The Harry Potter

So, I proudly admit to be a fan of The Harry Potter:

--would have posted a fun youtube video here, let's see if I can do one later... n:--

Mind you I'm not a robe wearing fan, but if that's your thing, have a blast...

Anyway, I recently read the sixth and seventh books (for the umpteenth time--I perhaps should point out that my sister works for Scholastic Book Publishing, so I would kind of be disowned if I wasn't a bit of a dweeb that way) and I remembered a few things that I had forgotten and noticed a few things that I've never seen before. Having finished the Deathly Hallows again last night my mind is still racing a little on some funny details and I have the inexorable need to share them with people I have never met before. Seeing as how there is no Harry Potter detail in active memory in the Arts, I thought I'd subject all you interested people to some of the things I've seen as well as some funny things from a very surprisingly well written series which has probably had some effect on all of us.

I certainly would love to be able to do magic!

Anyway, on to the Fun Facts of the Potty Universe!

Not so thinly veiled is the fact that the events catalogued in the series occur in the Mid-late 1990's. J.K. Rowling started to right them in 1995 and the first one was published in '97 in the UK I believe, so it's kind of funny that she made Harry Potter born in July of 1980. She reveals this in the seventh and final book, when Harry goes to Godric's Hollow to visit his parents graves it states that they were both born in 1960 and died on Halloween 1981, when Harry was a year and a half old. Therefore the first book took place in 1991, when Harry was 11, and the last book took place in 1997 (published in 2007)

The epilogue, taking place 19 years after the final events and therefore being set in 2016, proves that the world will not end on December 21st 2012 because, otherwise, Albus Potter would not have been able to go to Hogwarts for at least his first year.

In Harry Potter 7, when the only thing that he should have been doing was destroying Horcruxes, or the physical objects within which Lord Voldemort has hidden parts of his fragmented soul in order to attain immortality, (presumabely Volde is derived from valde, making Tom Riddle's alias mean "goodbye death") Harry never actually destroys a Horcrux in book seven, nor in fact does anyone destroy more than one tainted object:

(put in spoilers in case someone hasn't read the book yet, as well in order to keep the size of this post from being too long at first glance )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-the first Horcrux that is destroyed, Tom Riddles diary, is destroyed by Harry in book 2: the Chamber of Secrets, by impaling with a basilisk fang. This occurs before anyone except for Lord Voldemort himself and the long dead Regulus Black are aware that Lord Voldemort had made any such objects.

-the second horcrux, Marvolo Gaunt's ring, is destroyed by Dumbeldore using the sword of Godric Gryffindor sometime between the fifth and sixth books. It is also a Deathly Hallow, the death stone of Cadmus Peverell.

-the third Horcrux was the locket of Salazar Slytherin and, although it was stolen by Regulus Black and hidden away by Kreature the Black family house elf, was not destroyed until Ron Weasely destroyed it also by the sword.

-the fourth horcrux, the Cup of Hufflepuff, was destroyed by Hermione Granger using the left over fangs of the original basilisk. Up to this point all of Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes were destroyed by the venom of the same basilisk that he--and later his alter self contained in the diary--had released to prove he was the Heir of Slytherin. Without the venom from the basilisk the destruction of the horcruxes would have been virtually impossible.

-the fifth horcrux, the lost diadem of Ravenclaw, was destroyed by Fiendfyre by the Deatheater Crabbe, whose attempt to kill Harry Potter et al. led not only to the destruction of part of his Dark Lord's soul but also himself: Crabbe perishes in the inferno.

-the sixth Horcrux, Harry himself or perhaps more appropriately his scar, was never intentional and it is unclear if Voldemort was even aware of its existance. Voldemort himself destroyed it by using the Killing Curse of Harry, who once again remains unharmed and by offering himself as sacrifice ensures that Voldemort would be incapable of harming anyone else during the great battle.

-the seventh and final horcrux, the huge snake Nagini, is destroyed by Neville Longbottom who pulled the sword of Gryffindor once again out of the Sorting Hat, which proves that the goblins truly are a mediocre species that the wizards don't care about since the sword was, at the time, in the possession of goblins.** actually, thinking it over, the question that the Ravenclaw house doorway asks "where do vanished objects go?" which is answered by Professor McGonagall "into non-being, which is to say, everything" would explain how the sword was once again in the hat: magics surrounding the sword led it to be vanished in general, being is it was possessed by someone other than a true Gryffindor heart, and allowed it to be--as an object now within everything--to be extracted by Neville

The title of the book refers to the three objects of Death: the Elder Wand of Antioch Peverell; the Stone of Death--for lack of a better name as it is known only as Gaunt's ring in the book, something it only became much later--of Cadmus Peverell; and Death's own infallible Invisibility Cloak of Ignotus Peverell.

