both stealing from death, and stealing death itself. You can really tell J.K. Rowling was a languages scholar.
Not to mention that "I Am Lord Voldemort" fits neatly into the anagram "Tom Marvolo Riddle", with a last name that explicitly states the significance of the name - it's a riddle! The woman is a genius!
In every book, at least one person mentions that Harry looks incredibly like his father, but has his mother's eyes. Dumbledore comments that while looking like his father, he is more like his mother in his heart. I realized that this proved true the old saying: The eyes are windows to the soul.
It bugged me (and it bugs a lot of Tropers) that Slytherin House is painted as almost unequivocally evil, but then it hit me: That's not bad writing, that's BRILLIANT writing! See, we're explicitly told that Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw are the "good" houses, so we just expect that anyone from those houses will do the right thing. Slytherin, on the other hand, has a reputation for churning out Dark witches and wizards like a machine, so we just expect anyone from that house to be evil. So when a Slytherin does something noble (i.e., Regulus Black stealing one of Voldemort's Horcruxes to try and destroy it) and a Gryffindor/Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff does something horrible (i.e., Peter Pettigrew turning James and Lily over to Voldemort), it's that much more of a shock. It's proof of Dumbledore's statement: "It is not our abilities, but our choices, that determine who we really are." -Tender Lumpling
I think it's more because we're reading the books from Harry's point of view. Gryffindor and Slytherin are rivals - Harry never takes the time to get to know any of the Slytherins, whereas he meets both nice (Cho Chang, Luna Lovegood, Ernie MacMillan) and not-so-nice (Marietta Edgecomb, Zacharius Smith) people from both of the other houses. -calenloki
Also, once Slytherin got a reputation for being evil, anyone with other options stayed out of it, making it a vicious cycle- only those who are evil or wouldn't mind evil get in. -clcnova
This made Harry's words of comfort to Albus Severus (who is worried about being put in Slytherin) even more powerful. He's not just acknowledging that Snape is a brilliant man, but is showing that he has finally grown up and no longer sees good and evil as black and white (i.e. Gryffindor = Good, Slytherin = Bad).
IMO, this more generally comes from the Houses of Hogwarts and the traits they represent: Gryffindor = Courage, Hufflepuff = Loyalty, Ravenclaw = Intellect, Slyhterin = Ambition. It occurred to me later that while all of these traits can be taken to extremes, the extremes most dangerous to other people are those of Slytherin (well, ambition, duh), with Hufflepuff (in terms of blind loyalty to the wrong people; yep, another oblique WWII reference) in second place. Excessive intellectualism is mostly just the ivory tower syndrome (detaching one from other people and the real world), while excessive courage is most dangerous to one's self (though of course other people can also get hurt that way). Perhaps that's why the Founder Slytherin left the school first, and why so many Slytherins became Death Eaters. -69BookWorM69
Exactly. It's not that they go bad because they're in Slytherin. It's that they're in Slytherin because of their personality - a personality that makes them more likely than average to go bad.
I would'nt be too quick to place Hufflepuff above Ravenclaw in terms of the negative sides of their attributes. One should probably remember those like Mengele and Unit 731 when they say that excessive intellectualism isn't really that bad. Excessive intellectualism can lead to lots of For Science! and Playing With Syringes moments.
It's worth noting, however, that the particularly Gryffindor sense of justice, when misplaced, can be dangerously righteous and inflexible. -magesa
And hold your horses there, people. Ambition isn't Slytherin's primary quality. If we are going by the Sorting Hat's first year song, the word he specifically uses to describe Slytherin is "cunning" and not ambition. So Gryffindors are supposed to be brave and chivalrous, Hufflepuffs are supposed to be loyal and just, Ravenclaws intelligent and witty and Slytherins cunning and ambitious.
In a Fridge Brilliance moment triggered by previous Fridge Brilliance moments, Slytherins are kids with personalities that makes them more likely to go bad, and they grow up surrounded by other kids with personalities that make them likely to go bad. They probably influence each other that way
I never thought that the whole Statue Of Secrecy-thing made sense. If Muggles can't use magic, it surely wouldn't hurt anyone if they tried? Then I remembered the interview where Jo said that Muggles couldn't use magic, but if they happened to pick up a recently used wand, it could suddenly "explode" with magic. I realized: A Muggle who had heard about magic would probably try to use it - I know I would. If a Muggle picked up a recently used wand, they could damage themselves and people around them. -Luna Avril
After I received the Unofficial Harry Potter Cookbook for Christmas, a friend of mine pointed out that a lot of the food they eat is pretty bad for you, and why aren't all the Hogwarts kids fat, anyway? And I jokingly said that maybe magic in the Potterverse is like magic in Slayers and burns a prodigious amount of calories. And then I realized that actually, there might be something to that. Those characters who are described as being a bit on the larger side (Hagrid, Goyle, Neville in the earlier books) are also shown to be rather bad at magic, and the two LEAST magical characters in the whole series are... Vernon and Dudley. Neville is also said to have slimmed down corresponding with his taking a level in badass. Since I don't think JK is intentionally a fat-basher, given what she's said on the subject, the only logical conclusion is Slayers-style magical calorie burning.
I don't think that Vernon and Dudley really count, since it's implied that magic is something genetic (Muggle-borns are either a mutation or have a recessive gene coming to the fore). Also, it's never said that Hagrid is bad at magic - he actually seems quite good at it, considering how he's able to make pumpkins swell to an incredible size, but as his wand is snapped and kept in an umbrella, it's not the most reliable tool. But that's actually quite an interesting theory - it would explain to some extent why wizards seem rather tired after doing a lot of magic. Not that it's actually ever stated; only possible to infer from the text. However, I must point out that Molly does a whole lot of magic around the house, practically everything she does right down to cooking utilises magic, and she's described as 'plump'. -chantililly
I agree with the Slayer-esce magic calarie burning. As to Molly Weasley being called 'plump', when a woman gives birth her hips get wider. You try having seven kids and see if you're as skinny as a 7th year.
I also have to disagree with this particular bit of logic, considering that Horace Slughorn, despite being introduced as an exceptionally powerful and talented wizard, is morbidly obese in the books and was even fat in his younger years. More appropriately, one could argue that the House Elves in Hogwarts doctor their food to be unnaturally healthy instead of arguing that only bad wizards are fat. After all, as Hagrid is half-giant, you have to exclude him, which leaves us only with Slughorn, Longbottom, Crabbe, and Goyle to look at. Slughorn became progressively huge after retiring from his first stint at Hogwarts (ergo no House Elf food), Longbottom is only moderately pudgy in his youth and can be seen more as shapeless than fat (which age and exercise would help overcome), and Crabbe/Goyle are total gluttons, thereby negating any positive benefit of House Elf food through sheer overeating. In shorter words, I believe it's the food itself that is healthy: not the competence of wizards that makes it so on an individual basis. -Bad Karma
Re above —Slughorn spends more of his time lolling on stuffed armchairs, eating candied pineapple and boasting about the shoulders he rubs than doing a whole lot of magic. And he's the Potions teacher, which requires mixing ingredients, not magic, so the theory can still apply.
Except Filch? Filch was completely unable to do magic and is nearly bones.
I always thought that the hundred and forty-two staircases that the students climbed daily helped work off most of those calories. That being said, it's kind of a wonder how people like Goyle and early Neville manage to maintain their heavyset frames for so many years...
Slightly related, but my friend once mentioned that JKR really gets into describing food in the books. During much of her time writing the first book, she was considerably poorer than she is now. Could the excessive descriptions of rich food have been wishful thinking?
The food mentioned in the book, as served at Hogwarts, can be seen as comfort food. Given that Harry was probably deprived of really nice food whilst living with the Dursleys (Dudley ate it all!), when he first arrives at Hogwarts, one of the first things he sees is a table laden with food. It shows how different his life is going to be. He's living in a very comfortable castle, sleeping in a four poster bed, and is able to eat really yummy food. So there may be some wishful thinking on the part of JKR. And remember, she wrote much of the first novel in a cafe. She was surrounded by food! No wonder it plays such a large part in the books.
Harry so seldom got to eat anything remotely fattening when he was growing up, it's also likely that he just notices whatever high-calorie foods are available more than any low-cal alternatives. If there's some wheat bread or apples on the table beside the cinnamon rolls and cherry pie, which ones are an undernourished kid more inclined to fixate upon?
A couple posters on a message board I frequent have mentioned the contemptible treatment of Muggles even by the best of the wizarding world. At best, Muggles are seen as sort of amusing children or even intelligent pets, but almost never are they seen as equals, or even remotely intelligent. (Another smaller Fridge Brilliance: The Muggle Prime Minister actually remarks on this in the sixth book, heavily disliking Fudge's condescending attitude each time he appears in the PM's office, despite the fact that he, Fudge, is not exactly competent himself.) I think those posters are presenting this attitude as a flaw in the writing, but if they are, I have to say I disagree. I think it's brilliant. It's a great cultural tidbit because it's so imperialistic. I think that the real-life Europe — and by extension Muggle Europe in HP — probably had this very same attitude towards the indigenous populations of the countries they colonized. So in that sense, one could argue that this plot device shows that Muggle culture and wizarding culture have that much more in common with each other — and neither group even realizes it. JK herself even said that Harry leaves the Muggle world and finds that the exact same problems exist in the wizarding world. It definitely shows that whatever wizards might think about Muggles, they're more connected to them than they know. -Maiira
Consider this, though: Wizards really are superior to Muggles. They can do magic. Further, this is a genetic trait. Unlike real-world imperialism, wizards really are genetically superior to us Muggles!
Considering how incompetent Wizards tend to behave in general, and also considering how, as several characters, remark, skills such as critical thinking and logic are tragically short in the Wizarding World, and finally, considering how Wizards at times seem to just behave like children with the technological advantages of 19th century Europe towards indigenous folk, one wonders how superior they really are.
Also, consider how magic has clearly held back any other kind of development. Most of their technology ranges from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. Their society remains positively medieval in several important respects, their education system is shockingly limited, and their government seems not only inept, but at points, positively oppressive. Wizards can't use cell phones, travel into space or use the internet. They certainly have abilities that muggles don't, but the question of superiority is hardly so clear.
I think it was said somewhere in the books that magic (or the wards around many wizard dwellings) can interfere with technology. Plus, if wizards were going around leaving records of their lives and where they live with telephone companies and things like that, it would be easier for death eaters or any other magical enemies, to find them. It's not like muggles could stop them from taking those records.
General Part 2
Cruciatus is the root for the word "Excruciating" — an appropriate adjective for the curse's effects.
Why do the Wizards live in castles, and write, eat, and dress as if they were living in the middle ages? Because they always had magic, so their world never needed to evolve technologically like ours did.
Doesn't explain why fashion didn't change, though. Technology is not the only factor that affects the evolution of fashion.
Only it did change. There is at least one instance where someone(namely, Ron) was forced to wear dress robes that were "centuries" out of style. I had never thought about the evolution of fashion before this, but that does demonstrate that fashion did change. Robes never went out of style, but the adornments of them changed often.
Which is of course just like in the Muggle world. While the fashions and designs of clothes may have changed greatly over the years, effectively we're all still wearing exactly the same 'trousers, shirt, shoes' combinations that our paleolithic ancestors wore. No matter how often the fashion world claims to have something 'entirely new' it's either never worn by anyone off the catwalk (except Lady Gaga), or is based on the same designs we've had for millenia.
Not only that, but Lupin explicitly states things go in and out of fashion - including jinxes. Magic isn't static either; Lupin again points out the Wolfsbane potion was a recent development. Fred and George created extendable ears (among other things), and the Marauders Map seems to have been a new concept. Sometimes it might take an eccentric (Arthur to enchant his Ford), a rebel (Sirus and his motorbike), or pranksters (Fred, George, Marauders) to innovate. Then there is Snape, who created new several new spells, and improved many existing potions (why he didn't market them is a real mystery).
The Pottermore explanation is that the Statute of Secrecy of 1692 forced Wizards into isolation from the Muggle World, which resulted in slow adaptability to Muggle technological changes.
Who says wizards live in castles? According to the books, wizards live in farm houses (the Weasleys), mansions (the Malfoys), suburban houses (Snape), over their businesses (Dumbledore's brother and the Weasley twins), in schools of unknown description (Beauxbatons and Durmstrang), and at least (and so far as we know for sure, only) one castle, Hogwarts. As for the robes, there are good reasons for this. Wizards separated their society from ours, and their styles diverged, robes are not necessarily more antique than pants (they might see us as dressing like 4th Century Germans, for example), they are naturally conservative since they live longer (multiple characters over 100 years old, including two probably over 125 and not including the owners of the Philosopher's Stone), and because the Wizarding World was largely anti-Muggle, being at the very least condescending to Muggles (Arthur Weasley) and often anti-Muggle (not just pureblood supremacists, but even characters like Fudge). The quills and other technologies are true, though, implying that wizards found it easier to enchant quills to make them better pens than to use ballpoint pens.
Every single character trait exhibited by Harry can be linked back to his time at the Dursleys: He's a good seeker because he was malnourished enough to be small and fast, and had gained excellent reflexes from constantly dodging their swings at him. He wants to protect and help others, because no-one helped him. He hates bullies, like Malfoy, because he was bullied. He doesn't try at school, because he was never encouraged at home, and in fact, was probably punished if he did better than Dudley. And so on.
Many, but probably not all. There is his capacity for love, for example, which is more due to his parents than due to the Dursleys.
Fridge logic and fridge horror on this one; Okay, so Voldemort's madness was because his parents were only together due to a love potion. What does that say about every wizarding child by rape, arranged marriage or one-night-stand? Marrying for love is a pretty new concept, and that aside there must be a reason love potions were invented. Holy shit . . .
Actually he became evil because 1) he was convinced he's special, and better than anyone else and 2) he was convinced that it's only natural for an exceptional person like him to overcome death.
JKR said that he is incapable of love because he was conceived via a love potion.
Not because, it's symbolic of. HP is all about choices.
She didn't "run off" with him though; she kidnapped and raped him while he was under the influence of the love potion she forced on him. And then when he was free of the potion, he immediately left her...and Tom.
There is no indication that his madness was *directly* a result of his parents not loving each other. It is partially, but not fully, because they didn't love *him*, and because he grew up in an orphanage where little or no love was given him, which is something that tends to cause people to have problems with their emotional development. However, there were quite a number of other factors, such as genetics and his having far more power as a child than even normal wizards.
Films-only, and possibly accidental. In the last film, Voldemort, Bellatrix, and Nagini all die and shatter into small pieces. With Bellatrix that's because of the weird... liquid nitrogen spell that Molly Weasley used. With Nagini and Voldemort, it could call back to the very first movie. Remember Quirrel when he touched Harry. Instead of burning, like in the books, Quirrel actually crumbled into ash, piece by piece. Scary, yes, but if that's a deliberate callback, that's pretty cool.
If it is films-only, it should probably be listed under films, not literature.
Why is Professor Snape so immediately and profoundly averse to Harry Potter? Along with the more obvious reasons given in the text, Snape might be reacting to the presence of a fragment of Voldemort's soul inside of Potter.
Snape loved Lily, and she didn't return those feelings. As said in the mortal instruments series: Love can turn to hate easily. Snape held resentment towards Lily. No matter how much he loved her, he had to live with the fact that she chose his enemy over him, that she denounced him as her best friend, and he must hate himself quite a bit because he thinks that if he had gotten her instead of James, she would still be alive. It's said Harry has his mothers eyes- it must kill Snape to look at Harry and see the resemblance.
There's also the fact that he probably blames himself for the end of their friendship, since he called her a mudblood when she was only trying to help him. Which, of course, could have inadvertently lead to her getting closer to James - if she wasn't friends with Snape anymore, she wouldn't see James bullying him anymore (since Sirius admitted that James still picked on Snape, just not in front of Lily).
Look at the cover of Philosopher/Sorcerer's Stone. Look at the cover of Deathly Hallows. Stone has a sunset in the background. DH has a sunrise in the background. Symbolically, you'd think it should be the other way around, until you realize every end is a beginning and vice-versa. The end of the Marauders is the beginning of Harry Potter. The end of his story is a new beginning for the wizarding world.
"I open at the close"
Another way to take this bit of symbolism is that the series, metaphorically, is a descent into the dark of night (Voldemort's second reign). Harry going to school in the first book means that the prophecies (etc.) about Voldemort and Harry are going to come true, soon, and so the 'day' that happened after Voldemort's first reign of terror was ending. As others have mentioned, the artwork gets progressively darker, until things are "darkest before the dawn", like in the sixth book when Death Eaters have killed Dumbledore and are actively taking over the Ministry. Finally, in DH, the long night of Voldemort is over, and so the cover shows the dawning of a new, Voldemort-free day.
Also pertaining to the covers, they were all done by the same artist, Mary GrandPré. Still, she uses a more mature style as the series progresses.
Alan Rickman does a great job of capturing Snape's complex character. So much so that watching the film version of Order Of The Phoenix and watching his scenes involving the Occlumency lessons makes you realize: Snape shows almost genuine worry for Harry, describing what Voldy could do if he got into Harry's head. He also seems to disparage traits associated with James or Sirius (such as being sentimental, foolhardy, or arrogant), whilst also praising traits such as self-control, mastery of the mind, and other such traits... that could easily be associated with Lily's strengths!
Rickman was the only person besides JKR who knew that Snape had been in love with Lily before Deathly Hallows came out, so not only was JKR dropping hints in all of the books, Rickman has been dropping some very subtle hints in his performance. I noticed that the only character movie!Snape ever looks in the eyes is Harry.
The final scene of Half-Blood Prince was derided for taking out the big battle that was in the book. Then it struck me. The Death Eaters didn't plan an ATTACK. They planned an ASSASSINATION. Now the battle in the book seems kinda pointless.
Not exactly. In the book, the Death Eaters infiltrating the school are said to have met Harry's guard and members of the Order as they went for the topmost (Astronomy) tower. When you're somewhere you're not supposed to be and your antagonists see you, there's BOUND to be some kind of confrontation. That one of the Death Eaters actually managed to escape the blows being traded to cast the Dark Mark up there was just a chance; a lucky chance, admittedly, but a chance all the same, given the constant fighting that was going on at the base of the stairs. The movie and the book just present the circumstances differently, which is why the movie makes the book's confrontation seem a bit pointless.
The book was also from Harry's POV—IIRC, he didn't see much of the battle and was told about it later. When I read the book, I noticed that most of the battle at Hogwarts wasn't described as it happened; I thought this was so Half-Blood Prince wouldn't be too much like Order of the Phoenix.
When first thinking about Mad Eye turning Malfoy into a ferret, at first I thought it was funny. But then I realised, Malfoy's a daddy's boy, Moody is actually Barty Crouch Jr, who hates the Death Eaters who abandoned Voldemort, Lucius being one of them. When Draco mentions his father, he gets even more angry, because Lucius has made so much money out of not being loyal to Voldemort.
To take it a step further than that: Barty Crouch, Jr. was jealous of Draco. An evil bastard Lucius may have been, but it was obvious throughout the whole series that he cared for Draco, which is more than can be said for Barty Sr. Lucius, despite his status, was willing to do some pretty extreme things to stick up for his son. Would the whole witch hunt against Buckbeak in book 3 have been so extreme if, say, Vincent Crabbe had been the one attacked. As much of a jerk as Lucius was, he probably wouldn't have gone through all that trouble just to have a hippogriff executed if not for sticking up for Draco. In fact, to an outsider, the crusade against Buckbeak probably make Lucius look like a bit of an idiot. Barty Sr., on the other hand, probably would have left the entire situation alone if it could have meant a black mark on his reputation (and therefore his ambition to become Minister of Magic).
In Deathly Hallows, Xenophilius tells the story of the three brothers. One died for power (elder wand), one died for love (resurrection stone), and one greeted death like an old friend. In the final battle for Hogwarts, three very important characters die: Voldemort for power, Snape for love, and Harry greets death like an old friend.
The connection between Snape and the Resurrection Stone is flimsy at best. The alternative is Dumbledore himself, who tried to use the Resurrection Stone to see his dead little sister, Ariana, and activated the withering curse Voldemort placed on the Gaunt Ring Horcrux. Essentially, Dumbledore died for love, though it was a family instead of a romantic love.
While that is a valid point, it's still possible to go with the Snape interpretation in more of a thematic sense. After all, Snape died sharing with Harry his memories of love, in a sense, "resurrecting" his old feelings for Lily and giving them to Harry. Just seems to fit more thematically that way than Dumbledore dying while greeting an old friend...
This makes sense, if you consider Harry's description of himself, Voldemort, and Snape as "the abandoned boys." All are half-blood. Is it too much of a stretch to think that Snape might be related to the third Perrell brother (Harry's related to the youngest, Voldemort's related to one, and Snape the third)? It's not stated in the text, but it's possible, since Snape's mother, Eileen Prince, was pure-blood.
There's alos the fact that the opening wasn't linking them to the Hallows themselves but the brothers who originally held them. Ignore the Hallows and focus on what the brothers, Voldemort, Snape and Harry died for and the connection is clear.
I thought the Deathday Party in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was basically a Wacky Wayside Tribe to get Harry relatively isolated while he's looking completely off his rocker. Then I read it again after the fifth book, and realized holy shit, this is their shallow imitation of the afterlife. — DomaDoma
I first read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone the spring before the first film came out. I thought Draco Malfoy was a funny character, but really didn't think any more of him. Until two or three years later, when I realized that Draco Malfoy seemed to be crafted into a classic Threshold Guardian, as every decision Harry made in book one that defined him as a hero for most of the school year happened in response to Draco being a douche. When I figured out what Jo had done, I nearly died laughing. That brilliant beast! — Laota
Although I've always loved Deathly Hallows, no matter how many times I read it in the months after it came out, I never understood all the convoluted, complicated explanations of Harry's and Voldemort's connection — why Voldemort had to kill him for Dumbledore's plan to work, how Harry survived his "death" in the forest, could only Harry kill Voldemort only because of the prophecy, and was it entirely a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy... after nearly frying my brain trying to understand, I decided to give up, accept "Harry came Back from the Dead and A Wizard Did It" without letting it detract from my enjoyment of the rest of the series. Upon reading Book 7 for the first time in a few years, I understood it all with no effort! What had changed in the interim? I had watched Gargoyles! I read Dumbledore's explanation of how Voldemort using Harry's blood to resurrect himself linked Harry to him in such a way so that Harry would live because Voldemort lived as if for the first time, only this time, I thought, "Just like Demona and MacBeth!" Furthermore, I could now see that Harry's "death" was just like all the times Demona or MacBeth had been "killed temporarily." Someone only able to die if killed by a certain person? Nothing weird about that anymore. It's enough to make me wonder if J.K. Rowling ever watched that show... -Lale
Harry couldn't have lost a part of his soul, because only the most destructive and evil of acts (killing another person) splits your soul in half. When did Harry find time to kill someone? He didn't, so therefore his soul was still intact. The blood wasn't a symbol of Harry's soul, it was the power in the blood itself the ol' Voldy was after (Lily's protection). - NimbleJack3
So I suppose Quirrel doesn't count, then? I know Harry didn't plan to kill him, but burning the dude alive by touching him does seem to be pretty brutal for a kid to do.
Harry didn't kill him, Voldemort did when he abandoned Quirrel's body and took the remaining life with it. All Harry did was badly burn Quirrel.
Still, it probably would have gone under the heading of 'self-defense.' A horcrux seems to require a murder - and, more specifically, a cold-blooded, remorseless (because it's implied that the horcrux soul-splitting process can be undone by showing remorse for one's actions) murder of one weaker than yourself. So, no, Quirrell wouldn't count. Not to mention Quirrell may have not been considered a full 'life' anymore by the rules of this particular magic. Keep in mind what was said about unicorn blood. Quirrell's own soul may have been damaged or fragmented by his slaying of a unicorn - not to mention full-time possession by Voldemort. Book 2 went on to show that when a person is possessed by Voldemort for long periods of time (Ginny in Book 2's case), that person's soul grows weaker as Voldemort begins to feed off it.
At the end of the last book/film, when Harry died, he was allowed to choose whether he wanted to stay dead or come back to life for the final battle against Voldemort. This was because at the time, he was the owner of the invisibility cloak, the ressurection stone and the elder wand. He was the master of death, that's why he got to choose for himself whether to live or die, even in the face of an avada kedavra curse.
You have to admire Rowling's strategy when it comes to explaining Harry's rebirth - she pulls it off by creating a situation that probably had never, ever happened before in the history of wizardkind. Nobody could possibly know what would happen when one human being first made five Horcruxes (which no one had ever done before) and THEN made another human being a human Horcrux (which had never happened before) and THEN tried and failed to kill that human Horcrux (with a curse that had never failed to be fatal before) and THEN used that human Horcrux's blood in a resurrection spell, and THEN tried to kill that human Horcrux again with that same spell, and failed again, and THEN joined with that human Horcrux through a paired-wand bond, and THEN tried to kill that human Horcrux a third time, with the same spell, while that human Horcrux was in possession (theoretically at least) of all three of the Deathly Hallows. I mean, you couldn't do a spell like that on purpose if you tried. It had to be a wholly unique event.
You got your order wrong, and there are more things. The order would be first making 5 Horcruxes, THEN offering a woman to spare her if she allowed him to kill his child (which he had never done before), THEN killing that woman (placing Harry under the blood protection), THEN trying to kill that child with a curse that had never failed before, THEN having his soul spontaneously split when the spell rebounded, THEN the part of the soul that split away taking refuge into the nearest living being (Harry), THEN the still free soul possessing other man and fighting with the living vessel and being defeated, THEN using the human Horcrux's blood in a resurrection ritual, THEN trying to kill the human Horcrux again with the same spell that failed before, THEN joined with that human Horcrux through a paired-wand bond in which he was determined to be the weaker one, THEN trying to kill that human Horcrux a third time, THEN possessing him, THEN using other person's wand to try to avoid the paired-wand bond and failing as the other person's wand breaks, THEN trying to kill that human Horcrux as he attempts to do a Heroic Sacrifice to save his friends, THEN having that human Horcrux survive AGAIN and finally trying to kill him AGAIN by using a wand that has been said many times to being unable to fight against his owner. All in all, a VERY long chain of events that are very unlikely to be repeated in the same form ever again
To spare everyone another even longer paragraph, I'll add in that Voldy didn't only take the blood of a horcrux and someone destined to be his equal: he took in Lily's protection. Word of God says that Lily's goodness was in Voldy's veins, and that's how he could've repented.
Um, Quirrell, anybody? While the whole "Harry kills Quirrell" is far more ambiguous in the book than it is in the movie, it is pretty much evident that Quirrell died pretty much directly because of Harry. Voldemort leaving just sealed the deal. While it is usually claimed that such a split only occurs through murder (which Harry's killing/moral wounding of Quirrell is most assuredly not), who is to say that is true? -Turtler.
Actually, Dumbledore does explain that Snape killing him won't harm Snape's soul because Snape is actually putting Dumbledore out of his misery by mercy-killing him. So, there is at least one instance where simply killing someone is different from "murdering" them. Though, if the intent is the catalyst, what about when Harry uses the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange? He certainly intended to torture and possibly kill her, though he lacked the purity (admittedly, pure evil) of mind to do so.
It is not just murder, but cold-blooded murder, as in killing someone who either can't defend him/herself from you or who is weaker than you. What Harry was doing was attempting to defend himself from Quirrell, and the book makes it clear that what Harry was doing to Quirrell was just burning his skin. The one who killed Quirrell was Voldemort when he left his body. The example about Dumbledore being mercy-killed by Snape is a good one. And what Harry intended to do to Bellatrix Lestrange was to make suffer like he was suffering, but, as he discovered, righteous anger isn't enough.
It also cannot be done for the greater good. For example, someone stabbing evil-child-of-doom-quasi-Voldemort with a knife from behind in Goblet of Fire probably wouldn't have split their soul. It has to be cold, straight-up murder of someone innocent and doing no harm, done by your own choices (e.g. it can't have been somebody Imperiusing you into doing it, blackmailing you into doing it, etc.)
It also has to be done in conjunction with the proper spells and preparation, as Slughorn states in Half-Blood Prince. So a wizard could murder someone, even in cold blood, without creating a Horcrux.
And a good thing too, else every Death Eater except Draco would have a bunch of those things.
I assume you have to at least wave your wand a certain way and yell "Makeus Horcrux!" or some such Dog Latin while murdering someone. And it could be a lot more complicated than that.
The first chapter of Goblet of Fire seemed kind of like filler. It established a little more about Voldemort's Muggle father, and it showed that Wormtail had found Voldemort and was helping him, but that could have easily been established later. Except it was also the first time we saw Nagini, and in fact her only appearance in the book (she next returns in the aforementioned scene in Order of the Phoenix, when Voldemort is ordering her to attack Arthur Weasley). The chapter serves to introduce the character by name, so it makes more sense when we see her in the next book, and also to show us the time at which she became a horcrux, as Voldemort was still one short of his goal when he went to kill the Potters. That's not the brilliant part. In Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore mentions that there should be four other horcruxes because Voldemort wanted to split his soul into seven pieces and two of the six horcruxes had been destroyed—Dumbledore is seemingly working off of the assumption that Voldemort doesn't know that he accidentally turned Harry into a horcrux. This might not be true. Dumbledore also confirmed what the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire hinted at (when Voldemort was reaming out Lucius Malfoy about the diary): Voldemort knows when one of his horcruxes is destroyed. This means it's possible that Nagini was meant to be a replacement for the destroyed horcrux, and that he already knew that he had five remaining horcruxes—the ring, the goblet, the locket, the diadem, and Harry.—SpiriTsunami
No. The misconception here is that Voldy did not want 7 horcruxes, he wanted to split his soul into 7 pieces. That means 6 horcruxes and the main fragment in his own body. Harry became the sixth horcrux by accident and unknown to Voldly. So he decided, he needed to make that seventh fragment and used Nagini... not realizing that Nagini was the eighth fragment. Which probably nullified any benefits of the magic of seven.
