Does it make you laugh too that, even as a crowd of Hogwarts teachers is gathered around a Petrified Mrs. Norris trying to figure out what happened to her in The Chamber of Secrets, Snape's first thought is how to use the situation to help Slytherin win at Quidditch?
I laugh out loud every time I read the scene.
Here they are, facing what is to that point one of the most significant, scariest threats ever to face Hogwarts and Professor Snape's only worry is how to gain an advantage for his Q-team. He suggests to Dumbledore, in his silkiest of voices, that Harry should be suspended from playing Quidditch until the mystery is resolved.
Love it.
Even better is the fact that Professor McGonagall, Deputy Head Mistress, immediately jumps to her team's defence.
Love it love it love it.
Further to the question, does it seem fair to you that 1) McGonagall was allowed to purchase the latest racing broom for her team's new Seeker in Book One, making it all but assured that Gryffindor's quidditch fortunes would improve significantly by giving its team a HUGE advantage over everyone else and 2) that Mr. Malfoy would be allowed to buy the entire Slytherin team even better brooms the following year?
I have to admit, I think it's kind of poetic justice that McGonagall's cheating is so effectively and overwhelming countered by the Malfoys in book two. If glorious, honourable Gryffindor can cheat, then certainly Slytherin can cheat too and do an even better job of it.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
The Vanishing Cabinets appear...
As anyone who has read this blog will know, I'm quite interested in attempting to find objective evidence, in the texts themselves, of the extent to which J.K. Rowling had planned the seven-book Harry Potter story arc when she was writing the early novels.
My suspicion is that, while she may have had some vague notion that she would try to write a novel for every year Harry was at Hogwarts and while she recognized from the outset that the underlying story would be the Harry-vs-Voldemort plot, she had not really started to plan things in detail until the fourth or even fifth book.
Then I run smack into the Vanishing Cabinets.
As you all know, the Vanishing Cabinets play an extremely important role in the pivotal events of The Half-Blood Prince. Draco Malfoy uses the connection between the Cabinet that he finds at Bourgin & Burkes and the one that exists in the Room of Requirement to sneak Death Eaters into Hogwarts on the fateful night when Dumbledore meets his end.
What's amazing to me (and a clear suggestion that J.K.'s planning was much more extensive than I tend to give her credit for) is the fact that Rowling shows us both Vanishing Cabinets early in Book 2, The Chamber of Secrets. Even as she wrote her second Harry Potter novel, it appears clear that Rowling had at the very least an inkling that she would use these cabinets again.
Even more importantly, she introduces us to the idea that one of the cabinets, which she does not yet identify as a Vanishing Cabinet, is in Borgin & Burkes and the other one is already in Hogwarts.
Remember?
When Harry's first attempt at travelling via Floo Powder goes awry, he ends up in the creepy shop on Knockturn Alley. When Draco and his father walk into the shop seconds later, Harry hides himself in what Rowling describes as "a large black cabinet".
Not long thereafter, when Nearly Headless Nick wishes to save Harry from Flitch's clutches, he persuades Peeves to drop a very heavy piece of furniture on the floor directly above the caretaker's office. That piece of furniture? A "large black and gold cabinet", which after Peeves is through with it is badly damaged and in need of repair.
Repair that would come four books later at the hands of Draco Malfoy.
Now, it's possible that J.K. wasn't planning anything when she wrote these scenes for the second novel and that it was only when she came to book six that she realized she might be able to use them to help her plot along at that point in time.
But I'm more apt to think that Rowling had a plan, even as early as The Chamber of Secrets. She purposely introduced us to these two cabinets and she purposely placed one in the Dark-Arts store and one in Hogwarts.
Cool.
One question, however. I have always thought of Hogwarts as being a huge stone castle. If the floor between the classroom and Filtch's office is stone, would it have transmitted the crash of the dropping Vanishing Cabinet down to the occupants of the office below?
My suspicion is that, while she may have had some vague notion that she would try to write a novel for every year Harry was at Hogwarts and while she recognized from the outset that the underlying story would be the Harry-vs-Voldemort plot, she had not really started to plan things in detail until the fourth or even fifth book.
Then I run smack into the Vanishing Cabinets.
As you all know, the Vanishing Cabinets play an extremely important role in the pivotal events of The Half-Blood Prince. Draco Malfoy uses the connection between the Cabinet that he finds at Bourgin & Burkes and the one that exists in the Room of Requirement to sneak Death Eaters into Hogwarts on the fateful night when Dumbledore meets his end.