Although throughout the book legends say that if anyone was able to be master of all three objects would be master of Death, no one at any time ever succeeds in doing so. Dumbledore is the first wizard--presumably in history--who holds possession of all three objects at one time: he has the Elder Wand for many years since he defeated Grindelwald in 1945 and holds the cloak for eleven years until he can return it to Harry Potter, whose father James Potter was the proper owner. After five years of not having the cloak, he gains possession of the stone, which--now being a cursed object--proceeds to mortally wound him.
Harry Potter is the only other wizard who had possession of all three, and in fact had them on the same day, however before he gains possession of the Elder Wand he loses the stone--the only Hallow he truly valued--somewhere in the Forbidden Forest.
Voldemort had possession of two objects, his family heirloom the stone and the Elder Wand, never knowing what they were, and never having possession of Harry's heirloom, the cloak, the true value of which is that it can also hide other people as well as yourself, in addition to being incapable of being summoned by your enemies.

Voldemort and Harry Potter are distant relatives of eachother, both being descended by Peverell brothers: Voldemort is the direct, distant descendant of Cadmus Peverell and Harry is of Ignotus.

Werewolves can apparantly change shape into wolf form when the moon is not full. Although it is shown to be little more than a curse from book 3 onward and the indirect insistense that such individuals change form only when the moon is full--more appropriately to the original mythology but in direct opposition to such works as Underworld, which propogate the modern popular concept that werewolves can change whenever they ruddy well want to. However, in the final battle Fenrir Greyback is specifically described as being in wolf form, and goes to attack Lavender Brown who is saved by Hermione. Remus Lupin, however, remains human throughout the entire battle. Therefore presumabley a werewolf can change form at will--in the Harry Potter universe--so long as it is night-time.

Lily Potter is older than James Potter by a series of months: Lily was born in January 1960, James in March. The Potter's both died at the age of 21, however in the movie from the very first one they both appear to be late 30's early 40's, leading on to believe that when the first movie was being made neither the producers nor Rowling herself--who always had a strong presense in the decisions for the WB films--knew or entirely cared of that detail when it came down to casting.

The Slytherin House turns out to become the most selfless house in Hogwarts. Severus Snape, who turned out to act always with the safety of his students in mind, does nothing to assuage the resentment given to him by the majority of the student--and teacher--body. Horace Slughorn also came back to the school with heavy reinforcements during the point in the battle when strategic sense would have against his actions. Although the other teachers stuck it out from the very beginning, the retreat of Slughorn and the other Slytherins before the battle began was entirely accepted, perhaps even expected, however upon leaving the school the Slytherins went out and sought reinforcements--presumably an een more dangerous course of action than fighting in the castle itself given how many Dark Wizards if not full Death Eaters where still active in the wizarding world at the time--to return and fight for the school after Harry was believed dead, an event that sapped the fight out of all the other individuals--save for Neville Longbottom--still alive in the school.

No one kills Voldemort, not even himself. Although the intent was probably to presume that the killing curse spell rebounded from Harry back to Voldemort just as it had sixteen years previously, the actual happenstance was that the Elder Wand, improperly held by Voldemort, redirected its attack at Voldemort in punishment for the pretentiousness of being used against its rightful master without first being properly earned. Therefore, although Harry probably would have killed Voldemort soon after, the whole of the wizarding world was saved by an object the majority of which had never heard of and the few who had doubted its existance.

And finally, Dolores Umbridge is the biggest wubsy in the whole of the wizarding world: having no qualms with which way the popular sentiment rolled she was perfectly content with working for the legitimate ministry (as perhaps the biggest toad there ever was) and positively thrived in the Voldemort regime. She also almost enabled Voldemort to survive by retaining control of his locket, the horcrux made from Slytherin's heirloom.

So, not entirely sure what purpose that served, but I hope you enjoy reading at least part of that synapse and feel free to comment on the upcoming movies!

Interesting little facts, including some stuff I had forgotten.

No shame in being a Potter fan. I adore the books myself, or well, the last two at least. Book 6 and 7 are actually very good and entertaining to read. Best character (in books and movies) are no doubt Snape. Really interesting fellow all way through.