That theory seems to be Jossed by Voldemort's reactions in Deathly Hallows, particularly his interrogation of the Gringotts staff. —DomaDoma
It was certainly demonstrated to be false in Half-Blood Prince (and perhaps even before): Dumbledore tells Harry that Lucius Malfoy was punished when Voldemort learned that the Diary had been destroyed after he gave it away, implying that Voldemort didn't know about it and had to ask Malfoy where it was. And, at the start of that book, Dumbledore has already destroyed Gaunt's Ring. In fact, not only does Dumbledore not confirm that Voldemort knows when his Horcruxes are destroyed, but he says the exact opposite. He said something along the lines of "As those pieces of his soul have been separated for so long from the main part of it, he is unable to detect their being destroyed". If Voldemort had been able to detect when one of his Horcruxes was destroyed, when he realised that the Gaunt's ring was destroyed, he would have started to relocate the other Horcruxes. - Milarqui
Even if Voldemort couldn't directly detect the destruction of his horcruxes, he still had a connection to Harry's mind while our intrepid boy hero was seeking them out. Up until Harry's death, there's no reason why he couldn't exploit the connection like he did in Order of the Phoenix. Also, if Voldemort were truly thinking about protecting his horcruxes and aware of Harry's search, relocating them would be the last thing he'd want to do. Doing so risks leading Harry directly to them. He already had Nagini with him as a safety net, so leaving the rest alone in their hiding places would be relatively smart. - Ed Wood of Cakes
Ever since the end of Order of phoenix, Voldemort cannot inhabit Harry's mind without an intense amount of pain, more so then he has experienced, except for his soul being ripped from his body when he should have died. He would have needed an intensely urgent reason to try and read his thoughts. And as far as Voldemort knew, Harry was just running away - he had no idea he even knew about the Horcruxes.
Nagini didn't appear only in the first chapter of Goblet of Fire, she also appeared in the graveyard just before the duel started.
The situation is like this: before October 31st 1981 (James and Lily Potter' death and Voldemort's "first death"), Voldemort had 5 Horcruxes (Tom Riddle's Diary, Gaunt's Ring, Slytherin's Locket, Hufflepuff's Cup, and Ravenclaw's Diadem, hidden in Lucius Malfoy's mansion, the Gaunt's shack, the cave (and then 12 Grimmauld Place, by Kreacher), Bellatrix Lestrange's Gringotts vault and Hogwarts' Room of Requirement), and had intended to make the 6th Horcrux with Harry's death, but the Avada Kedavra backfired and destroyed his body, while his soul was broken once more, and the part that didn't flee became Harry's scar. Voldemort didn't know this had happened because of the pain of his death (and, besides, Voldemort's willingness to kill Harry at every turn, even before he gets resurrected in Goblet of Fire, belies the fact that he actually knew about Harry being a Horcrux, because why would you try to kill a person who is actually keeping you alive?). In May-June 1993, Harry destroys Tom Riddle's Diary. In July 1994 Pettigrew finds Voldemort, and the next month Voldemort creates what he thinks is his 6th Horcrux, using Nagini as a vessel (and he was more or less correct, since it would be the 6th Horcrux at the moment as Tom Riddle's Diary had already been destroyed) but in fact it was his 7th Horcrux. - Milarqui (again)
Could Voldemort's resurrection spell need the power of 7 to work (after all, its suggested it does something, being 'the most powerfully magical number'), and he got incredibly lucky that he'd accidentally made one more Horcrux and had one destroyed in the course of the story up to that point, still leaving his soul in 7 pieces?
This is only speculation though, but is it possible that in cutting Harry's hand in the Graveyard scene Voldemort was not only trying to draw on the power in Harry's blood but maybe also that of the soul that he put into Harry on accident in order to regenerate? In doing so, the fact that that soul piece and Harry's are so intertwined that part of Harry's may have come with it. I have nothing to back that up with and it's only speculation. But I also just realized that we have no idea what transverse effects that soul piece could have on a living person when the original maker of that horcrux uses it to continue living. We do know based on Harry as a case study that Voldemort's soul piece from the horcrux is heavily intertwined with his. — youngcosette
Erm, no. First, it was Wormtail who did it. Second, the ritual only mentioned "the blood of an enemy", no mention of a soul or something similar. Finally, it is pretty much stated that two pieces of a soul can only be reunited if the owner of the soul truly regrets the actions that led to the creation of the Horcrux.
Something occurred to me when I thought back to the first book after reading about the Horcruxes. Supposedly, in order to make a Horcrux you have to kill someone and cast a spell to place a piece of your soul into an object, but we're never specifically told what that spell is. Then it dawned on me... Avada Kedavra... it's been right in front of us all along! How it works is like this: You use the spell to kill someone and then immediately recast the spell at an object to which you will put your soul into. Objects can't die, and the sacrificial death of a human being warms up the curse allowing this transfer to happen. It does seem like a bit of a stretch, but then there's this to consider: we're constantly made aware that the earliest memories Harry has of infancy is Voldemort casting the Killing Curse on him. Number 1) Why would Voldemort want to kill the child he will turn into a Horcrux? Number 2) If that wasn't his intention, why would the killing curse suddenly choose to backfire? Because Voldemort had never applied the Horcrux curse on another human being, not to mention Lily's sacrifice tipping the bar. Number 3) Why did Harry become a Horcrux when the Killing Curse was cast at him? Because that's how a Horcrux is made, only with inanimate objects. The necessary human sacrifice for the curse (Lily) fueled the wand to perform the second function of the curse in the short range of time between Lily's death and Harry being hit with it. That also explains why making a person a Horcrux often results in their death. If you don't do it just right or in just enough time, you end up killing them. Just speculation, but it all seems to fit. -Rocky Samson
Sorry, completely and totally jossed. Harry was never intended to be a Horcrux, this is explicitly clear in the books - Harry was supposed to die, and then THAT would have been the death used to make the final Horocrux. Harry became one purely by freak accident - his soul was so fragile and broken at that point, the blast from the Horocrux was enough to break off a new piece, which naturally went to a living thing.
This may seem like an odd question, but if Voldemort intended to make a Horcrux by killing Harry, what (inanimate object) was he going to put it into? And what happened to the object?
I've wondered that myself. I have to wonder if, perhaps, since he was in Godric's Hollow... if he was planning on using the Sword of Godric Gryffindor. Of course, it doesn't seem he had it at the time - but he could have, and it may have been recovered by someone in the aftermath.
I just got the rest of the symbolism of the wands. Thinking about the thestral tail hair in the Elder Wand. I got that Voldemort's wand was made of Yew, the whole "death tree symbolism", but his and Harry's wands were connected by the same phoenix, the bird of rebirth -the whole "horcruxes of each other" thing with the core being the same and all phoenix-connected, and Harry's wand was made of Holly, connected to rebirth in several mythologies including Christianity, to mirror Voldemort's wand. Because even though they both come back, Harry's the one who ultimately lives. I hadn't realized that it was so intricately connected like that until just now. -JET73L
Going into that a little more, this troper realized the significance between the shared phoenix core: phoenix are famous for their immortality and ability to always be reborn. According to Harry and Rowling herself, Voldemort always had the chance to feel remorse for what he did and be reborn in a manner of speaking. He considered that a stupid idea though and never seriously considered it, just like he considered his wand useless and discarded it. Harry's love for his holly wand and rebirth at the end of DH, on the other hand, showed his willingness to change and accepted that there were things in the world he couldn't control or understand. The fact that both phoenix tails came from Fawkes (Dumbledore's pet), also is symbolic of how Riddle and Harry both saw Hogwarts as their true home! — (Not JET73L. Original poster, please sign.)
Rowling definitely did her research when it came to wands: Lily Potter's wand was made of willow, which is traditionally associated with healing, protection and love. Her last act on Earth was to give her son the protection of her love. Also Elder (sometimes known as witchwood) is linked magically to protection, often against lightning strike, but bad luck will fall on anyone who uses it without permission. In other words, Voldemort's use of a wand that wasn't strictly his brought about his death via a certain young man with a lightning scar... - Aelinuial
And just to top it off, the Elder Wand's core is of thestral hair. Thestrals can only be seen by those who have both witnessed and accepted the reality of death. Voldemort has never accepted death as anything but a disgrace or something to be defied, so has never accepted its reality despite having murdered hundreds of people. Harry, though he's only seventeen, has witnessed many, many deaths, accepted it can't be undone or defied, and walked uncomplainingly to his own death. Guess which one of them understands the Elder Wand's inner nature, and is worthy to receive it?
I recently realized something about Half-Blood Prince. The scene involving Harry making Dumbledore drink the potion was nasty enough to begin with, but it becomes much worse when you realize what that potion actually does, as hinted by the flashbacks in Deathly Hallows: It makes you live through your worst memories over and over, presumably worse each time. -The Great Unknown
Made the connection before of 'worst memories' but seeing it here surrounded by other HP stuff just made me realize... The other major things in HP that make one relive horrible memories are Dementors! So possibly that potion uses... I don't know, liquid Dementor's breath or something? And it's said that Voldy can get Dementors to sort-of obey him. Maybe he has a deal where he somehow managed to get a couple to sign up for experiments and following orders and in return they get freer reign than normal? Getting into WMG, but yeah. -katrani
General Part 3
I didn't care much for Nymphadora Tonks, but then I realized she was Rowling's answer to Mary Sues! Think about it! Her hair and eye color literally changes according to her mood, she ends up with one of the most wanted characters in the series and in the end she becomes a martyr! - KT 4
I have just figured out that people's predictions aren't as far-fetched as they seem. At every opportunity starting with Harry's first divination class in Prisoner of Azkaban, Trelawny has insisted that Harry will die a premature death (with one exception in Order of the Phoenix). Guess what? He does. She also references the Grim, which is supposed to herald death, and he even sees it a few times, but it turns out to be Sirius — whom Harry sees before he dies. Also, in Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore says that Slughorn has a knack for predicting who will go on to become famous. Slughorn then invites Ginny to his elite club after witnessing her exceptional Bat-Bogey hex. Fast forward to the epilogue, Ginny's become the senior Quidditch correspondent for the Daily Prophet after a successful career with the Holyhead Harpies team and is the wife of the most famous wizard of all time: Harry Potter. Not only that, but Harry and Ron's predictions for each other also come true: Ron predicts Harry will have a 'windfall of unexpected gold' and the next year Harry wins a thousand Galleons in the Triwizard Cup. Harry predicts that Ron will face 'trials and suffering' but also have 'great happiness.' Ron suffers as much as anyone in the series (apart from Harry himself perhaps), but in the end lives happily ever after with his hot nerd love, Hermione. Dynamic Dragon
Sure, it was easy enough to accept that Snape hated Neville because he was a Gryffindor, he was incompetent, and he was available, but it wasn't until some time after reading Deathly Hallows that I figured out that his particular hatred for Neville was due to his belief that if Neville had been the Chosen One named in the prophecy - that if Voldemort had decided to attack the Longbottoms instead of the Potters - Lily would still be alive. - knave
After reading the seventh book, I understood Snape's hatred for Harry in a different light. Not only did Harry have his mother's eyes and look like his father (reinforcing the bond they had and the fact that Snape would never see Lily again), but he also might have been Snape's son in a different world. Hard to be friends with a kid like that. —Serene Shadow
The fact that Harry looks so much like James, and so little like Lily, probably made him a disappointment to Snape right from the start. Imagine how Snape must've felt, to see Harry across the dining hall in book 1 — too far away to see his eyes, which were hidden behind cheap glasses to boot — and not see any trace of the woman he'd loved there. He'd probably been hoping for ten years that Lily's child, at least, might preserve something of her that his mistake hadn't destroyed, yet all he could see sitting there was the spitting image of his old school enemy.
If you read "The Prince's Tale" with the mindset of "Snape views Dumbledore as a father figure" (which, considering Snape's real father, is not that far-fetched of an assumption), it adds a whole new dimension to Snape's resentment of Harry: Snape is very much the “Well Done Son” Guy, constantly putting his life on the line for Dumbledore and doing everything he asks, which condemns him to a life of being hated by the entire Wizarding World when he kills Dumbledore, while Harry (in Snape's mind) will do much of the same and be worshipped by the Wizarding World, because everyone wants to see Voldemort killed. (Unfortunately, this makes Dumbledore seem pretty cold and even more manipulative than he already is, because it reads as though he deliberately took advantage of Snape's desperation for approval by a father-figure and tormented him with it.)
To be sure, Snape earned it through betraying Lily and James Potter to their deaths.
I realized how well-done the Harry Potter series was on the seventh or eighth time I read the first book. On the first trip on the Hogwart's Express, Ron has a smudge on his nose that won't come off. If you pay close attention to the conversation on the platform, it seems to be implied that the twins put the smudge on as a practical joke. - Comic Book Goddess
"Another Troper mentioned this on another page." Well, fine, but I'll mention it here and Fridge it correctly at the same time. In Prisoner of Azkaban, when Snape confronts Sirius, he says: "Give me a reason. Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will." Pretty harsh, but remember, this is the guy that almost got Snape eaten by a werewolf. Then in Goblet of Fire and Order of The Phoenix, they're a bit more civil to each other, but still obviously carrying grudges. Fast forward to Deathly Hallowsand Harry's magical mystery tour through Snape's memories shows him that Snape was in love with Lily. And the realization hits with a big KA-BOOM. Like the entire rest of the magical world, Snape had thought that Sirius betrayed the Potters and was responsible for Lily's death, and only found out the truth after Voldemort's return (when he went to Voldemort two hours after the Triwizard final and would have seen Pettigrew there). Instantly did two things: put a whole new spin on that entire confrontation, and made you realize how far in advance JKR had planned out the whole thing. — DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC
Also, Snape was in the Shrieking Shack while Sirius and Lupin were explaining the whole thing. I was re-reading it, and I heard the creak and thought "Oh my gosh, that's Snape!" He was late to the party, however, and only heard about his childhood days at Hogwarts: nothing about the Secret Keeper. He still thought Black was the one who betrayed the Potter's and that he was deluding Harry, Hermione, and Ron. - mermaidgirl45
Chew on this. After reading Deathly Hallows, I could not understand why, if Snape cared so much about keeping Harry safe, why he tried so hard to get him expelled (he'd be more vulnerable in the regular world), keep his grades low (can't defend himself if he doesn't learn anything), and belittle him constantly. Then I realized that he was trying to minimize or eliminate the threat Harry posed to Voldy, as that would make Voldy more likely to just leave it. — 72.240.206.0
Did Snape really try particularly hard to get Harry expelled? I mean, even if he said he wanted Harry expelled he'd know he was wasting his breath because Dumbledore would never allow it. Harry's potions grades are low because Harry does poorly in that class (Hermione's grades are fine). And Voldemort would never just let it go. He'd find Harry being pathetic more insulting than if Harry was some kind of prodigy since Harry supposedly defeated him in the cradle.
One that occurred to me involving Snape is that given that both are muggle-borns and teen geniuses, Snape's nasty treatment of Hermione might not be just because he's a jerkass, but also because she reminds him of Lilly, and he's probably angered by her friendship with Harry (who of course reminds him of James Potter)- Jordan
I thought at first that Voldemort's line "Stand aside, you foolish girl" and offering to spare Lily's life was unimportant. Then Deathly Hallows rolls around, and Snape admits he begged Voldemort for Lily's life. Because of this, he offered to spare Lily if she let him kill Harry, and she offered herself in place. When he killed her he essentially accepted the bargain, and then went back on it, which was why the spell backfired. Because Snape asked for Lily to live, Harry is the Chosen One! It could never have been anyone else.That is brilliant. -Darkloid_Blues
Yes, and another thing: at the end of book 7 Harry agrees to sacrifice himself to protect everyone else and as a result Voldemort's spells don't work against anyone (silencing the crowd and freezing Neville). So what basically happened is Snape saved Lily, Lily sacrificed herself to save Harry and Harry sacrificed himself to save everyone. - Anon IP
On this very website, there seems to be a whole lot of people not understanding why Snape is obsessed with Lily, why he didn't just "move on" after she told him she wanted nothing more to do with him. If I may, I shall take this opportunity to present the "Snape moved on" sequence of events: Snape learns that Voldemort is going after the Potters. Snape does nothing. Since he doesn't love Lily anymore, he doesn't beg Voldemort for her life, meaning that Lily doesn't get the opportunity to "stand aside". This, in turn, renders her sacrifice worthless; after all, her fate is sealed. So, RIP Harry Potter: July 31st, 1980 - October 31st, 1981. Without Snape's creepy obsession with Lily, there is no story. So, Tropers... Still think Snape should have just "moved on"? - tenderlumpling
It's true that if Snape hadn't loved Lily, the story wouldn't have happened... but that in no way means that seeing his love as obsessive or creepy is a wrong or invalid view. - ILikeCrows
Yes, except he moves on to Alice Future-Longbottom!
^ If Snape had done "nothing", Voldemort wouldn't have learned about the prophecy in the first place.
....and would have kept right on enacting his magical holocaust, with absolutely no-one to stand in his way.
It's not "creepy" to still have feelings for someone after a few years, especially when you're a teenager and harbouring the guilt from knowing you alone are the reason they don't give you the time of day anymore. Not to mention he's not just missing the girl he had a crush on, he's missing his best and only friend. That also translates into the grander scheme of Snape's life - he's now harbouring the guilt of knowing he caused her death. I'm not arguing with the "obsessive" bit. Mind you, being assigned to guard her son and be forcibly reminded of the fact that she's not around anymore can't have helped him find closure.
In my humble opinion there is nothing creepy about Snape's feeling for Lilly. After Lilly decided she wanted nothing to do with him he always carried a torch for her, BUT HE LET HER MOVE ON. Snape didn't crash her wedding or whatever the wizarding equivilant of leaving drunken messages on the answering machine. He loved her, but let her make her own decisionwithout harrasing her. After she died his love continued even though he could gain nothing from it. Even though his love for her condemned him to grief and he knew he would recieve no gratitude from her he continued to do everything he could to protect her son becuase he knew that was what she would want. In all honesty Snape might have deserved Lilly more than James.
Or not. There is nothing in the books at all that implies that Snape deserves Lily more than James. After all, James learned his lesson and became a better person. He died nobly in an attempt to save his family. In any case, the point, is moot. It's not a question of who deserves her. Lily fell in love with James, and vice versa, so they got married.
I was always wondering why Luna was shot from either knee or waist height, or from a distance so that her feet was out of focus in the film adaptation of "Order of the Phoenix". Upon rewatching the film, it hit me that the only time that the camera showed her feet clearly was when she and Harry were in the Forbidden Forest, surrounded by the Thestrals, and Harry asked why she was barefoot.
I had a moment of fridge brilliance while reading the Crowning Moments of Awesome page about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It was basically around the part where I realized how the entire school basically rallied against Umbridge... then I realized, by rallying against Umbridge, they were rallying against the Ministry. If Umbridge hadn't been the DADA teacher, there would have been no reason for Dumbledore's Army to form. Dumbledore's Army was kind of its own family, and Umbridge helped form an allegiance between the entire student body and the teachers, as well as the ghosts. Without the family of DA or the entire schoolwide allegiance already established, nobody besides a few teachers would have been so willing to take up arms against Voldemort, both at the Battle of the Astronomy Tower, or the Second Wizarding War. Harry's support system would have been severely diminished, especially at the end of the seventh book. Harry would probably have not so eagerly led a group in rebellion, if it hadn't been for Dumbledore's Army. Basically, the whole reason anything in the sixth or seventh book worked at all, not to mention with as relatively few casualties there were, was because of Umbridge, and her Ripple Effect over the entire school in the fifth book. Jo, you are one clever bastard. katzgoboo
Remember how Trelawney in Prisoner of Azkaban makes a big fuss of there being thirteen people at the dinner table, because the first to rise will die? It was pointed out to me that in Order of the Phoenix there are thirteen people at dinner in Grimmauld Place: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Fred, George, Bill, Arthur, Molly, Mundungus, Tonks, Remus and Sirius and Sirius rises first. Also J K Rowling is oft quoted on fan rumour pages as saying that a huge fan of Harry's was going to die. People took this to mean Colin Creevey or Ginny, but as she says in Order of the Phoenix Harry is the person Sirius most cares about. - Sweet-Indigo
I think you may be over thinking that one. I don't know the exact context of that particular quote but I would think the obvious answer is Colin Creevey in the final battle. Sorry, I think in this case the spade is really just an old gardening tool. -Zig Zag
That quote was specifically about the death in Order of the Phoenix, but so many people are "special fans" of Harry (for a given value of specialness) that the quote basically amounts to a sophisticated Shrug of God. —DomaDoma
Actually, Molly rises first to get rhubarb crumble - just as Harry or possibly Ron rises first at a banquet of thirteen where Dumbledore is seated. Some divinatory methods really are a hoax. —DomaDoma
Actually, it wasn't a hoax. If you re-read the page, it stated that Dumbledore spoke to Trelawny in a "slightly raised voice". The prediction came true- Dumbledore died first, because he raised his voice, not because he rose from the chair!
Actually, I'm pretty sure there were already 13 people at the table before Trelawny arrived: Wormtail. I think Wormtail was in Ron's pocket at the time and since he was actually a human, the 13 people counted him. Then Dumbledore rose from his chair to greet Trelawny when she arrived and therefore, he was the first to die.
I have no idea how you noticed that but it was truly brilliant. Also, when Harry walked into Grimmauld Place for the first time (and I remember someone else pointing it out somewhere else on TV Tropes) he said it felt like "walking into the house of a dead man." Huh.
This one occurred to me after re-reading the seventh book. Take a good look at the prophecy lines "marked as his equal" and "has power he knows not". First, consider that Harry was a horcrux, which meant he couldn't kill Voldemort without dying first, whereas Voldemort clearly had no such restriction...making them not necessarily equals. Secondly, due to Voldemort's obsessive belief that Harry was the chosen one, it meant that he disregarded most everyone else's abilities as irrelevant. Now look at Neville, who 1) would be free to defeat Voldemort without dying, and 2) clearly not deemed as important to Voldemort, would possess abilities which Voldemort did not know what they were. In short, up until the very end, it was still up in the air exactly whom the prophecy applied to. - Totemic Hero
Except Harry's scar, the attack by Voldemort, is what marked Harry as his equal. Also, Harry survived the killing curse because Voldemort was protecting Harry with his mother's blood, just as Harry was protecting Voldemort as a Horcrux. The whole reason Dumbledore wanted Harry to sacrifice himself was because the first one to "die" would retain their protection, while the "survivor" lost theirs. -Nick Falcon
Point of fact: The order of their deaths would not effect the protection that they would have. Voldemort is protected from death by his Horcruxes, Harry being one of them. Harry can be killed just like a normal person, at which point Voldemort would lose that Horcrux, just like when Nagini died (Dumbledore mentioned that it is rare to make a Horcrux out of a living being, given the risks of them dying in various ways). Harry, however, was only protected from death by the Elder Wand, as it refused to kill/harm its true master, which is why Harry felt no pain when Voldemort used the Cruciatus on him shortly after his 'death.' -Hyrin
I am not sure if the order of their deaths would have affected their protection, but you have it wrong on one thing: Harry is clearly stated by Dumbledore that he was tied to life by his mother's blood in Voldemort's body, basically making Voldemort a Horcrux of Harry. The Elder Wand refused to kill/harm its true master, that's true, but if Harry had not had the Horcrux on him, then Voldemort's Avada Kedavra would have not done anything to Harry. -Milarqui
Alright, let's take the line "mark him as his equal." In what way did Voldemort ever mark Neville at all, as his equal or otherwise?
At the end of Deathly Hallows, when he demanded Hogwarts' surrender from him, from leader to leader. Incidentally, Neville made Voldemort mortal right after that.
General Part 4
I realized that there was more to Harry's angst in Order of the Phoenix than just being a broody teenager. In Deathly Hallows, while taking turns wearing the locket Horcrux, whoever is wearing it feels miserable, and their situation seems even worse than it is (and it's pretty bad to begin with). Near the end of Deathly Hallows, we learn that part of Voldemort's soul is attached to Harry's soul. So imagine having the locket Horcrux inside you at all times with no way to remove it. And this was coupled with the fact that Voldemort had come back to full power, which strengthened the connection between his soul and the piece of it in Harry. So it wasn't just Harry wangsting and whining, it was being so close to Voldemort that it made everything seem worse to him. This also opens up more Fridge Brilliance about why Harry was more upset over Cedric's death than Sirius's. Because of Harry's connection with Voldemort, it made Cedric's death more tragic to him than to anyone else, except probably Cho. Harry was very upset after Sirius died at the end of Order of the Phoenix, but didn't seem to be afterwards. Voldemort started using Occlumency against Harry sometime between the fifth and sixth books. When Harry took off the locket in Deathly Hallows, he immediately felt much less miserable. After being directly connected to Voldemort's soul for an entire year, having Voldemort blocking himself from it was enough of a relief that he was able to get over Sirius's death faster than he could have with Cedric's. -Giga Metroid 99
Interesting, and completely believable. I hadn't even thought of the soul shard having a similar effect to the locket, and even Tom Riddle's diary (which I now believe was working on Ginny's emotions in a mystical way, and not just manipulating her via the conversations). Another reason that I just realized was that he dealt with the deaths differently. For Cedric's death, he locked down and got sad. For Sirius' death, he lashed out at others and actually segued his anger into his whole "why do I have to save the whole stupid freaking world!?" complex. In a way, his mourning of Sirius lasts through nearly the entire rest of the series, and not just the scenes where he focuses on it (mostly with the mirror). - JET73L
This would explain why Harry had trouble producing a patronus when he was attacked by dementors in Order of the Phoenix - it takes him three tries, and for a moment he thinks that he can't do the spell anymore. In Deathly Hallows, Hermione discovers that it's much harder to make a patronus while wearing a horcrux.
Speaking of the locket's effects, anyone else notice that Kreacher's Heel Face Turn only happened after he stopped sleeping in the same cupboard with that damn thing?
This came to me a while back: JKR is known for her placement of Chekhov's Guns throughout the novels, like the locket and the diary, which are given an importance later on (though in the case of the diary, it was more of an explanation for why it could do what it did). And the reason Harry was able to get glimpses of Voldemort's plans... was because he was bonded to Voldemort... as a Horcrux. -The Otaku Ninja
Nearly everything Jo says that isn't immediately important becomes important later. Chekhov would've been proud - she's a master of the economy of detail. She didn't limit it to items at all - characters, dialogue, descriptions, everything. The best are the ones where we think they've become important, but haven't. The book slipped into Ginny's cauldron becomes important when it's revealed as the cause of the Chamber opening, but later becomes MORE important when it turns out to be a Horcrux. The talk about breaking into Gringotts in the first book seems to have been leading up to the day's break-in and then goes away until the seventh book, where Harry breaks into Gringotts and runs into a dragon guarding a vault. -Redseven
Also note that there were a couple of throwaway lines between Harry and Hagrid about dragons possibly being used to guard the more important vaults. This aspect didn't even get mentioned in the break-in report.
When Petunia reveals that she knows what Dementors are (in the 5th book), she blushes and says "I heard that...awful boy telling her years ago" and Harry angrily says "If you mean my dad, just say his name". But after you read the 7th book, you discover that she didn't mean James at all. She was referring to Snape. It's a brilliant reference that frames the relationship between Lily, Snape, and Petunia, seeming like a useless remark from both characters until you read the last book.
When Dumbledore comes to get Harry in the beginning of The Halfblood Prince, he says to Petunia: "We have corresponded, of course." Harry thinks it mentions the time Dumbledore sent her a Howler to remind her of her promise to save Harry. In fact, he refers to the time she sent him a letter asking to let her come to Hogwarts, to which he politely answered she didn't have the required talents.
Don't forget that at the end of Half-blood Prince, Harry tells everyone that Dumbledore trusted Snape because Snape was repentant that his betrayal had caused the deaths of James and Lily Potter. While other people express surprise because Snape hated James, it is Harry, and not people who knew them together, who stated that Snape didn't think much of Lily and had called her a Mudblood. The shock of this pronouncement prevents others from possibly revealing that Snape was friends with Lily.
