What's New

Added to the Reader’s Guide for Tales of Beedle the Bard


I’ve been taking notes on Beedle the Bard. I’m amazed at how much new information Rowling manages to cram into a very short book. I’ll be working on the Reader’s Guide as I get time. I’ve uploaded the notes for the introduction for you all to read and discuss. I’ve also added notes about the commentary for the first story.


Pensieve (Comments)

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Great!I’ve waited for TBB update…
    Cheers to JJB,Prl and other great people on Lexicon commenting board…

  • One of the reasons I posted these notes in the format I did was to generate some discussion here. I am eager to hear other people’s ideas about some of my comments, such as why the book was originally written in runes. Nothing better than a good canon discussion!

  • Reader2

    Well, I am always up for a little nit-picking.

    To the headmaster list you can add that Dippet most likely became headmaster around 1925, since that’s when Phineas Nigellus Black died.
    Also we now know about Beery who taught herbology some time between 1925 and 1956, during Dippet’s headmastership.
    Fromt he comments to the Tale of Three Brothers we now know the author of Magick Most Evile, that’s Godelot.
    Form the Babbity Rabbity we can add a new animangus to the list.
    The mention of Sir Nicholus, tells us that he was executed by muggles, so you can safely add Lady Grieve, from his ballad to the muggle list.
    Also, Warlock at War, is a new book for your list.
    I am as glad as everybody that Rowling gave new dates for Beatrix Bloxam. May be she will also reveiw the dates For Bowman Wright, Elfrida Clagg and Burdock Muldoon. Those had been causing problems.

  • hpboy13

    Yes, thak you, I’ve been waiting for this for such a long time!! I can’t wait for the commentary on “Fountain of Fair FOrtune” – such a wealth of information in such a short commentary!
    About your list of Headmasters – we do know that McGonagall was no longer Headmistress by the time of the Epilogue, according to one of Jo’s interviews. So her quitting date must be 2009-2019.

  • Oryx

    I disagree that Albus Dumbledore became headmaster in December 1956 when Minerva McGonagall started teaching Transfiguration. IMO the two events are not directly related. Reasons to suspect the timing: 1) Why would Voldemort return to Britain at that time, already with rumors about his misdeeds and an organisation of Death Eaters, yet only start using his organisation to terrorize British wizards 13 years later? 2) The early timing would mean that Dumbledore who objected to Umbridge’s shaking of Marietta Edgecombe approved of punishment that resulted in the scarring of Arthur for breaking curfew. 3) Remus’ story about how Dumbledore’s appointment created an opportunity for him to attend Hogwarts as a werewolf (though Remus has shown himself not to be a reliable source elsewhere and he was reporting events from his childhood, so he may not have everything straightened out).

    There are several scenarios that account for these and other related canon factoids. My favorite one is that the event that led to Minerva’s appointment in December 1956 wasn’t the death/leaving of Dippet but that of the DADA teacher who replaced Merrythought. Dumbledore feared Dippet would offer the post to the no-longer-too-young Riddle (or Riddle might show up to claim it, and get the job on Dippet’s earlier promise), so he asked for the job, based on his general brilliance and his fame for the defeat of Grindelwald, leaving the Transfiguration post free.

    Dumbledore’s appointment as headmaster and his interview with the recently returned Riddle can be placed quite a few years later. I prefer a timing in the mid-to-late 1960s for the following reasons: 1) It would be a rational time for Voldemort to return, as the sons and nephews of his schoolmates were beginning to come of age and be useful to him 2) a time within the Ministry of Nobby Leach 1962-1968 means 1962 was when Dumbledore was offered the Ministry the 3rd time, Voldemort missed the news when he was out of the country (just like he missed the news of Grindelwald’s defeat and arrest in 1945 when he was searching for the diadem in Albania) 3) this timing allows for Arthur’s scarring to have happened under Dippet; he and Molly probably started dating early, the punishment could have been in their 4th year or so, Dumbledore’s appointment shortly afterwards, still leaving them time to elope early in the war 4) the timing allows for Remus’ turning to have happened before Dumbledore’s appointment.

  • El Cronista de Salem

    I think we can clearly note 2008 as Beedle’s publication in the wizarding timeline. Rowling signs with the year, which is something new. And she speaks about Minerva as “current headmistress”, while 2008, so she was at least headmistress during 10 years, from 1998 to 2008. With QT and FB I wouldn’t consider 2001 as publication date in the wizarding world, but in Beedle, JKR clearly notes 2008 in the introduction.

  • Reader2

    Don’t we just love disecting events like that?
    Here are my contr-arguments for you.
    1) You seem to be under impression that rierce organizations grow overnight.
    I am afraid they don’t.
    For your information the first signs of Russian revolution were in the early 19th century, 100 years before the actual revolution.
    Death Eaters starting to make a name for themselves in 50th and starting a civil war in the 70th makes perfect sence.
    2)If Voldemort was visiting Dumbledore in 1970, and that was 10 years after he dissapeared from Borgin&Burkes, that would mean that would mean that Voldemort had spent 15 years working there.
    Do you really think it would take Voldemort that long to learn everything he needs to know about dark artifacts?
    3)Do you really believe the only way Dumbledore could keep Voldemort from getting the job was by asking for it himself?
    To me Dumbledore seemed to have more influence than that.
    4)The part about Arthur’s scarring is hardly evidence.
    Arthur is not the kind of guy who would go to the headmaster complaining over a little spanking, it wouldn’t be a Gryffindor thing to do.
    Dumbledor never had to find out about the insident.
    Or there is another explanation if you prefer: Filch was hire around 1973, may be that’s when Pringle was fired for appling corporal punishment.
    5)Lupin’s statement: “and then Dumbledor became the headmaster” is constantly misinterpreted.
    Lupin merely said that the very thought of verewolf being accepted to Hogwarts became realistic when Dumbledor became the headmaster, but it does not mean that Dumbledor brought in a verewolf the moment he took the office.

    Finally, when we don’t know exactly what happpened, it’s always better to assume the simplest explanation.
    I’d say Dumbledore changing subjects is an uneccessary complication.

  • Reader2

    El Cronista de Salem,
    Actually QT the original publishing date was supposed to be 1952, but there is an inconsistency there:
    The promotional blurs include one form Rita Skeeter, who was only supposed to be 1 year old at the time.
    If we assume that the blurs were added after re-publishing in 2001, that would mean that Lockhart came out of the hospital and is now making trouble once again.

  • Dumbledore has just become Headmaster ten years after Tom Riddle killed Hepzibah Smith. The variable is how long Riddle worked at Borgin and Burkes before that murder. I think, judging by the description of Riddle in Hokey’s memory, that it was at most five years. Also, since it happens to coincide with the date we know for McGonagall taking over a position that Dumbledore held, it suggests that Rowling did it intentionally. So I think that 1956 is the most reasonable date that fits the facts. Other interpretations are possible, but 1956 is the best and simplest solution.

  • Oryx

    To Reader2,

    1) I don’t think the Death Eaters were at the same level of activity in the early 1970s. I think the early 1970s were still a time when respectable but conservative wizards thought of them as a somewhat extreme but not outrageous *political* movement. We only hear from the circle near Dumbledore at this time – Molly and Minerva – who were afraid of Voldemort (because his overt efforts were targeted at this circle). Of course there were the disappearances – these were the people who ended up in the lake in the cave (I believe Voldemort started working on the cave project early on, the blood-keyed gate was made when he was 16 or so and just started working on his immortality project, which is why it was so crude, his experiments with inferi were the reasons behind the rumors Dumbledore mentioned in the interview; once he got the hang of inferi he started populating the cave, 5 victims a year from 1967 to 1979 would give him 60 inferi, enough to create the effect we see in HBP). What the DEs were doing in the early 1970s was to kidnap the people Voldemort killed to make the inferi, but in public most of what they did was displays of power in the style of what we see at the QWC – a lot of noise, toying with some Muggles. The events Sirius describes are the late stage of the war – starting no sooner than 1978, possibly only 1979. The reasons I believe this is a) The DEs we see in the books are mostly incompetent and rather harmless except for those we know or can infer had been in Azkaban for extended periods (Bellatrix, Dolohov, Rowle) b) we do not know the name of a single victim of Voldemort or the DEs between Hepzibah Smith and Marlene McKinnon, who died in July 1980, and those we know of were involved directly in the fighting (IOW the image of an organisation engaged actively in terrorizing the populace at large and spreading death all over the place is not supported by canon facts). c) Regulus who had been following Voldemort’s career closely, even in 1978 thought he was going to be part of a movement to subdue Muggles so that wizards could come out of hiding – Regulus was planning to rule over living Muggles, not kill masses of them. Thus while some killing was definitely going on, it was IMO small scale and not widely known at least until the time Regulus joined the DEs. Also the quick recovery the wizarding world makes after Voldemort’s fall is not consistent with a society that has suffered enormous losses over the course of 11 years, nor does the fact that the Ministry survived that long. Thus my timeline has 1967-1970 as Voldemort still experimenting and gathering forces, 1970-1978/9 demonstrations, political activity, threats and attacks on Dumbledore’s supporters in the Wizengamot and the Ministry, some disappearances and 1978/9 to 1981 all-out war, spreading the fear of Voldemort in the entire wizarding society, Aurors using Unforgivables, Order activity.

    2) Voldemort wasn’t at Borgin and Burkes to learn about Dark artifacts. He was there to find items belonging to the Founders of Hogwarts. It so happened that Madam Smith had 2 of them, and she only revealed her ownership of those items after she and Tom had gotten rather close. So it is all a matter of how long it took for Tom to discover Hepzibah, to learn that she was likely to have items of interest, to be assigned to negotiate with her and to flatter her into showing her best treasures.

    3) Yes. He was the defeater of Grindelwald. He was there, Tom wasn’t. So all Dumbledore had to do was apply early (after all, he knew first hand when it became free) and never let go. Until the board of governors made him headmaster, which gave him control of the hiring (or so he thought).

    4) I’m not talking about Arthur complaining, I’m talking about such punishment being allowed under Dumbledore as policy. (Umbridge managed it because Dumbledore’s political power had weakened, and she was the Minister’s woman. In the 1960s Dumbledore was the god of Wizarding Britain, nothing that went against his preference could have taken place for long) Filch’s hiring in 1973 had nothing to do with it, by 1973 Arthur was the father of 2.

    5) I did not say Remus started at Hogwarts immediately after Dumbledore became headmaster, but if we can trust his delivery (again, I do not consider Remus a particularly reliable source, especially wrt details) then the possibility that he would attend Hogwarts arose a while after he was bitten and his parents had despaired from getting him cured.

  • Oryx

    Oops, Marlene McKinnon died in July 1981, of course. (My pet theory is that Peter created a duplicate of the Order photo and brought it to Voldemort.)

    And to Steve: I think it would be a good idea to note in timeline related Lexicon items that your date for the beginning of Dumbledore’s stint as headmaster is an inference from canon and was never stated explicitly.

  • It does say that on the timeline.

    I just went into the database control panel to add some of the Beedle details and it don’t connect. Annoying …

    There is so much editing to do!

  • Marco

    to Reader 2 and Oryx:

    there is a lot of confusion about the begin of Dumbledores headmastership in Hogwarts.

    1. The fact, that McGonagall started to teach in December instead of 1st September indicates actually an acute occured staff shortage in Hogwarts, most likely death or disability of a teacher in office.

    2. There are no words about a beating of Artur Weasley by Pringle, he just had marks. Pringle might also have assigned Artur such a nasty detention, on which he had recieved that marks. P.e. in the Forbidden Forest you can suffer any scars very quickly.

    3. To Lupins statement we can say, that JKR had often contradicted her own canon. P.e. in GF Snape hung arround in Hogwarts with future DE like the Lestrange couple according to Sirius, but according to BFT this isn´t possible, since Bellatrix was 9 years older than Snape, so they can´t have met in Hogwarts.