What's amazing to me (and a clear suggestion that J.K.'s planning was much more extensive than I tend to give her credit for) is the fact that Rowling shows us both Vanishing Cabinets early in Book 2, The Chamber of Secrets. Even as she wrote her second Harry Potter novel, it appears clear that Rowling had at the very least an inkling that she would use these cabinets again.
Even more importantly, she introduces us to the idea that one of the cabinets, which she does not yet identify as a Vanishing Cabinet, is in Borgin & Burkes and the other one is already in Hogwarts.
Remember?
When Harry's first attempt at travelling via Floo Powder goes awry, he ends up in the creepy shop on Knockturn Alley. When Draco and his father walk into the shop seconds later, Harry hides himself in what Rowling describes as "a large black cabinet".
Not long thereafter, when Nearly Headless Nick wishes to save Harry from Flitch's clutches, he persuades Peeves to drop a very heavy piece of furniture on the floor directly above the caretaker's office. That piece of furniture? A "large black and gold cabinet", which after Peeves is through with it is badly damaged and in need of repair.
Repair that would come four books later at the hands of Draco Malfoy.
Now, it's possible that J.K. wasn't planning anything when she wrote these scenes for the second novel and that it was only when she came to book six that she realized she might be able to use them to help her plot along at that point in time.
But I'm more apt to think that Rowling had a plan, even as early as The Chamber of Secrets. She purposely introduced us to these two cabinets and she purposely placed one in the Dark-Arts store and one in Hogwarts.
Cool.
One question, however. I have always thought of Hogwarts as being a huge stone castle. If the floor between the classroom and Filtch's office is stone, would it have transmitted the crash of the dropping Vanishing Cabinet down to the occupants of the office below?
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Reflections on the Mirror of Erised
I have a quick question about the Mirror of Erised. You know, the magical mirror that Harry encounters in The Philosopher's Stone and that Dumbledore uses, later in that same book, to create an extremely clever protection for the Stone itself?
First, I should say that I think the Mirror is an amazing creation that J.K. uses rather brilliantly to give us a peek into the deepest secrets of two of the central young characters in the series. Through the use of the Mirror, Rowling very quickly lets us know that, for Harry, the lack of a real family, a loving family, exists as a hole in the centre of his soul. His greatest wish, we learn through this surprisingly simple technique, is to be a part of a family. This would become a driving force for Harry throughout the books.
Further, Rowling uses the Mirror to help her with the much more difficult challenge of showing us some of the issues that stand at the centre of Ron's psyche. Why is this a "much more difficult challenge" for Rowling? Because she uses a third-person limited narrator to tell her story: her narrator describes what happens in the stories from an objective position (the narrator does not actually take part in the action) but, for the most part, she limits her narrator to being able to see into the mind of one single character. Harry.
We know what Harry is thinking from scene to scene but rarely do we ever get to know what other characters are thinking.
So it is not so difficult for Rowling to help her reader to understand Harry because we are privy to his thoughts and reactions in relation to every incident that occurs. We learn about him by knowing his thoughts and feelings.
It is much more difficult for J.K. to help us understand the other characters whose minds are, for the most part, closed to us. We learn about them only from what they say and do, not from what they think.
The Mirror gives her a unique opportunity to let us into the mind of another character: Ron. When Ron stands in front of the Mirror, he describes what he sees and it is himself earning all kinds of different awards and accolades. This ties in with something he said to Harry earlier in the book: that he arrives at Hogwarts already knowing that he won't live up to the standards and expectations set by his older brothers.
So, from the Mirror, we learn that Ron yearns to stand out on his own, to emerge from the long shadows cast by Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred and George.
As an interesting aside regarding Rowling's narrative technique, note that the reader "sees" what Harry sees in the Mirror (the narrator describes his family to us) while the reader only learns about what Ron sees in the Mirror from what Ron says to Harry about it. It's as if, like Harry, the narrator cannot see what Ron sees in the Mirror.
Okay, that's all a set up for this question about the Mirror:
Does the Mirror show Harry his family as it actually existed or does it show him his family as he imagines it to be?
The narrator tells us that Harry sees a large family, some members having eyes like his and his mother, others having knobbly knees like Harry. It is through these similarities that Harry realises that this is his family he is seeing and, in fact, that these are his parents in the middle of the group.