The entire "Snape's Worst Memory" sequence was set up to be much more meaningful in hindsight. At first, it appears that it is his worst memory simply because it shows him being bullied by James and his friends and ostracized at school. His encounter with Lily is just an afterthought as Harry is pulled out of the memory. Harry angsts about his father not being the hero he had pictured, and we move on. However, we later find out that this was his worst memory because, in an angry attempt to save face, he called Lily, his best friend who he had loved for years, a "filthy Mudblood", ruining their friendship (since he had already been hanging out with anti-Muggle, future-Death-Eater students who Lily hated, this was the last straw) and destroying his chances at being with her.-Kiirii XVI
In the film version of Goblet of Fire,FakeMoody does a pitch-perfect imitation of Hagrid saying "Marvelous Creatures, Dragons." While kind of cool, it seemed to serve no real purpose. Then I realized something: While in the book series the Polyjuice Potion changes people both externally and internally, it's established in the film versions of Chamber and Hallows that Film!Polyjuice DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR VOICE. Thus, Barty Crouch Jr. was set up as being adept at Vocal Mimicry, another reason he was able to successfully pass as Moody. As much as I hate the film representation of the Junior Crouch, this was a neat little final clue before the potion wore off. - Goblin27
This troper thinks that not much weight should be given to the movies in terms of canon. I'm almost entirely certain that this was merely cinematographic effect in order for the viewer to tell who was actually who. Also, had this been the case I think it would have been likely to have been at least hinted at in the books. In fact the books even show that this isn't true in DH when the trio sneak into the ministry under polyjuice. "“Looks like it,” Harry whispered back; his voice came out deep and gravelly. " Harry, who never met Runcorn (as Ron and Hermione got the hairs for him), would have no idea what his voice sounded like.
I think you misread. The troper you're replying to acknowledged that in the books the voice changes. But we know that isn't true for the movies, so it makes sense for the movies.
You all seem to have misunderstandings, namely as to which section this Fridge Brilliance moment needs to belong.
In Deathly Hallows, did anyone else catch the subtlety of the exact moment that Harry reveals himself to be alive in the Great Hall toward the end of the battle? It was right as Molly Weasley killed Bellatrix. Then Voldemort stopped fighting McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn and turned toward Molly. Of all the friends he had fighting in the battle, why stop the battle to help Molly? Consider Order of the Phoenix, where Molly tells Sirius that Harry is "as good as" a son to her. When Harry sees Molly's boggart, it is flashing through images of her dead sons...and Harry is included. And, finally, in the beginning of Deathly Hallows, the gift of the watch. Because he was powerless to do so seventeen years ago, Harry is protecting the only mother he has ever known. - Spitfire71
He doesn't need to, though. He already protected her and prevented Bellatrix from ever managing to kill her or even hurt her when he died for her and the others.
No, Harry's sacrifice protected them all from Voldemort, not the Death Eaters. Admittedly, he wouldn't need to protect Molly from Voldemort, but it was an awesome scene the way it was done.
Hermione can't get the House-Elves to unionize, but she can get humans to stop being dicks to them. You can't impose human ethics on a species that isn't human if they don't want them, but you can impose those ethics on humans. There's also a message about assuming house-elves think the same way humans do.—Jonn
It seemed at first that Voldemort cursed the position of the DADA teacher purely out of spite (if I can't have it, nobody can). Then, after the evidences of abysmal ineptitude of the general wizarding population were presented (like the Ministry of Magic having to buy hats imbued with a Shield Charm from a prank shop), I suddenly comprehended the strategic magnificence of V's move. He ensured that the DADA classes would become a total mess, no consistent teaching routine would be possible and before long the school would run out of decent DADA teachers completely, thus dealing a crushing blow to the opposition. - Gess
Disagree with the point regarding the hats. This troper believe that the Shield Charm hats was just something the Ministry hadn't thought of, not something they couldn't make. It was just a good idea to be protected by an item of clothing in case of a surprise-attack, where one wouldn't have the time to counter. There are a lot of wizards capable of fighting the Dark Arts; they're just not interested in the DADA-position.
When reading Prisoner of Azkaban, I thought Sirus' nickname Padfoot was just a sort of pun like the rest of them because dogs have padded feet. Now, after looking into some of the British Isles mythology, the black dog is a death avatar that goes by many different names. One of them happens to be Padfoot. Now Trelawney's prediction makes a lot more sense. Sirus also is a death avatar; his friends from school all die rather violent deaths, so does Harry, and his cousin Tonks. - ashilles
Another one: Ron mentioned in Deathly Hallows that Voldemort had made his own name taboo—that is, if anyone said it, it would automatically dispatch the Snatchers, who would then rough them up (or, if it turned out to be Harry, turn his ass in). I thought it was brilliant from the get-go, but it took me a bit more time to unravel just HOW brilliant it was. He not only finds a way to separate Harry from everyone else (because he knows Harry's one of the few who has the balls to say the name), he also mocks Harry's (and by extension Dumbledore's) bravery. He wants to keep the wizarding world in a constant state of fear, and creating such an intense fear of his name alone is, in my opinion, sheer, terrifying genius. We're often told that Voldemort is super intelligent and super evil, but details like this really show it. -Maiira
Actually, they didn't know it was Harry and no one suspected until the Manor. They don't just rough up people who say it. They take them all right to the Manor because only Voldemort's fiercest enemies use his name.
Up until Deathly Hallows, wizards had been afraid to use You-Know-Who's name—but Dumbledore and Harry did so without negative consequence. The rest of the wizards were just being superstitious. But then Voldemort became powerful enough to make the superstition come true.
Also points out some logical failure from the protagonists. If they REALLY wanted to be as brave as Dumbledore, they'd have called him Tom Riddle, the name he was born with, not the trumped up title he gave himself. -Meiriona
New Fridge Brilliance based on that last post! During Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort, he calls him Tom! See, it's symbolism for how Harry no longer fears him, and how Voldemort's name doesn't have any power now, coinciding with his spells not working, meaning Voldemort himself doesn't have any power now! Oh, but it all makes sense, in ways you cannot possibly understand!
Calling him "Tom Riddle" is also Harry's attempt to evoke any lingering trace of humanity that might be left in Voldemort, to give him one last chance to feel remorse and save his ruin-of-a-soul from the misery which awaited him after death.
I'm surprised no one seems to have picked up on this: throughout the series characters speculate on why Dumbledore never gives Snape the Defense Against the Dark Arts job. Generally, the idea is that Dumbledore doesn't trust him near the subject. Actually, its' because Dumbledore knew the job was jinxed so that no one would last more than a year, so he put off giving it to Snape to make sure Snape was always around...until there came a time when he knew that Snape would be leaving before the end of the year anyway.
It occurred to me that Lily might have been so good at potions (according to Slughorn) because she was friends with Snape. If that's the case, then Slughorn was right about Harry being just like his mother. They both got their potions skills from the Half Blood Prince.
It just dawned on me that the Marauders are first mentioned in Prisoner of Azkaban in the order "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs". This just happens to be the reverse of the order in which they die - James first, then fourteen years later Sirius, then two years later Peter at Malfoy Manor, then a few weeks later Remus during the final battle. - Bulbaquil
We find out in the epilogue of Deathly Hallows that Neville became the herbology professor at Hogwarts. However, Word of God stated that he served briefly as an auror. Although he proved in the books to be adept at both herbology and auror-ing, I thought this was a bit of a strange career change to make. Then I realized it would make perfect sense if he ever found out his wife Hannah was pregnant — Neville was probably worried about being in such a high-risk profession, not out of fear for his own safety, but because he didn't want his kids to grow up without a father the way he had to.
I think it's at least as likely that Herbology was Neville's passion - it was the class he cared most about, the subject he read books about for fun, etc.. Neville probably served as an auror while it was necessary to hunt down escaped Death Eaters and while Sprout was still in the Herbology position. When the position opened up, he would have taken it because his job as an auror was less necessary (and thus less compelling for him) and he was always more interested in herbology than fighting. -Redseven
The Beautiful All Along page led me to this thought: Why is Hermione still a buck-toothed geek in her fourth year? Because her Muggle dentist parents want her to stay with braces. Why do they want her to have braces instead of the inordinately faster, cheaper, and more painless shrinking of her front teeth? Because they haven't figured out all the little exploits of magic yet, or don't want to figure it out. - Landis
Possibly they could handle magic as an abstract, something that Hermoine does while she's away at school (since she isn't allowed to do magic at home), but something like changing her teeth would make it all too real. Note that her parents only come to Diagon Alley once, before her second year, so they likely have little to no contact with the magical world. -Hyrin
Thinking about it from a parental perspective, it's very possible it's neither of those possiblities. This might sound pretty phoned in, but what if they made her keep her braces to actually help her retain humility? Think about it? The wizarding world shows so many conveniences that maybe Hermoine's parents thought going through braces would help shape her up as a person. She'd learn to appreciate the conveniences the wizarding world adorns her, sympathy for other people's facial ailments (see above brilliance about her parents ties to her healing traits) and even remind her that the best things take time. Or, even more likely, what if Hermoine simply keeps the braces as a show of love to her parents and their profession? Any child, even unconsciously, shows small signs of loving their parents and what they do, and Hermoine would do so by going about dentistry the way her parents make a living off it, not the quick convenient magical way. -Rocky Samson
Waitwaitwait. Minor nitpicky point here: where was it ever said that she had braces at all? I agree with your points in general, but she never "kept" her braces. She never had them to begin with. -Tropers/gingersnap
After Hermione had her teeth shrunk, she does actually state (paraphrase) "my parents did want mt to carry on with my brace" She says the word 'brace' not 'braces' which would imply some sort of retainer or headgear worn at night, rather than the train-track braces.
General Part 5
So when Voldemort went to kill baby Harry, he intended for that death to become his 6th horcrux — splitting his soul 7 ways. We don't actually know which item he intended to turn into a horcrux, though. We DO know he wanted to use items that belonged to the founders, and the Potters lived at Godric's Hollow.
Harry's ultimate plan for the Elder Wand was to put it back where it was, and die a natural death undefeated in order to break its power. On the surface, and given Word Of God that he becomes an Auror, this seems like a bad plan. But then it hit me, the Elder Wand's ownership passes from one owner to the other upon the first person's defeat or murder. The opponent doesn't even need to know what they'd done, as proven by both Harry and Malfoy doing it by accident. So in the event Harry is ever defeated, possession would go to that person, and if that person were defeated, it would go to whoever beat him, and so on and so on until the Elder Wand's power is effectively broken by the simple fact that nobody knows who's supposed to be using the thing. — Sgamer82
In the Half-Blood Prince movie, when Dumbledore is trying to convince Draco that he doesn't have to kill him he says "Years ago, I knew a boy who made all the wrong choices, please don't become him." He seems to be referring to Tom Riddle, especially since this echoes his words at the welcoming feast in the beginning of the movie. However, I realized that it makes more sense if he's referring to Regulus Black. There are very few parallels between Draco and Tom Riddle, while Word of God has said that Draco and Regulus are very similar. They both got in a little too deep, but they weren't prepared for the consequences. Dumbledore doesn't seem to see Draco as someone who could possibly become the next dark lord. He seems to see that he's trapped and wants to help him. As far as Dumbledore knows, Regulus is a boy who made the 'wrong choice' to join the Death Eaters, got too far in, backed out, and got killed for it. Dumbledore doesn't want Draco to suffer the same fate, and perhaps wishes to offer Draco the protection he couldn't give to Regulus. - That Crazy Girl With Glasses
Re-reading that line, I thought Dumbledore was referring to himself. Everyone knows his early ambitions were less-than-awesome and it cost him his sister, his brother, and his friend. But the Regulus bit really is brilliant. - mermaidgirl45
Further interpretation: It refers to so many of the characters. Snape, Regulus, Tom, himself, possibly Grindelwald. Dumbldore is including Draco in a whole litany of characters who either should have been better than they were, or should have been recognised for defying their natures. Since Draco is at the turning point, where he will either become the bad (Grindelwald/Voldemort) or the good who should be better recognised (Snape/Regulus) it becomes prophetic of which one he will become when he doesn't kill Dumbledore.
I really don't think it would refer to Regulus... Because Dumbledore knowing Regulus' past would imply that he knew about Regulus' involvement with the locket... In which case, he would know that the locket from HBP was a fake and would not have pursued/died for it.
iirc, it was known that Regulus backed out and was killed by Voldemort for it, so Dumbly could be referring to Reggy there.
Just a small one from Chamber of Secrets: the flying car plummets out of the sky at the precise moment that it crosses the boundary of the Hogwarts grounds. That is, when it hits the various enchantments and protections, negating its Hovering Charms.
Or the fact that technology doesn't work on Hogwarts grounds?
That can't be it, or it wouldn't have been able to drive. The flying was pure magic, while the driving was part of its technological nature.
In the first book, I overlooked a small detail with Hagrid showing up at the cabin at the sea; namely, the fact that Vernon Dursley had a gun. Being an American reader, I thought nothing about it. It was only then that I realized why this was a big deal: there is a strict gun ban in the UK. It was only then that I really began to understand and appreciate Vernon's predicament, being a man so paranoid that he resorted to criminal acts in order to protect himself. - The Albino Primid
By extension, this made me appreciate how dangerous Sirius Black was perceived to be by Muggle standards, as well; in the US, a news story about someone killing a dozen people would have faded out in a week; in the UK, it would have been talked about for months.
Eh, maybe. Gun control in the UK was much looser until 1996, after the Dunblane massacre. It would have been perfectly reasonable, if a little bit morally questionable, for Vernon to get a shotgun at short notice in Britain in 1995. When JK wrote this, and for the year it was published and the year it was set, this isn't really correct.
Slytherins are ambitious, but it's not the way one first things when asked to describe someone whose defining trait is ambition. They're grabbing what power they can in any way they can. Crabbe and Goyle didn't subjugate themselves under Malfoy because they're minions, they did so because they were presumably taught from a young age that they would be nothing on their own, and they could only grasp power by being the (non-intellectual) giants on whose shoulders Draco stood while holding onto his bootstraps as he rises to the top. Petty, cruel bullies like Pansy Parkinson and overtly violent bullies like Millicent Bulstrode push everyone else down; they are ambitious in the short-sighted way that bullies in high school, middle school/junior high, and even elementary school are bullies. As long as they're better than any random person, and especially anyone who stands against them (thus challenging their dominance), and can prove it one way or another, that's all they need to be better than everyone. Even Draco in the sixth and seventh books is showing ambition (a steady and sharp decline from his lofty expectations of the first couple or few books), be it in an increasingly desperate way: he's still playing the field as of the end of the sixth book, not necessarily hesitating out of courage or loyalty and certainly not hesitating because he calculated his best odds of survival, and by the time of the seventh book he's doing everything he can to survive under Voldemort's reign (until the Power of Love prompts a change in philosphy). If the houses were more integrated, Slytherin would probably pick off the easiest-to-manipulate First Years from Hufflepuff, but as it is, there are too many aspiring leaders and not enough lackeys so nobody (except Draco, who got Crabbe and Goyle ahead of time thanks to family connections) can build up enough of a power base to get out of the Crab Bucket. -JET73L
Ron Weasley as a Keeper? Brilliant. At first, it seemed to this troper like an odd position for Ron to take (considering his portrayal, he always seemed like more of a get-up-in-front Chaser type, like Ginny). However, remember the Chess Motifs. Ron, while by no means a genius on par with Slytherin cunning, is shown to have a talent for tactics, and has always stood behind Harry by "having his back". Just like a King would on the chessboard. Ron's position in Quidditch? He's a keeper, which requires him to stay in one spot and guard the goals. If he didn't have his team's back by doing that, the opposing team would simply keep scoring. Just like a King would on the chessboard. What song do the Slytherins sing, later to be modified and made awesome by the Gryffindors? Weasley is our KING. Mind=Blown.
The reason Harry and Ginny's relationship doesn't get as fleshed out as some people would like is that those are their moments. Harry's famous (both in-series and out), but it's mentioned that the moments he has with Ginny are just ordinary, sweet, romantic moments, and he feels as if they were stolen from the life of someone without a lightning scar. The author decided to give Harry some privacy. It's not just lazy writing—Harry's relationship with Cho Chang got plenty of development before it crashed and burned.
In an old (pre-"Order of the Phoenix") chat interview, someone asked about Riddle's mention (in "Chamber of Secrets") of Hagrid raising werewolf cubs under his bed, and whether they were "the same kind of werewolves" as Lupin. Rowling stated that this never happened: "Riddle was telling lies about Hagrid, just slandering him". Of course, back in "Chamber of Secrets" no one would have batted an eye at a mention of werewolf cubs, but Professor Lupin gets introduced later and we find out that werewolves are really just people with an incurable magical disease. To call their children "cubs" and imply that they can be raised under a bed like dogs is seriously offensive Fantastic Racism, but coming from the young Voldemort, it's no surprise. It's also consistent with the way Voldemort uses Fenrir Greyback, a werewolf who's succumbed to and embraced his animalism, essentially as a dog to bite and frighten his enemies.
Lily's patronus is a doe, and she dies to protect her son. As her son grows up, he sees the mysterious horns of the stag that was his father's patronus, but later ends up summoning the patronus himself, essentially taking his father's place. Bambi motifs, anyone?
When I first read Prisoner of Azkaban, I thought Snape was just being a jackass because he hated Sirius and Lupin from their school days. But now, now I realize that he believed Black had killed the woman he loved, and Lupin was defending him. It all makes so much more horrible, horrible sense. No wonder he was angry. Anyone would be.
In Order of the Phoenix, when Molly Weasley encounters a Boggart in a locked cabinet, we're told what forms it takes - the lifeless bodies of her family: Ron, Bill, Arthur, Fred and George, Percy, and finally Harry. Did you notice that one tiny detail? Fred and George. Not even in Mrs. Weasley's worst nightmares could she imagine the twins being separated. -iheardavoice
Dumbledore, Riddle (Voldemort), Snape and Harry are four of the important characters in the series, and shared more than a few similiarities. All four could be considered the best representatives of their respective generations. All four were half-bloods. All four considered Hogwarts their true home.
Except Dumbledore is a pureblood.
His mother was a muggle.
His mother was Muggle-born, not a muggle.
Could Harry be called a Half-blood? Both his parents were wizards. He's more like a Quarter-Blood.
I think it says somewhere that even if both of your parents are magical, if one of them has Muggle parents then the child (e.g. Harry) is considered a Half-Blood. It's why Bellatrix and Narcissa ostracized Andromeda after she married Ted Tonks; he was a wizard, but his parents weren't. It also caused a bit of confusion when Voldemort called Lily a "filthy Muggle" in one of the books - to him, and the other Pureblood supremacists, there's no difference between a Muggle and a "Mudblood".
If I am not mistaken, the idea is that, in the loosest sense, you are a Pureblood if your parents and your grandparents are all wizards. If one or more of your grandparents is a Muggle, or one of your parents is a Muggle, you are a Halfblood, and when both your parents are Muggles, you are a Muggle-born. Of course, this was done to drive more paralells with Nazi Germany, where a law stated that, if you had one Jew grandparent, you were a Jew.
Petunia and Lily both have flower names. Sure, but there's nothing really brilliant about it - until you think about the flower meanings of both. The petunia can mean anger and resentment, while one of the meanings of the lily is death.
While still irresponsible, Fudge's skepticism regarding Harry's assertion that Voldemort was back makes a lot more sense when you consider what had happened (or, as it turns out, Snape convinced him had happened) the previous year: specifically, that Harry had been confunded by Sirius to convince him that the guy was innocent. We don't know a whole lot about the mechanics of the Confundus Charm, but just look at Dawlish's experience with it in Deathly Hallows, where being charmed lets everyone and their grandma (literally, in Neville's case) get the drop on him. Throw in Rita Skeeter's various articles throughout Goblet of Fire, and it's not that surprising that Fudge would see Harry as mentally addled at best, crazy at worst. All the evidence was indicative of just that!
It had always annoyed me slightly that Harry was so scorchingly rich. Obviously Lily didn't bring any wizard gold into the family and James, while from an old line, didn't seem to come from that kind of money. And they didn't live long enough to earn that kind of cash. Then I realized that Harry would have been the world's most famous orphan, of course people would have been donating money from all over to help raise the Boy Who Lived.
But Word of God says that James was wealthy before he died. So part of the money still came from Harry's parents. Still a good thought, though. -TE Gs Factual 0527
Also, didn't Sirius's uncle leave him a crapload of money as well? Sirius probably chipped in - not to mention he never really had to pay rent having spent a huge chunk of his adult life in Azkaban and then the remaining years as the owner-by-default of a house that had been in his family for generations. He probably gave James a bit of his money to help take care of the family once it became clear that they were going to have to go into hiding.
Another simple answer; remember in the first book how Hermione explains how she knows all about Harry and rattles off some books about him? Royalties. Add in interest rates [no one had touched the vault in about ten years], and that could be a fair chunk of change. (Not to mention that coins take up quite a bit of space and even a modest amount of money would look like a fortune to someone who grew up with absolutely nothing).
Remember when Xenophilius Lovegood says that the owner of such a perfect Invisibility Cloak would be "immeasurably wealthy"? Add to that the fact that the Cloak has been passed down through generations of Harry's family, and that Word of God says James' wealth was "inherited".
Harry, while he had considerable money, wasn't all that rich, at least until Sirius died and made Harry his heir. Remember that he refused to buy himself a Firebolt because of the cost, worrying that he would would run out of money for Hogwarts if he bought it. The way in which Wizarding money is presented implies that gold was much less valuable in the Wizarding World, as when people trying to pay for a camping space tried to pay in what the campground owner (a muggle) described as an enormous gold coin. The converter at what is considered probably the most reliable online resource for HP information here actually converts a galleon to only about $10. This would mean that an enormous pile of gold coins, say 100,000 of them, might be only $1,000,000 US, which is actually too little for someone Harry's age to retire on these days.
Something I never understood was why almost every spell came from greek or latin words except for one, "Riddikulus". but then I started thinking that maybe most spells were developed way back when, when greek and latin were still spoken and developed from those languages but riddikulus was developed as recently as the emergence of the proper english language. YMMV but the idea that it took that long to find a spell against a boggart is kinda Nightmare Fuely
Actually, 'Riddikulus' comes from the latin too; "ridiculus", meaning "laughable", or, well, "ridiculous".
Why would Voldemort, who Dumbledore claims is afraid of the idea of death, use Inferi (AKA Dead bodies reanimated by magic)? You would think that the Inferi would remind him that no matter how much magic someone has, they will still die. But it makes sense when you consider that Voldemort uses them to convince himself that he has some sort of control over death.
I just realized who Hermione would have become if she hadn't befriended Ron and Harry : Percy Weasley. And that explain why Ron made her cry so easily. He struck right where it hurt immediately and didn't even think about it probably because that's how Percy is treated in his family (notably by the twins). The fact that Hermione realized that those two were ready to risk their lives to save her made her lie to protect them in return and generally gave her the first clue that rules aren't always the most important things which gave her the chance to prove how remarkable she could be under her bossiness. It's sad that Percy never had the chance to show this. I'm kind of curious as to whom Ron could have become if he hadn't met Harry and Hermione to cool his temper sometimes or whom Harry would have become if he had make another friend first like Neville for example.
The dormitories for Gryffindor and Ravenclaw are above ground in towers, while those for Hufflepuff and Slytherin are in the cellars. This arrangement corresponds to each House's animal mascot: lions like to stand atop tall rocks to survey their territory and eagles perch on clifftops or trees, whereas badgers and many species of snakes retreat underground to sleep.
Ginny had a hard time in her first year at Hogwarts (second book, Chamber of Secret) which led her to confide and then become ensnared in Tom Riddle's diary. But, apart from her general shyness we don't learn exactly why she had was having a difficult time until the sixth book, Half-Blood Prince. Think about who she would have been sharing a dormitory with: Romilda Vane and her Girl Posse. Ginny wouldn't have gotten along with that clique and was probably bullied by them. Which is why when Ginny finally did overcome shyness and make friends, it was with people from other houses, such as Luna and boys. Also, we can now indirectly blame Romilda Vane for all the students who were petrified.
Actually, Romilda Vane is supposed to be two years younger than Harry, thus placing her in the year below Ginny's.
It is heavily implied by various official sources that in the H.P universe JKR is a squib who wrote Harry Potter's biography and sold it to the muggles as fiction. This is wonderful because imagine the sheer joy of all the muggle borns who will be told the world of their favorite book is absolutely real. It also means that explaining the ins and outs of the wizarding world will be much simpler than before the books were published. Despite this, prime ministers will have an even harder time believing what they are told on their first night "Harry Potter really exists! Don't be ridiculous"
What if Harry Potter's mass popularity was engineered by wizards so that should the wizard and muggle world's collide, it would be much more palatable for muggles.
Hermione's patronus is an otter, and otters are members of the weasel family. Yet more proof that the Harry/Hermione shippers were fooling themselves about whom she'd marry!
A typical fanfiction device to vilify Dumbledore is that he never allowed Sirius to have a trial and didn't stop Fudge's manhunt in spite of being the head of the legislative/judicial branch of the Ministry. Then I discovered that British law allows for bills of attainder (in short, someone who has confessed treason or murder can be chucked in prison without trial), and I realized what happened: Crouch had the Wizengamot pass a bill of attainder on Sirius based on him 'confessing' on sixteen separate felonies (the murders of Peter and twelve Muggles and aiding the murders of the Potters and Harry's attempted murder) before various witnesses, including Fudge. Meaning that, without either Wormtail being confirmed alive or a witness coming out and saying that Sirius' confession was actually him blaming himself for not having stopped the murders, Dumbledore has no way to give him a trial.
Someone at the muggle's guide to Harry Potter expressed confusion over why Voldy's wand had a phoenix feather in it, since a phoenix's death symbolizes purification and Voldy doesn't come back from his near death experiences any more ethical. However, word of god states that thhe wizarding world becomes a better place after Voldy's death. So, the death=purfication wasn't for Voldy, but for the wizarding world.
How the HELL did James and Lily wind up together, when James was a Jerk Jock and Lily was a loyal friend who would fiercely stand up for what is right? Well... they're not that different. They're both very loyal to their friends, even when those friends betray them, they're both very intelligent, quite popular (though, as a muggle-born, Lily still may have felt like an outcast like Snape did), magically talented, and pretty brave. They're very much two sides of the same coin; Lily uses her personality for good, and James abuses it and becomes a Jerk Jock. But then James undergoes Character Development, and it's only then that Lily begins to think of him than something other than an 'arrogant toerag.' The central theme to the books is that choices make people who they are, not inborn traits— Lily and James both made choices that made them the people who they were, and James's choices led to Lily finally falling for him!
Watching the movies, I had mixed feelings about the Death Eaters' appearances being modeled after the Nazis and KKK. Knowing about history, I was indeed disturbed by the look, but I couldn't help groan a little because it made the comparisons to those organizations a little to blatant and Anvilicious. Then, I realized something; dressing up like the Nazis and KKK would work to frighten and intimidate muggles and muggle-borns, the Death Eaters' primary victims, who would have knowledge of these groups from muggle history.
Several people have complained about the wizarding world only giving 7 years of formal education. This is internally consistent. In half blood prince Voldemort says that 7 is the most magically powerful number. If the non magical world discovered that x number of years of education is ideal, then we would ensure that people received x number of years of formal education. -timeaesnyx 4/1/2013
A lot of people find it surprising that muggle-borns like Lily or Hermione can be so adept at magic. Well, it's not that there naturally gifted with magic per se, they're just better at school because they've spend five or six year in muggle school. They've already learned things like basic writing and academic disicipline, which their wizard-raised counterparts are just learning for the first time.
If touching a sock frees the House Elves then who does the laundry at Hogwarts? Filch? Or do students just magic their clothes clean?
If I remember correctly, a house elf can only be freed if their MASTER gives them clothes. So I'm assuming they can do laundry. Besides, what would the appeal be for a pureblood family to have a slave that can't clean their clothes?
How does Ollivander stay in business if his shop just sells wands. Just wands—a product that is meant to last a lifetime, to a very small and insular community?
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Ronan the Centaur is angry at Firenze for saving Harry from Quirrel/Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, as it goes against the stars' foretelling. Harry is destined to be killed by Voldemort in the forest, but not until 6 years later. — calenloki
Also dealing with the unicorn blood scene: Everyone at first thinks Quirrel's stuttering and turban come from a bad encounter with a Vampire in Albania. He did indeed have a bad encounter, but with Voldemort, so I finished the book the first time thinking this rumor was false. Cut 3 years to my first re-reading, where I realize that Voldemort makes Quirrel drink blood on his behalf. — scoop712
And speaking of Centaurs, when asked what's going on, all they say is that Mars is particularly bright, 4 books later Firenze explains in a Divination Class that Mars signals war. The Centaurs were telling the wizards that a War was coming! — MakiP
Also dealing with Quirrelmort: When we're introduced to Quirrel, his constant fear is explained as coming from a supposed vampire encounter in Albania. We later learn that it was actually Voldemort he met in Albania, which put the other story out of my mind. Rereading the first book 12-odd years since I first did, I realized that Voldemort 1) drains Quirrel's life-force, and 2) SURVIVES BY (having Quirrel) DRINK BLOOD. —rthomas2
His constant fear is also explicable to the other teachers, who probably blame it on his having heard how the DADA position is jinxed.
I heard this one that for some reason had never clicked before. The mirror of Erised. Read it backward. — Jahwn Lemonjello
The entire phrase "Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi" that is carved on the mirror can be read backwards as well, reading "I show not your face but your heart's desire." -Kiirii XVI
And it says this in mirror language.
It being written backwards is pretty brilliant to. If you held the writing up to a regular mirror, you'd be able to see what it said.
Well, sort of. Mirror writing is not the same thing as writing something backwards. But yes, it might be easier to see what it said in a mirror, because your naturally pattern-finding brain will reverse the letters that need it. Redrum!
The sorting hat tells Harry that he could be great in Slytherin. In other words, it was trying to appeal to Harry's ambition. That's a clever way to see if someone should be in Slytherin.