I do try!
Now let's see if I got the youtube thing right this time...


Edit--Yarg!!! Oh well, we'll leave it at that for now... maybe some kind soul can help me...

Also--I'm becoming sort of a Slytherin fan--I think that Harry's son Albus is destined to be in the serpintine house. He is specifically described as the only one of Harry's children who inhereted Lily's eyes, and throughout the whole series Jo Rowling cites--indirectly--the fact that the eyes are the doorway into the soul. For Albus to be placed in Slytherin would be poetic justice for the "heir" of Lily Evans-Potter to finally be placed in the house that her best friend, Severus Snape, wanted her in. It's also fair to mention that with the middle name of Severus, Harry's youngest son has the initials of ASP, making for a really cool Slytherin.

Have ya'll seen the new harry potter section of Universal Studios Orlando? I haven't been yet but it looks awesome.



Even standing in line for the ride looks pretty neat



I might try to go down in the fall when it's cooler and there aren't as many crowds.

Originally Posted by the_mango55

Have ya'll seen the new harry potter section of Universal Studios Orlando? I haven't been yet but it looks awesome.

oh man, doesn't that look cool!

I did go to see the Harry Potter exhibit when it went to the Boston Museum of ... what is it, Natural History? Actually I kinda hate Boston, the layout of it anyway, but I live pretty close by so my made the Hajj over there. It was so fun to see the props and costumes from the movies! I can only imagine how the Orlando park must be...

edit: GARRR! I don't know what's wrong with that video!
I know I'm doing it right, and a youtube screen shows up when I try the post preview, but all that's posted is the code between the youtube script!

Reading that brought up some sweet memories. That plus my awful memory which has made me forget many details of the books, are really tempting me to start reading the last two books again. However, I have to take care of the books which I'm in middle of the process of reading them first.
Btw, HP movies suck IMHO.

Originally Posted by Bokks

-the second horcrux, Marvolo Gaunt's ring, is destroyed by Dumbeldore using the sword of Godric Gryffindor sometime between the fifth and sixth books. It is also a Deathly Hallow, the death stone of Cadmus Peverell.

I obviously missed something while reading this. How was it destroyed when Harry used and subsequently lost it in the Forbidden Forest? Did the curse that went on to Dumbledore "destroy" Voldemort's presence on it?

Originally Posted by Soviet

I obviously missed something while reading this. How was it destroyed when Harry used and subsequently lost it in the Forbidden Forest? Did the curse that went on to Dumbledore "destroy" Voldemort's presence on it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dumbledore only destroyed the Horcruxes presence within the ring, the physical item afiter destroying a Horcrux remains.

Yep, Yoda Twin got it right.
It is a little strange, since it was cracked in half, but presumabely if it was simply made by an extraordinary wizard the enchantment was extra-strong, or if it in deed was enchanted by death himself, as the "Beedle the Bard tale" describes, then death's enchantment stays strong despite the physical damage.

I also think it may have been some very subversive message that Rowling was intending to make about how the Hallows, being sort of the legacy and strength of the whole of the wizarding world, would always be stronger than the horcruxes, simply being the vessels that held Voldemort's fractured, pitiful soul.

There were a few allusions to that end in the book, Harry constantly saying how it had become "Hallows vs. Horcruxes" but if Rowling ever intended on expanding on that concept she probably dropped it for lack of need of developing yet another concept in an already extremely developed plot.

Originally Posted by Bokks

Yep, Yoda Twin got it right.
It is a little strange, since it was cracked in half, but presumabely if it was simply made by an extraordinary wizard the enchantment was extra-strong, or if it in deed was enchanted by death himself, as the "Beedle the Bard tale" describes, then death's enchantment stays strong despite the physical damage.

I also think it may have been some very subversive message that Rowling was intending to make about how the Hallows, being sort of the legacy and strength of the whole of the wizarding world, would always be stronger than the horcruxes, simply being the vessels that held Voldemort's fractured, pitiful soul.

There were a few allusions to that end in the book, Harry constantly saying how it had become "Hallows vs. Horcruxes" but if Rowling ever intended on expanding on that concept she probably dropped it for lack of need of developing yet another concept in an already extremely developed plot.

IMO the plot was already overcomplicated enough and the final 5 - 10 chapters of the novel felt extremely rushed and though this fast pace suited the showdown at Hogwarts, the chapters leading up to it were extremely dissapointing with it seeming as if Rowling was os eager to get to the final confrontation, she didn't really care for how they got there.