That suggests to me that the Mirror is not drawing these images from Harry's mind or imagination because, if it were, he would recognise them right away. J.K. would have written something like "Harry saw the family he had always imagined he had".
But, instead, Rowling makes it clear that, for Harry, this is the first moment in his life when he feels a part of a larger, loving family. He does not recognise them at first; the recognition comes slowly as he examines them.
So then we must conclude that the Mirror, after reading Harry's soul and realising that his greatest wish is to know his family, was able to find, somehow, images of his actual ancestors to show him.
A small point, sure, but that's what this blog is about: finding and considering small and large points about the Harry Potter world.
I find it interesting that, in the film version of the first book, the producers/directors choose to include only Harry's parents in the Mirror, to amend Harry's psyche from wishing to be part of a large family (which then ties him even closer to the Weasleys in the books) to wishing to know his parents (which makes it a much more personal thing).
It also makes the argument that the Mirror is only showing Harry that which it draws from his own mind because Harry's memory likely still retained images of his parents from his infancy.
First, I should say that I think the Mirror is an amazing creation that J.K. uses rather brilliantly to give us a peek into the deepest secrets of two of the central young characters in the series. Through the use of the Mirror, Rowling very quickly lets us know that, for Harry, the lack of a real family, a loving family, exists as a hole in the centre of his soul. His greatest wish, we learn through this surprisingly simple technique, is to be a part of a family. This would become a driving force for Harry throughout the books.
Further, Rowling uses the Mirror to help her with the much more difficult challenge of showing us some of the issues that stand at the centre of Ron's psyche. Why is this a "much more difficult challenge" for Rowling? Because she uses a third-person limited narrator to tell her story: her narrator describes what happens in the stories from an objective position (the narrator does not actually take part in the action) but, for the most part, she limits her narrator to being able to see into the mind of one single character. Harry.
We know what Harry is thinking from scene to scene but rarely do we ever get to know what other characters are thinking.
So it is not so difficult for Rowling to help her reader to understand Harry because we are privy to his thoughts and reactions in relation to every incident that occurs. We learn about him by knowing his thoughts and feelings.
It is much more difficult for J.K. to help us understand the other characters whose minds are, for the most part, closed to us. We learn about them only from what they say and do, not from what they think.
The Mirror gives her a unique opportunity to let us into the mind of another character: Ron. When Ron stands in front of the Mirror, he describes what he sees and it is himself earning all kinds of different awards and accolades. This ties in with something he said to Harry earlier in the book: that he arrives at Hogwarts already knowing that he won't live up to the standards and expectations set by his older brothers.
So, from the Mirror, we learn that Ron yearns to stand out on his own, to emerge from the long shadows cast by Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred and George.
As an interesting aside regarding Rowling's narrative technique, note that the reader "sees" what Harry sees in the Mirror (the narrator describes his family to us) while the reader only learns about what Ron sees in the Mirror from what Ron says to Harry about it. It's as if, like Harry, the narrator cannot see what Ron sees in the Mirror.
Okay, that's all a set up for this question about the Mirror:
Does the Mirror show Harry his family as it actually existed or does it show him his family as he imagines it to be?
The narrator tells us that Harry sees a large family, some members having eyes like his and his mother, others having knobbly knees like Harry. It is through these similarities that Harry realises that this is his family he is seeing and, in fact, that these are his parents in the middle of the group.
That suggests to me that the Mirror is not drawing these images from Harry's mind or imagination because, if it were, he would recognise them right away. J.K. would have written something like "Harry saw the family he had always imagined he had".
But, instead, Rowling makes it clear that, for Harry, this is the first moment in his life when he feels a part of a larger, loving family. He does not recognise them at first; the recognition comes slowly as he examines them.
So then we must conclude that the Mirror, after reading Harry's soul and realising that his greatest wish is to know his family, was able to find, somehow, images of his actual ancestors to show him.
A small point, sure, but that's what this blog is about: finding and considering small and large points about the Harry Potter world.
I find it interesting that, in the film version of the first book, the producers/directors choose to include only Harry's parents in the Mirror, to amend Harry's psyche from wishing to be part of a large family (which then ties him even closer to the Weasleys in the books) to wishing to know his parents (which makes it a much more personal thing).
It also makes the argument that the Mirror is only showing Harry that which it draws from his own mind because Harry's memory likely still retained images of his parents from his infancy.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
If only memory charms were real...