And Harry showed courage by asking the hat not to put him in Slytherin.
Or fear of having to be in Slytherin with the nasty-looking people, the loathsome Draco Malfoy, and the rumor about how everyone evil had been in Slytherin.
All of which helps juxtapose Harry to Tom, whom I can imagine making the opposite choice — becoming overcome by his "thirst to prove himself." As Dumbledore says, it is our choices that matter. That said, I realized after the seventh book that the hat's consideration of Slytherin may well have had less to do with Harry himself than the presence in Harry's mind of a piece of Voldemort's soul. -magesa
When Scabbers (who is actually Pettigrew, though we don't know that til PoA) bites Goyle in the scene on the train—Harry and Ron are on the verge of fighting them because, in part, Malfoy insulted Harry's parents. — meanderling
Okay, whoever posted the above, I have officially fallen in love with you. Brilliant!
Also, Ron's attempt to turn Scabbers yellow didn't just fail because it wasn't a very good spell, but because it specified a rat as its target, and Scabbers isn't really a rat. Or stupid, for that matter.
Scabbers chewed on Ron's sheets after the post-Sorting banquet. Want to bet that portly young Peter Pettigrew'd really savored those opening-day feasts when he was a student, and was frustrated that he hadn't been able to do more than smell all that food?
When Dumbledore commends Nevile Longbottom for trying to stop the Trio, he comments that while it takes courage to stand up to one's enemies, it takes a great deal more to stand up to one's friends, at the time it seemed to this troper like he was merely ensuring that Griffindor would win the house cup. However in the last book that we find out that Dumbledore's greatest regret was not standing up to his friend Grindelwald earlier, which caused the death of his younger sister, and his eventual rise to power.
Another thing, is that if Dumbledore had been simply trying to make Gryffindor win the House Cup, he didn't need to recognize Neville at all- he could have just given Ron and Hermione each fifty-five, and Harry the sixty that he recieved. The fact that he did choose to single Neville out for succeeding where he had failed is even more emphasized.
Hermione's line, "I hope you're pleased with yourselves. We could all have been killed — or worse, expelled," at first seems humorous, with Ron's (film) response about her priorities getting the expected laugh. However, while reading the Fate Worse Than Death trope, it occurred to me that, considering that those expelled from Hogwarts have their wands broken and are forbidden to use magic in a world where magic-users rule and those without it (Squibs/Muggles) are treated as second-class at best...Well, the best possible outcome is re-integrating into Muggle Society and you spend your life *knowing* that there's a magic world that you can never access again. Hermione actually has the right of it. -zenfrodo
So all of the Squibs and Muggle relatives who know about magic like Hermione's parents are suffering a fate worse than death? Sounds a little dramatic.
Snapping your wand on grounds of expulsion isn't a usual thing, its only in Hagrids case because he was framed for such an extreme crime - i.e. bringing in a creature that killed another student.
This troper is only passing something on that a fanfic writer points out in a piece called "Oh God, Not Again", and I actually did a fanfic based on the whole idea. (Here if you're interested.) Basic summary: The first potion that Snape demands of Harry is "What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" Seems to be nothing other than a potions master asking a student the concoction that such a combination would make, and kicking off the theme of Snape bullying Harry. Nothing special. Until you look into plant languages. Asphodel is a type of Lily. Clever in itself. The flower has delicate petals of white with pink-red stripe through their centre. Sweet, pure, but not without an angry streak. Feeling creeped out yet? What does that lily mean in flower language? "My regrets follow you to the grave". Headscrewed yet? It get's better. Wormwood means absence or bitter regret. What do you get if you combine those two plants together, other than a Draught of Living Death? This message: "I bitterly regret Lily's death." And now, for that final kicker. In Slughorn's first lesson, the students are asked to make the Draught of Living Death. Guess who's book Harry is using J.K you clever clever woman, do you never stop breaking our hearts? — sakekun
In the shack on the island where Vernon takes the Dursleys, Harry asks Hagrid what happened to Voldermort. Hagrid's response: "Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." That's exactly what happens: Voldemort doesn't die because only one-seventh of his soul is in his body at the time. —Alex_N
Near the end of this book, when Harry is trying to convince Hermione and Ron to break school rules to save the Stone, Harry tells them that this is more important than school rules: "Haven't you heard what it was like when he was taking over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! He'll either flatten it or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts!" Not at all like what Voldemort tried to do in Deathly Hallows... —Vericrat
Just a small thing, but in the holidays, Fred and George charm snowballs to bounce off the back of Quirels turban. At the end of the book, it is revealed that Voldemorts face is on the back of Quirels head, under his turban. So the twins snowballs were hitting Voldemort! THIS MUST BE A CROWNING MOMENT OF FUNNY!
I may love you now. Just saying.
Likewise, when Harry first feels pain in his scar, it's when he takes a good look at Snape up at the teachers' table during the opening-day feast. What's Snape doing when Harry sees him? Talking face-to-face with Quirrell, which means that the back of Quirrell's head must've been turned towards Harry at the time. The pain wasn't because he'd seen Snape, but because Voldemort was glaring at Harry from under the turban!
It always seemed odd that when Quirrell announced at the Hallowe'en feast that there was a troll loose in the school dungeons [the dungeons being near where the Slytherin's dorm is] that instead of the students remaining in the great hall, they are escorted back to their dorms. Why would the teachers do that and never question how a troll managed to get in? Well, what else do students get in the great hall other than meals? Mail. It only takes one owl to come flying in to send out a message that there is a troll loose in the school. Considering how hush-hush the fact that the Philosopher's Stone is hidden at Hogwarts; there is also the fact that a troll was one of the traps set. The faculty probably assumed that it escaped and wanted to deal with it before dealing with the resulting PR issues.
To begin with, owls may fly in to deliver mail in the morning but this was the evening and so the owls would all be in the owlery. And even if someone just happened to have an owl in the Great Hall and sent out a message within a few minutes, it wouldn't be delivered and acted on before the troll was sufficiently dealt with as the castle isn't that big and trolls are not quiet. Also, sending students off to potentially die to delay a PR disaster will only make the PR disaster worse. And there was no way that the troll from the traps was getting out to roam the halls.
The students were moved to their dorms because the dorms were highly defensible, having only one entrance each too small for many trolls, while the great hall, with probably many entrances and at least some of them quite large, was not.
The Dursley's abuse of Harry makes much more sense when you remember that they were trying to prevent Harry from becomeing a wizard altogether and that Petunia would know that a wizards emotional state will effect their powers. By keeping him miserable and punishing any accidental use of his powers they may have caused them to go dormant given enough time. And if Harry can't use his powers then he can't go to Hogwarts and that's the end of their magical problems.
Except they didn't count on (nor did anyone else at that point) Harry being an accidental horcrux of Voldemort, which may be part of the reason Harry had a bit of trouble controlling his emotions. In a more specific manner (and it's actually implied by Vernon of all people before being explicitly shown with Voldemort's mother in Book 6) the thing that causes a complete loss of powers is being emotionally downtrodden. Which brings a whole new level of Fridge Horror, because that would mean the Dursleys were trying to make Harry cross the Despair Event Horizon.
How would Petunia know that a wizard's emotional state can affect their powers when this is a revelation to Harry in his sixth year? It is highly unlikely that Petunia, despite knowing some things about the Wizarding World, would know more than someone with over five years of schooling in magic.
Maybe that's why Petunia wasn't given and invitation to Hogwarts and Lily was. Maybe of the two of them, Lily was more favored (prettier, more confident, smarter, what have you) and Petunia was jealous of that and instead of lashing out at Lily she just sulked and moped about it. Come age 11, Lily's confidence in herself helped her magical ability grow to a point that the Hogwarts radar picked it up and Petunia's low self-esteem made hers sink below the radar.
Dumbledore explains to Harry at the end of the book that Harry's father and Snape "detested each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy." At the time, we, along with Harry, envision James as Harry's own righteous counterpart to Snape's Malfoy-like supremacist bullying. Book 5 makes us realize that it was James who was the prejudiced, over-privileged brat picking on Snape, who was a neglected, ostracized loner. Book 7 cements the parallel when James says to Sirius much the same thing Draco did upon meeting Harry "Imagine being in Slytherin/ Hufflepuff! I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?". (this not to say that Snape wasn't a power-hungry git who made the wrong choices or that James eventually matured and became a good man. It simply underlines how ideology isn't the only thing that makes you good or bad, it's also about personal ethics and compassion.) —ladymirth
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
There is a the part in "Chamber of Secrets" in which the Weasleys continuously come back to the Burrow because some of the them forget their items. One of these times is when Ginny goes back to the house to get her diary. Sneaky little detail there, JK Rowling. -turtlewizard
Except that Ginny didn't receive Tom Riddle's diary until Lucius Malfoy slipped it into her schoolbooks in Flourish and Blotts. Still a clever nod, though.
No, this was at the end of the holiday on their way to Platform 9¾ (Chapter Five: The Whomping Willow); the Diary was placed in her cauldron in the previous chapter (Chapter Four: At Flourish And Blotts) -Not A Cat
I thought the Deathday Party in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was basically a Wacky Wayside Tribe to get Harry relatively isolated while he's looking completely off his rocker. Then I read it again after the fifth book, and realized holy shit, this is their shallow imitation of the afterlife. (And then, of course, there's that bit where the entire fandom considered the entire book a filler arc. Moo ha ha.) — DomaDoma
Sorry, but what bit was that again? With the exception of the epilogue, I can't think of a single moment I thought Damn, that's some bad filler, much less considered an entire book a filler arc.
Chamber of Secrets was kind of considered an off episode. It seemed to have less to do with the overall plot until the sixth book. Then you realize that a lot happened in book 2.
When the security at the school is stepped up, one of the first rules to be introduced is that students must be accompanied in the bathrooms. The teachers don't know about the Chamber, but they know where Myrtle died.
Harry is revealed to be a Horcrux in the seventh book. All other Horcruxes were destroyed by basilisk venom in some way. Harry nearly died from being bitten by the basilisk... ever wonder how Harry manages to survive all sorts of horrible ordeals, including getting knocked out at least twice a book? He was a Horcrux, and normal maiming wouldn't work on him! The scene in Chamber of Secrets was the only time in the entire series where Harry really was in danger of dying... but Fawkes saved him, and Harry stabbed Riddlemort's diary with the basilisk fang, destroying it and the bit of soul inside. -pankitty
Possibly, although I'm not sure Harry ever survives anything that would have killed another wizard. The best candidates are the fall from the broom in Prisoner Of Azkaban and the Priori Incatatem of Goblet of Fire, both of which have other explanations (Dumbledore slowed his fall, dual wand cores). Unless being a Horcrux grants you Plot Armor as well. In the case of surviving the AK the second time, that's explained by the accidental Horcrux getting zapped, and not Harry.
Not quite. Horcruxes aren't actually indestructible. They have to be beyond magical repair altogether. Basilisk venom is one of the methods by which it's done (you'll recall that the Diadem was actually destroyed by Fiendfyre). It's also established that magic cannot bring someone back from the dead, *meaning* death is officially "beyond magical repair." So if Harry had died by any other means than Voldemort killing him in the Forest, which had so very many factors contributing to Harry coming back, he would have been stone dead anyway.
What's more, according to the books (and confirmed by Word Of God), real Horcruxes have to be intentionally created by a special ritual centering around the cold-blooded murder of someone; presumably that ritual gives the Horcruxes their special invulnerability. Harry might have been "the Horcrux that [Voldemort] never intended to create", but only in the sense that he had imprisoned a fragment of Voldemort's soul. The fragment, which in this case was created by sheer accident, did not give Harry any sort of invulnerability—it wasn't a true Horcrux. The description in quotes above could be considered Lies to Children; it's a simple way to explain it that approximates the truth, but doesn't quite match the truth in full.
Ravenclaw's Diadem wasn't destroyed by Basilisk venom in any stretch of the imagination. It was destroyed by Fiendfyre in the Room of Requirement. Only in the movie was is destroyed by the Basilisk fang.
At the beginning, why did Vernon try to stop Harry from "escaping"? He wants nothing more than Harry gone...— Gamer From Jump
He doesn't want Harry around, true, but he also wants him to be miserable. When he found out that Harry wasn't allowed to use magic, he probably saw that as a chance to get rid of the problem Harry represented. If he couldn't go back to school, he wouldn't learn magic, which he hates even more than Harry.— Metroid Life
It's also possible that, being the kind of man Vernon is and having been very abusive to Harry all throughout childhood, it would only make sense that Vernon wouldn't want Harry learning more magic in the event that Harry would ever choose to use that magic to get back at his family (something that, although accidental, is not entirely untrue). -Rocky Samson
It is often claimed that the Dursley's only goal was to make Harry miserable, but this isn't strictly true. There goals were that Petunia wanted Harry alive (because he was her only surviving relative except Dudley), making Harry not a wizard (because Petunia hated wizardry and Vernon hated anything he didn't think normal), and making Harry miserable (because he was a wizard). Vernon didn't want Harry to escape because A) he wanted Harry to never be a wizard, B) he wanted Harry to be miserable and thus would try to thwart anything Harry wanted, and C) because Harry escaping wouldn't get rid of Harry, because Harry would just come back and his wife would insist on Harry being allowed to call their house "home" because she apparently wants him alive above all else. -Filksinger
The amazingly casual mentions of the Vanishing Cabinets throughout this book just astound me after reading Half Blood Prince. First, Harry hides in the one in Borgin and Burkes - leaving the door open a crack, thank heavens, because at this point they were both still working. Later, Nearly-Headless Nick convinces Peeves to drop the Hogwarts one above Filch's office - breaking it and thus setting up Draco's entire plotline in Book 6. Stunning! — Histry Luvr
Harry can hear the Basilisk whispering through the pipes. Why does nobody else hear this? What sound does a snake make in it's natural habitat? That's right, a hiss. What sound does a pipe make in it's natural habitat?
Harry can hear and understand the Basilisk because he is a Parseltongue. If pipes were sentient maybe their gurgles would make sense too.
What the original Troper is saying is that everyone else COULD hear the hissing, but they assumed it was just the pipes. Because it was coming from the pipes.
In the movie, Acromantulas such as Aragog and his children look like colossal wolf spiders, not true tarantulas. It turns out that the word "tarantula" is originally Italian and was once used to describe what are now called wolf spiders.
Why are spiders (and Acromantulas) so particular afraid of the basilisk? Because spiders have eight eyes, pointing in every direction, and no eyelids. If there's a basilisk anywhere near them, they can't help but look directly at it and be killed.
Lockheart makes it quite known that he believes Hagrid is behind the attacks whilst escorting students from one class to the next. This seemed unusual, until quite recently when I realised he was probably still miffed that Hagrid considered Harry more famous than him and hadn't read any of his books. His pettiness knows no bounds.
Dobby's name. Dobby or Dobie is a type of fairy, one described as "foolish and helpful". Dobby sincerely wanted to help Harry stay safe (helpful) but went around to trying to achieve that aim in the completely wrong way (foolish).
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In Harry's first Divination lesson (or maybe not first) Trelawney predicts that Harry was born around Midwinter. Now, he was born on July 31st, so that doesn't make any sense. But, Midwinter might not mean the middle of winter, Trelawney could have been (subconsciously or otherwise) referring to the more traditional use of the word, with the meaning of "at or around the winter solstice". This is still stupid, because Winter Solstice is like the 22nd of december, so still not close to Harry's B-Day. But, a birthday near the Winter Solstice, is December 31st. The birthday of Tom Riddle. The essence of what I'm trying to say, is that Trelawney wasn't reading Harry's "mind," but rather Reading off of the but of Voldemort's soul within him
Remember Snape's line just as he entered the Shrieking Shack and was staring down Lupin and Sirius, of how he dreamed about getting revenge on the both of them? Well, it didn't hit this troper until Order of the Phoenix, during Harry's one Occulmency lesson with Snape that accidentally revealed Snape's most traumatic memory and just how much hatred and revenge he wanted to foster to these two.
Actually, the real reason that he wanted revenge against Sirius was because he believed that Sirius betrayed the Potter's to Voldemort and lead to Lily's death. And while he was able to pretend in front of Voldemort, because he knew attacking him would be futile, he had no reason to hold back when he thought Sirius was the traitor. It's the same reason that he continually harassed Pettigrew at the start of the 6th book.
I don't believe that Snape had no knowledge about Pettigrew being the spy—he was a Death Eater and Voldy probably didn't care for peter's spying enough to keep it a secret from the rest of the Death Eaters, especially since Snape was the one who told V about the prophecy, so he must have been in his good graces even then. The whole thing about snape's character is that he isn't a noble, misunderstood hero- he is still vindictive towards his former bullies, hateful towards gryffindors in general etc. His only saving grace is his love for Lilly, and from that stem his good characteristics, for instance- he never used the word mudblood apart from that one time he shouted it at Lilly.
Pettigrew was never a spy, per-se - he was worse, a turncoat. He didn't work for Voldemort until the day that he was named as the Potters Secret Eeeper, and by then it would be too late for Snape to ever find out. Its impossible any other way—Snape came to Dumbledore and pledged his life in return for Lily's service before James and Lily went into hiding, and thus before they named Pettigrew secret keeper, so if he had known Pettigrew was a spy, he would have told Dumbledore right away that Pettigrew was a spy working for Voldemort, and they would have just, I dunno, shot him or something. Pettigrew was always a coward, hiding beind those with more power who would tolerate him. and he now had a way to make sure Voldemort, the most powerful wizard alive, tolerated him. So basically, Pettigrew's defection and betrayal would be known buy only four Witches and/or wizards - Pettigrew, Sirius (by virtue of figuring it out), Voldemort, and the Death Eater Pettigrew contacted to get the information to Voldemort. Who was probably in Azkaban.
Pettigrew was a spy, and was definitely not known to Snape. First, James and Sirius stated that there had been a spy on the inside of the Order for over a year. They accused Pettigrew of being that spy, and he did not deny it despite the fact he was pleading for his life. Second, Voldemort deliberately kept his Death Eathers from knowing anything they didn't need to know, so that a traitor couldn't tell anyone too much. Look how surprised Beatrix was when she found out Snape knew Voldemort's plan in the sixth book. Third, of course he considered Wormtail important; he was in the Order and close friends the Potters, making him terribly valuable. Lastly, and most importantly, if Snape knew that Voldemort's spy was inside the Order and didn't tell Dumbledore, then Snape betrayed Dumbledore. Far worse, if he knew the spy was a good friend of the Potters who might betray them to Voldemort at any moment, then he was deliberately betraying Lily. Snape betrayed Lily unintentionally, and the knowledge drove him to break down and beg Dumbledore for their lives, promising "anything" if he would protect Lily. There is no way he would have done something so incredibly stupid and dangerous to Lily deliberately, not even if Dumbledore himself ordered it.
Pettigrew also seems to believe Sirius when he claims that all of the Death Eaters in Azkaban know about him.
Snape didn't know about Peter being a DE. Snape was pretty low in rank for the DE's back when he was younger and not every DE knows everyone else. Peter, as you pointed out, believed Sirius when he claimed that all DE's in Azkaban knew about him, but here's the thing; Snape was never in Azkaban. And as the person pointed out once more, there is no way that Snape would do something so stupid as to withhold info about Peter. He holds a grudge, yes. But not so much of one that he'd purposely endanger Lily's life, send Sirius to Azkaban, and betray Dumbledore. Which would make all of his actions in the 7th book pointless and make no sense if he really did know about Peter. So I totally agree with the person above.
"Another Troper mentioned this on another page." Well, fine, but I'll mention it here and Fridge it correctly at the same time. In Prisoner of Azkaban, when Snape confronts Sirius, he says: "Give me a reason. Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will." Pretty harsh, but remember, this is the guy that almost got Snape eaten by a werewolf. Then in Goblet of Fire and Order of The Phoenix, they're a bit more civil to each other, but still obviously carrying grudges. Fast forward to Deathly Hallows, and Harry's magical mystery tour through Snape's memories shows him that Snape was in love with Lily. And the realization hits with a big KA-BOOM. Like the entire rest of the magical world, Snape had thought that Sirius betrayed the Potters and was responsible for Lily's death, and only found out the truth after Voldemort's return (when he went to Voldemort two hours after the Triwizard final and would have seen Pettigrew there). This instantly did two things: put a whole new spin on that entire confrontation, and made you realize how far in advance JKR had planned out the whole thing. — DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC
Additionally, there's another reason why Snape is so openly hostile to Sirius in book 5, specifically insinuating he's a coward—he probably blames (undoubtably rather irrationally, but still) Sirius for agreeing to let Peter be the secret keeper, feeling that if Sirius had just insisted more strongly that he be made the secret keeper instead, Lily would still be alive. — Arcane Azmadi
Also, Snape was in the Shrieking Shack while Sirius and Lupin were explaining the whole thing. I was re-reading it, and I heard the creak and thought "Oh my gosh, that's Snape!" He was late to the party, however, and only heard about his childhood days at Hogwarts: nothing about the Secret Keeper. He still thought Black was the one who betrayed the Potters and that he was deluding Harry, Hermione, and Ron. ~mermaidgirl45
I thought at first that Voldemort's line "Stand aside, you foolish girl" and offering to spare Lily's life was unimportant. Then Deathly Hallows rolls around, and Snape admits he begged Voldemort for Lily's life. Because of this, he offered to spare Lily if she let him kill Harry, and she offered herself in place. When he killed her, he essentially accepted the bargain, and then went back on it, which was why the spell backfired. Because Snape asked for Lily to live, Harry is the Chosen One! It could never have been anyone else.That is brilliant. -Darkloid_Blues
On another note, Lily, a Muggle-born Witch, should have been an automatic kill for Voldemort, however, Snape requested her life be spared and Voldemort agreed. Why? Because unlike the Malfoys, Crabbes, Goyles, or even Regulus Black, Snape is the only Death Eater shown without a strong family, but instead is in the same emotional circumstance as Voldemort: he wasn't raised by his parents, but (aside occasionally Dumbledore)by his first friendship with Lily, who was essentially the only person Snape has ever cared about. Voldemort may not feel love, but he understands that it exists and understands that other people experience it. *** Lily's death explains Snape being a master at Occlumency to the point where Voldemort can't see the truth: his interactions with Lily determined his emotional state. No Lily means no emotions for Snape. Even after Lily's death,the only thing Snape cares about is protecting Harry because he loved her, and to repay the debt he feels he owes towards her.
Yes, and another thing: at the end of book 7, Harry agrees to sacrifice himself to protect everyone else, and as a result, Voldemort's spells don't work against anyone (silencing the crowd and freezing Neville). So what basically happened is Snape saved Lily, Lily sacrificed herself to save Harry, and Harry sacrificed himself to save everyone. - Anon IP
Except, you know, Colin, Fred, Remus, Dora and Snape himself, which shows how much of a raw deal he got — unless one accounts for the fact that all these people mentioned died before Harry's self-sacrifice took place, so the protection came too late for those already killed off.
It wouldn't have saved them anyway. Snape was killed by snake venom, not Voldemort's magic, and the others were not killed by Voldemort even via snake. Harry's protection only protected against the direct action of Voldemort, not his servants.
It suddenly occurred to me why the Dementor's Kiss was used as punishment instead of death: People can just come back as ghosts if their soul isn't harmed. -gumbal1
Though whether coming back as a ghost is particularly desirable is another question all together.
Sir Nicholas, the Gryffindor's ghost, says that being a ghost is what happens when one is so afraid of what happens after dying that they remain in the normal world, a behaviour regarded as cowardy.
...Does that mean that we could very well see a ghost of Voldemort floating around nineteen years later?
No, Rowling's said his soul is too broken to become a ghost. He's forced to stay as that flayed baby in the afterlife.
Well, what about Bellatrix Lestrange?
I think she was too fanatical to be that scared of death.
Rereading the series, and just realized something: when Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, and Ginny are confronted by the Dementor on the Hogwarts Express in Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry passes out because, to paraphrase Lupin's later quote: "There are horrors in Harry's past that the others don't have." However, remember that of the other four kids, the one most affected is Ginny, "who was huddled in her corner looking nearly as bad as Harry felt". Not much emphasis is put on this, but the reason is that she's only two months removed from having been Mind Raped by Diary Horcrux-Voldemort. -Di Sc Or Dt He Lu Na Ti C
Also Neville was very pale and his voice was higher then normal. Neville's parents were tortured into insanity and can no longer recognize him, thats pretty traumatic. -FIREFLYER 88
When reading Prisoner of Azkaban, I thought Sirius's nickname Padfoot was just a sort of pun like the rest of them, because dogs have padded feet. Now, after looking into some of the British Isles mythology, the black dog is a death avatar that goes by many different names. One of them happens to be Padfoot. Now Trelawney's prediction makes a lot more sense. Sirus also is a death avatar; his friends from school all die rather violent deaths, so does Harry, and his cousin Tonks. - ashilles
A padfoot is also sometimes slang for a thief. Make of that what you will.
It just dawned on me that the Marauders are first mentioned in Prisoner of Azkaban in the order "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs". This just happens to be the reverse of the order in which they die - James first, then fourteen years later Sirius, then two years later Peter at Malfoy Manor, then a few weeks later Remus during the final battle. - Bulbaquil
One I noticed my first time reading Azkaban all those years ago (and expected to see on here) was this: Harry's dad was the genius behind the three animagi — an incredibly difficult transfiguration to pull off [no comment on how Rita Skeeter did it] which he pulled off at, like, thirteen years old. Back in Book one, Ollivander described Daddy Potter's wand as "good for transfiguration." Wand and wizard were more than just good; they were exceptional! glotof
Just realized why Voldemort has so much control over Dementors, and why Dementors don't seem to affect him like everyone else: Voldemort's soul is so tiny, the Dementors see a creature similar to them, and thus, are more likely to follow him! Also, the fact that his soul is so small means that the Dementors wouldn't get much out of it. On the flipside, the reason Harry is so affected by Dementors, and why they always seem to go for him: Harry is established as having a particularly powerful soul, full of all the things that Voldemort has ignored in his pursuit of immortality. To the Dementors, they see something so unlike them, that they need to put it out, to consume Harry's soul would be like a rare feast, since his heart is full of the things that Dementors feed on.
Several different people mention that Dumbledore dislikes Dementors. While he let's them guard the school, he doesn't let them enter the grounds and is furious when they do. This seems perfectly reasonable - Dementors are, after all, nasty creatures - but there is a simpler explanation: Every time the Dementors come near him, Dumbledore has to relive Ariana's death.
Hopefully his desire to spare the children that and the risk of having their souls sucked out also played a part.
Has he ever faced a boggart on screen?
Nope, but it's implied that would be his worst memory by the cave scene in the sixth book. Still, when you've lived as long and been through as much as Dumbledore, it's not likely he'd just experience Ariana's death again. That would probably be most prominent, but he's also dealt with the pressures of leading the wizarding world, the war against Grindelwald (who he was in love with, mind), his utter and abysmal failure to prevent Tom Riddle becoming Voldemort, the war against Voldemort... really, the only thing that would make someone tastier to a Dementor than the trauma Harry's gone through, is old age.
On the American English hardback jacket, the preview information gives plenty of information on Sirius, From a Certain Point of View. It implies guilt, but does not explicitly state it as fact. Additionally, the last sentences are "Harry Potter isn't safe, not even within the walls of his magical school, surrounded by his friends. Because on top of it all, there may well be a traitor in their midst". At the bottom of this fold in the jacket is a rat, which unlike everything else on the cover, is small, casts a large shadow, and seems unnecessary. It's even standing on its hind legs. —Wanderlust Warrior
The third Harry Potter film has a chock full of these to make up for its Adaptation Decay and Narm. Several moments in the film foreshadow things that will happen later in the series:
Harry's number in the Quidditch game - his shirt says "POTTER 7". Harry eventually turns out to be Voldemort's seventh horcrux.
Harry sees Sirius's face in a crystal ball calling his name. Sirius is the reason Harry finally hears the prophecy.
When Harry is coming to after his Quidditch accident you can hear one of the twins say "Let's throw you off the Astronomy tower and see how you look", a rather dry joke about another character who later gets thrown off the Astronomy Tower.
This is actually more of a Funny Aneurysm than Fridge Brilliance as the PoA movie came out a year before HBP was released. -ZigZag
Unless Rowling let something slip. Months before Deathly Hallows was even finished, she accidentally let the fact that Dumbledore would play a significant role in that book slip to the cast on the set.
Rowling herself mentions the 'accidental' foreshadowing in one of the interviews on the DVD. Cue crazed fans scrutinizing the movie.
When Lupin and Harry discuss Harry's parents Lupin mentions that Lily had a gift for seeing the good in everyone, "even when that person could not see it in themselves". Initially we assume he's talking about himself but he had three best friends and amazing adventures with them, he felt great. He was really talking about Snape whose only real friend was Lily.
Interesting theory, but there's no evidence to suggest that Lupin ever realized that Lily did see good in Snape. If he had, he would have trusted him more.
No evidence? Snape and Lily were openly friends for five years at Hogwarts and Remus might have realized that they knew each other before. Clearly Lily was seeing some sort of good in him even if Remus didn't know what it was or thought that Lily was being too generous about Snape's character.
Lupin was describing his own friendship with Lily, but his description also describes her friendship with Snape as well.
Snape shields Harry, Ron and Hermione from the werewolf Lupin when he attacks, foreshadowing his true allegiance.
