The Harry Potter Lexicon Link to Main page of the Harry Potter Lexicon.

The Lexicon Blog

Episode 6: “Only two people are known to have done it … and they’re both dead!”

Steve discusses McGonagall and Walpurga and their friends, wobbly bridges, mutant chickens, Bertie Botts Shots, who can and can’t fly, a fateful decision to retrieve a forgotten diary, and other odds and ends of Harry Potter canon.

Show links:

This entry was posted in Lexicon Podcast. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Episode 6: “Only two people are known to have done it … and they’re both dead!”

  1. ZJJ says:

    As usual, I enjoyed the podcast and the discussion of the various topics. One thing, it was mentioned about Quirrell’s conversation with Voldemort that Harry overheard. I was thinking that Quirrell’s reluctance was over being instructed to go drink unicorn’s blood again in the Forbidden Forest rather than a reluctance about a second attempt at the Philosopher’s Stone.

  2. ZJJ says:

    Steve, you really should be more careful about giving people like me any encouragement ;D

    A comment and a question… isn’t it ironic that in a series about a wizard that the very first time we ever see Harry use his wand with an incantation is 192 pages into the second book? Like learning Expelliarmus from Snape, Harry’s first wand/incantation is at the Dueling Club and is against Malfoy–Rictusempra!

    The question is along the same lines as what would have happened if Ginny hadn’t been able to go back for her diary. Aside from having no main character for the third book, what would have happened if Fawkes hadn’t healed Harry with phoenix tears? We know basilisk venom can kill a Horcrux, so wouldn’t that bit of Voldemort’s soul have been eliminated just like Riddles’s Diary? I’m of course supposing that it was because Harry was healed that the venom didn’t kill Voldie’s bit of soul to begin with.

    Keep up the great work, Steve!

  3. Emily says:

    Hi Steve,

    Love the podcasts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, they’re always fascinating to listen to.
    In your last couple of podcasts you talked about some of the moments from Chamber of Secrets that make you think of “what-if” scenarios (such as not going back for the diary). One of my favorite concerns the Vanishing Cabinet that features so prominently in book 6. A lot of people, I think, missed its first appearance in Chamber of Secrets. After a rather muddy Quidditch practice, Harry is caught by Filch as he tracks mud into the castle. He is about to be punished when Nearly-Headless Nick convinces Peeves to break a vanishing cabinet over Filch’s office. That’s when Harry sees the Kwikspell letter. If Peeves hadn’t broken this cabinet, how different would Half-Blood Prince be? Draco wouldn’t have had to spend all year trying to repair it to let the Death Eaters in. It’s fun to think about.
    Keep up the great podcasts. I look forward to them every time. Thanks.

  4. John says:

    You spoke about platform 9 3/4 and how well it fits the actual location. I agree. I don’t understand why the essay “Harry Potter in London” on the Lexicon complains that the real location of platform 9 and 10 does not fit the description in the book. I think it fits perfectly. There are the tracks for platform 9 and platform 10 and the barrier is between the platforms (in front of the tracks). Platform 9 3/4 is simply between the tracks (with an additional track, or maybe two, on the other side being 9 1/4 ;-) )

  5. CK says:

    I love your podcast.
    When i listen to it i feel like in those good old times when we discussed all our theories on HP.
    One thing that came to my mind after listening to this episode:
    How come McGonagall knows that Neville’s grandma failed her charms exam?
    My theory would be that the were in the same year as well, maybe best friends…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Harry Potter Lexicon logoAbout Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Copyright | ©2000 - 2014 The Harry Potter Lexicon.
NO PART OF THIS PAGE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PERMISSION.
HARRY POTTER, characters, names, and all related indicia are trademarks of Warner Bros. ©2001-2014.

Page layout by Lisa Waite Bunker and Steve Vander Ark, banner graphics by Camilla Engelby © 2007.

Primary editor: Steve Vander Ark
Original photograph © Steve Vander Ark
Original page date 9 June 2011; Last page update 14 June 2011 SVA