I am reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone again. I can't even guess how many times this makes (10, 20, 50) but I still get something out of it every time.
And, in some ways, it makes me kind of sad. Why? Because I really wish I could be reading it again but for the first time.
Does that make sense?
A friend of mine is a big fan of the TV show "Breaking Bad" which, as many of you know, just came to an end with a big, much anticipated finale. This friend told me that the finale was "perfect".
Now, I have only seen one episode of this hit show and, to be honest, I didn't much care for it. I noticed, however, that several of the early seasons of "Breaking Bad" are now available on Netflix so I told her that, since she loves it so much and I respect her taste, it is my intention to give it another try. I plan to watch the entire first season of "Breaking Bad" and then decide whether to continue or not.
To my surprise, her response to this declaration was not one of delight, as I expected it to be, but instead it was simply a groan. I asked her about it: she said, "Oh, you are so lucky. I wish I could go back and watch it all over again for the first time."
We talked a little bit about this idea and both agreed that, often when you first read a book or watch a TV show that becomes hugely important in your life, you don't really understand how great it is and how important it will become. You don't savour it and, in fact, you don't savour your own experience of reading or watching it.
Weird, eh? But true, I think.
To be honest, I can't even remember clearly reading the first Harry Potter book for the first time. I do know that I read it while visiting my partner in England where she was going to school. I remember that I had heard great things about this Harry Potter book and that, in order to enjoy it together, I would often read it aloud to her.
But I can't bring back how I felt while reading it that first time, how it impacted me or even if I realised while reading that Harry Potter would become such a fun, important part of my life.
And then I think about my response to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. How I spent an entire year waiting for the book to be published. I was working at a University in Ontario and there was a group of us who were all Potter fans. We'd sit on our lunch hour or our breaks and talk endlessly about the first six books and what we expected to happen in the seventh.
And then, when Deathly Hallows finally came out, we all bought and read it in a single day. I remember being so caught up in finding out what happens that I completely neglected to enjoy the journey from page one to the end.
I remember reading the last 200 pages so quickly that, when I reached the end, dealt with the intense emotions it elicited, then caught my breath, I had to go back and read them again. And again.
But I worry now that I didn't really savour that first reading.
So, yes, as illogical as it may sound, I do now wish that I could go back and wipe it all out of my memory and read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone again for the first time.
I want to feel again the wonder of discovering Harry's new magical world, the delight at the fullness of Rowling's vision of Hogwarts and its society, the intensity of the suspense as he, Ron and Hermione investigate the mystery of the Philosopher's Stone.
To be honest, I think I cheated myself the first time around. Oh well, you can't go back. We don't have memory charms that would allow me to erase the last 16 years and start all over again, fresh and new.
I guess I'll just have to do my best to enjoy the 20th (or 50th reading) instead.
And, in some ways, it makes me kind of sad. Why? Because I really wish I could be reading it again but for the first time.
Does that make sense?
A friend of mine is a big fan of the TV show "Breaking Bad" which, as many of you know, just came to an end with a big, much anticipated finale. This friend told me that the finale was "perfect".
Now, I have only seen one episode of this hit show and, to be honest, I didn't much care for it. I noticed, however, that several of the early seasons of "Breaking Bad" are now available on Netflix so I told her that, since she loves it so much and I respect her taste, it is my intention to give it another try. I plan to watch the entire first season of "Breaking Bad" and then decide whether to continue or not.
To my surprise, her response to this declaration was not one of delight, as I expected it to be, but instead it was simply a groan. I asked her about it: she said, "Oh, you are so lucky. I wish I could go back and watch it all over again for the first time."
We talked a little bit about this idea and both agreed that, often when you first read a book or watch a TV show that becomes hugely important in your life, you don't really understand how great it is and how important it will become. You don't savour it and, in fact, you don't savour your own experience of reading or watching it.
Weird, eh? But true, I think.
To be honest, I can't even remember clearly reading the first Harry Potter book for the first time. I do know that I read it while visiting my partner in England where she was going to school. I remember that I had heard great things about this Harry Potter book and that, in order to enjoy it together, I would often read it aloud to her.
But I can't bring back how I felt while reading it that first time, how it impacted me or even if I realised while reading that Harry Potter would become such a fun, important part of my life.