Ron and Hermione's future relationship is foreshadowed such as when she grabs his hand during the Care of Magical Creatures class and when she turns to him for comfort after she thinks Buckbeak has been killed.
In the third film, despite the choir singing an ominous Shakespeare verse, among other dark aesthetics, the film ends on a rather happy note. Many found this strange, until they realized that the events of the film set the stage for the return of Voldemort in the next one. -dmeagher101
One small moment in this movie seems to hint at Snape's true allegiance, something which Rowling did not reveal until the seventh and final book. The moment comes after the characters have emerged from the Whomping Willow. Snape regains consciousness without realizing that Lupin has turned into a werewolf. As soon as he sees the werewolf, a look of terror shoots across his face, and he immediately spreads out his arms to shield the children from the werewolf. It's hard to believe he'd do that—not only a very brave act, but one that looks instinctive—if he was loyal to Voldemort.
This is one I realized ages ago, but every animagus in the series turns into an animal indicative of his or her true personality. James became a stag, a proud leader (plus possible Bambi references). Sirius became a dog, and he was very loyal, a prized trait in dogs. Peter Pettigrew became a rat, Wikipedia has them as "vicious, unclean, parasitic animals that steal food and spread disease" and further comments "It is a term (noun and verb) in criminal slang for an informant - "to rat on someone" is to betray them by informing the authorities of a crime or misdeed they committed. Describing a person as "rat-like" usually implies he or she is unattractive and suspicious." Rita Skeeter became a beetle, which are often seen as pests. As for McGonagall, well...
Word Of God is that animagi don't choose their animal form and it's indicative of their personality/true nature like a patronus. Which makes one wonder if the animal form can also change like it's said to happen very rarely with a patronus.
Going further, maybe the form your Patronus takes (if you can produce a corporeal Patronus) indicates your Animagus form? I can so imagine Mc Gonagall having some feline species as her Patronus... - piratemonkey06
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The first chapter of Goblet of Fire seemed kind of like filler. It established a little more about Voldemort's Muggle father, and it showed that Wormtail had found Voldemort and was helping him, but that could have easily been established later. Except it was also the first time we saw Nagini, and in fact her only appearance in the book (she next returns in the aforementioned scene in Order of the Phoenix, when Voldemort is ordering her to attack Arthur Weasley). The chapter serves to introduce the character by name, so it makes more sense when we see her in the next book, and also to show us the time at which she became a Horcrux, as Voldemort was still one short of his goal when he went to kill the Potters. That's not the brilliant part. In Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore mentions that there should be four other Horcruxes, because Voldemort wanted to split his soul into seven pieces and two of the six horcruxes had been destroyed — Dumbledore is seemingly working off of the assumption that Voldemort doesn't know that he accidentally turned Harry into a Horcrux. This might not be true. Dumbledore also confirmed what the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire hinted at (when Voldemort was reaming out Lucius Malfoy about the diary): Voldemort knows when one of his Horcruxes is destroyed. This means that it's possible that Nagini was meant to be a replacement for the destroyed Horcrux, and that he already knew that he had five remaining Horcruxes — the ring, the goblet, the locket, the diadem, and Harry.—SpiriTsunami
No. The misconception here is that Voldy did not want 7 Horcruxes, he wanted to split his soul into 7 pieces. That means 6 Horcruxes and the main fragment in his own body. Harry became the sixth Horcrux by accident and unknown to Voldly. So he decided, he needed to make that seventh fragment and used Nagini... not realizing that Nagini was the eighth fragment. Which probably nullified any benefits of the magic of seven.
That theory seems to be Jossed by Voldemort's reactions in Deathly Hallows, particularly his interrogation of the Gringotts staff. —DomaDoma
It was certainly demonstrated to be false in Half-Blood Prince (and perhaps even before), because Dumbledore tells Harry that Lucius Malfoy was punished when Voldemort learned that the Diary had been destroyed after he gave it away. And, at the start of that book, Dumbledore has already destroyed Gaunt's Ring. In fact, at no moment does Dumbledore confirm that Voldemort knows when his Horcruxes are destroyed; in fact, he says the opposite. I don't remember the exact words, but I think it was something along the lines of "As those pieces of his soul have been separated for so long from the main part of it, he is unable to detect their being destroyed". If Voldemort had been able to detect when one of his Horcruxes was destroyed, when he realized that the Gaunts' ring was destroyed, he would have started to relocate the other Horcruxes. - Milarqui
Nagini didn't appear only in the first chapter of Goblet of Fire, she also appeared in the graveyard just before the duel started.
The situation is like this: before October 31st 1981 (James and Lily Potter' death and Voldemort's "first death"), Voldemort had 5 Horcruxes (Tom Riddle's Diary, Gaunt's Ring, Slytherin's Locket, Hufflepuff's Cup, and Ravenclaw's Diadem, hidden in Lucius Malfoy's mansion, the Gaunts' shack, the cave (and then 12 Grimmauld Place, by Kreacher), Bellatrix Lestrange's Gringotts vault and Hogwarts' Room of Requirement), and had intended to make the 6th Horcrux with Harry's death, but the Avada Kedavra backfired and destroyed his body, while his soul was broken once more, and the part that didn't flee became Harry's scar. Voldemort didn't know this had happened because of the pain of his death (and, besides, Voldemort's willingness to kill Harry at every turn, even before he gets resurrected in Goblet of Fire, belies the fact that he actually knew about Harry being a Horcrux, because why would you try to kill a person who is actually keeping you alive?). In May-June 1993, Harry destroys Tom Riddle's Diary. In July 1994, Pettigrew finds Voldemort, and the next month, Voldemort creates what he thinks is his 6th Horcrux, using Nagini as a vessel (and he was more or less correct, since it would be the 6th Horcrux at the moment, as Tom Riddle's Diary had already been destroyed), but in fact it was his 7th Horcrux. - Milarqui (again)
This is only speculation though, but is it possible that in cutting Harry's hand in the Graveyard scene, Voldemort was not only trying to draw on the power in Harry's blood, but maybe also that of the soul that he put into Harry on accident in order to regenerate? In doing so, the fact that that soul piece and Harry's are so intertwined that part of Harry's may have come with it. I have nothing to back that up with and it's only speculation. But I also just realized that we have no idea what transverse effects that soul piece could have on a living person when the original maker of that Horcrux uses it to continue living. We do know based on Harry as a case study that Voldemort's soul piece from the Horcrux is heavily intertwined with his. — youngcosette
No. For starters, it's Wormtail who cuts Harry's arm. Second, Voldemort states many times that he only wants Harry's blood for what he assumes is a powerful magical blood-based protection - that, and killing him. Also, he knows that he has the connection with Harry thanks to Snape, but he never thinks that it might be due to the piece of his soul in Harry's scar. Thus, his constant attempts to kill Harry would make no sense.
Goblet of Fire has another small moment of brilliance. When the trio is trying to figure out how Rita Skeeter was able to overhear private conversations, Harry suggests Rita had Hermione “bugged” with an electronic device. Of course, that isn’t possible because electronics don’t work in the wizarding world. However, Harry was onto something, because by the end of the book we find out Rita Skeeter’s secret: she is an unregistered animagus, her form being a beetle. Hermione literally was ''bugged''!
This is actually an in-universe example — Hermione cites Harry's line about her being "bugged" as what led her to realize the truth.
Okay, this one is admittedly fairly stupid, but just hear me out: You know that tent that is described as looking like a small mansion, with peacocks in a fenced-in yard? Well, I personally believe it's foreshadowing for what is to come in the later books - I believe it was the Malfoys' tent, which they enchanted to look exactly like a miniature version of their house! ~ Kyo X Tohru 1
In the film version of Goblet of Fire,Fake!Moody does a pitch-perfect imitation of Hagrid saying "Marvelous Creatures, Dragons." While kind of cool, it seemed to serve no real purpose. Then I realized something: While in the book series, the Polyjuice Potion changes people both externally and internally, it's established in the film versions of Chamber and Hallows that Film!Polyjuice DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR VOICE. Thus, Barty Crouch Jr. was set up as being adept at Vocal Mimicry, another reason he was able to successfully pass as Moody. As much as I hate the film representation of the Junior Crouch, this was a neat little final clue before the potion wore off. - Goblin27
This troper thinks that not much weight should be given to the movies in terms of canon. I'm almost entirely certain that this was merely cinematographic effect in order for the viewer to tell who was actually who. Also, had this been the case, I think it would have been likely to have been at least hinted at in the books. In fact, the books even show that this isn't true in DH when the trio sneak into the Ministry under Polyjuice. "“Looks like it,” Harry whispered back; his voice came out deep and gravelly." Harry, who never met Runcorn (as Ron and Hermione got the hairs for him), would have no idea what his voice sounded like.
I think you misread. The troper you're replying to acknowledged that in the books the voice changes. But we know that isn't true for the movies, so it makes sense for the movies.
The Beautiful All Along page led me to this thought: Why is Hermione still a buck-toothed geek in her fourth year? Because her Muggle dentist parents want her to stay with braces. Why do they want her to have braces instead of the inordinately faster, cheaper, and more painless shrinking of her front teeth? Because they haven't figured out all the little exploits of magic yet, or don't want to figure it out. - Landis
As muggle dentists, who spent years training and studying their craft, then years more using it to slowly and painfully correct childrens' teeth, I would imagine they consider using magic to do the same as the worst kind of cheating, just as a muggle chef would feel against Molly's cooking, for instance.
This becomes sad when you realize that it is around this time when she starts to seem less close to her parents. In book two she stays with them for the summer, in book three she at least goes on vacation with them, in book four she has a specific reason for wanting to visit the Weasleys at that particular time (the Quidditch World Cup). But by book five she's spending most of the summer with the Weasleys (and at the Black house, where she's basically going to be spending her 'visit' as part of their cleaning team) and blowing off a ski trip to comfort Harry, Ron and the others. Granted she has bigger reasons to stay with them now-the war and Arthur's near death-but she has begun to distance herself from her parents and their values.
At the end of the book, Jo specifically mentions that Dumbledore's eyes "lingered on the Durmstrang students" when he said that all the guests would be welcome back at Hogwarts at any time. At that point, it's implied that he's thinking of the school's Dark Arts reputation. In the light of his one-sided relationship with Grindelwald, however, one wonders what he's really hoping for... —AMA
Not just disgusting, but very unfortunate. Just for the record: Gay =/= paedophile.
And most of the Durmstrang students are 17 or 18, which is safely above the age of consent in Britain. And there's no harm done in looking, in any case.
OP responding: No, that was not what I was implying! Rule34 has made people too suspicious.... I meant that he's thinking about how Durmstrang students are taught Dark Arts so they are more likely to become evil. He is hoping that, instead of the good students (Hogwarts, Dumbledore) being influenced by the bad (Durmstrang, Grindelwald), the Durmstrang students can return and make better, more moral choices. —AMA
For a less unpleasant and homophobic reading of that scene in light of Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald: he wanted the Durmstrang students to know they had the choice to return to Hogwarts, see a different way, and walk a different path than the one they're on now, a choice Grindelwald didn't bother to make until the bitter end, arguably.
Re-reading the book, I realized that in Ron and Harry's big fight, Ron actually makes an effort to make up before Harry does. Reading between the lines of the scene where Ron interrupts Harry's conversation with Sirius, it becomes clear that Ron was waiting up for Harry, presumably to try to make up with him, but when he came down Harry was so rude to him that he gave it up for the moment. Note also that Ron doesn't retaliate when Harry throws a badge at him and he acts less distant towards him the next day.
I always wondered what the difference between a ferret, a stoat, and a weasel as a kid (thank you Redwall). Scientifically speaking all three share the same family and genus making them the biological equivalent of distant cousins. So fridge!Brilliance struck me when I recalled Draco insultingly refers to the Weasleys as weasels and he got turned into a ferret. Considering Arthur claims the Malfoys are distantly related to the Weasleys, this is hilarious.
When Ron states that he is only interested in "pretty girls," no matter their personality, and then rejects Eloise Midgen as a date because her nose is very slightly off center, I always thought that Hermoine was overreacting to his comments, then I remembered: at this point, Hermoine still has her buck-teeth, so she isactually reacting to hearing the boy she has a crush on state that he likely has no interest in her because she isn't 'pretty' by his standards!
When Snape tells Harry that he knows that he took boomslang skin and gillyweed from his private stores, Harry automatically thinks that he is thinking back to the Polyjuice from Chamber of Secrets. In fact, Snape was almost certainly thinking about the recent removals by Fake!Moody, which Harry honestly had no knowledge about.
In the scene where Mrs. Weasley is cooking, she accidentally puts too much energy into a potato-peeling spell and knocks the whole pile onto the floor. This happens because she's a mite miffed with Fred and George over a prank they'd pulled on Dudley. Guess who turns out to have a ton of power at her disposal in book 7, when Bellatrix gives her something to really be furious about?
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I didn't care much for Nymphadora Tonks, but then I realized she was Rowling's answer to Mary Sues! Think about it! Her hair and eye color literally changes according to her mood, she ends up with one of the most wanted characters in the series, and in the end, she becomes a martyr! - KT 4
Honestly, she's clumsy as all hell, shown to be likable and capable but not brilliant, and is barely present for most of the books. I don't see the Mary Sue-dom.
It's actually fairly common for Mary Sues to be clumsy - usually endearingly so. Also, like Tonks, Potter Sues frequently wear Muggle clothing. Basically, Tonks is what a character who would be a Mary Sue in the hands of a n00b writer looks like in the hands of a competent writer.
I don't recall it ever being said that Tonks's hair and eye color changed with her mood, aside from her hair turning red once, which was SPECIFICALLY in the film version, and therefore isn't exactly canon. And I don't remember her eyes ever changing in either version.
Although, given that she can turn her nose into a pig's snout, changing her eye color doesn't seem all that unlikely. And it's worth noting that the H Pwiki lists her and her son's eye color as "able to be changed at will."
I had a moment of fridge brilliance while reading the Crowning Moments of Awesome page about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It was basically around the part where I realized how the entire school basically rallied against Umbridge... then I realized, by rallying against Umbridge, they were rallying against the Ministry. If Umbridge hadn't been the DADA teacher, there would have been no reason for Dumbledore's Army to form. Dumbledore's Army was kind of its own family, and Umbridge helped form an allegiance between the entire student body and the teachers, as well as the ghosts. Without the family of DA or the entire schoolwide allegiance already established, nobody besides a few teachers would have been so willing to take up arms against Voldemort, both at the Battle of the Astronomy Tower, or the Second Wizarding War. Harry's support system would have been severely diminished, especially at the end of the seventh book. Harry would probably have not so eagerly led a group in rebellion, if it hadn't been for Dumbledore's Army. Basically, the whole reason anything in the sixth or seventh book worked at all, not to mention with as relatively few casualties as there were, was because of Umbridge, and her Ripple Effect over the entire school in the fifth book. Jo, you are one clever bastard. katzgoboo
I just realized the Brilliance in making the character Tonks so clumsy. Being a Metamorphmagus, her center of gravity must be constantly changing as she changes shapes, thus leaving her continuously unable to find her balance. -Transfan33
I realized that there was more to Harry's angst in Order of the Pheonix than just being a broody teenager. In Deathly Hallows, while taking turns wearing the locket Horcrux, whoever is wearing it feels miserable, and their situation seems even worse than it is (and it's pretty bad to begin with). Near the end of Deathly Hallows, we learn that part of Voldemort's soul is attached to Harry's soul. So imagine having the locket Horcrux inside you at all times with no way to remove it. And this was coupled with the fact that Voldemort had come back to full power, which strengthened the connection between his soul and the piece of it in Harry. So it wasn't just Harry wangsting and whining, it was being so close to Voldemort that it made everything seem worse to him. This also opens up more Fridge Brilliance about why Harry was more upset over Cedric's death than Sirius's. Because of Harry's connection with Voldemort, it made Cedric's death more tragic to him than to anyone else, except probably Cho. Harry was very upset after Sirius died at the end of Order of the Phoenix, but didn't seem to be afterwards. Voldemort started using Occlumency against Harry sometime between the fifth and sixth books. When Harry took off the locket in Deathly Hallows, he immediately felt much less miserable. After being directly connected to Voldemort's soul for an entire year, having Voldemort blocking himself from it was enough of a relief that he was able to get over Sirius's death faster than he could have with Cedric's. -Giga Metroid 99
The reason for Harry's unusual Jerkass behaviour this whole year? Say it with me- Harry is having PTSD from seeing Cedric get killed!
When Snape reads Harry's mind during an occlumency lesson, he looks back to the time when Harry was an infant and Voldemort is attacking their house. Why? Snape wanted to see the last time Lily, the woman he loved, was alive! —synthetique
At the end of the book, Harry is in Dumbledore's office and yells that "People don't like being locked up!" in reference to Sirius. But at his words, Dumbledore immediately shows his first sign of emotion: "Dumbledore closed his eyes and buried his face in his longfingered hands." Why did he react so strongly? He was thinking of his younger sister, Arianna, who we learn in Deathly Hallows spent her life locked up. At this point, now two of the people Dumbledore tried to keep locked up for their own good had died because of him. —synthetique
And also as we learned in the seventh book, Grindlewald, who Dumbledore once loved and almost turned evil for, was locked up his whole life for his crimes
And what about Harry himself? He was left with the Dursley's, by Dumbledore, presumably for his own good as well. For the bulk of his time with them, he was kept in the cupboard under the stairs, as well as being briefly locked up by Vernon in the second book.
In the movie, Harry sarcastically comments to Dudley, "Five against one, very brave," in reference to Dudley and his friends beating up a ten-year-old. Later, not counting Harry and the Order members who arrive, it's five against one, and yes, it truly is very brave. Instead of five or six large teenagers picking on a small kid, it's one large man doing far worse than trying to beat up five teenagers, and the teenagers try to fight back, not just out of self-preservation but to help the one singled out.
Order of the Phoenix came out three years after Goblet of Fire — the longest gap between any of the two books, which was especially frustrating because Goblet of Fire ended on a cliffhanger. In the first few chapters of Order of the Phoenix, Harry spends a lot of time angsting about being kept in the dark and not knowing what's going on in the wizarding world. This wasn't just to set up Harry as a character that was going to do a lot of angsting, but a way for JK to acknowledge the audience's frustration — "Yes, I know, writing this did take longer than expected, and yes, I'm sorry, and see? Harry is frustrated too!"
Regulus Black's name hints at his redeeming actions directly before his death. Regulus is a star in the constellation Leo, the lion. Specifically, it's a red star that represents the lion's heart. HE HAS A LION'S HEART.
It gets even better: what House does that represent?
"I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more." Regulus sacrificed himself hoping, not knowing that it would work. Unlike Dumbledore, he probably wasn't even reasonably sure. That takes a whole new brand of Brass Balls.
Remember that spell that James used to humiliate Snape? Well, in "Half-Blood Prince", this very spell is in the Half-Blood Prince's text book as one of the jinxes that the Prince had invented. And, since Snape is the Half-Blood Prince, James must've learned it because Snape had been casting this spell himself! Hell, he'd most likely have used it on James himself. Suddenly, the whole incident doesn't seem quite as unprovoked as Harry had believed.
I don't think this is correct. I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure Levicorpus can also be used on objects and there are other ways to learn a spell than having it used on you. As James is said to often bully Snape I find it more likely he stole Snape's textbook for a short while and learned the spells he liked.
There already is a spell like that to be used on objects, Wingardium Leviosa. Levicorpus is Wingardium Leviosa for people.
Also, if you pay attention to the spell, it basically says "lift body", which would make sense. Also it would make sense that james may have taken the textbook, because it does have very handy notes written on it by snape itself for potions. Presumably, since it's confirmed to be dark arts, James would still have been provoked by snape because it shows deliberate dark arts in the book, made by him. No matter what else, anybody would find it worrying to have a lethal dark arts spell written down.
The incident was completely unprovoked but the rivalry was very two-sided, even considering that it appeared to regularly be the case of four on one (well, mostly two since Pettigrew was pathetic and Remus uninterested).
When Umbridge orders Snape to give her more Truth Serum (after finishing it), Snape responds that it will take a month before he can make more, and then says "Unless you wish to poison him - and I assure you I would have the greatest sympathy if you did - I cannot help you.". This is not only a jab at Harry, but it could be taken as a jab to Umbridge herself: "If you harm him, even I'll be sorry for you after what the entire Order will do to you."
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
When Harry is in detention for cursing Malfoy, he comments on how Snape seemed to be purposely keeping him longer so he couldn't spend as much time which Ginny. While Harry probably thinks this is just because Snape is mean, it may be deeper than that. Think about it — Harry looks extraordinarily like his father. Ginny, meanwhile, has long red hair. Together they resemble Lily and James as a couple. Snape no doubt notices it, and by keeping Harry from Ginny, it's almost like keeping James from Lily.
It seemed at first that Voldemort cursed the position of the DADA teacher purely out of spite (if I can't have it, nobody can). Then, after the evidences of abysmal ineptitude of the general wizarding population was presented (like the Ministry of Magic having to buy hats imbued with a Shield Charm from a prank shop), I suddenly comprehended the strategic magnificence of V's move. He ensured that the DADA classes would become a total mess, no consistent teaching routine would be possible, and before long the school would run out of decent DADA teachers completely, thus dealing a crushing blow to the opposition. - Gess
I'm surprised no one seems to have picked up on this: throughout the series, characters speculate on why Dumbledore never gives Snape the Defense Against the Dark Arts job. Generally, the idea is that Dumbledore doesn't trust him near the subject. Actually, it's because Dumbledore knew the job was jinxed so that no one would last more than a year, so he put off giving it to Snape to make sure Snape was always around... until there came a time when he knew that Snape would be leaving before the end of the year anyway.
It occurred to me that Lily might have been so good at potions (according to Slughorn) because she was friends with Snape. If that's the case, then Slughorn was right about Harry being just like his mother. They both got their potions skills from the Half-Blood Prince.
A bit of casting brilliance here - after Bill Weasley gets savaged by Greyback in Half-Blood Prince, he's described as bearing "a distinct resemblance to Mad-Eye Moody." Who plays Bill in the Deathly Hallows films? Domhnall Gleeson, the son of Brendan Gleeson, who plays Mad-Eye! - Bklyn Bruzer
Arthur Weasley is promoted out of the understaffed Misuse of Muggle Artefacts office because war is imminent and it's not a priority. The same thing must have happened in the First Wizarding War - how else could Sirius could keep hold of an illegal flying motorbike?
Throughout the first five books, Hermione performs brilliantly at potions, while Harry, failing to pay close enough attention to Snape's instructions, is mediocre at best. In the sixth, he starts making each potion perfectly by following the Prince's advice, which is what he should have been doing all along!
Who is the Half-Blood Prince and why is Lily mentioned in here more than in any other book?... Gotcha. —[1]
A comment from my sister helped me grasp Snape's true allegiance much better, instead of just a last minute change (as the author herself was unsure). In this book, Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore is left begging, "Severus please...". At first it seems like he's weakly shocked at betrayal by Snape. Actually, it's because he's begging Snape to kill him. Because Snape is putting Dumbledore out of his misery, it doesn't harm his soul. That's why he spent the night searching for him.- blueflame724
I put this in the WMG section, but it deserves as much to be over here (or maybe in Fridge Horror...if you think so, please move it). Blaise Zabini. First off, he doesn't exactly come out of nowhere - he's mentioned in passing in Book 1 because he was (alphabetically) the last new student in Harry's year. Of course, from then, the Fandom tried to make a character out of him...or "her" in some fanfics. Then we finally find out (partially through the movie) that he's indeed a Black male. He gets into the Slug Club because his mother is famous. She married seven times, each time to a wealthy husband. Each husband died mysteriously, leaving Blaise and his mother with all the wealth. Of course, the implications there are obvious. Zabini's mom is a "Black widow." The black widow, of course, is a spider that's known for being very poisonous, first off, and second, killing her mates - and the term has been used for a woman who has killed a succession of husbands or boyfriends. The fact that Zabini's mom (more than likely) literally is a Black widow (in terms of race) just makes this even more brilliant.
Made even more evident by Blaise Zabini's name. Zabini is an Italian surname, implying that the father was Italian, the vast majority of which are whites. Blaise is a French name, pointing to his mother (or her family) being from a former French colony with a Black population. What are they doing in Britain, then? The Italians and possibly someone else realized she was a black widow, and she had to run to not be swatted...
The Death Eater attack of the Burrow put in the film seems pointless but earlier Ron told Harry his mother had not wanted Ron and Ginny to return to Hogwarts because it wasn't safe anymore and to stay home. The attack on the Burrow during Christmas made it clear that nowhere was safe from Voldemort and his followers, not Hogwarts and not even people's homes.-Tapol
Rewatching the eighth movie, I just thought of something. When Dumbledore was trying to convince Draco to give up, not kill him, and go into hiding, might he have been trying to course-correct. He might have known Draco disarming him would screw up his plans to break the power of the Elder Wand and hope to win it back by defeating Draco, by convincing him to surrender so the original plan, having Snape kill him without ownership of the Wand passing from him. Brilliant.
Talking Draco down isn't really the same as defeating him, though.
Moreover, Dumbledore knows that if Draco kills him and rejoins the Death Eaters, it'd only be a matter of time until Voldemort murders Draco to claim the Elder Wand, just as he eventually does murder Snape. He's trying to save Draco's life as well as his soul.
When Snape gives Harry several weeks of detention, the sessions begin getting longer at the expense of Harry's time with Ginny. Snape was quick to point this out and gloat at him over it, and it wasn't just because he was being his nasty self. He was purposely keeping the Potter boy from spending time with his beautiful, talented, and red-haired girlfriend. — MiraShio
Snape dissing Tonks's Patronus (which he called "weak") is a two-pronged barb, when you think about it. On the face of it, it comes across as implying that Lupin is weak, because her new Patronus is wolf-like to demonstrate her feelings for him. But if you think back to how Patronuses are conjured up (happy thoughts and memories), it could also be taken as more of a warning than an insult: Snape's way of saying that Tonks's affection for Lupin, with which she calls the Patronus up, is doomed to disappointment. Considering how, if not for Harry, Lupin might've abandoned her, Snape's cheap shot wasn't entirely off the mark, either! How like Snape, to express a rather shrewd insight into others' limitations by talking multi-layered smack about them.
This occurred to me after reading the Tranquil Fury page: Snape has been calm throughout the book series, and even angry Snape doesn't raise his voice higher than normal volume. However, at the end of HBP, Snape is shouting at Harry while escaping with the death eaters. With the reveal that Snape has been a double agent all along in mind, it hit me: Snape is acting so the death eaters don't question his leaving. It seems to work, though it brings to mind more Fridge Logic: would't the death eaters notice when he never acts like that again for the rest of the series?
Snape is shouting because he's outraged that Harry would turn Snapes own spell, that he created, back on him. There's also the fact that he was just forced to kill Dumbledore, who was the only one to know his true allegiance. The Death Eaters were probably too busy burning down a certain someones hut to bother paying attention to Snape.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Although I've always loved Deathly Hallows, no matter how many times I read it in the months after it came out, I never understood all the convoluted, complicated explanations of Harry's and Voldemort's connection — why Voldemort had to kill him for Dumbledore's plan to work, how Harry survived his "death" in the forest, could only Harry kill Voldemort only because of the prophecy, and was it entirely a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy... after nearly frying my brain trying to understand, I decided to give up, and accept "Harry came Back from the Dead and A Wizard Did It" without letting it detract from my enjoyment of the rest of the series. Upon reading Book 7 for the first time in a few years, I understood it all with no effort! What had changed in the interim? I had watched Gargoyles! I read Dumbledore's explanation of how Voldemort using Harry's blood to resurrect himself linked Harry to him in such a way so that Harry would live because Voldemort lived as if for the first time, only this time, I thought, "Just like Demona and MacBeth!" Furthermore, I could now see that Harry's "death" was just like all the times Demona or MacBeth had been "killed temporarily." Someone only able to die if killed by a certain person? Nothing weird about that anymore. It's enough to make me wonder if J.K. Rowling ever watched that show... ~Lale
Harry couldn't have lost a part of his soul, because only the most destructive and evil of acts (killing another person) splits your soul in half. When did Harry find time to kill someone? He didn't, so therefore his soul was still intact. The blood wasn't a symbol of Harry's soul, it was the power in the blood itself the ol' Voldy was after (Lily's protection). - NimbleJack3
What the truth was is this: There were several protecting events for harry on that death. 1) His mother's protection, weakening the dark lord's ability to hurt Harry because it lived in him, so while he could go around killing other people without problem, aiming it at Harry would cause it to weaken. 2) Harry's status as a horcrux means he has 2 souls. Harry's soul, and the fragment of vol's soul. 3) vol knew none of this at all. The result? A killing class curse would be weakened inside of vol for pointing it at harry, thus instead of killing it like it would at full power, it took away a smaller target from harry, removing the bit of soul. Weakened curse, another target, he survives the curse because it never targeted him.
I've realized that Ginny is the most logical person for Harry to marry. A somewhat important subplot in the books is Harry's relationship with the Weasleys, to the point where they might as while be his family. If Harry had married somebody else, he wouldn't be part of the Weasely family anymore, and that connection would be lost. -Redtutel
Speaking of them being a family, Harry eventually reassures Ron that Hermione is like a sister to him. It makes perfect sense that Hermione, an only child, and Harry, who'd seen only the worst side of having siblings from Dudley, would bond with one another as surrogate sibs ... and it makes equal sense that Ron, who's got more siblings than he can stand sometimes, would completely miss seeing their mutual desire for a brother/sister connection until it's pointed out to him.