  • Reader2

    1) Now you seem to believe that the entire development of Death Eater organization had to consist of killing and kidnapping.
    I do see that in many fanficks: they meet, they talk, then next day they kidnap and kill somebody.
    In reality people do not become killers overnight.
    Do some research, read about terrorist organizations and revolutionary movements.
    You will see that there has to be plenty of harmless meeting and petitions, followed by a few riots before anyone actually gets killed.
    Also, you said Voldemort would come back in time for the sons and nephews of his old classmates to come of age, but don’t you think that he would need to reconnect with the fathers and uncles, before he started to recruit the next generation?
    Those guys did not see him at school, they would need a good reason to listen to him.
    2)Now you say that Voldemort spent 15 years at Borgin& Burkes just waiting for to find a relic of founders.
    Why in the world would he do that?
    Not all his hocruxes were relics of founders.
    He never got a complete set of four and didn’t seem to broken up about that.
    I see no reason once or ever to believe that the relics of founders were so essential to his plans that he would waste 15 years of his life looking for those.
    3) Also, now you are saying that Dumbledor was so terrified of Riddle coming back to apply at Hogwarts that he was trying to keep tabs on the job even when Voldemort was nowhere in sight.
    If he considered Tom Riddle that dangerous he should’ve been starting man-hunt on him by then.
    4)At the same time, you are saing that nothing Dumbledore would not approve off could happen at Hogwarts.
    Most of his staff was loyal to him, yes, but even most influetial bosses could not be all-powerful.
    I am talking about one guy disobeying him at one point and not getting caught.
    What’s so impossible about that?
    5) Yes, the possiblity of Remus getting into Hogwarts would rise a while after he was bitten, but that does not have to be marked by Dumbledor becoming the headmaster. It can merely be by Dumbledor finding out about Remus and starting to think the matter over.
    Even Dumbledor wouldn’t instantly jump at such a dangerous experiment, but that would not make much of a difference to Remus, to him Dumbledor was the one who let him attend Hogwarts and that’s all that mattered.

    The part about Snape hanging out with Lestranges is also constatnly misinterpreted.
    Think about it: were Lestranges a married couple when they attended Hogwarts?
    Sirius’ exact words were: “he was a part of a gang of Slytherins”
    Being a part of a gang does not equal went to school together.
    The gang could just as easily hang out on weekends.

    I tried to point this out many times, but no one listens, I even know why:
    The fan-ficksters are fighting tooth and claw for the right to keep Sirius and Bellatrix closer to each other in age.

    Apperently, you can not write a good Sirius-gets-sorted scene without Bellatrix being there to fly off the handle.

  • Oryx

    To Marco:
    Severus and friends could have hung out with Bellatrix in the Slug Club (or just before Slug Club meetings, if Severus wasn’t classy enough to be invited), Horace was in the habit of inviting former members that had left school to talk to current members (that was the whole point – forming useful ties). And Bellatrix wasn’t known in public as a Death Eater until after the war, she managed to talk her way out of Azkaban before attacking the Longbottoms – so Horace had no reason not to invite her.

    To Reader2:

    1) This is what we see in canon: Burbage was kidnapped by some DEs, brought in front of a gathering of DEs to be killed by Voldemort. We also hear that Emmeline Vance was kidnapped and later killed. Amelia Bones who was killed at home was killed by Voldemort himself. We also see Lucius, a high ranking DE – he can pass Ginny a cursed object, he keeps poisons in his secret chamber, but he is totally incompetent in battle against kids (that’s canon Lucius, not the movie version). IMO the majority of DEs were like that – they could kill indirectly, or gang up on Muggles, but to actually kill face to face was beyond most of them. (And it is possible that imprisonment under the influence of dementors, or in Barty Jr’s case, under conditions of brainwashing had a role in bringing out the cruelty in the worst of DEs.) The Carrows are the only DEs who show open cruelty without a known history of imprisonment.

    Also, we know Voldemort made inferi, and that they were eventually placed to guard the locket. Despite what fans expected, we did not see armies of inferi in battle – it appears that once the locket was placed in the cave Voldemort left it untouched until the hours before the battle in DH. We know he got the locket early, from Hepzibah, and we know Voldemort was hiding Horcruxes as early as the job interview, yet Regulus only died in 1979. So what took so long? The rate limiting step seems to have been getting enough inferi. While it isn’t stated in canon, it is likely that one can only make and/or control inferi from one’s own killings (Dumbledore as inferius would have been a significant psychological weapon, yet this was not done). If so, obviously as long as he needed more inferi Voldemort would have preferred to be the one doing the killing.

    As for organisation, Voldemort already had his organisation in place before coming back to the country. He must have been in some kind of touch all along (though he did not read the Daily Prophet while abroad).

    2) While not all Horcruxes were relics of the founders clearly once he knew of his Slytherin heritage that was what he was looking for. The diary and the ring were the earliest ones, but he knew the locket was out there and he was not going to rest until he laid hands on it. He must have learned of the diadem from some Ravenclaw students (there seems to be great interest in it with the statue and all) or some history book and got the information about its location from The Gray Lady while still a student. Information about the sword of Gryffindor seems to be out there, as Scrimgeour talks of it as something widely known. Also, despite the fact that Voldemort had 5 Horcruxes out of 6 before leaving the country, he waited with the 6th Horcrux. And if we accept the extra-canon statement that the diadem and locket were Horcruxified with the murders of an Albanian peasant and a Muggle tramp respectively then obviously the reason for the wait wasn’t the lack of a significant murder victim but the lack of a suitable object. Eventually Voldemort gave up and used Nagini, but he really would have preferred to have the sword of Gryffindor (one reason he wanted Severus as DADA prof at Hogwarts even before the prophecy). Voldemort is obsessive about his long term goals. If they take years to achieve that’s OK. After all, he was unkillable at 16, he has eternity. Only his fear of Harry ever caused him to deviate from plans.

    3) Dumbledore suspected Voldemort of responsibility for Myrtle’s death (and the framing of Hagrid). And he knew what he was capable of before even coming to Hogwarts. He knew Riddle was after the job and that Dippet would give it to him. Dippet was so inclined even when Riddle was 18, until Dumbledore intervened (though without full revelation of his suspicions). So yes, Dumbledore believed, by his own admission that Tom would be dangerous as a teacher and only he held this knowledge. As for a manhunt – Fudge hints Voldmeort was wanted by the Ministry since before the war. IMO once Dumbledore saw the change in Tom’s appearance he took that as confirmation of his worst suspicions. That was the trigger for the research into Voldemort’s past as well as a reason to tip off a trusted Auror, someone like Moody.

    4) So you re saying that Pringle, with no known power behind him, went against long established school disciplinary policy once, wasn’t caught and did not repeat the offence often enough to get caught – all for breaking curfew? I have a hard time imagining it.

  • Reader2

    1) We seem to be talking about different subjects now.
    I have no idea what inferi or Regulus’ death have to do with what we’ve been discussing.
    You keep missing my point:
    it takes time to get people to believe in you enough to kill in your name.
    It has nothing to do with making weapons, it’s all about belief, and yes that can take years or decades.
    Read some books before we argue about it farther.
    2) If you are convinced that Voldemort was willing to dedicate 15 years of his life to getting his hands on a relic of a founder, why would he spend all those years in one place?
    Bogin&Burks could not be the only place to look for artifacts.
    You seem to believe that Voldemort would rather spend 15 years pawning relics than building his organization.
    To me that sounds like a paradox.
    3)Now you are contradidcting yourself.
    You are saying that Voldemort was out of the country unable to find out that DADA teaching job was availble, yet you are saying that Dumbledore expected Voldemort to find out and so it necessary to take measures.
    You say that the misitry was already looking for Voldemort, and yet the only way one could keep him from getting a job was by grabbing it before he does.
    As you pointed out, Dumbledor was respected as a defeater of Gribelwald, if he didn’t want someone to get a job all he needed was to say it.
    4) Don’t confuse bad workers with rebels.
    I am not saing that Pringle did something that was against school policy to defy Dumbledore, I am just saying that he did it out of mere stupidity.
    Besides, may be he did get caught and got off with a warning.
    May be he did repeat his offence and got fired.
    Possibilites are numerous here.

  • Oryx


    1) I have no problem with DEs that were not initially willing to kill immediately. In fact, it seems few of them were willing to kill even in the second war. So there is no need to postulate 13 years of Voldemort gathering supporters who weren’t doing much killing before 1970, because most of them were still not killing later. We see how they operate. If one were to draw a graph of how many people were killed by each member of Voldemort’s movement, he would have a huge number of deaths attributed to Voldemort himself, then there would be a handful with several deaths, more with 1-2 deaths on their resume and the majority with none. The relevance of Regulus is that we have a date for his death (1979), we know he joined a year earlier, and we have the report of Kreacher, who was very close to Regulus, as to Regulus’ beliefs at the time he joined. Regulus wanted to rule over Muggles and walk freely as a wizard among them. I can see him accepting that some deaths were inevitable (as in ‘you can’t make an ommelette without cracking eggs’ line of reasoning) but he did not believe he was joining an organisation that was murdering wizards in large numbers. Since we know he was following the news about Voldemort we can be rather confident that at least as late as 1978 the Daily Prophet did not attribute many wizard deaths to Voldemort and the DEs, and thus the events that Sirius describes as the trigger to Crouch’s shoot first, ask questions later policies were not yet taking place.

    2) Why spend those years in one place? The lead he had on the locket from Morphin was that Merope had it with her when she left Little Hangleton. It wasn’t on her when she died. I think it made sense to Voldemort that Merope would have tried to sell it, and she would have sold it to a wizard. The clientelle of Borgin and Burkes were the kind of people likely to be interested in obtaining and keeping such an item.

    3) I don’t think you understand me. Dippet was willing to offer the DADA job to 18-year-old Tom, no doubt he would have offered the job to him at a later date. Dumbledore thought such a move would have been dangerous (at any time). The DADA job becomes free suddenly, so before the news is out Dumbledore asks for it, with the intention of holding on to it. For this purpose it matters not where Tom was at that time. Had Dumbledore not taken the job, either Tom would have shown up or he would have shown up next time the job was free. As long as Dippet was headmaster this was a risk – so Dumbledore was going to take care of the problem by making sure that as long as Dippet was headmaster the DADA job would not be free.

    Voldemort became wanted by the Ministry after the job interview and before the war. He was definitely not wanted at the time of the interview or there would have been some Aurors in Dumbledore’s office. IMO it is possible that the interview was the trigger for Dumbledore to say something to his friends so that Voldemort became a wanted man.

  • Prl

    I had something nagging around my head, could not just put a finger on it… now I got it.

    How could Dumbledore beat Grindelwald?

    I mean, by what little we know it was a straight duel, although quite spectacular. Now Grindelwald owned the Elder Wand at the time. And that one, in a straight duel, should be unbeatable. Or is it not after all? Do we get any clue from Beedle? We know that it can be stolen and then it changes allegiance, as with Draco/Dumbledore and then Harry/Draco. Did Dumbledore have to get Grindelwald by guile and surprise (or while he was busy doing another spell) as Draco did him? Just I cannot picture it…

  • Reader2

    1) Actually, we do know one Death Eater with more on his record than Voldemort.
    Wormtail – 13 confirmed kills.
    I am pretty sure the rest of them did plenty of killing behind the sceene.
    However, I was not talking about general capability of killing.
    Even those who have no problem killing in general, are not instantly ready to kill for a new cause.
    You see, Death Eaters had to be convinced that Voldemort is their master in whose name they should be ready to kill or die, and that his cause is worth it.
    Killing for your own benefit is one thing, but killing for your master and his cause is a whole other matter.
    And Voldemort had persuade not one not a dozen but a whole movement of people to think of him that way.
    No leader ever became that popular in less than a couple decades.
    If Voldemort got it done in 13 years, I’d say that was a significant acomplishment.
    2) Borgin&Burkes could not be the only place where Merope could pawn her locket, and in 18 years it could’ve been re-sold a hundred times.
    Besides, Voldemort simply does not come of as the kind of guy who would put his life on hold for 15 years just to find one locket, even if it’s priceless.
    It’s simply not practical.
    3)I do understand you, Dippet did consider giving a job to 18-year-old Riddle, but Dumbledore was able to talk him out of it.
    If he could do it once, he should’ve been able to do it again, and if Riddle was not even in town, that should’ve made it much easier.

    One of the clues to the answer to your question is in the commentary to the Tale of Three Brothers:
    All the owners of the Elder Wand were defeated somehow.
    The case of Grindelwald loosing it is no more suspicious than the rest of them.
    The other clue is in Rita Skeeter’s book: she claimed that Grindelwald simply serrundered.
    Rita is not a reliable source, but there might be some part of truth to her story.
    I’d say Dumbledore’s biggest advantage was that Grindelwald had a soft spot for him.
    The fact is that when someone gains to much power and is abusing it,t here is no such thing as a straight fight, and there is know dishonor in using trickery against brute force, especially when you are defending not only yourself, but the whole world.
    I wouldn’t judge Dumbledor if he did trick Grindelwald somehow.

  • Big_Kelpie

    1) Death Eaters were persuaded to kill for Voldemort’s cause for two reasons. First, his views about wizard supremacy were shared by most of them, as they probably have been raised in pure-blood bigot homes. Second, he was Slytherin’s descendant, a fact he could prove by simply speaking Parseltongue; I believe amny must have considered him a worthy leader when they discovered this. I do realize there is no canon evidence that shows that Voldemort told every new DE he was Slytherin’s heir, but we know some of them know this fact. Dumbledore states in HBP that Tom might have used Parseltongue to impress his fellow classmates, who happen to be the future parents/uncles/aunts of most DEs.
    2)We simply don’t know enough about Voldemort’s life to know how much time he spent in Borgin &Burkes. I believe that he probably was for much less than 15 years. After his employment there, he might have held similar positions in less-known magical artefacts shops in Britain or elsewhere, continuing to look for not only founder’s relics but any object of magical and historical value to turn into a horcrux or just to use their powers.