And then I think about my response to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. How I spent an entire year waiting for the book to be published. I was working at a University in Ontario and there was a group of us who were all Potter fans. We'd sit on our lunch hour or our breaks and talk endlessly about the first six books and what we expected to happen in the seventh.
And then, when Deathly Hallows finally came out, we all bought and read it in a single day. I remember being so caught up in finding out what happens that I completely neglected to enjoy the journey from page one to the end.
I remember reading the last 200 pages so quickly that, when I reached the end, dealt with the intense emotions it elicited, then caught my breath, I had to go back and read them again. And again.
But I worry now that I didn't really savour that first reading.
So, yes, as illogical as it may sound, I do now wish that I could go back and wipe it all out of my memory and read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone again for the first time.
I want to feel again the wonder of discovering Harry's new magical world, the delight at the fullness of Rowling's vision of Hogwarts and its society, the intensity of the suspense as he, Ron and Hermione investigate the mystery of the Philosopher's Stone.
To be honest, I think I cheated myself the first time around. Oh well, you can't go back. We don't have memory charms that would allow me to erase the last 16 years and start all over again, fresh and new.
I guess I'll just have to do my best to enjoy the 20th (or 50th reading) instead.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Rowling's working on something New(t)
I think it's quite fitting that, on the day J.K. announces she will be writing the screenplay for the new Newt Scamander movie -- okay, let that phrase roll around in your brain for a minute -- I have made the decision to abandon my recently announced "read every book in the house" challenge and return to Harry Potter.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Scamander announcement. One, I really didn't think much of the actual book and, two, Rowling seems to think that the fact that she witnessed the writing of the screenplays for the Potter movies was sufficient training for her to take on this task as her first screen writing effort.
I guess I'll just have to keep an open mind. I am interested in the plot J.K. has come up with for the movie and I'm interested in seeing how she integrates the magical world into the real world of New York in the 1930s and '40s. I have a deep admiration for Rowling's imagination and her skills as a creator of characters and situations. So I'll wait things out and see how it turns out.
Meanwhile, I get to go back, after a break of several months, to reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It will be neat to see how I respond to it after being away for so long.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Scamander announcement. One, I really didn't think much of the actual book and, two, Rowling seems to think that the fact that she witnessed the writing of the screenplays for the Potter movies was sufficient training for her to take on this task as her first screen writing effort.
I guess I'll just have to keep an open mind. I am interested in the plot J.K. has come up with for the movie and I'm interested in seeing how she integrates the magical world into the real world of New York in the 1930s and '40s. I have a deep admiration for Rowling's imagination and her skills as a creator of characters and situations. So I'll wait things out and see how it turns out.
Meanwhile, I get to go back, after a break of several months, to reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It will be neat to see how I respond to it after being away for so long.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
What's behind a name?
I know that there is probably a website out there that traces the source of all of the character names in the Harry Potter series but I haven't looked at it.
That's why I was amazed to find the name "Mundungus" in a book I am reading: Laurence Sterne's 18th Century comic travelogue, A Sentimental Journey. The notes to Penguin Classics version of this book explains that "Mundungus" is the author's nickname for Dr. Samuel Sharp, a travelogue writer from the 1760s.
Is it possible that this is where J.K. came up with the wonderfully descriptive name for the sneak thief Mundungus Fletcher? What a great source of names!
This experience, of course, reminded me of the fact that I also found the name Hermione used in another 18th-Century work of fiction. To be honest, I can't remember if it was in Charlotte Lennox's The Female Quixote or one of the Anne Radcliffe novels I just read but I was pleased to see it anyway.
As I said, for many readers of this blog, this may come as no surprise but, for me, it's a joyful discovery. And it doesn't surprise me that Ms. Rowling is well-versed in the rich history of women's writing in England.
That's why I was amazed to find the name "Mundungus" in a book I am reading: Laurence Sterne's 18th Century comic travelogue, A Sentimental Journey. The notes to Penguin Classics version of this book explains that "Mundungus" is the author's nickname for Dr. Samuel Sharp, a travelogue writer from the 1760s.
Is it possible that this is where J.K. came up with the wonderfully descriptive name for the sneak thief Mundungus Fletcher? What a great source of names!
This experience, of course, reminded me of the fact that I also found the name Hermione used in another 18th-Century work of fiction. To be honest, I can't remember if it was in Charlotte Lennox's The Female Quixote or one of the Anne Radcliffe novels I just read but I was pleased to see it anyway.