The books are - with a few brief exceptions - written in a limited third-person point of view from Harry's perspective. It makes sense that she wasn't developed as a romantic interest until Harry began to notice her. She's hardly discussed in the first four books, because he hardly notices her until befriending her in the fifth. -Redseven
Harry's still Ron's best friend and they're not going to kick him out of the family just because he didn't marry Ginny.
You have to admire Rowling's strategy when it comes to explaining Harry's rebirth - she pulls it off by creating a situation that probably had never, ever happened before in the history of wizardkind. Nobody could possibly know what would happen when one human being first made five Horcruxes (which no one had ever done before) and THEN made another human being a human Horcrux (which had never happened before) and THEN tried and failed to kill that human Horcrux (with a curse that had never failed to be fatal before) and THEN used that human Horcrux's blood in a resurrection spell, and THEN tried to kill that human Horcrux again with that same spell, and failed again, and THEN joined with that human Horcrux through a paired-wand bond, and THEN tried to kill that human Horcrux a third time, with the same spell, while that human Horcrux was in possession (theoretically at least) of all three of the Deathly Hallows. I mean, you couldn't do a spell like that on purpose if you tried. It had to be a wholly unique event.
You got your order wrong, and there are more things. The order would be first making 5 Horcruxes, THEN offering a woman to spare her if she allowed him to kill her child (which he had never done before), THEN killing that woman (placing Harry under the blood protection), THEN trying to kill that child with a curse that had never failed before, THEN having his soul spontaneously split when the spell rebounded, THEN the part of the soul that split away taking refuge into the nearest living being (Harry), THEN the still free soul possessing another man and fighting with the living vessel and being defeated, THEN using the human Horcrux's blood in a resurrection ritual, THEN trying to kill the human Horcrux again with the same spell that failed before, THEN joined with that human Horcrux through a paired-wand bond in which he was determined to be the weaker one, THEN trying to kill that human Horcrux a third time, THEN possessing him, THEN using another person's wand to try to avoid the paired-wand bond and failing as the other person's wand breaks, THEN trying to kill that human Horcrux as he attempts to do a Heroic Sacrifice to save his friends, THEN having that human Horcrux survive AGAIN, and finally trying to kill him AGAIN by using a wand that has been said many times to be unable to fight against its owner. All in all, a VERY long chain of events that are very unlikely to be repeated in the same form ever again.
To spare everyone another even longer paragraph, I'll add in that Voldy didn't only take the blood of a horcrux and someone destined to be his equal: he took in Lily's protection. Word of God says that Lily's goodness was in Voldy's veins, and that's how he could've repented.
Voldemort only being able to repent because of Lily reeks of Unfortunate Implications. If he is not able to change his ways on his own and is forced to be evil without "Lily's goodness" then I have to question how culpable for his actions he is.
Um, Quirrell, anybody? While the whole "Harry kills Quirrell" is far more ambiguous in the book than it is in the movie, it is pretty much evident that Quirrell died pretty much directly because of Harry. Voldemort leaving just sealed the deal. While it is usually claimed that such a split only occurs through murder (which Harry's killing/moral wounding of Quirrell is most assuredly not), who is to say that is true? Turtler.
Actually, Dumbledore does explain that Snape killing him won't harm Snape's soul because Snape is actually putting Dumbledore out of his misery by mercy-killing him. So, there is at least one instance where simply killing someone is different from "murdering" them. Though, if the intent is the catalyst, what about when Harry uses the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange? He certainly intended to torture and possibly kill her, though he lacked the purity (admittedly, pure evil) of mind to do so.
It is not just murder, but cold-blooded murder, as in killing someone who either can't defend him/herself from you or who is weaker than you. What Harry was doing was attempting to defend himself from Quirrell, and the book makes it clear that what Harry was doing to Quirrell was just burning his skin. The one who killed Quirrell was Voldemort when he left his body. The example about Dumbledore being mercy-killed by Snape is a good one. And what Harry intended to do to Bellatrix Lestrange was to make her suffer like he was suffering, but, as he discovered, righteous anger isn't enough.
I just got the rest of the symbolism of the wands. Thinking about the thestral tail hair in the Elder Wand. I got that Voldemort's wand was made of Yew, the whole "death tree symbolism", but his and Harry's wands were connected by the same phoenix, the bird of rebirth - the whole "horcruxes of each other" thing, with the core being the same phoenix and all - connected, and Harry's wand was made of Holly, connected to rebirth in several mythologies, including Christianity, to mirror Voldemort's wand. Because even though they both come back, Harry's the one who ultimately lives. I hadn't realized that it was so intricately connected like that until just now. -JET73L
Going into that a little more, this troper realized the significance between the shared phoenix core: phoenix are famous for their immortality and ability to always be reborn. According to Harry and Rowling herself, Voldemort always had the chance to feel remorse for what he did and be reborn in a manner of speaking. He considered that a stupid idea, though, and never seriously considered it, just like he considered his wand useless and discarded it. Harry's love for his holly wand and rebirth at the end of DH, on the other hand, showed his willingness to change and acceptance that there were things in the world he couldn't control or understand. The fact that both phoenix tails came from Fawkes (Dumbledore's pet) is also symbolic of how Riddle and Harry both saw Hogwarts as their true home! — (Not JET73L. Original poster, please sign.)
Rowling definitely did her research when it came to wands: Lily Potter's wand was made of willow, which is traditionally associated with healing, protection and love. Her last act on Earth was to give her son the protection of her love. Also Elder (sometimes known as witchwood) is linked magically to protection, often against lightning strike, but bad luck will fall on anyone who uses it without permission. In other words, Voldemort's use of a wand that wasn't strictly his brought about his death via a certain young man with a lightning scar... - Aelinuial
Sure, it was easy enough to accept that Snape hated Neville because he was a Gryffindor, he was incompetent, and he was available, but it wasn't until some time after reading Deathly Hallows that I figured out that his particular hatred for Neville was due to his belief that if Neville had been the Chosen One named in the prophecy - that if Voldemort had decided to attack the Longbottoms instead of the Potters - Lily would still be alive. - knave
After reading the seventh book, I understood Snape's hatred for Harry in a different light. Not only did Harry have his mother's eyes and look like his father (reinforcing the bond they had and the fact that Snape would never see Lily again), but he also might have been Snape's son in a different world. Hard to be friends with a kid like that. —Serene Shadow
If you read "The Prince's Tale" with the mindset of "Snape views Dumbledore as a father figure" (which, considering Snape's real father, is not that far-fetched of an assumption), it adds a whole new dimension to Snape's resentment of Harry: Snape is very much the “Well Done Son” Guy, constantly putting his life on the line for Dumbledore and doing everything he asks, which condemns him to a life of being hated by the entire Wizarding World when he kills Dumbledore, while Harry (in Snape's mind) will do much of the same and be worshipped by the Wizarding World, because everyone wants to see Voldemort killed. (Unfortunately, this makes Dumbledore seem pretty cold and even more manipulative than he already is, because it reads as though he deliberately took advantage of Snape's desperation for approval by a father-figure and tormented him with it.)
One that occurred to me involving Snape is that given that both are Muggle-borns and teen geniuses, Snape's nasty treatment of Hermione might not be just because he's a jerkass, but also because she reminds him of Lily, and he's probably angered by her friendship with Harry (who, of course, reminds him of James Potter). - Jordan
This one occured to me after re-reading the seventh book. Take a good look at the prophecy lines "marked as his equal" and "has power he knows not". First, consider that Harry was a Horcrux, which meant he couldn't kill Voldemort without dying first, whereas Voldemort clearly had no such restriction... making them not necessarily equals. Secondly, due to Voldemort's obsessive belief that Harry was the chosen one, it meant that he disregarded most everyone else's abilities as irrelevant. Now look at Neville, who 1) would be free to defeat Voldemort without dying, and 2) clearly not deemed as important to Voldemort, would possess abilities which Voldemort did not know what they were. In short, up until the very end, it was still up in the air exactly whom the prophecy applied to. - Totemic Hero
Except Harry's scar, the attack by Voldemort, is what marked Harry as his equal. Also, Harry survived the killing curse because Voldemort was protecting Harry with his mother's blood, just as Harry was protecting Voldemort as a Horcrux. The whole reason Dumbledore wanted Harry to sacrifice himself was because the first one to "die" would retain their protection, while the "survivor" lost theirs. ~Nick Falcon
JUST came to this thought after rereading Deathly Hallows. (being put in spoilers just in case.) In the epilogue, Harry's son is worried that he'll be in Slytherin. His name is Albus Severus Potter, making his initials A.S.P. Therefore, it would actually be quite appropriate for him to be in Slytherin.Stealth Pun?
As noted by others, an asp is a kind of snake. A.S.P could also stand for A Slytherin Potter.
One more thing about Al's name: which one of Harry's kids is named after Severus Snape? The one with Lily's Eyes!
Also regarding Albus Severus and his initials... being Harry's kid, he might be a Parseltongue.
No, Harry was only a Parseltongue due to the fragment of Voldemort's soul attached to his. I seem to recall something about Harry having lost the ability after that fragment was destroyed.
Yes, that was Word Of God, although I can't remember where she said it... An interview somewhere.
This one only took a chapter or two to hit me (if that), but it's still the same type of hidden bonus justification. Snape's last words are "look at me", directed at Harry. He wants the last thing he sees to be Lily's eyes. *sniffle*
That was Fridge Horror for me. Yes, I saw it as moving at first, but then I remembered that Snape is staring lovingly into the teenaged son of his crush. He's staring at Harry as he would stare at Lilly. Ew...
My friend helped me realize this one AND took it a step further: Not only is he staring into "her" eyes...in his mind her eyes are all he needs to be with her. He's dying, finally happy, in the arms of the only woman he ever loved. Double *sniffle*...
There's another way to interpret this: when I read it in the book, the intonation in my head was different to that in the movie. It was more like he was asking Harry to really look at/into "him", as in finally see his true intentions and secrets, by seeing his memories. The movie clears up the ambiguity, but I like that it can be read both ways.
Best way of all to interpret it could be both: he wanted Harry to see the truth of what he'd been trying to achieve, so he could die while looking into Lily's eyes and seeing forgiveness in them.
In the Deathly Hallows film (part one), I was shocked at the scene with Ron and the Horcrux. It was so incredibly freaky and I-can't-even-imagine for Ron. I was wondering why Harry had it so (comparatively) easy in the second book. Then I realized. Harry was a Horcrux. Even Riddle, as a memory, somehow knew that Harry was bad news, and tried to kill him, but he still recognized him as a fellow Horcrux, so he didn't try too terribly hard. Ron? Fair game. -mermaidgirl45
Take into consideration when in Voldemort's life both of those Horcruxes were made. The diary was his first horcrux, back when he was - while still evil, not as irrevocably villainous as he was when he made the locket. Thus, while Memory-Tom tried to kill Harry, he wasn't as moral-less as he was when he made the locket a horcrux. Ron's experience was so much worse because Voldemort had become so much worse and was more willing to pull out all the stops, so to speak. -Andi Nightshade
Also, Ron had been wearing the locket on and off for months. This was the equivalent of what Ginny did in CoS. So the locket could have tried to possess him, like the diary did to Ginny. Diary Riddle didn't try to Mind Rape Harry, because it hadn't actually had the chance to get a proper look into his mind/soul. It only knew enough about him to know that he'd try to save Ginny... and he was probably relatively sure about that from what Ginny would have said already.
He "didn't try too terribly hard" to kill Harry? He set a freaking basilisk on him and the only reason Harry wasn't killed was because a phoenix showed up and Riddle had forgotten that they could heal. Also, the locket tried to drown Harry when he went into the water with it. Harry being a Horcrux doesn't seem to have afforded him any preferential treatment.
It woulden't have tried to posses anybody, because they didn't care about the thing, they hated it, but as it was so close, it would have been able to read the soul. Also, it shows what type of manipulation Tom favored. the diary liked cunning and false kindness, being people's "freinds" so they would do what he wants. Once he gets what he wants? Doesn't care a twitch about them at all, sending a basalik at harry after he had gotten into the chamber. Locket Tom? Horrible and soul breaking, looking to destroy all positivity a person has and destroy their will to fight.
I realized something about Deathly Hallows and its long stretches of the protagonists camping out while on the run. Rowling likes to borrow from somewhat obscure English popular fiction (such as the school story), and it occurred to me that this kind of setting/plot is a lot like The Thirty Nine Steps and Rogue Male - same idea of a sinister force threatening England in a Day Of The Jackboot way and camping while on the run.-Jordan
In Deathly Hallows, did anyone else catch the subtlety of the exact moment that Harry reveals himself to be alive in the Great Hall toward the end of the battle? It was right as Molly Weasley killed Bellatrix. Then Voldemort stopped fighting McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn and turned toward Molly. Of all the friends he had fighting in the battle, why stop the battle to help Molly? Consider Order of the Phoenix, where Molly tells Sirius that Harry is "as good as" a son to her. When Harry sees Molly's boggart, it is flashing through images of her dead sons... and Harry is included. And, finally, in the beginning of Deathly Hallows, the gift of the watch. Because he was powerless to do so seventeen years ago, Harry is protecting the only mother he has ever known. - Spitfire71
Another one: Ron mentioned in Deathly Hallows that Voldemort had made his own name taboo — that is, if anyone said it, it would automatically dispatch the Snatchers, who would then rough them up (or, if it turned out to be Harry, turn his ass in). I thought it was brilliant from the get-go, but it took me a bit more time to unravel just HOW brilliant it was. He not only finds a way to separate Harry from everyone else (because he knows Harry's one of the few who has the balls to say the name), he also mocks Harry's (and by extension Dumbledore's) bravery. He wants to keep the wizarding world in a constant state of fear, and creating such an intense fear of his name alone is, in my opinion, sheer, terrifying genius. We're often told that Voldemort is super intelligent and super evil, but details like this really show it. -Maiira
Also points out some logical failure from the protagonists. If they really wanted to be as brave as Dumbledore, they'd have called him Tom Riddle, the name he was born with, not the trumped up title he gave himself. -Meiriona
Funnily enough, your statement just gave me a Fridge Brilliance moment. There's a difference between being brave and being fearless - Harry and company called him Voldemort to display that his fear tactics wouldn't hold them back. However, they were still afraid of his power and brutality, and rightfully so. Dumbledore was the only one who called him Tom, because as a powerful wizard in his own right and someone who nearly became evil due to the Deathly Hallows, he looks past the mass murders and all the power to see, underneath, just a man who he holds in contempt and pity. Plus, Harry actually does call him Tom Riddle - in their very final battle. This is after Harry sacrificed himself and had his talk with Dumbledore in the world between life and death. There, Dumbledore explains that since Harry had ownership of all three items, but more importantly had come to terms with his own mortality, he was the Master of Death. Harry didn't just call Voldemort "Tom Riddle" to mock him or to emulate Dumbledore, it was because he had completely overcome his fear of dying at Voldemort's hand and had completely surpassed the Dark Lord (and more importantly was on an equal level with Dumbledore, one might say). That little change signifies Harry's final step in his journey to become the great heroic wizard Dumbledore knew he could be. - Dominus Temporis
Unmarked Deathly Hallows Spoilers: In the seventh book, there comes a time when Voldemort is calling for Harry to be given up, and then no one will get hurt. Pansy steps up to say Harry should be given to Voldemort, and not one of the Slytherins stands against her. Now, some people see this as a DMoS for Jo, and she could have shown that Slytherin's aren't all evil and had some stand up for Harry, etc. But — how many of the Slytherins knew where their parents were? Their family members? Their loved ones? How many Slytherins had people they cared for with Voldemort, and potentially in danger if they helped the 'good guys'? It's actually really sad for them, because they don't necessarily know if it's safe for their families if they decide to step up for Harry, so they don't, whereas the other houses don't have that same stigma attached! /End Spoilers -Loracarol
However, Jo has said that some Slytherins came back, which is a fridge moment in and of itself. The two houses that had the most people stay were Gryffindor (duh, loyalty and bravery) and Hufflepuff (loyalty and hard work). That leaves Slytherin and Ravenclaw — the house of the cunning and the intelligent, respectively. The Slytherins and Ravenclaws were being disloyal, but they were smart enough to realize that there was no way that Hogwarts students and the tiny Order of the Phoenix fighters could defeat Voldemort, who had taken over England at that point. Some, if not all, of those students came back with Slughorn at the end of the battle! —AMA
We find out in the epilogue of Deathly Hallows that Neville became the herbology professor at Hogwarts. However, Word of God stated that he served briefly as an auror. Although he proved in the books to be adept at both herbology and auror-ing, I thought this was a bit of a strange career change to make. Then I realized it would make perfect sense if he ever found out his wife Hannah was pregnant — Neville was probably worried about being in such a high-risk profession, not out of fear for his own safety, but because he didn't want his kids to grow up without a father the way he had to.
And a better thing to do when planning for a family is to either spend months away from them teaching or have them live in the school?
In Deathly Hallows, Ron is disguised as a ministry worker whose wife is a Muggleborn on trial, and as we all know, Ron later marries Hermione, who is a Muggleborn. No wonder it hits him so hard; he's in love with Hermione, and this parallel just brings it right home, reminding him of how much danger she's in just because of her blood status.
It's even stronger in the movie.
There was that whole stink about Moral Dissonance regarding Dumbledore training Harry to, essentially, kill him because of his Horcrux. But think about it... when did this training start? Book 5. What happened in book 4? The resurrection ritual, where Voldemort took Harry's blood. And there was a gleam of "something like triumph" in Dumbledore's eyes when Harry told him about it. Dumbledore only began training Harry when it became clear that Voldemort had made it impossible to kill Harry without killing himself, and Harry had a chance to "go back" and survive dying!
And what if Voldemort hadn't used his blood? Would Dumbledore not have ever trained him? It's likely he just started because before he'd been coddling Harry and putting things off and now Voldemort was back and he knew he was running out of time.
Harry's ultimate plan for the Elder Wand was to put it back where it was, and die a natural death undefeated in order to break its power. On the surface, and given Word Of God that he becomes an Auror, this seems like a bad plan. But then it hit me — the Elder Wand's ownership passes from one owner to the other upon the first person's defeat or murder. The opponent doesn't even need to know what they'd done, as proven by both Harry and Malfoy doing it by accident. So in the event that Harry is ever defeated, possession would go to that person, and if that person were defeated, it would go to whoever beat him, and so on and so on until the Elder Wand's power is effectively broken by the simple fact that nobody knows who's supposed to be using the thing.
So Harry and Voldemort are the opposite of each other, right? Good vs evil, compassion vs heartlessness, life and death. According to TV Tropes's character page, Voldemort is 71 on the final book. What's Harry age on the seventh book? 17!
When Dumbledore leaves Harry the sword of Gryffindor in his will, I finally realized that Dumbledore knew Harry couldn't get it from his will, and that Harry would remember that the imbibed sword could kill Horcruxes. By putting it in his will and not letting Harry get to it, he was able to make Harry want to get it by making him believe that it was truly his, and then with the thoughts of getting the word filling up his mind, he would remember that one fight in the Chamber of Secrets, and then remember that he can kill Horcruxes now. When the trio was lamenting about how they weren't very close to killing the Horcruxes as they were to finding them, they actually were getting closer by aiming to get the sword! OH, DUMBLEDORE! — MahoghanyAntarctican
The deaths of Voldemort, Snape, and Harry mirror that of the brothers in "The Tale of the Three Brothers" perfectly, right down to age order: The eldest, Voldemort, died because of power. The second, Snape, died for lost love. And the youngest, Harry, greeted Death like an old friend, willing and ready.
Grindelwald's sign / the symbol of the Deathy Hallows being worn by Xenophilius (in a completely innocent gesture that nonetheless greatly offends) directly parallels the way Swastikas are treated by the public today.
It also parallels the way fundie nutjobs have treated the entire Harry Potter series since the beginning - there are webpages out there dedicated to "proving" how everything in the books is really an evil Nazi and/or Satanic symbol. In many ways, Xenophilius Lovegood seems like a Take That to anti-Harry Potter and anti-witchcraft conspiracy nuts out there.
It gets better. Why don't we look up the year that Dumbledore defeated Grindlewald? Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure it was 1945. Anyone else care to remember what other significant event occurred in that year? If you guess "the defeat of the Nazis", you'd be right!
Lily's patronus is a doe. What famous deer do we know who died while her son watched?
On the same note; Lily's patronus was a female deer, without the antlers. James' patronus was a deer with antlers; therefor a male deer and the natural couterpart to Lily's deer. Snape's patronus was a deer without antlers; he loved her, symbolized by the same deer Lily had, but he could not be her natural counterpart, as James was.
No, Snape's patronus was a doe, the same as Lily's, to signify that the unrequited love he had for her was so strong his patronus matched hers.
During the sequence where Harry travels through Snape's memories, there's a scene where Snape asks Dumbledore why he destroyed the ring before calling him, and whether he thought destroying it might stop the curse. Dumbledore just sort of halfheartedly agreed to it. But since when has Dumbledore been mistaken about magic? No, the real reason he waited to call Snape was to destroy the Horcrux! The Sword of Gryffindor can only be used when it is needed or when the wielder has proven themselves worthy of the blade, and there's no evidence that Dumbledore ever proved he had the particular type of bravery needed to wield the sword—remember, while he was certainly brave, he was never the same kind of brave as Harry, Ron, or Neville; he was a genius, never put into a situation beyond his ability to handle, and in situations that were beyond his control, he seemed accepting, rather than defiant. So he had to take the blade because he needed to destroy this source of evil before he died. If he had waited for Snape to stop the curse, the condition of "need" would no longer have applied, and he couldn't have destroyed the Horcrux!
Anyone can use the sword of Griffendor, they just have to pick it up and swing it. But it only PRESENTS itself to worthy Griffendors in times of need. Since the sword was already in his office Dumbledore didn't have to worry about this.
And destroying the ring didn't actually stop the curse so he didn't need to do it to save his life.
The deaths of Lupin and Tonks directly paralleled those of James and Lily - both couples died because of Voldemort; both left a young son that was raised by a maternal relative; both women initially weren't supposed to die (Snape begged Voldemort to let Lily live; Tonks was initially at home with Teddy before she left to fight in the war); both fathers were Marauders. However, Harry was raised by people that did not act as his family, whereas Teddy was raised by people who loved him as one of their own, leaving him happier and safer through his childhood, showing that the loss of his parents did not mean the loss of a family, as it initially did with Harry.
I thought that the second film was awesome, but didn't quite get why Voldemort's talk/showdown with Neville had so much emphasis put on it. Then I remembered- Neville could have been the chosen one, so he's facing the man who almost marked him as his equal!
During Voldemort's death scene in Deathly Hallows Part 2, the music playing is called Lily's Theme. Why is this important? Because the greatest Dark wizard of all time, in the end, was destroyed because a twenty-two-year-old mother refused to step aside and let her child die. Lily Potter vanquished Voldemort just as much as Harry did.
When Ron is given the Deluminator by Dumbledore in his will, one could think at first it is a sort of condescending gesture towards the supposedly least successful member of the Trio. Soon, he finds the Mundane Utility of the artifact, because turning off the lights can be useful in many situations. But then Ron discovers that it can be used to find his friends. Ron supposes that it is because Dumbledore thought he would leave his friends, but Harry sets him right: it's because he knew that he would come back. Then, when you realize that Dumbledore knows very well what can happen when you make a bad choice in anger and are unable to go back on it, and gave Ron the Deluminator to make sure that he didn't find himself in the same situation Dumbledore was so many years ago. - Milarqui
Hermione got a book of fairytales and Harry was only able to successfully claim a snitch. They all seemed pretty worthless at first.
This occurred to me when rereading the scene where Harry enters Voldemort's camp in the woods to allow himself to be killed. Before Harry reveals himself, Voldemort seems extremely solemn, almost disappointed, that Harry hasn't shown up, whispering "I thought he would come ... I expected him to come". The odd thing is that Voldemort has spent the last three books basically calling Harry a Dirty Coward who lets everyone sacrifice themselves for him, so why would he expect Harry to willingly walk to the slaughter, and why such disappointment? But consider how Voldemort "sees death as a shameful human weakness", something all mere humans must inevitably submit to — exactly the idea that terrifies Voldemort, which he tries to rebel against. Proving himself mightier than death is how Voldemort (described plenty of times as a classic malignant narcissist) makes himself greater than any mere human, proving that he alone stands above human weakness. So if the cowardly little boy also has the strength to resist the call of death and not go humbly to the slaughter, it means Voldemort isn't standing above anyone. His narcissism is deflated and leaves him only as human as anyone else ... Voldemort's worst fear.
OK, so Voldemort planned to make his sixth and final horcrux by killing Harry as a baby. But, what object did he bring with him to use? Nagini, who eventually did become the last horcrux, is never indicated to be with him. My personal theory? He was going to make his wand a horcrux, thinking to link its power with him even closer.
This came to me while reading through the TV Tropes pages on Harry Potter, on 10/19/2011. Somehow, in the years since I read the first one (what is it, 7, 8 years now?) I forgot that the murder of the Potters and Voldemort's first downfall happened on Halloween, also known as All Hallows Eve. Deathly Hallows?
"Hallows" just means something sacred or "hallowed". Having said that, you have a point about the date they died; All Hallows' Eve is said to be the night when the veil between our world and the other is thinnest, so spirits can travel more freely - perhaps foreshadowing that the four people who had the Killing Curse turned or rebounded on them that night would all come back in their own ways ( James and Lily return in spirit form in Books Four and Seven, Harry literallycomes back, and Christ knows Voldemort can't seem to stay dead).
To that extent, the witches and wizards celebrating in broad daylight the next day are doing so on November 1, also known as "Dia de los Muertos", or "Day of the Dead". Many Spanish-speaking countries, especially Mexico, celebrate this day by remembering and praying for deceased family members. So, the entire Wizarding World is celebrating the death of Lord Voldemort, and mourning and praying for James and Lily Potter. —Bluhedgehog
Saving Malfoy from The Fiendfyre in Room of Requirement. Knowing that Malfoy was a total jerk in the series, Harry's decision to save him was not convincing for Harry's goodness was not a satisfying enough reason. Then, looking past, during the Malfoy Manor, Malfoy's failure to confirm Harry Potter was technically saving Harry's life so it becomes more like I.O.U for saving Harry's life. Malfoy's incompetence as a death eater saved a crucial plot point.
Why isn't Harry's goodness enough of a reason? Draco is a "total jerk", yeah, but he doesn't deserve to die for it and Draco hadn't really done anything all that bad up to this point. Plus, repaying him doesn't explain Goyle. Harry was probably just saving them because he's not a complete monster.
I didn't realize this until just about my fourth reread of book seven. It may or may not be deliberate, but at the beginning of the book George loses one ear. One part of an identical set. Then, near the end, Fred dies in battle. Again, one part of an identical set. The idea that JK was foreshadowing the latter in such a subtle fashion blew my mind a little. I hope that was deliberate, because it's an amazing touch if it was.
Voldemort's closeness with Nagini seems a little unusual, given that he's a narcisstic, sociopathic megalomaniac. But then you realize: As a Horcrux, Nagini is an extension of Voldemort. Nagini is Voldemort. Thus, when showing closeness with Nagini, Voldemort is showing closeness with... himself. -The G Dude
*Snicker*. He's showing closeness with himself by stroking his snake. Heh heh.
At the end of "Deathly Hallows: Part 2" what's the very last thing we, the audience hears? An unnamed and unseen child yelling, "Goodbye!" This very well could be a farewell from the filmmakers to those in the audience who started watching the series as little kids, and saw it all the way through to the very end...a piece of their childhood saying farewell at the end of a journey from one stage of life to another.
You just made me cry a little into my keyboard. Thanks for that, unnamed Troper.
Bellatrix seems awful happy about Fred's death. Fridge Brilliance sets in when you remember in the first book that Fred and George were hitting Quirrell in the back of the head with snowballs, aka hitting Voldemort in the face. Bellatrix most likely found out about this somehow, and what with Bellatrix's loyalty to Voldemort, her satisfaction is rather explainable.
In the movie, Voldemort's evil laugh is not completely satisfying. Why? Well, as far as he knew, he'd won his goal of killing Harry, which he'd been pursuing even since the Killing Curse rebounded. Meaning, other than the takeover of the Wizard world (and the murder of the Muggle one), he had nothing else to live for. In other words... the first sign of his Villainous Breakdown. Harry revealing he wasn't dead AGAIN was simply the final straw.
A small detail in the first film. During the scuffle with Rowle and Dolohov in the cafe, Ron is the one who angrily identifies the latter. Which Death Eater harmed Hermione the most in the Department of Mysteries back in OOTP?
As a witch, it always bothered me that in Deathly Hallows, Harry wanted to do the burial "properly, without magic." What is so improper about using magic for that? On 2/13/2013 I had an idea about why Harry would think that way. Burial with magic would say he is one of us (the deceased is male) a wizard. Burying him in a method available to almost all the species in the series, with shovels, is a way to say we all are one people. Timeaesnyx
It irritated many book readers that in the film version of Deathly Hallows, Voldemort is (like in the book) impacted with a rebound Killing Curse, but (unlike the book) dissolves into ashes instead of just being instantly killed and leaving a corpse. Upon rewatching a couple of HP movies, it struck me that David Yates made this change because it works perfectly within the movie canon: this way, Voldemort's death mirrors that of Professor Quirrell in the first movie. Yumny
In the first book, Fred and George throw snowballs at Professor Quirrel's turban. Only at the end do we find out that underneath that turban is the most dangerous dark wizard of all time.