    Changing the subject, in the lexicon, it says “Thomas, Mr. and Mrs.
    Dean’s parents, who didn’t know anything about any deaths at Hogwarts as of the beginning of the 1995 – 1996 school year, because their son didn’t see fit to tell them (OP11). Mr. Thomas is Dean’s stepfather; Dean’s biological father was a wizard who was killed by Death Eaters (JKR).”(http://www.hplex.info/muggle/muggle_people.html#T)
    But I believe that the Thomas is not the surname of Dean’s stepfather. Nowhere in Jkrowling.com is that stated. In fact in the extras entry about Dean, his stepfather and his mother are given no name.(http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=2).
    Dean’s bilogical father(the wizard) is probably Mr. Thomas, as he was killed when his son was very young and until that point had been raising him with Dean’s mother. It makes much more sene that Dean takes his father’s last name and not the last name of his stepfather, who only married his mother after he was born. For his mother and his stepfather to be Mrs. and Mr.Thomas, is father and his stepfather could share the same surname (unlikely)or his mother might have decided to change his last name so that he had shared it with his half-siblings(also unlikely, unless this a British costume I’m unaware of). we don’e even know if his biological father’s last name wa Thomas. Maybe he gave Dean’s mother a fake name fearing something might happen to her if she and their son took his surname or perhaps she decided to change Dean’s name when his dad “walked out of them”, in which case Thomas would be her maiden name.

  • Big_Kelpie

    1)Voldemort quickly conviced his DE his cause was worth dying and killing for because:
    a) His cause was their cause, too. All of them wanted wizard supremacy over muggles and most of them had been raised in pure-blood families who taught them that half-bloods and muggle-borns were “worse” than them. Some of them were already prepared to kill for this cause.
    2)They regarded Voldemort as a worthy leader because he was Slytherin’s heir. He could prove this by speaking in parseltongue; there is little evidence that shows DEs know about Voldemort’s ancestry but some of them know ot at least must suspect it if he ever talked in parseltongue in front of them. Dumbledore, in HBP, suspects that Tom might have used his powers as a parselmouth to impress his fellow classmates, so he probably wasn’t completely hiding this fact.

    Changing the subject, there is something that has been bothering me for quite sometime.
    The following is an extract form the Lexicon.
    “Thomas, Mr. and Mrs.
    Dean’s parents, who didn’t know anything about any deaths at Hogwarts as of the beginning of the 1995 – 1996 school year, because their son didn’t see fit to tell them (OP11). Mr. Thomas is Dean’s stepfather; Dean’s biological father was a wizard who was killed by Death Eaters (JKR).”
    That is just wrong. There is no proof in jkrowling.com or elsewhere that Thomas is Dean`s stepfather’s surname.
    It would more logical to assume that Dean carries his biological father’s surname. His father died when Dean was very young (no more than two years old as Dean is Harry’s classmate and Harry was just over 1 year old when Voldemort was defeated). We simply don’t know his stepfather’s surname. For him to share his name with Dean, there are two possibilities. Either he is also coincidentially named Thomas or Dean’s mother decided to change her son’s name so that he and his half-siblings had the same surname; I believe both cases are highly unlikely unless it’s traditional in Britain to change her child’s name when a woman remarries(I say remarry, but I realize we have no evidence that Dean’s mom was married to his father or is married to his stepfaher). There are even more possbilities: Dean’s dad could have given a fake number to his couple fearing they(she and Dean) would be attacked if it was found out they were realted or at some point(when she was a single mom), Dean’s mother changed his last name to match hers, in which case Thomas is Dean’s mother’s maiden name.

  • Big_Kelpie

    In the post above, I should have written fake name instead of fake number, its also related no realted.
    I apologize.

  • Sirius Black Fan

    I just got my copy of TTOBTB yesterday, and it was awesome. Also, I just realized this site was working again. I’m so glad, this is my HP guide.

  • Big_Kelpie

    It’s also supposed to be b) instead of 2). I sincerily apologize for the mistakes, Ishould have checked before.

  • Reader2

    On Rowlings site it sais: “the person Dean thinks is his father is really his step-father”.
    I think Dean would’ve noticed if he and his father had different last names.
    Although, he did know that he the truth by the events of Deathly Hallows, he didn’t have to know before that.
    There is nothing impossible about children taking their step-father’s last name, I’ve known families like that.

    About the old subject:
    All the reasons that you’ve leasted would get the Death Eater organization started, but wouldn’t guarantee the evolvment.
    There is a long way from biggotry to civil war.
    Those pure-blood Slytherins were raised not only to feel suprior, but also to be ambicious.
    Before they risked their life for a cause, they would need to feel certain that Voldemort is capable of takeing over the country.
    Voldemort would instatly show that he is powerful, granted, but it would take a while to show that he is THAT powerful, and THAT much of a leader.
    Read a few biografies of dictatiors, and you will be able to make a list of everything they had to prove before they got to the top.

  • Big_Kelpie

    Where does it state that Dean doesn’t know he has another father?. In the Extras piece about his background in JKrowling.com (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=2), it doesn’t state any of the sort nor does it state that he does know his father “walked out” on him. Disregarding the whole surname thing, why would his mother lie to him and tell him that his stefather was acutal father? Why would his sterpfather allow her to do that? It would be cruel and quite weird.
    “Dean is from what he always thought was a pure Muggle background” says Rowling. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know about his father, it just means he had no reason to suspect his biological father or his morther was a wizard/witch. As you stated, in DH, Dean knows about his father “abandoning” him and at that point, knows there is a chance of him havin been a wizard.

    I understand that it wouls have taken Voldemort a lot of time to recruit DEs who fully believed in him and who would do anything for him, I was just saying that maybe it took shorter than we may think because his cause was already known and many DEs supported it. Besides, we really know very little of the first war to try to discover how much it took for Voldemort to recruit the army needed. We do know that since 1970 he was very powerful as during the 70s was his climax of powers.(11 years before the begining of PS chapter one in 1981).

  • Reader2

    Actually, the quote about Dean thinking that his step-father is his father comes from this very sight.
    I see nothing cruel or strange about Dean’s mother wanting him to believe that his father is the man who was raising him and taking care of him and not the one who abandoned him.
    Nor do I see any reason for his step-father to object to this.
    They would think that they are saving Dean the unccessary heartache.
    Although, they probably came to regret their desision when all hell broke loose and the issue of Dean’s ancestry became the matter of life and death, but how could they possibly see that coming?

    Our other argument just lost all the substance, adn drifted way off topic:
    We were trying to figure out the year Dumbledore became the headmaster and received.
    Oryx, believed that 1956 would be way to early, and I was trying to pruve that it fits just fine.
    That’s all.

  • Reader2

    Come to think of it, Big Kelpie, out argument about Dean also has no substance, since if you look at the master list of wizards you will see another “Mr. Thomas” entry, refering to Dean’s biological father.
    The Lexicon staff was wise enough to make entries of two Mr. Thomas’, until it becomes known which one is the right one, so you are free to consider the wizard Thomas the correct one, while I am sticking with the muggle.
    We might never find out the truth in any case.

  • JJB

    Regarding the rise to power of the Dark Lord… there can be no comparison with the Muggle world for two reasons:
    1. The Imperius Curse: a vast number of LV followers were Imperiused with DEs pulling the strings of many. Granted, many merely claimed being controlled–like Malfoy–but many others were actually pawns. When you can literally create followers it doesn’t require convincing large numbers to follow you.
    2. Magical Power Level: unlike in the Muggle world, leadership among wizards usually falls to the most powerful wizards. Bartie Crouch Sr. was described as a very powerful wizard and was expected to rise to MoM until his son embarrassed him. Of course, Dumbledore was actually the preferred leader by all those not inclined to a darker view of the Muggle world. A Fudge could only rise to power during a time when there was no real threat and his political acumen could help him rise above his true talents. Still, there is no reason to think that Fudge was an incompetent wizard. Note that Scrimgeour became the obvious choice to replace Fudge because the wizarding world was once again under threat.
    For those desiring wizard dominance, the very appearance of LV on the scene was enough to draw a hard core of such wizards to him. In HBP, Snape pointed out to Bellatrix that one of the reasons he didn’t kill Harry was that he, like many others, was looking for another powerful dark wizard around whose standard they could rally.

    Now, as for the question of the Elder wand… I’ve written on these boards before that I believe Grindlewald wasn’t the true Master of the Elder Wand as evidenced by the very fact that he was defeated. He acquired the wand through a simple theft from a person who wasn’t likely to be the true Master of the Elder Wand either. The wand chooses the wizard and recognizes it’s master, in the case of the Elder Wand, when it is acquired by defeating one who holds it. Voldemort merely stole it from Dumbledore’s dead hands–and DD wasn’t the wand’s master at that time. Drako didn’t steal it from DD, he won it fair and square in a dueling situation. Harry took it from Drako–in a non-magical way–by physically ripping it from his hand. JKR commented that she intentionally made this moment non-magical to show there is power even when magic isn’t involved.
    The long gaps in the Elder wand’s history may reflect the fact that it didn’t recognize a master during that time. The fact is, there is much about wand lore that not even someone like Olivander knows or even can know. Apparently, wands are like the human heart–they both have reasons reason knows not of.

  • Reader2

    Well JJB,
    1) You are not making Wizard world sound as different from ours as you think.
    In our world the factors of power include physiacl stregth, knowledge, intelligence and until recently birthright (noble blood used to mean a lot).
    However, none of those factors ever brought power instantly, people still had to prove themselves worthy to get to the top and to stay there.
    Rowling’s worl might be just a children’s book, but it reflects ours in many ways.
    As for Imperious, it is only another weapon, the number of Imerioused merely reflects the number of powerful wizards who can cast it, and it does not sound like an easy curse to cast.

    2) If you re-read the scene of the stealing you will see that Grindelwald had stunned Gregorwitch before running, it’s hardly a fair duel, but no less so than Draco disarming Dumbledor in an ambush while he was weakened by poison (is that what you call a “fair and sqair”?).
    On top of that if Grindelwald was not the master of the Elder Wand that would mean that Dumbledor never defeated a master, that kind of nullifies all the rest of the pattern.
    Finally, Rowling actually commented on the properties of Elder Wand, and said that it only has eligence to power.
    Grindelwald was almost as powerful as Dumbledor, I see no reason why the wand wouldn’t recognize that kind of power, especially if it recognized Draco’s.
    As for the long term dissapearances of the Elder Wand, there is a simpler explanation:
    Even Ron’s first thought when he read the Tale of Three Brothers was that the wand will be a lot easier to hold on to if you don’t brag about it, so Dumbledor couldn’t be the only one who managed to carry out that plan and keep his ownership of the wand quiet.
    There had to be others like him.
    However, just like Dumbledor they all went down eventually and the whole mess started anew.

  • JJB


    I wasn’t referring to what makes a leader in the wizarding vs. Muggle worlds, I was referring to the length of time it would take to amass a following sufficient to become a real threat. When you’ve got magic to work with and aren’t averse to using Dark magic, it doesn’t take as long. Look at how short a time it took LV to take over the Ministry from the time of his return. Granted he had some followers in place, but they still had to do a lot of rebuilding in a very short time. It really only took a few well-placed people with no scruples and a willingness to torture Scrimgeour and Imperius Thicknesse and voila! Sure, it was a little more complicated than that, but it was much easier than it would have been for a Muggle.

    Another thing LV would have on his side is the very nature of the world he is trying to take over. It’s easy sitting here in the Muggle world to see that all good wizards shouldn’t hurt Muggles, but I think it might be harder if I was obviously superior to any Muggle yet it was the Muggles with the power and, furthermore, I had to remain in perpetual hiding as though there were something wrong with me. I think it would be very tempting to even a weak wizard to think that the power structure was upside down and believe that it should be the wizards who should be in charge. That would also make it easier to whip up a following or to keep a lot of wizards on the sidelines–not helping but not working to thwart a takeover either.

  • JJB


    About the Elder Wand… the legend and its history are problematic because they don’t quite verify one another. If the Elder Wand’s allegiance could be won by power alone then LV would have been its Master. When Grindlewald shot the stunning spell at Gregoravich he already had the Elder Wand and was making his escape out the window–that’s not a duel, that’s theft. When Drako engaged Dumbledore, DD still had his wand so that it made it a fair duel. Moreover, DD could have taken Drako if he hadn’t frozen Harry first. Holding and using the Elder Wand is not what makes one its Master, as Harry explained to LV during their last duel. One thing I’m not sure of is if Dumbledore had been right that it was possible to break the enchantment on the Elder Wand by dying without having killed with it. JKR seems to want us to believe that but the facts as given in the books don’t fully support that.