As I said, for many readers of this blog, this may come as no surprise but, for me, it's a joyful discovery. And it doesn't surprise me that Ms. Rowling is well-versed in the rich history of women's writing in England.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
"R" has a lot of good stuff to say about my last post
I recently had the good fortune to receive a number of comments on my last post, "Rowling and the art of the family", by a reader who identified him or herself only as "R".
I seem to have struck a nerve with R in some of the things I said in that post and R's response is fantastic. This is a person who really knows the Harry Potter books well and obviously loves them. Since the comments R created were broken into five parts (Blogspot limits how long each comment can be), I have taken the liberty of copying them all into a single entry into the blog itself.
I have also taken the liberty of replacing a couple of swear words with "[*]" since young people read this blog and I have deleted the half sentences at the end of some paragraphs that got cut off by the comment function. Other than that, what follows are R's words. Thanks, R, for taking the time to read and to respond. You might not always agree with me but I'm glad you're willing to explain to me where you feel I've gone wrong. I hope you will find stuff in other entries on this blog that you find more acceptable (or that prompt more fantastic responses).
That being said, here is R's response to my blog entry:
What I think? I think that this post is pretty stupid. No
offense but what are you trying to say? That J.K. Rowling is a horrible family
hater? First thing first, only because you write about something doesn't mean
you think about it the same way. But since you didn't get the point during any
of the seven books: HP is very pro family. James died so save Lily and Harry.
Lily died so save her son. Sirius died to save Harry. Molly and Arthur would
have died for their children and for Harry and Molly's biggest fear was to lose
them. What says more about love and family than "I'd die for my
family."
Just because some characters aren't in a relationship or
have children doesn't mean they don't worship families or don't know how to
love. But it's also one of the greatest things about Harry Potter and the
difference between HP and Twilight. “Harry Potter is about confronting fears,
finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity."
But to the next part of your text: "Think about that:
Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, Lupin, Lockhart, Flitwick,
Trelawny, Moody, Slughorn, Quirrell, Pomfrey, even Umbridge... They're in
live-in positions and yet not one of them is shown with a spouse and not one of
them mentions a spouse. Sure, Lupin eventually marries Tonks but, at the time
they're teaching, they are single. No matter their age."
First thing first: Dumbledore is gay. Do you really expect
him to find a wife? Next thing: Snape is still in love with Lily. He would have
married her some day if she required his love but she didn't. Poor Snape but
that doesn't say anything about family. Quirrell traveled after his 7th year
and was possessed by Voldemort ever since ... But I guess Voldemort would have
been a great daddy. To Lupin: He marries Tonks so where is the problem? Oh
because he wasn't married right after he left school? Excuse me, I forgot that
people aren't allowed to live their own lives.
"And then ask yourself the question: how many of the
families in the Harry Potter series have more than one child?" More than
you named. You forgot Fleur for example. Also you forgot the "Next
generation". Harry has three kids. Ron and Hermoine have two kids. George
has two children. But to the characters without siblings:
Harry: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to
have more than one kid. A shame they [*] died when their first born was a year
old.
Neville: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to
have more than one kid. A shame they [*] went insane when their first born was
a year old.
Voldemort: I don't know if his mother would have wanted
another child after the heartbreak with Tom Riddle Sr but we will never know
because she died during [*] childbirth.
Luna: I'm sure her parents would have loved another child.
To bad her mother died when Luna was still a kid.
Hagrid: Nope, Hagrid DOES have a brother. Only a halfsibling
but still.
"Of the five main child characters in the novels
(Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville and Voldemort), three are parentless, one
abandons her parents to join the magical world and the fifth is Ron of the
massive family." There are reasons for three of them being parentless and
this reason is not Rowling’s hate towards families. Hermoine also didn't
abandon her parents to join the magical world, you [*] idiot. The deleted their
memories of her so they wouldn't get killed during Voldemort War II. It was
said from the very beginning of their journey in book seven that as soon as
Voldemort was defeated, Hermoine would give her parents their memories back.
Hermoine did this to save them and it did break her heart. And "Ron's
massive family"? There is no way to please you, is there? Either there
aren't enough kids or there are too many. And again: The book isn't supposed to
be lovey-dovey no-one dies everybody's happy and has a perfect family with 2.5
children.
PS: "Your comment will be visible after approval."
There is no way in hell you're going to approve of my comment, is there? So I
really wasted one hour of my life. Yippie-Ya-Yeah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)