In the Forbidden Forest, the unicorn-drinking Quirrel is described as "crawling across the ground like some stalking beast" - now imagine Quirrel crawling backwards across the floor, letting the Voldemort face on the back of his head do the drinking...
The fact that three 11 year olds and a 12 year old (Hermione's birthday is mid-september) were sent into the Forbidden Forest to find a unicorn that had been badly hurt for being out after curfew. Hagrid even says that a werewolf wouldn't be able to do it. And as we learn in the next book, there's an entire colony of giant spiders in the forest! Oh, and Hagrid even tells them that "Yeh've done wrong an' now yeh've got ter pay fer it.'" when Harry and Hermione (and Ron in the movie) are in trouble for helping him! What the Hell, Hero? doesn't even begin to cover it!
He was say that to Draco. Quite angrily too. Which makes sense. If it wasn't for Malfoy, Harry and Hermione wouldn't be in trouble. Kinda although given that he seems to think that a trip into the forest is an appropirate punishment for tattling...
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Ron tries and fails to perform "Ferreverto" on Scabbers (turning him into a fuzzy goblet with a twitching tail instead of a crystal goblet). Funny at the time, right? Now... remember that little tidbit about Scabbers? That he's actually Peter Pettigrew in his Animagus form? Body Horror at it's finest!
And Pettigrew would've known that Ron's wand was damaged and malfunctioning, yet would've had to play dumb and just sit there and wait to be transformed into what he could only hope was an intact goblet.
Throughout his time at Hogwarts, Tom Riddle was sent back to the orphanage during the summer holidays, and this notably upset him. According to Word of God, The Chamber of Secrets takes place during the 1992-93 school year, and the Chamber was originally opened fifty years before that, meaning circa 1942. Given that Riddle was a fifth year in 1942, that means he was repeatedly sent back to an orphanage in London during the Blitz.
Actually, according to The Other Wiki, the Blitz only lasted from 7 Sept 1940 to 10 May 1941, while the Hogwarts school year starts 1 Sept and ends approximately in the beginning of June (I don't remember precisely). Assuming Riddle could stay at Hogwarts over Christmas like Harry could, he wouldn't have been in London during the Blitz at all.
Although it'd be pretty safe to assume that London wouldn't have been in good shape when he went back. That might explain his reluctance to go back for the summer.
He probably knew all about World War Two and the horrors of World War One as well. While he probably didn't know about the Holocaust until later, just looking at what Muggles did to the cities of other Muggles probably affected his view of them. It wasn't just the Germans, the Allies did the same thing to many German and Japanese cities, including Dresden and Tokyo, and of course by 1946 Voldemort would probably have known about the a-bomb and the Holocaust. It's clear that his goal of establishing wizarding dominion over Muggles was motivated by a desire for power and control and not a wish to "save the Muggles from themselves." Nevertheless, his knowledge of the horrors of World War Two probably helped shape his view of Muggles and led him to believe that it's ok for wizards to treat us the way we sometimes treat each other.
As the original post stated, he was in his fifth year. So really, it still would have been during the Blitz.
Don't forget that he blamed Myrtle's death on Hagrid in an attempt to keep the school from closing. That could have ended up...a bit not good.
Can Muggles see ghosts? I've read those books backwards and forwards, and I can't remember a single instance confirming one way or the other if Muggles can see ghosts. If they can't — then imagine what it would have been like for Myrtle's parents, visiting the school, being told their little girl died in a horrific accident that they can't understand — and with Myrtle floating behind them, unable to communicate with them in any way.
She could talk to one of the wizards and relay it.
It's mentioned in Deathly Hallows that the cemetery in Godric's Hollow has a reputation for being haunted, because of the number of wizarding-folk graves there. Presumably those rumors got started somehow, so at least some Muggles probably do see ghosts ... not that seeing Myrtle's, and learning that she's stuck that way forever, would necessarily be much comfort to her parents.
It's stated on Pottermore that muggles can feel ghosts(in the manner of cold spots, disembodied mumbling, and sometimes fuzzy outlines if their particularly prone) but they cannot truly see them or hear them speak. But that's even worse if you think about it...her parents could very well have felt her presence and still not have been able to communicate with her.
I imagine it would be just like when most people die and their parents don't get a chance to talk to their lingering spirit.
I only realized this after reading the books after age 20. Fridge Horror 1 is that the Dursleys are not just petty jerks, they're child abusers. Including, in the first two books, actively trying to prevent Harry from escaping so that they can continue to abuse him. Fridge Horror 2? Dumbledore knows that Harry lives in the cupboard under the stairs, Dudley's second bedroom, and in book 2 even knows on the same night that Harry has been rescued by the Weasleys. He can't be unaware of the Dursleys' treatment, but apparently sees no need to intervene at any point during Harry's childhood. It would only have taken ten minutes a year for Dumbledore to pop over there and intimidate them into being decent, but he doesn't do that until Harry is sixteen (and they'd given up at the end of book 3). Basically Dumbledore seems okay with child abuse so long as it's not deadly—oh, and Harry doesn't come into Hogwarts with a big head. His guardians didn't have to encourage their son to beat Harry up every day in order to not grow up an egotistical prat, Albus.
I see your point...but the Dursley's didn't really encourage Dudley to beat Harry up.
Well, at least in the first book, Vernon did encourage Dudley to hit Harry with his Smeltings stick.
Dumbledore sent Harry back to the Dursley's house because the second they accepted him into the home, however begrudgingly, they also accepted the love Harry's mother had for him, that way he was protected with his mother's love.***
A rather minor one, but consider Voldemort's preferred means of disposing of dead bodies namely, feeding them to his pet snake. Now imagine what was in store for Ginny once Tom Riddle had returned to full strength with a Basilisk on hand.
There is actually an aversion to this example, but it has some alternatives that highly elevate the horror. From memory I believe the message recently left on the wall was "Her skeleton will lie in the chamber forever." So perhaps Tom planned to just leave her body there until it decomposed into nothing but a skeleton. However, while it probably doesn't matter and is just overthinking it, What if Tom meant skeleton literally? As in, just a skeleton? Not a skeleton in old dusty clothes? Then again, he very well could have planned to feed her to the Basilisk. But Harry notes how cold her body already is. Most of Voldemorts victims were freshly killed, the Basilisk would be helping itself to an icicle. So Tom would probably quick-grill (burn) her beforehand. But the most likely outcome is Tom planning to leave her body in the chamber as a skeleton, torching her clothes, flesh and all off beforehand to save a little time. Knowing what a sadistic psycho Voldy is, it's not unlikely. Poor Ginny.
Do we know whether or not the Basilisk can choose who it kills with its gaze? Because if it just kills ANYONE who stares it in the eye, what would happen if Draco happened upon it? Could it have killed him too? Lucius's level of evil or at least arrogance that he knows what he's doing is even more disturbing when you realize he let a monster loose in the school that could have killed HIS OWN SON, and he never showed any sign that he thought that Draco might be in danger. Not only was it capable of killing muggleborns, the basilisk could have killed ANYONE who looked into its eyes, including teachers as well as students! The ones who were petrified were extremely lucky, considering that their condition was able to be cured.
Lucius didn't know what the diary was, so how could he have known it would set a Basilisk on the school? If he knew it was going to do something horrible, then he probably just thought it would kill Ginny.
Anyone else notice that the developmental process for the Mandrakes included them throwing a party? Yes, it was a joke about teenage behavior, but it also suggests an unsettling degree of cognitive ability and emotion on the part of organisms that Professor Sprout was raising for the express purpose of cutting them into pieces and stewing them.
And if anyone noticed, she said that the mandrakes would be ready/mature after they start trying to "move into each others pots" .. meaning that the mandrakes were trying to sleep with each other
Does it ever say that the roots would be stewed? Because otherwise it might just mean she cuts up and stews the leaves and stems growing out of their heads, which would be more like the mandrakes getting a haircut.
In Order of the Phoenix, Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry that only wizards who choose to leave an imprint of their bodies on the world can become ghosts. Presumably this is done with very advanced magic (on the level of making Horcruxes, though not as evil). So how do we explain Moaning Myrtle? Three possibilities (in increasing levels of horror): 1. Myrtle, as a young Hogwarts student, figured out and performed the advanced magic on herself. 2. Despite what Nearly Headless Nick says, Myrtle didn't choose to remain behind, but some other wizard or witch performed the magic on her, thus dooming her to roam the bathrooms at Hogwarts against her will. 3. Death by Basilisk will cause you to remain as a ghost whether you choose or not.
You're overthinking it. As evidenced by Nick's conversation with Harry in book five, wizards who choose to are just wizards who are too afraid of death and unwilling to leave the mortal world and so are trapped there.
Lockhart specialized in erasing memories. He showed a clear lack of morals in wiping a piece of person's mind and was even willing to leave a young girl to die and destroy the minds of two boys ( and maybe leave them in the chamber to die as well). He was in a school for a year. Part of that year, the well-known, respected and sometimes feared headmaster was gone. It was perfectly acceptable for teachers to be alone and unsupervised with students, even extremely late at night (in Harry's dentention with him, it started at eight and last four hours and no one looked in once, even to point out how late it was and Harry had classes the next day or even to talk with Lockhart about something). So, alone with minors for significant periods of time, lacking morals and able to erase memories that could cause trouble for him. Eep!
During Harry's confrontation with the Apparition/Fragment of Voldemort's soul that has taken the form of his younger Tom Riddle self, Riddle!Voldemort mocks Hagrid, explaining why he was the perfect fall guy for the Heir of Slytherin because of his penchant for keeping monsters around him, like "werewolf cubs". Later we learn how werewolves are created in the Harry Potter world making this seem like an error. Fridge Horror kicks in even later when we learn of the sadistic Fenrir Greyback who bites young children, turning them into werewolves at a young enough age that he can easily indoctrinate them with hatred and contempt for "normal" wizards and witches. While it may not have been his work, this may have been the circumstances under which the "cubs" Hagrid sheltered came into being.
One of Lockhart's books says that he cured a werewolf once. At first, it seems to contradict what we learn about werewolfs in later books. But we know Lockhart stole books written by other people and erased their memories. That means it's possible that someone discovered a real cure, and Lockhart deleted their memory. That's right: Lockhart deprived the whole wizarding world of cure for lycanotrophy.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In the third book, when Percy is parading his Head Boy badge, Fred and George threaten to stick it to his head with a Permanent Sticking Charm. In the fifth, we see that the effects of such a charm are Exactly What It Says on the Tin when the Order is unable to remove the portrait of Mrs. Black. So in essence, there is a charm that sticks things together, permanently, with no counterspell, that can apparently be used on humans (and presumably other living things as well)...when you think about it, there are countless horrific ways to use a spell like that, some of which could easily be thought of as mere pranks by the people doing it.
Made even worse when you realize there is a way to get rid of those things, given that wizards have been shown to heal large, missing chunks of a body, and even reattach limbs, without much trouble... -Hyrin
I think you're overthinking it. I always assumed Fred and George were just being overdramatic. It's not uncommon for people to say things like that even if they're impossible or they'd never do it, like "if you don't stay seated on that chair, I'll nail you to it".
To be fair, skin is flaking off constantly, so it'd be a lot easier than with a wall...
In Harry Potter, Percy and Ron Weasley handled Peter Pettigrew's poop for 12 years and were likely naked in front of him.
Ron: I let you sleep in my bed!
On a lesser note, how much revolting rat food has Pettigrew had to subsist on in that time?
Eh..the bastard deserved it.
On this note, during all of the time that Percy and Ron had Peter in their rooms it was highly likely that Fred and George had *the Marauder's Map and used it often. Why didn't they tell Percy or Ron that they were shown sleeping in the same space as a dead person?
They may not have recognized the name or spent time staring at their brother's dot when they were in their dorm rooms.
If they didn't recognize the name does that mean they think that Percy has some lover they've never met who moved on to Ron, when Ron was only eleven?
Possible Brilliance here, but perhaps Peter (having helped create the Map) was able to temporarily hide himself (at least from the twins). Lupin, knowing how it worked, was able to see the truth after taking it from Harry.
On the way to Hogwarts, at least one dementor searches the train. A creature that feeds on happiness and souls was in confined quarters with a few hundred emotional children and teenagers. Even worse, it's implied that there wasn't an auror or official around keeping an eye on it! What if Lupin didn't drive it off with a patronus?
One of the books Harry reads mentions the witch burnings and about how they were ineffective because any real witch or wizard would just cast a protective charm on themselves. Which is very nice... for the wizards whose captors helpfully left them their wands, the freedom to use their hands, and presumably their mouths too. For those who were searched and tied properly, on the other hand...
And even if witches and wizards back then were savvy enough to take precautions about hiding their wands on their person in case they got captured, the essay title explicitly states "Witch-Burning in the 14th Century was Completely Pointless". Anyone familiar with history knows that witches were being burned long before the 14th century. Meaning someone must have invented the Flame-Freezing charm in the 1300s, long after four witches and wizards decided that they really, really, really needed to build a secret magic school. Suddenly, Salazar Slytherin's mistrust of muggles doesn't seem all that bigoted anymore...
And what about the Muggleborns? They were raised by Muggles but they were facing the same kind of persecution as wizards and were even less prepared to deal with it.
Also, the Flame-Freezing Charm specifically applies to Witch-Burning. As stated on the Burn the Witch! page, the majority of English accused witches were hanged.
Wingardium Leviosa, pretend to be dead, then when no one is around, Diffindo the rope and run away.
Furthermore, the entire point of that story is that witch-burning was pointless, in that it didn't kill any actual witches or wizards. Meaning that, as far as the textbook's author is concerned, all the Muggle deaths in witch hunts don't really matter, just as long as the witches and wizards were safe. And this is the official textbook used to educate every child in Britain. Under Dumbledore's authority.
Not necessarily. Passage sounds just like stating cold facts. Burnings in 14th century didn't kill any true witches, which was their goal, and thus were pointless. How many muggles were killed is another matter entirely...
But notice the almost humorous tone in which the section is written, no offense to Bathilda, but I don't think she took witch burning seriously.
It's quite clearly shown in the story that young witches and wizards can do accidental magic without a wand when adequately upset or scared. It's not hard to think that adults could do the same when the alternative is being burned to death.
Azkaban is bad enough on the surface. And then you start thinking about it, and oh my God . . .
It gets worse when you realize how screwed up punishment was in the Wizarding World. Outside of school, they have fines, permanent loss of magical power, and soul torturing imprisonment that often drives people mad within weeks, making even the shortest sentence horrifying. What do they do to petty criminals? A fine? Permanent loss of their wands? Torturing them into madness?
Percy getting shoved into a pyramid in PoA. It's mentioned briefly and clearly meant to be a joke. Percy can be a pompous jerk, but one has to wonder a few things. Just how long was he in that pyramid before he got himself out or someone else did? And everyone else seems to see nothing wrong with this. Okay, Percy can be an idiot, but still...
After a few hours, Fred and George likely would have gone back for him or told someone.
The twins "tried to shut him in a pyramid," but Mrs Weasley stopped them.
One thing I realized was that when Harry and Hermione were "back in time", Lupin didn't see them on the Marauders map, when he clearly said that he saw Sirius pulling Ron and Peter into the Whomping Willow. Harry and Hermione watched that happen, and I thought it was odd Lupin didn't notice them on the map, if they were close enough to see it.
Maybe the map only shows one set of people and, since Harry and Hermione are from the future, they don't show up.
Through the books, it is made clear that the Ministry of Magic is very incompetent, but it s this books that shows how incompetent they are: An innocent man spent 12 years in Azkaban and who knows how many more endured the same fate. Think about it: a culture that cane make Veritaserum, which is a truth serum, and no one ever thought of using it to determine whether people accused of a crime are guilty. A cheaper, and much more effective solution that having trials, and no one was smart enough to actually have that idea.
Veritaserum can be countered by Occlumency, so it is far from perfect.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Where did Voldemort get a baby to possess in Goblet of Fire??
He didn't. He made that body himself. Not explicitly stated, but very obvious when you pay attention.
It also says so directly in the book, although I believe he states Wormtail made it for him.
Rowling said somewhere that she horrified her editor when she told him how he got that body. A bit of my own WMG, but I think it's Bertha Jorkin's fetus. Which Wormtail helped to make. - Joebro
All of the interactions between Neville and Mad-Eye Moody in the fourth book become horrifying when you find out that "Mad-Eye" was a fake, and was really Barty Crouch Jr. Long story short: Neville had tea with one of the Death Eaters who tortured his parents into permanent insanity, and he had no idea. Considering how eager he is in the fifth book to have a go at duelling/killing Bellatrix Lestrange, how would he have reacted if he'd have known who the fake Mad-Eye really was? Especially when you realise that the demonstration of the Unforgivable Curses was probably some deliberate, rather twisted attempt at Evil Gloating; he KNEW that Neville would react in the way that he did, so making him watch the spider being tortured was probably Barty displaying how it happened to Neville's parents.
He was probably trying to make Neville upset on purpose, so that he would have an excuse to have tea with him and have a chance to give him the book about magical plants that he was hoping would help Harry through the second task.
In The Tales Of Beedle The Bard, one of Dumbledore's notes mentions that the main difference between an animagus and a human that's been transfigured into an animal is that the animagus keeps his sense of self and magical abilities. A transfigured human actually forgets who they were, forgets that they can do magic and has to have someone turn them back, lest they stay that way permanently. This makes the whole "Draco Malfoy, the Amazing Bouncing Ferret" thing quite disturbing; what could have happened if they'd let him run away without turning him back...?
This is somewhat confusing, because it's implied that every animal has their own language, and thus have the sapient intelligence of humans. Also, owls are described as being able to understand human speech. If snakes and owls are the only non-human animals that are sapient, a person who was transfigured into a snake or an owl would not forget who they were because they'd still have human-level intelligence.
The way it happens in the books, it looks like Draco Malfoy was perfectly cognizant of what was going on, because the first thing he does is trying to run away towards the dungeons, where Snape (the only adult he trusts in the school) is at the moment.
It could be that it takes more time for the person to lose their sense of self, and Draco was only a ferret for a few moments. (That, or the ferret was just utterly terrified and bewildered at being in a crowd full of people and happened to pick the dungeons as a direction to flee.)
All of Neville and fake Mad-Eye Moody's interactions become incredibly disturbing in hindsight. Neville was alone in an office with the man who tortured his parents into insanity and he never even knew it. The fact that Mad-Eye also uses the opportunity of Neville's bad reaction to the Cruciatus Curse being performed in class to provide him "comfort" in the form of a Herbology book is also sickening considering he's only doing it in the hopes that Neville will pass on information to Harry about how to win the second challenge and take Harry one step closer to Voldemort.
Also, since fake Moody may have been the one who tortured Neville's parents to insanity: What would Neville feel or do should he find out about it?
And on the subject of Fake!Moody, remember how we all laughed when he turned Draco into a ferret and bounced him up and down on the ground? We were laughing at a fourteen-year-old boy being picked up and dropped on a stone floor repeatedly. It's a wonder he didn't break any bones. And then if you read Quidditch Through The Ages, you learn that being turned into an animal gives you that animal's brain. Which means that we were laughing at an innocent, frightened ferret being smashed against the floor. And then consider that neither McGonagall, Snape, nor Dumbledore, to whom it must have been reported, seemed to think this out of character. What sort of friends did Dumbledore have?
Is it horrible to feel much worse for the ferret than the fourteen-year-old boy?
A few fanfics, most notably The Draco Trilogy, have pointed that out. Sympathy for the Devil is very easy when a male role model just slammed him into the ground several times.
All memory charms are Fridge Horror. The wizards running the Quidditch World Cup are continually doping up the Muggle running the park with memory charms. He's going to inexplicably be unable to remember an entire summer, and no one sees any problem with this.
Not correct. Memory Charm can be used not only to erase, but to modify memory as well. Meaning he'll probably have memories of extremely uneventful summer.
Or alternatively, that awesome summer he spent working at the camp ground with those interesting people , like the guy in the skirt and the huge group of red-heads
What, so the largely unregulated ability to destroy, modify, and create memories, and the regular use of this power by government officials, is okay as long as the memories are cool? I second the original post—all memory charms are Fridge Horror.
With most of the Harry Potter novels, if you remove the fantastic elements from the climax, it doesn't mean all that much (the possible exception being the third book). But look at the end of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Now remove the magic. What you have is a fully-grown man tying up, humiliating, torturing,mocking, and otherwise tormenting a fourteen-year-old boy. While more adults stand by and watch.
And people still mock Harry for being "Emo" in Order of the Phoenix, when he was clearly suffering from PTSD due to, you know, the kidnapping and torturing and murder of a classmate in front of his eyes.
Don't forget the attempted murder.
And Cho had her boyfriend murdered, and her depression over the loss is mostly played for laughs and she's shown as annoying or boring for it.
We've seen that medical magic can achieve amazing cures that aren't possible for mundane science, from re-growing absent bones overnight to flawlessly re-attaching splinched body parts. Nevertheless, Mad-Eye Moody became crippled and horribly scarred over the course of his Auror's career. So what sort of over-the-top destructive forces caused so much damage to his face and leg, that even St. Mungo's couldn't repair? Or was he injured so badly that he couldn't even make it to a hospital for treatment, and had to lie there in agony for weeks while his burns healed non-magically? Nightmare Fuel, either way. ** After the Sectumsempra and George's ear incident, I just assumed that normal muggle and magical accidents are easy for magical medicine to fix, but that Dark Magic is cast with the specific addendum that it can't be fixed (or at least not easily) with magical medicine.
While this makes perfect sense and is definitely fridge horror, I always figured that maybe Moody wanted to be scarred and disfigured. It shows his hardness and coldness. Moody is seriously messed up, particularly in the mind, which is why he's such a brilliant auror. So, maybe his horrific dis-figuration, while still gruesome, may not have completely resulted from dark magic. Other aurors don't seem to be walking around with terrible scars, so Moody could have just been stubborn. (Although something serious definitely happened to that eye.)
The historical death toll of the Twiwizard Torminant makes it sound disturbingly like the The Hunger Games.
Minister Fudge brought a dementor into the school for protection. Not an auror, a dementor. A creature described as pure evil that devours happiness and souls! And when it executed Crouch Jr., everyone basically talked about how he couldn't testify why he did it. Nobody seemed to be bothered that a man was just given a summary execution (that is, an execution without a trial)!
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Dolores Umbridge's punishment in Order of the Phoenix? Terrifying. Look up the mythology of centaurs. They have a history of not-so-kind treatment of women. Children may not catch the implications of her being dragged into the forest with them and turning up in a dazed, traumatized state later on, but it should not have gone over an adult's head. But the truly horrifying thing about this is that it was HERMIONE'S idea. Sure, it may have partially backfired on them, but what was done was still done. Beware the Nice Onesindeed. - E Teezey
To those who are too lazy to look it up, DOLORES UMBRIDGE WAS GANG-RAPED BY SEVERAL DOZEN CENTAURS.
Several feminists actually caught on to this implication, and, needless to say, they were outraged.
Which of course bears the question of 'what exactly are they so pissed off about?' The book was written by a woman, so they can't exactly say that the author is a woman-hater, can they? Not to mention that Umbridge is a smugly-superior evil racist bitch that practically begs you to hate her, so she kinda deserves it.
Wait, what? Women aren't automatically excluded from misogyny just because they're women, and NO ONE deserves rape.
To be fair, whatever is implied (or inferred, in the minds of readers), the actual post-rescue description of Dolores is that there's apparently nothing wrong with her except some twigs in her hair. I'm assuming Madam Pomfrey has some kind of magical rape-kit, if centaurs are "known" for that sort of thing (ahem). And, honestly, would Dumbledore have allowed the centaurs to stay in the forest after that? Doubtful. He may not have liked Dolores, but he wouldn't have allowed a violent assault on a teacher any more than he'd allow one on a student.
To offer an alternative that doesn't require Brain Bleach afterwards - the centaurs found Umbridge too repulsive to even WANT to touch, left her tied up in a corner and argued over what to do with her until Dumbledore came and got her. If you think about it, Umbridge has such a hatred for "half-breeds" that even the kidnapping itself would probably be fairly traumatic. Add that to the hostility Bane and the others would have shown her, her state of mind after doesn't necessarily have to stem from rape. Hopefully.
Rapists don't rape because they find their victims sexually appealing. They rape as a way of humiliating them and establishing their own dominance. That's why prisons are full of straight men raping other men. So Umbridge being "repulsive" doesn't have any effect on the likelihood of her being raped.
Another alternative. In classical mythology, pretty much the only centaur who wasn't a rapist was Chiron, who, among other scholarly pursuits, was a noted astronomer. Astronomy (or at least astrology) is sort of the Hat of centaurs in the Potterverse. This could be taken to mean that JK's centaurs were all more like Chiron and were not, in fact, a species of rapists. I'm inclined to believe this, as the other interpretation has people like Dumbledore and Hagrid being perfectly fine with a herd of quadrupedal, equinely endowed rape-monsters chilling out next to a school full of adolescents, many of whom are female.
Or they tied Dolores to a tree and used her head as a stand to practice their archery - William Tell style. I imagine they practiced firing at targets while on the move, which is why Umbridge panicked whenever she heard a sound like centaur hooves. That's equal parts horrifying and hilarious.
I think we can assume it's called the "Forbidden Forest" for a damn good reason.
Rowling did NOT stick to the traditional descriptions of centaurs, any more than C.S. Lewis did. While she did include an offhand reference to bestiality and a suggested Rape as Drama event, nothing of the sort is true here. To expect her to stick to the mythological descriptions of the various magical creatures would mean the basilisk would look more like a chicken and less like a snake, fairies would be more malevolent, etc. She drew on mythology, but she also made the world her own in sometimes subtle and sometimes overt ways.
If centaurs were rapists, wouldn't there have been a lot more complaints about the fact that a centaur teaches a class at Hogwarts? Umbridge most likely would have believed this due to her bigotry, which could explain why she was so shaken up by them. It wasn't that they did anything to her, it was that she expected them to at any moment.
Consider this one. In the fifth book, Harry sees a vision of Sirius being attacked, then proceeds to freak out and do everything in his power to go save him. When Hermoine tells him that he needs to verify that Sirius is actually missing first, he hatches a plot to sneak into Umbridge's office and use her fire to check if Sirius is at headquarters. This leads to the entire climax, and ultimately Sirius' death. Then you remember that this entire thing could have been avoided if he had simply remembered the mirror Sirius had given him, that would allow Harry to contact his godfather at any time.
Harry didn't know what it was at the time, he only unwrapped the gift afterwards. Given his state of mind, it's not implausible that he'd forget about that lump of paper that Sirius had given him several months prior.
In Order of the Phoenix, Dolores Umbridge is not shown to be a particularly talented witch, being utterly unable to combat Fred and George's wild array of spells, but she has complete confidence in her ability to cast the Cruciatus Curse (described as a very hard curse to bring off) on Harry. The most likely explanation? She's had plenty of practice using it before.
It just requires a level of hatred that most people don't possess, it's not actually portrayed as technically difficult. But yes, fridge horror that Umbridge has that level of hate, and she probably has had practice.
The listing of floors at St. Mungo's suggests that the hospital is equipped to deal with every possible kind of magical malady, but not to deal with common mundane ailments such as heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Going by Ron's reaction to the word, wizards don't have any faith in Muggle doctors' capabilities, and none of them know any mundane biology beyond what a ten-year-old Muggle would've been taught, so if a wizard or witch comes down with a non-magical illness, they're going to be stuck with whatever crude home remedy their medically-ignorant families can whip up. Mrs. Crouch's terminal illness might well have been averted if she'd ever thought to go to a Muggle hospital.
The love room in the Department of Mysteries sounds tame enough, but it's been permanently locked with extremely powerful enchantments. Which brings up the question: why is it there if it's not used? The answer is that something went wrong in there that was so horrible that they can't chance going in there ever again. Remember, love in the Potterverse is an extremely powerful magical force. And as they say in the Narnia books, good does not mean safe.
And if you remember, they were able to get into the room with the veil of death in it. Whatever's in that room, it's more dangerous than death itself.
That's where they keep the Hadoken spell out of reach
The more you learn about Sirius Black's life, the more horrifying it gets. Recap: he grew up with an awful, racist, emotionally abusive family that treated him like a disgrace (and probably occasionally had Bellatrix Lestrange over for dinner). At the age of 16, he ran away from home to live with James Potter. A year or two later, he graduated Hogwarts and joined the Order of the Phoenix at the height of Voldemort's power, when he was picking off those who opposed him one by one. Then one of his friends betrayed Sirius' best friends/surrogate family to Voldemort, framed him for it, and got him sent to a prison where HE SPENT THE NEXT TWELVE YEARS FORCED TO RELIVE HIS WORST MEMORIES. Of which there were probably quite a few, by this time. He broke out, managed to prove his innocence to his remaining living friend and godson, then was forced to go on the run again. Finally, he spent the last year of his life shut up in the very house he ran away from as a teenager, unable to take part in the fight against Voldemort because the rest of the world still thought he was a Death Eater who had betrayed his best friend to Voldemort, alone except for Buckbeak, his memories of Azkaban, and an alcohol problem. When you look at it, the best years of Sirius' life honestly seem to be in the midst of a war and on the run eating rats.