    While I’m here, regarding Dean Thomas’ father… I think Thomas must be the name of his stepfather, otherwise the Ministry would only have to check their own records to discover that Mr. Thomas was a wizard and therefore Dean was a Half Blood rather than Muggle-Born. If their records hadno Mr. Thomas of an age to be the father of Dean, then they could justify their belief that Dean had two Muggle parents.

  • Reader2


    My origianl advise stands: read a few history books.
    An overthraw happens overnight, but building up stregth of an organization takes years.
    The well placed people did not find their places overnight, nor did they quickly lear the spells they needed right on the spot.
    They took serious risks for the master they worshipped, they wouldn’t do the same for someone they’ve met a couple years ago.

    As for Elder Wand, you are missing the biggest problem in your theory: if Grindelwald was not the master of the wand, than Dumbledor had never defeated its master so he was not the master either, than neither was Draco, than neither was Harry.
    See the problem now?

  • Taj

    Can we please add to McGonagall’s profile that she became Headmistress?

  • I will be adding facts from TBB to the main Lexicon pages as I get time. First stage are the Reader’s Guide pages for each story which list the various details and facts which Rowling reveals. This gives all of us a chance to chat about those details here for awhile. Then I’ll start editing the main pages.

  • hpboy13

    Well, I haven’t read hte whole argument because it’s quite lengthy, but I’ve got the gist of it. My opinion is that DD did become Headmaster in 1956; the evidence is sound and it’s just not like JKR to needlessly complicate things. Also, I’d like to point out the following quote from the very first chapter of SS: “We’ve had precious little to celebrate for eleven years.” I take that to mean that Voldy had been active and terrorizing since 1970, and probably did all the kidnapping and so forth before that.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Please check your emails because. . .


    I went to read my books leave a message after…BEEP…:-)

    Merry Xmas!

  • hpboy13

    Happy Holidays everyone!

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Merry Xmas to everyone…

  • JJB

    Merry Christmas everyone (it’s still Christmas here anyway). Nicola, it’s great that you received your books in time for Christmas–we expect your reviews soon!

  • hpboy13

    Happy New Year’s everyone!!! Here’s to a greta 2009 filled with movies, published Lexicons, and much more!

  • Barbara Ilott

    The Elder Wand, and the duel between Dumbledore and Grundlewald.

    I have re-read HPDH and I have come a couple of conclusions.

    First of all, that it was Grundlewald who actually took advantage of the fight to kill Ariana. (This would be in perfect accord with his neo-Nazi belief in the elimination of the unfit.) And that it was this that finally opened Dumbledore’s eyes to the true character of his friend and destroyed his love for G.

    Secondly, even an ended love affair can have consequences, so I think the reason that D waited so long before the show-down with G was because he was afraid that G would use that former love (which no one knew about but the two of them, remember) to undermine him – a public revelation of their former association could have destroyed D’s credibility if it had been made public at a crucial moment.

    D & G had not been in contact since G fled after A’s death, so there was no way D could have known how G felt about him.

    I think that in the final show-down, G realised he still love D and so let him win – did not use the full force of the Elder Wand against D because he simply could not bring himself to do so – and D probably realised this.

    G was a wicked man, but not totally irredemable. His long years in prison, meditating on what happened and perhaps on the power of love, have reformed him and given him the courage to defy Voldemort who would in the old days have been his colleague.

    It isn’t spelled out but this fits the information we have been give.

  • Reader2

    Happy New Year, everyone.

    I am with you on most of what you said, but the idea of Grindelwald killing Ariana on perpose soudns too far-fetched. He did not exactly gain anything from her death.
    Besides, to me Grindelwald does not sound like an icon for nazism, that’s what Voldemort is for. He was the one who wanted to get rid of unfit.
    Grindelwald wanted to get rid of the statute of secrecy and create a society where wizards and muggles could live in perfect harmony.
    To me he sounds more like an icon for comunism.
    Note, Dumbledore and Grindelwald met at the very dawn of 20th century, that’s when marksism was at the very peak of popularity.
    The part about Grindelwald freezing at the last moment makes sense to me, but I should warn you that as you say it you are agreeing with Rita Skeeter.
    I am OK with that, just wanted to make sure you are aware of that.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Happy New Year to all!Hope you all will have a great and HP-fantastic year!

  • hpboy13

    So, has everyone heard? HBP will get a PG rating – yes, the film that features animated corpses, werewolf attacks, a violent death, a boy getting slashed apart, and actual making out. All this begs the question, just how screwed up is this film going to be?

  • Reader2

    Well hpboy,

    In OoP the battle of the department of mysteries, which sounded really reirce in the book, turned out to look rather harmless in the movie. So did the graveyard encounter in the GoF.
    So I am not expecting much scare in the HBP.

  • hpboy13

    Exactly – if OotP and Gof, both of which were pretty harmless, garnered PG13 ratings, how watered down will HBP be to get a PG rating?

  • >>HPT¡nna12

    Well probably 16…
    As to me, movies looks totaly harmless comparing with that we read in books…
    HP films destroy all that I have imagined these years reading HP books…
    For example, the MoM in movies. . .I imagined that a quite better that is shown in movies and now is hard for me to get back that fussy picture of my version of MoM that I had. . .
    And this change of realease date of HBP movie. . .and then they say that they think about HP fans…ha,ha…

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Exactly!I agree with you folks and HOPE that someone from WB read all this!!!
    Also my sister forgot to say that make out in HBP is nothing comparing with deleted scene in GF/f at Yule ball…when Harry overheards Snape and Igor…
    You know. . .

    Cheers to JJB,Prl,hpboy13,Steve etc.

  • Reader2

    Since we are now criticising the movies,

    What annoys me the most about those is the shortage of humor.
    It seems like all the laugh-related responsibilities had been placed solely with Rupert Grint.
    He does his best, I give him that, but there is only that much he can do alone.

    It seems like the producers dedicated most of the time and effort to fancy graphics, which left very little time for the witty dialoges and comic stunts.

    In OoP they tried to rescue some of the humor with the musical clip that showed Umbridge terrorizing Hogwarts, but that was not nearly enough.
    At the same time the had the arrival to the Grimmawld place take up half the movie, convinced that moving walls are what’s most important.

  • Jesse

    Nicola, if you go to youtube.com and search for “Goblet of Fire deleted scenes” you can see Snape and Igor argue as well as several other parts that never made it into the final film.

    It really is a shame that so much has to be left out.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    I have deleted scenes on my GF dvd 2…but thanks anyway…
    Now returning to chat with Reader2. . .
    The what I hate the most is that Quidditch haven’t shown in OP/f.When I realized that after first watching of movie I was very disapointed because of that.
    Also it seemed to me that O.W.L.s are represent in movie as Umbrigde’s way to terorize students and infact they are exams, they don’t look that way on film…
    Also Im anoyed with all that changes on castle…I always must add/change something on my map…

  • hpboy13

    Well, if you wanna criticize movies, I’m in!
    They claim that they have no time to include thigns in movies, and then they put in utter trash of their own making!! They can’t be bothered including most of the memories in HBP, yet they have to have a scene of Harry making a prat out of himself IN FRONT OF ROMILDA VANE!!! Tat is such utter BS. All I can say is, Jo made a very grave error giving WB hte rights to HP.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Im totaly agree with you hpboy13!
    And the Firebolt in PA/f on end of the film…I was very disapointed when I saw that.But I hate the most is that that movie HP universe don’t fit with books universe, I don’t like that…I rather playing videogames they are a bit better…
    I was always wondered why they didn’t make a Hogwarts as described in books and why Daniel R. don’t fit Harry’s look description…
    Jo making a error, she forgot her fans and left WB destroying her work…
    And then they say for Steve…

  • Deborah Hubbard

    Nicola, I agree with what you say about the films in many ways, but in fairness, when you cast child actors aged about 12, you have no way of knowing how tall, thin etc they are going to be when they are 18, or in the case of boys when they will start growing and becoming physically mature. The only problem really with Daniel R is the absence of green eyes! And I’ve read somewhere that they tried to give him tinted contact lenses for the first movie, and he couldn’t wear them at all. Some people can’t adjust, and he was one.

    I quite enjoy the films, or I have so far, but I think of them as separate from the books. Not a different version, just something entirely separate. And don’t forget how long and full of detail the books are … and all the details are important, one way or another. Making DH into two films might just work, but it will be astonishingly challenging.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Deborah, you right but there other ways of changing eye color…Even I can make myself to look like HP on computer.When I was younger I loved to make photos and videos of me and Christina, editing them in Photoshop and other programs, changing my hair color and eye color…I was 12 years old…and good at Photoshop and still I am…
    But the point is that they could make things better…we all enjoy in films but when I watch it many times…I realize some things…

  • >>HPT¡nna

    Well, the thing that disappoint me the most is that when I watch trailers it seems that going to be awesome and when comes out…
    In Serbia films are more popular then books and that’s why you can’t find a companion books, Bookshop don’t want to take them because they know that won’t pay out…the same is for FW cards…I never actually had or seen one…
    I watch films just for fun and Im not so interested in them…I rather play games…
    I agree too with hpboy13…

  • Reader2

    Well Tinna,

    If Serbian translation of the books is of the same quality as Russian translation, it’s no wonder they don’t sell.
    As for the movies, they seem to be popular in spite of all the flaws.

    My guess is that their popularity is still riding the wave that was born before the first movie came out, out expectations of the kids who just read the book and wanted to see all their favorite chracters live.

    That is in fact the biggest problem with the movies, they are made for those who already read the books.
    Those who haven’t are not really taken into consideration.
    As the result the movies misrepresents the books instead of promoting them.

  • >>HPT¡nna

    Well the first HP books on Serbian where awful.Very bad translation, awful bookcovers and the most important to me invalid names and surnames of charachters. Instead of Vizli how Weasley should spell on Serbian they are named Vesli.It was a very poor translated edition.Then a publisher lost a licence for HP and one of the best publishers taked and re-published HP.Traslation is amazing good now, books in fantastic hardcover and before this edition I read the english Scholastic and Serbian look the same…

  • >>HPT¡nna

    Yes, as I see, movies just ruin a picture of HP…
    Even with this amazing good translation and look, the books are little better but still less populas than films…This re-published edition is great, almost like the Scholastic…and still it seems that people find more fun in movies than in books…
    But the only error of new publisher is that they never published QA,FB and TBB…
    I would say that small number of people even notice that they aren’t published.Their focus is only on seven books about HP…

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Well the reason that the Serbian version of books are now so great is that:
    1.One big Serbian publisher Evro (euro) joined with a big Italian publisher Giunti and then we got Evro-Giunti as great HP publisher…
    2.Evro-Giunti put the grown up HP fans to work on books.Fans know the best.That fans made books great and made a excellent translation…now that fans that worked on seven hp books have their site HP Serbia and they inform fans in serbia…also started a potterwatch podcast on Serbian…

  • hpboy13

    Hey guys…
    OMG, I cannot wait to go through it, I’m gonna spend the three-day weekend curled up in an armchair with the book (it’s freezing outside anyway)

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    I can’t wait to get mine…
    It should arrive within this weekend…
    Well, thanks to my dear friend JJB!
    As to you hpboy, I hope you enjoy it…:-)

  • hpboy13

    Oh, I’m enjoying it immensely! I just wish Jo hadn’t interfered and Steve would’ve been able to put more content in (without fear of spoiling, etc), but it’s nevertheless a wonderufl book and a godsend to all fanfic writers.

  • TJ

    Hi, Steve. Unrelated to this post, but I was just wondering if you were delivering a presentation at Azkatraz this year. I’ve yet to see a presentation of yours, and would be happy to see you included as a speaker in the programming. I’m just a Harry Potter fan, of course, and in no way affiliated with Azkatraz. Thanks!

  • hpboy13

    Steve, I regrettably found an error in your book. On page 71: Glinda was not the Good Witch of the NORTH in “Wizard of Oz”, but the Good Witch of the SOUTH. The Good Witch of the North remains nameless in the book, and only appears in the first book and not in the subsequent thirteen. Just thought I’d point that out.

  • Steve

    I’ll add that error to the list. There are a few more, and if we go to a second edition, we’ll fix them.

    As for Azkatraz, I’d love to go. Trouble is, I can’t afford the tickets or registration right now. If circumstances change, I’ll certainly do everything I can to be able to attend.

    I’m so glad that you’re enjoying the book!