Actually, it was Bellatrix Black, not Lestrange. She married Rodolphus. So Sirius lived with Bella. Only makes it worse.
They were cousins. They didn't necessarily live together.
They may have for periods. Who's to say which 'branch' of the Black family stayed there at any given time? Not to mention there were extra bedrooms - presumably at least four, because one had been converted into a room for Buckbeak (and is specifically referred to as Buckbeak's room, meaning he did not share a room with Sirius), one was where Harry and Ron slept in book 5, Fred and George were in another, and presumably, Hermione and Ginny were in yet another. Not to mention Sirius mentioned Andromeda Tonks (nee Black) as being his 'favorite' cousin, which obviously meant they must have spent a lot of time together and been pretty close.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest they lived together at any point. Plenty of families (especially nobility, of which the Blacks are the wizarding equivalent) have houses far larger than they actually require, it doesn't mean they have other branches of the family living there too. And you can spend a lot of time with a cousin without living with them, in fact is isn't common (in Britain at least) for extended families to live together.
I was thinking about this whilst rereading the book, and the moment where Harry comes back from his first detention with Umbridge. His hand is bleeding and cut. He hides it from Hermione, but when she spots it, she really freaks out. I had an thought that maybe, until Harry told her what happened, and considering Harry's behavior up until that point- Hermione might've thought he'd done something to himself.
The students claimed they had "Umbridgeitis", ie: Umbridge made them sick, or they were sick of her. Either way. . .
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I recently realized something about Half-Blood Prince. The scene involving Harry making Dumbledore drink the potion was nasty enough to begin with, but it becomes much worse when you realize what that potion actually does, as hinted by the flashbacks in Deathly Hallows: It makes you live through your worst memories over and over, presumably worse each time. -The Great Unknown
Made the connection before of 'worst memories' but seeing it here surrounded by other HP stuff just made me realize... The other major things in HP that make one relive horrible memories are Dementors! So possibly that potion uses... I don't know, liquid Dementor's breath or something? And it's said that Voldy can get Dementors to sort-of obey him. Maybe he has a deal where he somehow managed to get a couple to sign up for experiments and following orders, and in return they get freer reign than normal? Getting into WMG, but yeah. -katrani
When you realise what that potion did, you can't help to be incredibly amazed at Regulus Black. True, Dumbledore must have seen many more things at the age of more than 100 years than Regulus at his 20s, but Regulus was still a Death Eater and he lived with his family, which wasn't exactly the best one. Dumbledore could only drink three mouthfuls of that potion before Harry had to help him do it. As you hear Kreacher tell his tale, you realise that at no moment he says something about helping Regulus drink the potion, which means Regulus was able to drink it all on his own. - Milarqui
Made worse in the movie. When he's drinking the potion, Dumbledore keeps repeating "my fault...my fault..." He's clearly being forced to think about Ariana's death.
Amortentia, Love Potion, is, essentially, a magical date-rape drug. They distribute these openly. ~KCS
Hopefully the fact that people get so OOC and over-the-top when they are expoesd to Amortentia means that, at least for wizard/witch victims, it's easy to detect and treat.
Furthermore, think of the Power Perversion Potential of polyjuice potions. What is your creepy stalker going to do when they get one of your hairs and essentially have a free run with your body?
Polyjuice potion is supposed to be difficult to make, so it could be that very few people actually manage to make any. Of course, three 12 year olds manage it, and there is at least one adult (Mad-Eye) with a stockpile of the stuff, which kind of calls into question how difficult it really is to make.
It might have been quite difficult in the sense of being "beyond the talents of a second-year student" as well as containing items that couldn't usually be procured through legal means. But one of said 12-year-olds was a Pre-teen Genius that got her hands on the exact instructions, and the other was a Death Eater playing the part of a retired Auror - who probably would have also been privy to the same instructions one way or another.
Here's a little tidbit you might be interested in knowing about: Voldemort's mother Merope used a Love Potion on Tom Riddle to get him to "love" her and have a child. Yes, Voldemort is a Child by Rape and it's implied that he is The Sociopath as a result of this. Unfortunate Implications.
Not only this, but the way the reaction of Tom Riddle Sr is described, (when Merope finally stops giving him the date-rape drug) the tone is one of pretty obvious disapproval. No one seems to care that this man has just realised he's been repeatedly raped for MONTHS by a woman he obviously has no feelings for when not under the influence, as well as the fact that she's having his child. Being a muggle, he either a) has no idea why he did any of it, or b) now knows she's somehow been controlling his actions the entire time, and has been making him LIKE everything she's done. That has GOT to be a recipie for a BSOD if this troper has ever heard one, and people seem to look on him as some heartless bastard for leaving her.
He could have at least done something about his son.
Especially considering that he was quite rich, and didn't leave Merope with so much as a pittance to support herself and the baby.
I feel as though he's justified for leaving and not looking back. If he came back to take care of the baby, it's uncertain, whether Merope would try to drug him again.
We don't even know if Tom was told about the pregnancy before he ran, or if he believed it. My money is on the latter: she told him, but as soon as the love potion wore off he thought it was a lie and ran, and realized it was the truth only when a wizard with his name and face and the right age broke in his house.
Even if he knew—he was raped. Some rape victims are strong enough to take care of their child by rape. Some aren't. Those who aren't strong enough, aren't villains. It's a hell of a thing to ask of someone. (And Merope, even given that she may not have known any better thanks to her horrible upbringing, doesn't deserve one penny from Tom Sr. She's a rapist. He's her victim.)
Maybe Voldemort killed his father when it became clear that his father wasn't going to make up for past mistakes, explaining, apologizing, pulling him out of the orphanage, etc.
What past mistakes? 'Oh, I'm sorry I freaked out and ran when the woman who'd been raping me repeatedly for months finally stopped controlling me enough that I could actually think for myself again?' Sorry, no- he has nothing to 'make up' for.
Who's to say that Voldemort even knew the truth of the circumstances surrounding his parents? Dumbledore himself stated that Voldemort originally thought his father must've been the wizard because his mother died. Doesn't necessarily sound like someone who knew the whole truth.
Here`s something else that makes this worse: Romilda Vane gives Harry chocolates full of a date rape drug. Horrifying on its own but it becomes worse when you realize Harry was definitely in a position to tell a teacher or Madam Pomfrey who was responsible for the love potion Ron got by accident. Which would mean that even though the staff probably know who used that drug, with who knows what intentions, she`s still at the school having suffered no apparent consequences later in the book.
During Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, there's an army of Dementors "breeding" all over Britain and no one controlling them. Not only that, there's no spell described in the books that can actually kill them (a Patronus just repels them) and Word Of God says they're immortal.
Presumably, though, they are killable by Killing Curse, which Aurors are allowed to use.
Fenrir Grayback is a werewolf who tries to bite as many people as possible, in order to get enough werewolves to overcome the wizards. He specializes in biting children, even putting himself close to them so he'll infect them when the moon turns full. There are some very deliberate parallels with pedophilia, but the metaphor gets even more horrifying when you learn or remember that victims of pedophiles have a higher chance of becoming molesters themselves. Now think about what this means for Lupin.
... oh my god. Is that why he was so worried about having a kid ?
And it gets worse. Because according to Word Of God, Fenrir went after six-year-old Remus because he wanted vengeance on Remus's father for something unspecified. Ergo, Lupin not only has to worry about his child inheriting lycanthropy in much the same way that some children of infected mothers are born with AIDS, but he also has to fear Fenrir, who's still free, seeking out Remus's child in second-generation revenge—and either turning the child or killing him. Also, just for yucks, Fenrir persistently talks about children in terms of satisfying his hunger/taste/need/appetites. So it's not really clear whether or not he sexually molests his victims before turning or killing them or simply gets off that way by turning or killing them. And the Ministry is being run by Voldemort's supporters at that point, so if anything happens to his child, he'd most likely be the one blamed for turning or killing the baby and would be either banged up in Azkaban or given the Wizarding version of capital punishment—having his soul sucked out and eaten. Small wonder he was in a panic before Teddy was born.
There's also the possibility that lycanthropy is an allegory for HIV/AIDS... In which case this allegory means that a pedophile raped a young boy and gave him AIDS.
Raped a young boy *in order to* give him AIDS. Plus, the AIDS is metaphorical (though lycanthropy may be just as bad in some ways. AIDS kills you, but doesn't turn you into a bloodthirsty monster at regular intervals.) The rape...might not be allegorical.
Word of God, it is an allegory for HIV. At least in Lupin's case.
Also when they all get captured in Deathly Hallows Fenrir very much looks forward to having free reign with Hermione. The whole scene is very creepy and certainly reminds you the above mentioned implications. Luna Lovegood was in the Malfoy Manor formonthsand might have come across Fenrir during that time.
Luna was taken while on the Hogwarts Express and Greyback is a Snatcher that searches the country for truants. It's likely the Carrows took Luna themselves and brought her to Malfoy Manor. The Malfoys probably wouldn't let a werewolf near her since they clearly wanted to keep her in good condition for bargaining or something else. Plus she doesn't seem damaged emotionally at all when she's rescued so nothing too bad seems to have happened to her. Plus it's clear Bellatrix looks down on Greyback and the Snatchers so why would she want to keep them happy? She only let him have Hermione because he'd brought them Harry.
The Sectumsepmpra spell which almost made Draco bleed out is noted as "for enemies"by its creator...Gee, I wonder who those enemies were? Answer? Sirius and James.
James and Siriusstole Snape's book at one point. How else did James know 'Levicorpus' when Snape was the one who invented the spell? They probably yanked his book, saw the note about Sectumsempra, and (although they didn't know what Sectumsempra did) figured out that he was plotting revenge. And they both knew that he was fascinated by the Dark Arts as well.
Dumbledore said that the position of DADA teacher has been cursed ever since a young Riddle was turned down from the position, where each teacher lasts less than one year. The list of teachers we see in the series: dead and evil (Quirrell), permanently mentally scarred (Lockhart), prejudiced against and eventually dead (Lupin), also evil and dead (the fake Moody), REALLY evil and life in Azkaban (Umbridge), and then finally Snape who was also dead (though not evil). What happened to the other twenty or so professors that we've never heard of between Riddle's request and the start of the story?
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
In the Deathly Hollows movie, when Ron is listening to the radio, the announcer lists a number of disappearances that day, and says "Thankfully, the list is short today." Said "short list" is Thirty One Names Long. How many are on the long lists?!
Are you sure that wasn't a sequence of several days and thus several lists? That was the impression this Troper got, but I could be wrong.
If Voldemort actually won, the wizarding world wouldn't be the only place in danger, considering his hatred of Muggles and half-blood types. If left unchecked he honestly may have attempted to take out everyone on the planet that wasn't in tune with what he wanted. Genocide on a mass scale.
Rowlings word remains. Gun beats wand. If he attempted open warfare, he would have to face the British army, followed by every other army that felt threatened by him. Openly declaring war on Muggles would have been a very bad idea, and there is no way he couldn't have known that. He would have been subtle about it, but a genocide wouldn't have been possible at all.
Gun beats wand, yes, but wizards have the upper hand in stealth and can teleport with ease. They don't even need to fight a war. Kill off farmers, blight crops, poison drinking water - all incredibly easy to do if you have magic at your disposal.
Oh, geez. And never mind what would happen if wizards got a hold of modern weapons and found a way to harness them with magic. Note that most small arms still aren't computerized - hence, they wouldn't be incompatible with magic. Picture the British (or any other) Army marching down the street, when they're suddenly faced with a full squadron's worth of machine guns that are firing, but don't have anyone there physically pulling the trigger. Levitating a gun in place and using some sort of telekinesis spell to fire the gun without presenting a clear target for the enemy to shoot would probably be no object for a decently powerful wizard. Hell, they learn the levitation spell about a month or two into their education.
This probably wouldn't actually be a problem. Like Rowling said, gun beats wand. It's not that the Wizards don't understand technology, they are literally unaware that it exists. They don't know about Predator Drones, smart missiles, or motion sensors or anything. These are things that work around wizards, just not in magical environments. If Voldemort declared war on Muggles, he'd find himself and his merry band of Death-Munchers bombed to nothing within minutes of stepping outside of their little magical enclosures. And that's only the electronic stuff. If Muggles ever needed to mount an invasion of a magically-saturated location, they still win. Even without any electronics, we still have automatic weapons, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and good old-fashioned planes. Not the modern bombers we have today, the World War I-era bombers. The ones that flew without any electronic aid whatsoever. The ones that rained bombs across Europe like they were candy. Sure, you can make the case that Voldemort has limit less magical powers... that he has to aim through a wand.We can shoot people with thousands of missiles. From Space! With iPhones.
Not completely true. The savvier of wizards - not to mention anyone that's taken Muggle Studies - probably know a fair bit about technology. Hermione, as a muggle-born witch, certainly does. Hell, even Arthur Weasley, who's pureblooded wizard but sufficiently fascinated to learn, has a rudimentary knowledge of muggle tech. As would Voldemort himself. Remember, he was a half-blood raised (and presumably educated) as a muggle for most of his childhood. And in the category of Fridge Brilliance, he ironically only values pure-blood wizards and witches. The fact that he wants (apparently) to create a pureblood utopia with him at the head probably makes him a fraction as dangerous as he'd be if he wished to unite all wizarding peoples under one banner and subjugate Muggles. Then he'd probably have used the knowledge of the Muggle world from the Muggle-borns and half-bloods that were loyal to him as weapons against the muggle world - like the aforementioned weapons.
Yeah, guns would beat the wizards, especially if the muggles got wise first. You get a shield spell up fast enough to stop a bullet that you don't know was fired and will kill you before the sound reaches you. If the Minister of Magic got the PM to have an SAS unit on the job of stopping Voldemort the Deathly Hallows would have been half the size it was. Imagine if US Green Berets taught Harry and crew to use guns (they are regularly tasked with training local forces). Death Eaters wouldn't know what hit them.
Voldemort himself wouldn't know much about muggle tech, since he grew up in the Muggle world during World War Two, so his knowledge from his Muggle life would be very outdated. And once he was old enough to leave the Muggle world, it's likely he never had anything more to do with Muggles. If nothing else, he was fighting to restore himself to a human body from 1981 onwards, so he's missed a lot of developments in technology since then. As he was probably fairly preoccupied obtaining corporeal form, rather than reading the science pages of the papers and infiltrating the military to find out advances not publicised to civilians.
Sorry, although guns would indeed beat wands, wizards would easily win a war against muggles. Winning would be as easy as teleporting in front of the world leaders and imperiusing them. Heck, i'd be surprised if you couldn't just imbue some cloaks with a bullet deflecting charm or something. Remember, wizards can create massive bubbles where technology doesn't work or that instantly alters a muggle's memory. Instant teleportation? Access to dangerous creatures that muggles can't even see? Ability to create demonic hellfire that can't be extinguished by any mundane means? Yeah, we'd stand no chance.
You can't give a dementor the old one-two.
When rewatching Deathly Hallows Part 1, I braced myself for the scene at Bagshot's house. I was prepared for the bloody room Hermione finds and Nagini inside of Bathilda but it took me a while to realize why what Hermione finds is so horrifying. Killing with Avada Kedavra doesn't leave any blood, so what Hermione saw was likely the aftermath of Voldemort flaying Bathilda so Nagini could hide in the skin. And since nobody knew precisely when Harry was going to head to Godric's Hollow, that body could have been decomposing for months. Perhaps a bit obvious to most viewers, but it took me a while to realize all the ramifications.
Harry nearly had his soul sucked out by a dementor at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban (when he and Sirius are at the lake and a bunch of dementors are around, one dementor lowers his hood and is about to give Harry the kiss when the time-turnter Harry comes with the patronus. If Time-Harry hadn't come he would of lost his soul. This thought only gave me shivers until I got to the end of Deathly Hallows and found out that part of Voldemort's soul was in Harry the entire time. If the dementor had taken Harry's soul in PoA Voldemort's would probably still be in there. Harry would then become a second Voldemort. -bookaddict
Doubtful. The dementor would probably have eaten the extra soul fragment as well.
So could getting a dementor to smooch it be another way to destroy a Horcrux?
There's a fair chance it could, but then it would have to be a human Horcrux, which has never happened and probably will not happen, because it's too risky to store part of your soul in a living, thinking being. Sirius got around the Dementors as a dog because a dog's emotional life is too simple for a Dementor to trace. Nagini is the only other living Horcrux, and she is a snake which is not exactly a more advanced animal than a dog. Objects like books and lockets don't have a mouth for the Dementor to kiss.
What about objects that do have mouths? Imagine an inflatable sex doll Horcrux. Now picture said Horcrux defending itself. Sweet Dreams.
In The Deathly Hallows, Luna is kidnapped and kept at Malfoy Manor for months! Considering that Bellatrix and Greyback (a sadistic child rapist + cannibal) had took residence there, imagine what she must have been through.
Hmmm, they couldn't have really done much to her because they promised Xeno she would be safe as long as he published journalism against Harry. But if Xenophilius refused to obey...
Also, Luna is pure-blood so Bellatrix wouldn't really have much to say about her. The things Greyback would have done to her, however, are too horrible for words, especially since she's so innocent.
Luna may have been a pure-blood, but so was Neville. So were Frank and Alice Longbottom. So was Sirius. They would have been seen as blood traitors in Bellatrix's eyes, just like Luna.
And Greyback was traveling with the other Snatchers hunting Muggle-borns down, so he couldn't have been at the Manor there for long periods of time.
Doesn't take long to rape someone. Or inflict lycanthropy on them.
When Dolores Umbridge resurfaces in Book 7, she is seen with several fully corporeal Patronuses. Now, as Book 3 stated over and over again, the basis for creating a corporeal Patronus is a fair bit of magical power combined with thinking happy thoughts. So Umbridge, being the evil Witch with a Capital B that she was (pun completely intended), got her Patronus-jollies from sentencing people to A Fate Worse Than Death. Voldemort might have been the most powerful dark wizard, but Umbridge just on the strength of her pure sadism was a villainous Badass Normal.
Applies only to the film version of Deathly Hallows Part 2, but where is Parvati Patil?! Her sister Padma is seen, so where's Parvati? Considering what happens to the other twins in this film, my paranoia is justified.
In Deathly Hallows, Harry successfully casts Crucio on a Death Eater. Think about what this means. The spell causes pain of a magnitude so great that enough time under it can drive the victim into permanent insanity. According to the text, you have to sincerely want to cause another person this amount of pain in order for the spell to work. And you have to go on wanting it while you watch your victim writhing on the floor and shrieking in mind-shattering agony. Harry's only response after casting it successfully is to murmur, "Bellatrix was right. You have to really mean it." Brrrrr.
To be fair, he had recently learned that Hogwarts had basically been turned into a concentration camp, and that the Death Eater he was Crucying and his sister had been using that same curse to torture the children they were supposed to be teaching; when Carrow said he was going to blame some kids and put them at Voldemort's (nonexistent) mercy to save their own asses, Harry snapped. And he didn't keep the curse on Carrow for any length of time; he just threw him across the room.
Actually, this could be a case of misunderstood Fridge Brilliance in disguise. Harry knocks Carrow through the air, whereupon the death eater falls unconscious. Crucio very clearly doesn't knock people unconscious, or even send them flying—just the pain. So in saying that you "really have to mean it," Harry might be acknowledging the fact that he didn't actually cast the curse successfully, and doesn't have it in him to do so, even when presented with such an obvious and available symbol of everything he hates.
The Fate of Umbridge. Harry knocks her out, extinguishing her Patronus, and leaves her, unconscious, in a room full of Dementors.
Word Of God said that she ended up convicted for crimes against muggle-borns and locked in Azkaban, so it should be assumed that she survived that, soul intact.
Of course, as a candidate for most despicable fictional character of all time, falling prey to the Dementors' Kiss would have been a well-deserved fate for her. Assuming she had a soul to be sucked out by the dementors in the first place.
This is more of a Fridge Tear Jerker, but by the end of Deathly Hallows Andromeda Tonks has lost both her husband and her daughter in the space of a few months. Poor thing◊.
Word Of God says it was her own sister, Bellatrix, that murdered her daughter.
What happened to Dumbledore's sister decades before the time the story is set? We are just told that when she was a small child, too young to have any control over her magic, some muggle boys saw her doing magic and were very frightened. So they "wanted to make her feel powerless" in retaliation — Details of what they did are not given, but it left her permanently and severely psychologically damaged. Implication made even worse by how young she was.
And to add to that, Dumbledore's father was sent to Azkaban for going after those boys after they attacked her.
When you are a kid the fact that Slytherins are bad people is easy to accept. But when you grow up you realize that 25% of the school population are seen as evil by everyone else from their 11th birthday. No surprise that Voldemort had so many followers there : they probably don't have anyone else.
Even Dumbledore is horrible to them, pretending they won the cup in the first book before giving it to Gryffindor, and explaining to Harry not that "being Slytherin would have been alright" but that "what matters is that he choose not to become one". And let's not forget that in the 7th book McGonagall sent them all to the dungeons because of one of them (Pansy Parkinson).
No she didn't. She told them to leave the School because she couldn't trust them, which isn't too out there really. A lot of them must have had parents or relatives among the Death Eaters, and the entire school was united against them because of years of institutional bias, and one of them had just said that they should hand over the almost-literal Messiah.
In the 7th book the Slytherins were sent to safety along with most of the underage members. In the end, they were treated just like everyone else by McGonagall. It's also never stated that the ones of age went and joined the Death Eaters, on the contrary Slytherins could have been fighting for Hogwarts just off-page.
In Deathly Hallows part 2, during The Prince's Tale, you see Snape go to the Potter's house and cry over Lily's dead body. You see baby Harry crying in his crib in the background. in the movies, Hagrid is still the one that brings Harry to the Dursleys. That means that Snape had come and gone before Hagrid got there, and he made no effort to take Harry to safety or anything. It really makes you question if Snape actually cares about Harry.
He didn't. If Voldemort had killed Harry and James and left Lily alone, Snape wouldn't have had the Heel Face Turn in the first place.
Wouldn't having a (as far as anyone except Dumbledore knew) Death Eater bring Harry to the Dursley's be rather suspicious to everyone else?
That isn't even getting into the strong possibility that Snape hit the Despair Event Horizon and never recovered. He had heel realization but does he ever seem happy? Its possible he simply wanted to distance himself from the son of the person he loved who he helped kill.
Indeed, he may have felt at the time that he didn't have the right to have anything to do with the child he'd just helped to orphan: not after he'd failed Harry's mother so terribly. How he justify staying near the only thing that was left of the woman he'd loved?
In the books, Hagrid and Sirius both arrived at the scene very quickly (Hagrid said he was there before the Muggles had noticed anything was wrong); assuming that this also happened in the film-verse, Snape couldn't have been in the house for more than a couple of minutes before having to flee and wouldn't have needed to help Harry anyway.
Moody's body must have been discovered by agents of the Ministry, as his eye turns up on Umbridge's door. He never has a funeral, however, as the Ministry doesn't want the public to know it's lost one of its most formidable Aurors. Just days later, the Ministry falls under Voldemort's control, when Mad-Eye's corpse is probably still being held in a Ministry-run morgue. We know the bad guys make use of Inferi...
Moody only had one leg. They probably wouldn't have bothered.
In the film, at the Battle of Hogwarts, there was one scene where a group of Death Eaters Zerg Rush across a bridge while shouting "DEEAATH!". Since I didn't see them using magic, I thought it was really stupid. Then, it hit me. We already know the Death Eaters use the Imperius Curse, and in the sixth book, we hear that they use it on Muggles too, since one of Prime Minister John Major's associates had to be locked up. That group that was Zerg Rushing the bridge? Those were Muggles who had been brainwashed to act as cannon fodder. They had no idea what they were doing.
Bit of a WMG there. It's possible they just weren't able to use magic until they were in range/weren't very good at magic/just plain stupid. Or the film needed a nerve-racking scene, threw some stunt guys in and told them to improvise.
Are we to truly believe ABSOLUTELY NOBODY in the entire castle knew Snape was working for Dumbledore the whole time when he was Headmaster? And for that matter, how did the portraits in the Headmaster's Office not go around talking about it like we know they did about everything else? That would have taken enormous amounts of self-discipline from them. And back to the original question, every day would have been absolutely miserable for Snape given that there was only one being in the entire castle he could speak freely to while convincing everyone else he was fundamentally okay with torturing children and turning them into the Voldemort Youth and presiding over two Death Eater 'teachers" prized for their brutality doing exactly that, and he was a dead portrait who was ordering him to do it all "for the greater good". Prince Conor
The very concept of the Wizarding World is Fridge Horror. Think about it. A bunch of people, who at best either know nothing about us at all or regard us in an extreamly condescending way, secretly Mind Rape us into not realizing they exist. And then they say we deserve not to know based on the logical fallacy that we wouldn't "believe" in magic sufficiently enough anyway, whatever that's supposed to mean.
You know how "Avada Kedavra" sounds a lot like "Abra Kedabra"? The obvious implication is that someone heard the phrase, didn't know it's implications but knew it sounded/meant something awesome, and it got passed onto fake magicians as a catch phrase. The horror comes from the fact that it's now a common catch phrase and analogous to the sound of a magic gun going off. In book 7, dark wizards could accidentally return fire on muggle kids who scream it too loudly. Inquisitors are bound to shackle up street performers who use it in gambling alleyways (remember that inquisitors live long and leave their atticks clean of pop-culture, Holmes style). AND NOW HAPPY-GO-LUCKY TRICK MAGICIANS AROUND THE WORLD ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING "PLEASE #$%^ THIS SAWED WOMAN TO DEATH".
Let's think for a moment about how the wizarding world as a whole behaved in the past, if the one phrase almost everyone associates with magic is a corrupted form of the words of an unblockable deathspell. And . .. with Lockhart and a few others, we are shown quite well what unscrupulous wizards can do, and do routinely. Suddenly, the efforts of the Holy Inquisition in rooting them out seem genuinely heroic, in the universe Rowling has written.
Actually "abracadabra" is arameic for 'I have created as i have spoken' ibra being 'I have created' and k'dibra being 'I have spoken'; similary "avada kevadra" is hebrew for 'I destroy as I speak'.
Of course this means that where most magic used to create stuff is in some kind of quasi-latin (The language of the Roman Empire) the most evil curse in the world which kills you instantly comes from Hebrew... the language of the Jews, um Unfortunate Implications much.
It's not Hebrew, it's Armenian.
Consider the following: Voldemort had an army. In order for someone to have an army - and to even spend some time with power in their hands - there has to be at least some measurable degree of support. In the real world, even the most horrid regimes are supported, if not by a majority, by a loud and not-too-small minority of the people in it - or they would simply fall apart in a few days rather than in a few years. It must, in short, be politically viable. So, Voldemort might be a very powerful wizard, yes, but he only gathered an army and managed to actually control things for a while because his ideology is politically viable in that particular environment. Meaning that, unless there was a purge of sorts (and these aren't exactly foolproof, nor necessarily much of a way to keep the moral high ground) or something, his ideas are still shared by quite a lot of people, some of whom have money and/or political/magical power (the Malfoys being the most iconic example, and they clearly lived). Said people might, in that setting, try and get into power by hook or by crook in the future.
On a more positive note, it could be that Voldemort's rise to power left such a bad taste for his ideals that the entire idea was abandoned. This happens sometimes in real life, for example Hitler effectively ended the entire eugenics movement.
We don`t know for sure how much of his army was just Imperiused. Still horrible but in a different way.
Certain pure-blood families would rather have members marry their own cousins than Muggle-borns or half-bloods. Now we know why Crabbe and Goyle are so dumb.
Harry never goes beyond "mediocre wizard" at best... and I had a moment of Fridge Brilliance when I realized that he was never supposed to. I went into Harry Potter expecting a more typical hero-type story. I expected Harry to saddle up, get good at magic, get motivated, and generally learn how to not suck at everything. But he never did - he was in the middle of a war and still struggling to cast spells in 6th year classes. It took me a long time to realize that that was part of the point — Harry Potter is a story about an average boy who was inexplicably targeted by a terrorist (because of a prophecy) when really he's not worth being a blip on Voldemort's radar. The story wasn't about the rise of a hero — it was about a kid getting caught up in events that he couldn't handle (just like most kids today couldn't handle either). Realizing that made me be a bit less irritated with the last three books in general.
Actually, I'll take this a step further: Harry Potter was a very good wizard for his age in terms of combat magic (to the point where he was chosen by a large number of students to be a de facto Defense Against The Dark Arts professor in his fifth year), but woefully inept in most other branches. Why? Because Harry focused all of his time and mental reserves into surviving all the Dark magic-related crap that got thrown at him year after year. Harry was a victim of forced Crippling Overspecialization.
What happened to those poor Muggle-borns and other wizards who were captured by Death Eaters and the Ministry? Were they sent to the magical concentration camps where unspeakable horrors occurred?
The scene where the Trio infiltrates the Ministry shows some of what happens. My guess would be they get put in Azkaban (probably filling some of the cells that were left empty when the Death Eaters themselves escaped) and/or get their souls sucked out by Dementors. So, their treatment may have been very similar to the treatment of people at the concentration camps in some ways.