  • hpboy13

    K, happy to help! By the way, any plans for a book signing in NYC? *hint hint*

  • kamion

    quote Barbara Ilott:
    Secondly, even an ended love affair can have consequences, so I think the reason that D waited so long before the show-down with G was because he was afraid that G would use that former love (which no one knew about but the two of them, remember) to undermine him – a public revelation of their former association could have destroyed D’s credibility if it had been made public at a crucial moment.

    sorry, this is a fanfic analyses
    the canon gives a clear picture about it what had nothing to do with the love affair JKR introduced after the release of the book.
    The embarrishment was that the Great Mugglelover had started out as a PureBlood Supremist, that was the secret DD had been hiding, not the fact that he oggled Grindlewalds behind.
    Had that been the embarrisment, Rita Skeeter would have outed DD as a deviant and pervert.
    That she did not do it can mean two things:
    a) it was not a secret DD was bent
    b) the Wizarding World did not care a knut if one was bent or not as long the blood was pure, kept pure and reproduced pure.

  • Reader2


    JKR did explain it in an interview.
    You’ve got it right in part (b).
    She said that while there might be some orientation discrimination in the wizarding world, it’s nowhere near the level of blood-status discrimination.
    Someone like Malfoy, for example, would not be concerned about it.

    I have to bring it up again, that in the book it never says that Grindelwalds movement had anything to do with pure-blood supremacy.
    They wanted world-domination and the end of statute of secrecy, but it doesn’t say anywhere that they had anything against muggle-born.
    Thus, the big secret would be that a great humanitatrian was once on a quest for world-domination.

    However, I am with you on all the rest.

  • hpboy13

    It wasn’t pureblood supremacy, it was wizard supremacy. Grindelwald didn’t hate Muggleborns, but he did want to establish power over muggles.

    Also, Steve, another error: on page 86, for Cedric Diggory’s entry, you have him becoming prefect in 1992, but he became prefect in 1993.

  • b

    Awesome! I love to see new updates.
    All this discussion is really interesting. I might contribute later.

    “but it is a tiny bit ironic to see Rowling make jokes about an author’s books being banned or destroyed. This is yet another example of the way in Rowling’s writing that intolerance and prejudice are both encouraged and discouraged.”

    I know I’ve almost certainly misinterpreted it, but I really hope that this isn’t a reference to the lawsuit…I love this site, but if it was that does seem a bit…well, bitter.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    So, did you heard that stunt is injured on filming of DH.It’s grave and as far I know the stunt is doubler of Dan Radcliffe…

    Er, JJB write…

  • B:

    No, that comment wasn’t in any way connected to the lawsuit. The point is that there are times when Jo seems to encourage intolerance — for example in the way we’re encouraged to dislike and even abuse Slytherins — when one of the overall themes of the books is tolerance and acceptance of differences.

    Just for the record, I don’t feel at all bitter or angry. I get asked that a lot in interviews and people seem to find it hard to believe that I’m not all hurt and upset or something. But I’m not. I’m just glad it’s over and that both Jo and I are happy with the way things turned out.


  • Reader2


    I am long overdue to congratulate you on the end of all the craziness.

    Your site has always been one of my favorite stress-relivers and I am glad that it’s back to normal.

    So I am happy to return the conversation to the books:

    I can not believe you of all people are actually saing that Rowling’s books can encourage intolerance.

    In fact, those who accuse Rowling of being unfair to Slytherins never seize to amuse me.

    On each and every fansite I see people complain how Rowling is “misrepresenting” Slytherins, and each time I want to ask who exactly told them “the truth” about Slytherins.

    Here is a little surprise announcement for all the Slytherin-lovers out there:
    you’ve learned your love for Slytherins fromt he very book you are criticising.

    You don’t believe me, do you?

    Then let me ask you this: was anyone defending Slytherins before the third book came out?

    Take a closer look at all the books and you will see that the first two books had us completely convinced that it’s Gryffindor – good, Slytherin – evil.

    However, starting from the third book, Rowling herself started destroying this image and by book seven she destroyed it completely.

    Throughout the books Harry goes from believing that he is in the house of heroes and there is a house of villians for him to fight to believing that good and evil can be very hard to tell apart, and we went through this change along with him.

    I am sorry to dissappoint my fellow fans, but if you have figured out that Slytherin is not evil by definition, you did not catch Rowling redhanded, you have walked straight into her trap and learned yet one more lesson about tolerance exactly as Rowling wanted you to.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    There is no definiton which say that all Slytherins are evil…
    Jo wanted, in book 1 and 2, to make us believe that they are all evil, but later on she ruined her task to make us hate Slytherins and confirmed to Mellisa and Emerson that are not all S. bad,
    can be Death Eaters from Gryffindor too, according to Jo but they are more usually from Slytherin…

    Im glad that everything is okay now, I always loved Lexicon it has some kind of wizadry spirit and look…:-)

  • Reader2

    Actually, Slytherins are only a part of a bigger problem in the fan community.

    The fan sites are filled with statements like “so-and-so should’ve lived”, “so-and-so should’ve died”, “so-and-so should have fallen in love with so-and-so”, “such-adn-such should’ve got mor attention in the books”.
    All these statements are followed by paragraphes on how much that makes one hate the books, or what a bad writer Rowling is for wrting the book that way.

    To those who make posts like that I would like to say:
    You are feeling so frustrated because that’s exactly what Rowling wanted you to feel.
    The books were meant to make you cry just as much as laugh.
    Some times to scare you, sometimes to make you feel uneasy.
    More importantly, the books were meant to make you think, even when you don’t want to think.
    The more you express anger at Rowling for making you feel all those things,
    the more you prove her to be a great author.
    Like it or not, the world she created has swallowed you whole, and that makes you her biggest fans, even if you are not aware of that.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    To Reader2: I totaly agree with you…well said…
    And another news is that MY LEXICON ARRIVED yesterday!I’ve read it whole day.It’s great…thanks Steve for writing such a great book…

  • hpboy13

    Congrats, Nicola! I’ve already finished mine and absolutely loved it…now just gotta get it signed by Steve someday!
    In regards to the Slytherins – I don’t think we’re supposed to believe that they’re evil, the reason they get such negative press is that one of their prime characteristics is bigotry. That’s why most DEs come from there, it’s what Voldy was preaching. If, let’s say, we got a renegade Ravenclaw who wanted to genocide all stupid people, they wouldn’t be nearly as successful because Ravenclaws arten’t as prejudiced.
    Personally, I don’t have a problem with Jo’s portrayal of Slytherin, rather, I don’t much like her portrayal of Gryffindor. Gryffindor is supposed ot be a House for brave people, yet Jo made it the Houses for the good guys. I mean, really, there is no effing way Hermione wouldn’t have been chosen for Ravenclaw. Neville, while brave, would have fit in much better in Hufflepuff. Really, I think it’s not right for all the good guys to be in Gryffindor, especially because that doesn’t really promote House unity. Harry didn’t even have a good friend in another House until the fifth book!

  • Reader2


    I was waiting for somebody to raise this issue on this site, because the response has been burning a hole in my brain for ages.

    Many fans seem to misunderstand the sorting techinque, and the reason why you misunerstand is (onece again) that Rowling did not want you to get it right instantly. She wanted you to strain your brain for a while.

    The hat knoks us of track by talking about the main qualities required for each house, leaving us to wonder what happens when some qualifies for more than one house.

    Than Dumbledore is talking about choices, and some readers actually thought that by “choices” he meant begging the hat to put you here and not there.

    In fact, the main factor of the sorting is what you value the most:
    Hermione is as smart as any Ravenclaw, but “wit beyond measure” is NOT her “greatest treasure”. To her wisdom and knowledge are just tools in fighting for a “greater good”.
    She can be fighting for popular cause like DA or a hopeless cause like SPEW, but she is always no a mission, like a true Gryffindore.
    Neville is as dedicated and hard working as any Hufflepuff, but he does not work for the very sake of it, nor is he dedicated to somebody else, he is a true believer in the codes of honor, and by the end of the book he shows exactly how far he can go just for the sake of doing what’s right.

    They were not missorted, they are exactly where they belong, like all the other characters in the book.

    Most important fact you will have to accept, is that you are feeling frustrated because that is exactly what Rowling wanted you to feel.

    Just like with Slytherins, the picture changed slowly: in the first two books we think that Gryffindor is for heroes only, but by the last one we meet at least one evil Gryffindor, plenty of seriously misguided ones, and find out that even good ones have their flaws and some of them were within inces of turning evil.

    At the same time, the seemingly newtral house of Ravenclaw and what appeared to be sidekick-house Hufflepuff prove just as capable of producing heroes.

    You’ve learned it all from the very book you are trying to criticise, and you haven’t even noticed.

    So congratualtions on walking straight into Rowling’s trap.

  • Reader2

    Actually hpboy brought up one more subject:

    Bigotry is not really a Slytherin trait. Rowling only made Slytherin the bigot home-base to show how some people use bigotry for personal purposes.
    Slytherin is all about fighting for your own success, so some of them jumped at the opportunity to get rid of competition by declaring them unfit, while others simply adopted follow-the-leader-he-will-lead-you-to-success attitude and ignored the moral issues.
    Voldemort himself, of cause, only cared about gaining power and used bigotry to motivate his followers.

    Bigotry could just as easily settle in any other house, but the motives would be different.

    Gryffindores are all about a good cause, so if somebody had convinced them that distroying a certain minority is the way to save the world they would be all for it.
    A Gryffindor Dark Lord would have to be sincerely convinced that him being in charge is what this world needs (and that’s what Dumbledore almost became).

    For Hufflepuff the situation would be almost the same as Gryffindor, except that Hufflpuffs do not write their own code of honor, but search for a ready-made one, so their Dark Lord would need some kind of higher power to serve, like a god or a spirit or teachings of a dead predecessor.
    He would not as much a Lord as a fanatical High Preist.
    We didn’t have anyone like that in the book though.
    At most Crouch Jr. could be a Hufflepuff, he was clearly a true believer (although, I could just as easily see him in Gryffindor).

    Ravenclaw is the triky one.
    They are all about scientific quest, so they simply can not be made into mindless followers.
    They can not be bought like Slytherins or blinded by ideals like Gryffinodres or Hufflepuffs.
    There were no dark Ravenclaws in the book, only a few misguided ones.
    If you want to invent one, think of a wizard version of Frankenstine.
    That kind of vilian would kill and destroy just for an experiment, that experiment might involve establishing a certain minority as the best test subject and overlooking ethics (reminds you of anything?).
    For example, Platt the goblin killer from the frog cards could be a Ravenclaw, if he was experimenting that is.
    So, there you have Ravenclaw biggotry, but I don’t think it would be possible to create an army of evil Ravenclaws, a small gang at most.
    Quests are usually done solo.

    So you see, house system has nothing to do with good or evil, just different kinds of motivation.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    I finished my Lexicon too.It’s great, I love it…
    By the way, does someone know where I can find a complete issues of Daily Prophet newsletters?
    And about Houses,
    If someone was in Slytherin that doesn’t make him evil.Slughorn ir great example…
    As for Gryffindor, they are not superb house but sorted brave people.The bravest of others.
    That’s like in High School, when comunity is sorted by ‘popular’ ones, Geeks and problematic ones.They are all in groups and that reminds me at Hogwarts houses…

  • hpboy13

    Reader2, I’m not trying to criticize the books, I’m just pointing out something that irked me. And what irks me is that all the heroes come from Gryffindor. It’s just not very probable that all of the main players in the war against Voldy would come from Gryffindor, especially if we’re led to believe that House unity is needed but only three Houses (and Slughorn) are united, and two only bring minor characters (with the exception fo Luna).

    And bigotry is a characteristic of Slytherin House. I quote from the fifth-year song:
    “For instance, Slytherin
    Took only pure-blood wizards”

  • Reader2

    You seem to be missing my point: it irks you because you were supposed to irk you.
    As for Slytherin not accepting muggle-borns, that does not automaticcally make them bigots (by the way, it was not pure-bloods only, we know a few half bloods).
    The idea of valueing legacy is not exactly the same as bigotry, although it does lead in the same direction.

    You are comparing t=he houses to splitting students inot geeks and populars, but do you realize that you are thinking not of the popularity of characters among themselves, but of their popularity with the readers.

    In the book each house has it’s own geeks and populars, and some of them are even receive similar recognitionin other houses.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    I agree, but they have some similar things that put them in that group, it’s same with the Houses.Sorting hat is like psyhologist.Those who wan’t to use people, who fight unfair are by decision of Sorting Hat are placed in Slytherin.Of course that heroes coming from Gryffindor when their strongest thing is bravery. R for example, also may have heroes but their strongest thing is knowledge…
    That’s way they are sorted that way, according to their bigest quality…

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Can my life be more funny that is now?
    I just came from School and mum said that a package for me arrived.I opened it quickly and…
    It’s another Lexicon book.I watched and watched and then realized I now have TWO Lexicon books…the first one came throught Orca Books and I thought that is from JJB.But today another Lex arrived in Amazon.co.uk box and it says that is from JJB, but who send me the first one?Im really confused…there is nothing on invoice from OB who send that copy…I have great friends….

  • Reader2


    It sounds you still don’t agree with me that the hat sorts not by abilities but by motivations.
    Well, in the case let’s talk about heroes from various houses.

    In fact, let’s talk about our favorite Ravenclaw hero, Luna.
    Do you think that Luna is smarter then Hermione, or less brave?
    To me they seem evenly matched in both departments, so why are they different houses?

    The difference is in motivation. Hermione, as I pointed out before is always fighting for a cause.
    Luna, on the other hand is on an intellectual quest.
    Remeber when she became a part of Harry’s gang, when she saw that they are doing what she dedicates her life to doing: proving the unbelievable.
    Her motives changed slightly as she realized that she now has friends who man a great deal to her, but she never stopped trying to prove the unblievable to her that’s what’s most important, and that is the reason why she is Ravenclaw.

    In a similar manner, Hufflepuff can produce heroes too, and those are very similar to Griffindores, except that they are less aggressive and more centimental.
    For example, I am not sure a Gryffindore would step aside and share the credit the way Cedric did near a turnament cup.
    Also, compare Ernie and Seamus when they had to admit they are wrong.
    Hufflepuffs do not think in terms of a great cause or their role in a big scheme, they think in terms of this-is-the-right-thing-to-do-right-now.
    That is probably why the spot-light tends to miss them.

    As for Slytherins, they can be heroic too, but not for free.
    They should be getting something out of being a hero.
    Everyone seems upset that Slughorn was the only Slytherin shown to fight in the final battle.
    The reason for that was that out of all Slytherins properly introduced in the book and still alive by the end, Slughorn was the only with a good reason to fight.
    Voldemort wanted him dead for knowing too much. Slughorn was running and hiding for as long as he could, but he had to get tired of that eventually.
    By the time of the battle it would be clear that the only way he could feel safe is if Voldemort was dead.
    That’s why he took part in the battle and that’s why he actaully went up against Voldemort himself.

    There may vary well have been other Slytherins fighting on the side of Hogwarts, but they would need a similar reason, and that would take a whole new subplot.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    I do agree with you that Hat sorts by motivations.But If they didn’t had that abilities they would not have that motivations.
    Without her knowledge and bravery, Luna would not have that motivation for proving the unbelievable…
    Hermione has the same abilities as Luna but her motivation is different…
    She always fought for a cause but using her knowledge and bravery.You can’t step in battle if you are not brave enough… That’s why they are in those houses because of motivations and abilities…

  • hpboy13

    Reader2, I get what you’re saying, believe me – it’s a very popular argument. However, the Sorting Hat says that students are sorted based on characteristics, not motivations. If you want to talk motivations, then how on earth is Pettigrew a Gryffindor not a Slytherin. Wormtail isn’t, as you say a G would, “fighting for a cause” – he fights for his own selfish motivations. And form what we cna tell of Sirius and Remus’s speech, he’s always been like that. So why wouldn’t he be a Slytherin?

  • Reader2

    Well hpboy,

    The Wormatail issue is another subject I’ve always wanted to discuss.

    You say he is selfish, but what exactly has he been getting in reward for his services? Just staing alive.

    All the Slytherin Death Eaters were at least expecting more than that, even Bella “the most faithful” dropped a comment when she was dragged off to jail: “Dark Lord will return and we will be rewarded above all others”.

    The solution to the puzzle is in PoA, when Wormtail was explaining himself: “the Dark Lord … you have no idea … he has weapons you can’t imagine”.

    To me it sounded like Wormtail was nos as terrified of what might happen to him as of voldemorts power in general.

    Tehn, remember the description of Wormtail in OoF.
    There he sounded so cincerely fascinated by James, parctically worshiped him.

    This got me thinking, if Wormtail responded to power so easily, perhaps that is the cause he serves.

    That is Wormtail’s idea of right and wrong is simple: the more powereful wizard is always right, the less powerful wizard should obey the more powerful one, if he doesn’t he deserves to be destroyed.

    That’s Wormtail’s Griffindor code of honor and he serves it with great dedication.

    He worshiped James and Sirius as the most powerful wizards in his year, then he joined the Order because that gave him a chance to serve Dumbledor, the most powerful wizard in the world, but when he found out that Voldemort is in fact more powerful, to Wormtail that meant necessity to switch sides – Voldemort is more powerful therefore he is right.

    If that sounds strange to you, think about this:
    if you ask a five year old looking at a comic book how he know who the heor is, will it be strange for him to answer: “the heor is the one who looks cool” or “the hero is the one with big muscles” or “the hero is the one who is winning”?

    The fact is, unless the children are taught that bad guys can win, they start thinking that whoever wins is the good guy.

    In fact, that’s what motivates every bully on a playground:
    I can bit so I am right, if you were right you would’ve been able to bit me.

    Kids who are not taught that those who win are not always right run the risk of turning out just like Wormtail.

    Believe it or not I’ve seen it in real life.

    In fact, I am not sure that the hesitation that killed Wormtail was caused by guilt or the feeling that he owed Harry.
    Perhaps, he simply started doubting that Voldemort is the most powerful one, wondered if Harry Potter is more powerful.

    In that case Harry had a key to moving Wormtail to his side all along: all he needed was to reveail the last line of the prophecy, about “the power Dark Lord
    knows not” and hint that he knows how to destroy Voldemort, then Womrtail would pledge alligence to Harry right on the spot.
    Unfortunately, Harry was way to sentimental to figure out the mind of a psycho like Wormtail.
    Voldemort, on the other hand, (being psycho himself) had figured Wormtail out right away, that’s why he took precautions.

    You see, a Griffindor has to have a cause, but that cause does not have to be reasonable.

    We’ve seen plenty of Gryffindores with stupid causes in the book:
    Percey, whose cause always had to come with a ministry seal and a signature. McLaggen, who was convinced that he can bring glory to his house by playing all the positions on a team at once.
    Romilda Vane, who believed that the high school popularity system is the altimate truth and nothing else matters.

    Like I said, being hero is not a requirement, but having a cause is.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    This chat can’t have the end I think.
    This is tricky because if someone have some motivation he must have abillities that made that motivation and with that we get some characteristics for being sorted. Now the problem is how someone get this…

  • hpboy13

    One flaw in that reasoning: Dumbledore is more powerful than Voldemort. If Wormtail went by the twisted code of honor of who’s more powerful, then he wouldn’t have switched sides until Book 7. Wormtail was not working for a reward, but his motives were just as selfish – he did everything he could to save himself from Voldemort. He had his friends killed, framed his other friends, broke his mother’s heart, and then brought Voldy back into the world. Which brings another contradiction: if Pettigrew followed the most powerful, why would he go to Voldemort at the end of PoA when Voldy was “less than the meanest ghost”? Pettigrew’s actions were always motivated by a desire to save himself, so he is Slytherin through and through.

  • Big_Kelpie

    The Sorting system es flawed. Almost nobody has a fully developed personality when they are 11.
    The Sorting Hat has to take into account in which house the student wants to be, that’s why most families are in the same House, nobody would want to let down their parents or be “less” than their older siblings. There are obvious exceptions, most notably muggle-borns with very little idea of which each house represents and children who, for whatever reason, choose to rebell against their parents (i.e. Sirius).
    I do believe that the Hat takes into account choices much more that it does, motivations, intentions or even abilities.
    Examples form the books:
    1. Harry. He is a parseltongue and has a part of Slytherin’s heir’s soul in him,this make the Hat think Harry is suitable for Slytherin, yet he puts Harry in Gryffindor because Harry asked him to.
    2. Ron. From his pre-sorting conversation with Harry in the train, it is clear he wants to be in Gryffindor as all his family is. He is then “sorted” into Gryffindor.
    3. Hermione. Based on her abilities, she should be a Ravenclaw, but she wants to be a Gryffindor. She states that earlier in the train, probably her main reason is that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor himself. She is then sorted into Gryffindor, after she was considered for Ravenclaw by the hat.
    4. Neville. Most of the fans agree that he belongs to Hufflepuff, at least, during the first 4 books. He doesn’t want his Grandmother to be angry at him, that’s why he chooses Gryffindor, which is assumingly the house of his parents.
    5. Draco. When we are introduced to him, he says he knows he will be in Slytherin because of his heritage. He has no doubts about which house he wants to be in. He is so sure that ” the hat had barely touched his head when it screamed ‘Slytherin'”.
    6. Percy. He would probably do better in either Ravenclaw (he did get 12 OWLs) or SLytherin yet he probably preferred Gryffindor as that was his parent’s former house and his older brothers’ current house.
    7. Pettigrew, he should have been a Slytherin, but probably was to scare because of all of what was rumoured about the house and the hat, for some reason, thought he would do good in Gryffindor.

    Moreove, I believe that once sorted, students start acting as it is expected from them, an are influenced by the older students in their own houses and the whole school environment.

    Anyway, my point was that motivation and abilities aren’t what’s most important during the sorting because:
    a)all abilities are not developed when we are 11 and seriously what motivation can an 11-year-old who just entered a magic school have, besides having fun and turning their siblings into frogs? Few of them are thinking schemes to get rid of mudbloods or had any chance to prove their bravery?
    b) The hat is partial to the student’s desires.

  • Reader2

    I knew somebody will respond like this,
    all about choices.

    Tell me Big Kelpie, if the choices are what’s most important why not just ditch the Hat and let people deside for themselves?

    Letting an 11-year old choose their entire life in one minute would be highly irresponsible.
    I think the founders knew better than that.

    The thing is choices are concious, while motivations are unconcious, and unlike abilities are developed very early in life, as your parents are starting to teach you right from wrong.

    Let’s look at all the examples one at a time:
    1. Harry. Even at the age of 11, was he capable of doig something he considered wrong just for his own benefit?
    Was his own well being more important to him then doing what’s right?
    Need I say more?

    2. Ron. He is a bit more selfish than Harry, but only because he was all too used to his parents constantly reminding him what’s right and what’s wrong.
    Later he accepted Hermione as a parent substitute with no difficulty.
    He already felt the need for a code of conduct.

    3. Hermione. Read my earlier post.

    4. Neville. Read my earlier post.

    5. Draco. This one never cared about anything but his own rear.
    A model Slytherin.
    No problems here.

    6. Percey. I pointed it out before:
    A Slytherin should be able to break the rules when it’s necessary to acheive his ambitions. Can Percey do that?
    Also, a Ravenclaw should always be open to learning something new, sticking to a given set of rules and ignoring everything else is unacceptable.
    Percey would not be welcome in either of those houses.

    7. Back to Pettigrew.
    Did somebody here say that Dumbledor is more powerful than Voldemort?
    You might want to tell that to Dumbledore his exact words were “Voldemort has powers I’ll never have”.
    As for Peter looking for Voldemort when he was just a ghost, may I remind you, he was not the only one who came to believe that it’s just a temporary stage.
    Half the characters in the book were convinced that he will be back more powerful than ever.
    And all Wormtail wanted was to save himself, why didn’t he just run?
    Away from Hogwarts, away from Brittan.
    That would’ve been a much safer choice.
    Sirius gives us the answer “Keeping an ear out for news, weren’t you Peter? Just in case your old protector regains strength, and it was safe to rejoin him”.
    You see, if Peter just ran for the hills, he would be all alone, without anyone powerful to worship.
    To him that would’ve been a fate worse than death.
    So, terrified as he was, he chose to hide right under Dumbledore’s knows running the risk of someone recognizing his rat shape (which by the way is exactly what happened).
    That need to constantly worship someone would be unacceptable for a Slytherin.
    Slytheirns are supposed to be always fighting for riches, or power, or success, but you can not do any of that, when you always let someone sit on your back.
    We saw Slytherin serve as someone elses foot-stool, but only when that was needed to satisfy their ambitions.
    Wormtail’s only ambition was to stay alive, a Slytherin would need more than that.

    At the age of eleven abilities are not developed yet, but some potential for the development can be sensed, and motivations are what guides that development.

    When Dumbledor was talking about choices, he did not mean one choice you make at the age of 11 sitting under the hat.
    He meant what you choose to value in your life in general.
    That is indeed what makes us who we are.

  • hpboy13

    Sorry, but I’m more with Big_Kelpie. You say Harry never does something he knows is wrong? What about when he and Ron go “looking for adventure” in SS, though he knows it’s wrong and will probably screw him and Ron and Gryffindor over? That can be considered quite selfish.
    You say Percy won’t fit in Slytherin or Ravenclaw? What makes him such a perfect fit for Gryffindor? What other Gryffindors are known for sticking to rules and being so ambitious?

    And Peter knew that runnign away from Britain wouldn’t save him forever. Just look at Karkaroff. He was just being Slytheriny and seeking power and protection.

    I think that it is our choices predominantly, but that our abilities play a part as well. For example, the Hat wouldn’t have sorted Hermione into SLytherin because she asked, or Neville into Ravenclaw, because it would be preposterous.

  • Reader2

    Well hpboy,

    I believe the advanture you are talking about is the midninght duel.
    Of all Harry’s advantures that was the only one that did not involve rescuing somebody.
    If that is your best example of Harry’s selfishness, you are seriously short of pruving him fit for Slytherin.
    Harry accepted a challeng that could get him inot a great deal of trouble, but promissed him no gain once or ever, just because backin away felt wrong.
    I doubt a Slytherin would accept a challenge like that.
    In fact, the Slytherin who made the challange stood him up.

    As for Percey, I thought I already answered that question.
    He is fit for Griffindor because he believes in his cause, the rules.
    He is sticking to the rules not just because he hopes that’s the way to career, but because he is sincerely convinced that rules are good.
    Granted, to him the rules-on-paper overrun the simple ethics, but he would not accept any under-the-table-rules-fo-the-dirty-games either.
    Note, when he saw the rules he served twisted inside out, that was what brought him back to the right side.

    Now about Peter (the most interesting one of the bunch).
    Comparing him to Karkarof, you are forgetting that Karakorf ran when it was too late.
    Voldemort was already reborn.

    Peter, had a chance to run in advance.
    In the ten years that it took Voldemort to pul himself together, Peter could’ve ended up somehwere between Brazil and Paragway.
    We saw how traveling from country to country can be way troublesome for a wizard. Imagine how hard it would be to travel accross the ocean.
    It is unlikely that Voldmort would go through all the trouble to catch one failed servant when he had a whole country to conquer, and by the time he was done, he could’ve forgotten all about Peter.
    That is if he was ever angry with Peter to begin with.
    After all, he did forgive all the rest of the Death Eaters, just as long as they came back crawling when he was reborn.

    On the other hand, Voldemort was not the only one Peter had to worry about.
    Un-proven Death Eaters wanted him dead because they thought he lured Voldemort into a trap.
    Ministry would’ve wanted him if they knew he was not dead.
    Everything in the country was against him, so why would he want to stay there?
    Unless fear was not his only factor.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Sorry Big Kelpie,
    but I disagree that Hat sort by choices.Yes, he gave a chance to Harry to choose which house, but that was only because Harry had abillities and character that would fit both houses.But Hat was clever, he let Harry to choose his life path and with a different motivation of usual Slytherin, Hat decided to put him in Gryffindor because he already took a look at Harry’s mind an saw that Harry is a truly Gryffindor…

  • hpboy13

    I’m with Nicola on this one. Pettigrew didn’t run not because he was brave, but because he knew he still could gain something by staying. And as for Percy – every House has a cause to believe in and fight fo rit. It’s just the matter of fighting for it is different – Slytherins use “any means”, Gryffindors rush in recklessly, Ravenclaws take the clever approach, and Hufflepuff use hard work and patience. Having a cause was never said to be a Gryffindor quality.

  • Reader2


    Could you please read what I wrote so far about Peter, because you obviously didn’t.

    As for “any means”, you are forgetting the second half of the phrase “to acheave their end”.
    That is not a cause, that’s ambition and self-motivation.
    You said it yourself that Slytherins wouldn’t serve anything without getting something in return.

    As for Gryffindors, it’s been stated over and over that they are “noble”.
    What do you think it means to be “noble”?
    As far as I know, it means having a code of honor to follow.
    That in turn leads to having a cause, a “greater good”.
    And exactly when did rushing recklessly become a requirement for Griffyndores?
    It is common among them, but there are pelnty who are not reckless, like Dumbledor, Herminoe, Lupin…

    Also, I’ve mentioned a few posts ago what plays the role of a cause for Ravenlcaws: “Wit beyond measure is man’s greates treasure”.

    There you have it.
    You can think of it as different causes for different houses, but I call it “motivation”.

  • Reader2

    Oh and by the way,
    Not all Ravenclaws could take clever apprach.
    Remeber where their house ghost came from?

    And not all Hufflepuffs shoed perseverence.
    Remebr Zacharias Smith, who turned tail and ran when things got hot?

    Or were they both missorted as well?

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    They can’t be missorted. Hat knows exactly why he put them where he put them. He’s enchanted to do so.He can’t make a error – that is power of magic!

  • Reader2

    Thank you Nicola,

    That’s my point exactly.
    They lacked needed qualities, but they did have the motivation.

    Helena wanted to be wise enoguh to steal for it.
    I’d say that qualifies as scientific curiosity.

    As for Zacharias:
    Just like with Gryrrindors, Hufflepuffs are all supposed to be dedicated to something, but they don’t have to be all dedicated to the same things.
    Smith clearly was not dedicated to Hogwarts the way his classmates were, but perhaps he was dedicated to his parents, and believed that his main responcibility was to servive for their sake.
    Does that make sence?

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Yes it does make sense.They maybe have the same quallities that put them in the same house but they can’t be all dedicated to same thing.Their dedication is the matter of their own life and life path and it’s totaly normal for someone to be dedicated to the different things from other…
    And so yes, it does make sense…

  • Deborah Hubbard

    Getting back to Peter for a moment: I agree that he was impressed by power and its trappings (popularity by association was the only kind of popularity he was likely to enjoy) and that this led to his association first with the other Marauders and subsequently with Voldemort, who appeared more powerful than anyone. But let’s not overlook the genuine, if regrettable, courage it must have taken to turn his back on his friends in the first place. He didn’t put his most important Gryffindor characteristic to a moral use, but he did have it and he did use it. (And was predictably abused by LV and lacked the courage to retrace his steps; Regulus might well have been offered a choice at Sorting between his family’s House and his brother’s, and followed the family, but in character at the end of his short life he was all Gryffindor.)

  • Reader2

    Well Deborah,

    Regulus is yet another interesting character, who sounds out of place, but in fact is not.

    You say that he is all Gryffindor just because he seemed to have gone kimikadze, but there is one little problem with that:
    If Regulus died to destroy Voldemort (as Harry believed) why did he leave Voldemort a note?
    Wouldn’t it be more effective to leave Voldemort ignorant of loosing his immortality?
    Come to think of it, why didn’t he even try to tip off Voldemorts anemies that the horcrux is gone? The thought of making up with his brother seems to have never occured to Regulus.

    While we are at it, was self-sacrifise even neccessary?
    Harry and Dumbledor did demostrate that is was possible for two people to take the locket and walk away not exactly unharmed, but at least alive.

    I am under impression that in his last moment Regulus was not thinking of how many people will be saved if Voldemort dies, but the expression on Voldemort’s face as he reads the note.
    Regulus did not sacrifise himself for any noble cause.
    He commited a suicide for one reason only, to show Voldemort that no one controls Regulus Black.
    Pride is not uncommon for Gryffindores, granted, but it is just as common for Slytherins.
    Kiling yourself out of pride is far more appropriate for a Slytherin than a Griffindor, simply because while many try to romanticise suicide, in reallity it is usually a very selfish thing to do.

  • Wally

    Just reading through a little, the main
    question about house sorting seems to
    be with Gryffindor. And even more
    specifiaclly, with just a few individuals
    in Gryffindor. The thing is, it’s not
    just bravery that gets you in Gryffindor.
    Lots of people have flashes of bravery
    in there lives. Then someone like
    Nearly Headless Nick clearly has a little
    coward in him (he chose to be ghost after all).

  • Reader2

    What is this, prove a mis-sorting week?

    Well, I did make a statement that each and every character in the book is in the right house, and not just because they asked for it, but because no other house is right for them, so I am going to keep defending it.

    Bravery is a complex concept.
    Being brave does not mean never being afraid of anything, it means being able to overpower your fear when it really matters.

    In Nick’s case, he was afraid of death granted, but he was able to overcome his fear prior to that.
    Now that we have a compleat story of how he got killed, we know that he volunteered to use magic to help muggles in the 16th century, the era when the witch-hunts were not entirely over, and people still believed in dark magic.
    He doesn’t sound too stupid to realize that he was risking his life doing that, so I’d say it’s enough of a proof that he was able to overcome his fear of death through out his life and was perfectly qualified for Gryffindor.

  • Wally

    No no no, I wasn’t saying Nick wasn’t
    qualified. I was pointing out that it’s
    not as simple as, you’re brave – Gryffindor,
    you’re smart – Ravenclaw. Everybody has
    varying degrees of all the house traits.
    The hat’s job is look at those traits and
    other things, to determine the best place
    for the student.
    I think they all ended up where they were
    supposed to be. Even the complicated one.

  • Reader2

    Thank you Wally,

    Nice to know that somebody agrees with me, but I also stand by my other point.

    It’s all about what they value the most.
    In Nick’s case, for example, we see that even in death he insists to uphold the standards of his house, and serve his own code of honor.
    I recommend this as a way to figure out each character, just try to figure out what they value the most and you will see what brought them to a certain house.

  • >>HPTinna13

    Yeah, Ralph (movie version of You-Know-Who) came to Belgrade International Movie Fest…
    Er, I’ve readed all this long comments on Sorting and I do agree with yot too Reader2…
    Steve book is excellent, keep working, we all support you…
    Er, JJB write…

  • Deborah Hubbard

    Regulus … we don’t know nearly enough, Reader2, but what we do know from Kreacher has to be considered. First we have Regulus, eager to serve the Dark Lord and therefore eager for Kreacher to share in the honour of doing so. Serendipitously he saves K from the Inferi by summoning him home, to discover that L.V. had fed him the toxic potion and left him to die. We know of nothing else that could have turned R.A.B. against L.V; but having decided that his conscience compelled him to break his L.V. connections, he left a somewhat adolescent note, yes! But he was an adolescent, and his elder brother never stopped being, let’s say, youthful so maybe it’s a family trait. He thought that L.V. would understand his cryptic message, perhaps.

    He wanted to protect his family, and very sensibly ordered Kreacher not to tell them what had happened. But he acted in the first place out of loyalty and affection for the lowest of the wizarding low, a house-elf! Nothing toujours pur about that. And in the Battle of Hogwarts, Kreacher used R.A.B.’s name as a rallying call to his fellow elves, not good old Hermione and her S.P.E.W. … so surely R.A.B. was not proving that nobody controlled him, therefore, but proving that elves were entitled to dignity, consideration and love. And perhaps expiating his own action, which so nearly led to Kreacher’s death.

    As for making up with Sirius before he died: no. As an idea, that is just plain sentimental, and you usually aren’t! Remember that Sirius always behaved badly towards Kreacher …

  • Reader2

    Well Deborah,

    Rowling did give us another clue about Regulus in an interview.
    She said that Regulus realized that what he was getting into after it was too late to back out and the case with Kreacher was just the last straw.

    You are saying that Regulus being concerned about Kreacher proves that he believed in elf-rights and died for that cause.

    Well, not necessarily.
    There was plenty of slave owners who were kind to their slaves, but so nothing wrong with slavery in general.

    Those people also tended to believe that harm to their slaves is an insult to them, since when you respect someone you do not mistreat their property.

    By nearly killing Kreacher, Voldemort had insulted Regulus.

    Let’s put it this way:
    If your boss had tryed to burn your house down, would you still want to work for him?

    Also, I did not bring Sirius into this for sentimental reasons.
    I was trying to say that a more practical course of action for Regulus was to find his brother and use him to get in touch with Order of Phoenix.
    They would be able to get the horcrux without getting anyone killed and provide shelter for Regulus.
    In fact, isn’t this exaclty what Snape did in a similar situation?
    However, this would require Regulus to swallow his pride and Blacks don’t seem to be good at that.
    As you said, family trait.

    So there you have it.
    Regulus was degraded, he thought that being at Voldemort’s side was his key to success and a way to make his parents proud.
    Instead, it turned out a sure way to be degraded.
    Today he us abusing your elf, tomorrow he might deside to abuse you, and the only way out is to go crawling to you big brother.
    So, Regulus found what seemed to be the least humiliating way out, to die and go out with a bang.

    He was personally offended and he retaliated.
    His actions were honorable to some extent, but still completely self-motivated and perfectly suitable for a Slytherin.

  • Deborah Hubbard

    Ah, right … about contacting Sirius … but I’m not convinced. Those two had made their differences into the cornerstones of their personalities; and although “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a sound principle, we have no indication that Regulus might have been willing to go over to the other side. Nor, probably, did he believe in rights for the entire race of elves: his affectionate respect for Kreacher is more likely to have been a one-off for personal reasons alone. The same kind of personal reasons that would surely have prevented him from making common cause with Sirius!

    I haven’t got my copy here, and although the Lexicon is excellent it isn’t all-knowing … did Regulus know that the locket was a horcrux? He knew it was a secret and greatly valued by LV, but it seems odd that the only person except Dumbledore who knew about the horcrux situation was a very new recruit with a dubious brother and an aunt with a taste for down-market marriage. It seems to me that although Regulus knew he was spoiling something LV valued, he couldn’t know what it represented. What he did know was the effect of the potion, and no ordinary person would have put himself through that if there was an alternative. Isn’t there an element there of: I put someone I value through this, so it’s only right to go through it myself?

    Thanks for the debate: it’s interesting, like the good old days …!

  • hpboy13

    Sorry I have been gone a while, I was on a cruise. I see the conversation has turned to Regulus…he, I believe, was a wonderful example of what DD referred to when he said “We Sort too early.” I’m fairly sure he was a perfect little Slytherin at 11, going along with the family, ambitions, wanting to get rid of Muggleborns. But he changed because despite all of that, he was an inherently good person, and towards the end of his life he would have been a legit Gryffindor, same as Snape. No one can say Snape was a Slytherin by DH – he had given up everything to fight for a noble cause (not pureblood supremacy), and died selflessly in a crummy little shack. He was exceedingly brave.

  • Reader2


    I can and am saying that Snape was still a Slytherin when he died.

    He did not die for a “Greater Good”, he died for love, which is perfectly acceptable for all houses.
    At the seme time he died for revange.
    Voldemort killed the woman Snape loved, thus he took away something Snape wanted, so Snape retaliated, which was also pefectly suitable for a Slytherin.

    Both Snape and Regulus pruved to be good people in a long run, but that does not mean they stopped being Slytherins.

    You will have to understand that being Slytherin has nothing to do with being evil or being biggoted.

    Slughorn did not stop being Slytherin the moment he started accepting muggle-borns into his club. Did he?

  • Reader2


    Here is a proof of how excellent the Lexicon is.
    I found the complete note of RAB in the readers guide.
    It includes the words: “I have stolen the real horcrux and inted to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more”.

    Now I can say with certainty that Regulus knew that the locket was a horcrux.

    From the “Kreachers tale” we know that Regulus did not go after the locket right after his coversation with Kreacher, so apparently he took some time to research what that locket could be.

    However, there is no way he could know that Voldemort had more than one horcrux.

    That part was supposed to be something beyond anyones imagination.

    The note also suggests that Regulus was convinced that by destroying the locket he will take away Voldemort’s immortality.

    That would have been sure way to go out with a bang and to show Voldemort that he should have a little more respect for his followers.

    I do not deny Regulus’ concern for Kreacher, and guilt could very well be a factor, but I still say that personal pride was the main motivation, and that is what the note reflects the most.

  • hpboy13

    Personal pride? If Regulus was doing all this for personal pride, I think he’d have chosen a more glamorous way to die than being killed by Inferi in a cave, unbeknownst to all until twentyish years later when Kreacher told the Trio.
    As for Snape, he spent over half of his life fighting for a cause; namely Lily. He himself got precious little otu of it – he didn’t get Lily, and he didn’t get fame or riches or anything else he could possibly want. All he was hoping to get was revenge, and he didn’t even live to see it. So he died a Gryffindor, fighting for a cause, though I have no doubt he was a Slytherin upon being Sorted.

  • Reader2


    I don’t see what glamorous ways to die were available for Regulus.
    Catching an AK curse in a dark alley would not be very glamorous.
    The note, however, does suggest that he expected Voldemort to chekc on his horcrux some time in the near future.
    Voldmorts scream of rage as he read the note would have insured that Regulus would be remembered.

    As for Snape, his personl motive was in fact revenge, and he could very well hope that he would live to see.
    That would’ve been anadequate reward.

    You do make a good point about him making Lily into a couse he served.
    Love does blur the line between personal goals and causes.
    It seems like paying tribute to Lily’s memory made Snape feel like he was still winning her over, even from beyond the grave.

  • hpboy13

    I’m sure there was some more glamorous way for Regulus to die. Like a battle against Voldy’s Death Eaters, after which his family woudl give him a magnificent funeral and all that jazz. He was being selfless and noble in that instance.

    As for Snape…are you suggesting he’s a necrophiliac? Or just insane?

  • Reader2

    You are forgetting that Regulus’ main goal was to hurt Voldemort.
    If he just threw himself agains other Death Eaters, he could’ve killed some of those, but Voldemort wouldn’t even blink at that.
    Destroying Voldmeort’s immortality, on the other hand would have been a big blow.

    As for Snape, I think the best way to explain his case was right here on Lexicon when somebody suggested that he looked like Dante.
    Do a little reading about Dante, the subject will make a little more sense to you.

  • hpboy13

    ON the contrary, hurting some of Voldy’s prize DEs would hurt him. And there’s also the fact that Reg could have destroyed Voldy’s immortality AND lived to tell the tale by making Kreacher drink the potion. But he acted selflessly and decidedly unSLytherinish.

  • Reader2


    You can not possibly be serious about “prized Death Eaters”.
    Voldemort had been killing and turturing them himself on daily basis.

    We’ve seen Malfoy go from right-hand man to whipping boy after one failure.
    I’ve pointed it out before that what had to turn Regulus agains Voldemort in the first place was realization that Voldemort does not respect, appreciate or value his servants no matter how hard they try.
    He certainly wouldn’t flinch if some of them got killed.
    At most he would get annoyed if some of them were needed at that particular moment, but he would be over it the next day.
    The only Deth Eater whose loss seemed to upset Voldemort was Bella, but we can not be certain that it’s her death that affected him, and not the loss of a battle at that same moment.

    As for living thorugh the task, you are once again guilty of not reading my posts before arguing with me.
    I said it before that Regulus felt like he had nothing to loose.
    If he had destroyed the horcrux and live it would be only until Voldemort found him (unless he went to the Order for help, but like I said he didn’t view that as an option) and his death would probably be just as painful.
    So, if he was dead anyway, why give Voldemort the satisfaction of killing him personally?
    And why torture poor Kreacher with no nessacity?
    Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that Regulus loved Kreacher and wouldn’t hurt him even if there was any need.
    It is clear the Blacks viewed their elf as part of the family.
    However, it is perfectly acceptable for a self-motivated person to love his family.
    After all, your family is part of what you are.
    Malfoys also loved each other, would you say that made them less Slytherin?

  • Reader2

    I hope it wasn’t me who scared everyone out of this Pensive with my arguments.

    If it was, than it’s my duty to lure people back in with another subject for discussion.

    I have taken another look at the commentaries for the “Tail of Three Brothers” and tried to trace out the history of the Elder Wand.

    Here is what I saw:

    Elmeric the Evil lived in the early middle ages.
    If I am not mistaken, those would be 1000s, and around the time of founders.
    That allows us to conclude that the Peverells actually lived before the founders.

    Godelot live a full century later.
    He was also the one who wrote “Magick Most Evile”, where he mentioned Horcruxes, but refused to talk about them.

    Barnabas Deverril lived in Early 18th century, 1700s.
    That places both him and Loxias some time around goblin rebelions.
    May be that’s how they got to show off the Elder Wand.

    Cosidering how long the wizards live, Loxias could have been still at large by the end of 18th century.

    That leaves a mere century before Dumbledore and Grindelwald started their own hunt for the wand.

    Dumbledore doesn’t mention Arcus or Livius, who, according to Xeno, might have defeated Loxias.

    Seems to like he is deliberately trying to hid the next transfer of the wand.
    His motives would be obvious.

  • kayla

    I have been waiting for a new book from J.K.Rowlings.

  • Nicola Vojvodic

    Huh…no Reader2, it wasn’t you… I just think that we need a new entry, er Steve…
    Your arguments are ok, of course, I read every new comment when RSS notice me, this time, I just read what hpboy13 and you wrote…we need something new…As for your last comment – we can’t be sure about Arcus and Livius, we know that Lovegoods love stories, rumors and thíngs that aren’t true. I don’t think that D. would miss that fact, but everything is possible…

  • Dawg

    Dude, when is a member of the Lexicon gonna add something to this site? Is it now officially defunct or something?

  • Queen Elizabeth

    hi Iam a new user but I’ve been into the Leaky Lounge a lot.Iam not able to post my essay in HPL.If Iam doing something wrong,please tell me.

  • Queen Elizabeth

    Hi sorry i never gave my introduction
    iam Liza,14 from the UK

  • Mikkel Larsen

    Hi Liza, welcome. AFAIK you can’t post an essay yourself on the Lexicon. The staff select the essays, which show special insights, from other Potter-sites and post them. You could try mailing your essay to the Lexicon.
    I don’t know if there is anybody left to read it. Steve, please, some signs of life would be nice.

  • Nicola Vojvodic (16)

    Liza you can send your essay to Steve on his email. I wrote one essay too, sent it and now Im waiting for his opinion…seems you have to wait…
    To Steve:
    Come on Steve, today is my 16th birthday, add new entry, please!

    Cheers to Liza…

  • Wally

    I wouldn’t be too worried, if you look
    back there have been long stretches
    between posts on here before. Granted,
    I would love to see more updates too.

  • Queen Elizabeth

    Hey thanks guys.Iam glad to know that even you guys are on the same page as I am.

  • Steve

    I’m here, sorry about the long delay. Just got back from Britain and I leave Saturday morning for Minnesota, so I just don’t seem to get the time I need to do proper Lexicon editing. All I manage to do is fix errors that people have emailed me about (and I’m behind on that).

  • Mikkel Larsen

    How about getting some other people to help you? I had the impression that the staff ran a lot of the routine in the good old days.

  • Steve

    Yeah, during the years when there was a lot of new canon, I had a number of staff people who worked on various sections of the site. Now that there is very little new canon, pretty much all the editing is up to me.

  • hpboy13

    Aw, Steve, that’s so sad! What happened to the rest of the staff?

    As to the essay thing, I’ve had an essay published (a few weeks before DH came out), and I emailed it in. I tried again a bit later, but the whole RDR thing was going on and no one got back to me. Talk of which, Mugglenet is now releasing a new HP-companion book, “Harry Potter Shoudl Have Died” which explores the what-ifs in the series. I can’t wait, I’ve been needing new HP reading material since the Lexicon! The response is once again mixed, many people (like me) can’t wait to get it, whiel others are immediately hissing “You’re milking the HP cashcow to pay for your honeymoon blah blah blah HP webmasters are evil blah Jo would not approve RAWR!” What are your guys’ views?

  • Reader2

    I used to think that companion books are a good idea, but after all this mess with RDR, I simply don’t know what to expect, and afraid to make a guess regarding how Rowling is going to react.

    Although, I find the fact that the book is discussing “what if’s” a bit disturbing.
    I already brought it up that there is way too much wining on the web about the book not turing out the way some readers wanted it to turn out.

    If the book is the extention of that, it’s nothing I’d want to read.

    Than again, may be a little summary of what the readers are wining about will help them get the picture straight and realise how much the book the way it is has affected them.

  • hpboy13

    Reader2, it’s nto whinign about the book nto turning out right, it’s simply analyzing what it could have been if done differently. Nothing wrong with that. Haven’t we all asked ourselves what it would have been like had Harry died? I think it sounds like a fun read. And I don’t think Jo would want to start up a mess like that again, least of all against Mugglenet (which remaisn the biggest HP fansite)

  • Reader2


    I hope you are right about Rowling,
    as for whining it was just my reaction on a few things I’ve read on-line.
    I sincerely hope the book will sound different.
    Come to think of it, what would happen if Harry had died was discussed right in the book, in the thoughts of Harry himself, when he is marching of into the forest, convinced that he is about to die.
    He seemed to have it all figured out, but the majority of readers seems to have either disagreed with him, or simply ignored that part of the book.

  • Queen Elizabeth

    Hi guys.
    When is HP 6 movie releasing? Few sites say that its on screens from the 17th July(which is what I’ve been thinking) but few other sites say that its on the 15th?
    Could you guys let me know the right one?
    At least when is it releasing in Britain?

  • Mikkel Larsen

    t least that’s what IMBD says.

  • Mikkel Larsen

    I wrote:
    July 7th

  • Nicola Vojvodic (15)

    Release of HP6 is on 15th July in UK, USA and Brazil and 17th is world-wide…
    Thought in Serbia is 16th July – Im confused, but Im sure for UK Liza…
    I was tracking news about movies since the Lexicon haven’t got any new entry. . .
    HPDH filming of Shell-Cottage was good. . .:-)
    Cheers to Liza from Serbia. . .

  • Katie

    i think that the Deathly Hallows was the best book.Rowling really understands her characters and thats what makes makes her books behond great