I really think the whole Hallows idea was a great idea, but should of been explored in another book, with the plot of the 7th being the Ministry's downfall and Voldemort's ascension and the 8th focusing on Harry's quest for the Horcruxes and the Hallows.

I remembering reading the first chapter of the first book over 5 years ago. I haven't read anymore Harry Potter since. In the end I simply don't care about little kids. I want older, more mature characters. Wizards are cool. 12 year old wizards in training are not. I've seen three or four of the movies. I loathe them all except for the last one which was good but not great in anyway. It at least was good enough for me to not hate it. I actually saw it in the theater too (nothing else was out and my sister is a big Harry Potter fan). Another thing that doesn't appeal to me is the whole wand thing. I mean, a wand is basically a small stick. There is nothing noble or threatening about them. If a wizard has a staff then that is cool. Staffs show that the wizard is old (and therefore wise). It's also long and can be used practically.

I mean, who is more awesome?



The answer is obvious.

Originally Posted by Lord Rahl

I remembering reading the first chapter of the first book over . I haven't read anymore Harry Potter since. In the end I simply don't care about little kids. I want older, more mature characters. Wizards are cool. 12 year old wizards in training are not. I've seen three or four of the movies. I loathe them all except for the last one which was good but not great in anyway. It at least was good enough for me to not hate it. I actually saw it in the theater too (nothing else was out and my sister is a big Harry Potter fan). Another thing that doesn't appeal to me is the whole wand thing. I mean, a wand is basically a small stick. There is nothing noble or threatening about them. If a wizard has a staff then that is cool. Staffs show that the wizard is old (and therefore wise). It's also long and can be used practically.

I mean, who is more awesome?



The answer is obvious.

Yeah man. Voldy there looks like he's holding a vibrator.

Originally Posted by Lord Rahl

I remembering reading the first chapter of the first book over 5 years ago. I haven't read anymore Harry Potter since. In the end I simply don't care about little kids. I want older, more mature characters. Wizards are cool. 12 year old wizards in training are not. I've seen three or four of the movies. I loathe them all except for the last one which was good but not great in anyway. It at least was good enough for me to not hate it. I actually saw it in the theater too (nothing else was out and my sister is a big Harry Potter fan). Another thing that doesn't appeal to me is the whole wand thing. I mean, a wand is basically a small stick. There is nothing noble or threatening about them. If a wizard has a staff then that is cool. Staffs show that the wizard is old (and therefore wise). It's also long and can be used practically.

I mean, who is more awesome?



The answer is obvious.

Then why are you here? Run off to your little Lord of the Rings thread and leave us be.

Originally Posted by Manco

I loved them, and I started reading them when I was pretty old already.

It's obvious Rowling had some problems in the end with trying to tell a dark story in an essentially innocent 'childish' world though. Death Eaters and the Order fighting each other with giggling spells? Come on, where were the explosions and dismemberments? The summoning of ravenous monsters?

There was explosions and giant spiders and giants.

I bet the giggling spells was just because they didn't want to kill or that was the first thing that came to their mind. I mean there are a lot of spells, it'd be hard to remember them all especially when a cloaked killer is running at you.

Glad to see that there are some Harry Potter fans on TWC!

Unlike Peter and the Starcatchers, I believe I'm the only one that has read those books.

I remember I started reading them after the first movie was announced. God did I tear through them after I finished the fourth book and was a fan from the beginning. I remember how in the first book, Rowling makes mentions to Norbert "viciously ripping off the head of the teddy bear Hagrid had packed with the dragon".

I was eight at the time and it cracked me up, considering that I was on a road trip and it was raining.

I still find it funny

No shame in liking Harry Potter, I've read them all and they were entertaining. But I just didn't like the whole wand waving saying latin gibberish that's in it. And in any case the magic is pretty weak in Harry Potter anyway. I prefer Raymond E. Feist "Midkemia" and "Kelewan" series, George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire", Terry Pratchett's "Discworld"(for some lighthearted fantasy/satire) and Ursula Le Guin's "Earthsea".

I recommend any of those if you haven't read them. But Harry Potter was a solid read when I read the first as a kid and then the next ones as I grew up, because they did mature at about the same pace as I did

HP is great to get kids into reading, I enjoyed reading them tbh.

Wow, the last book was published in 2007? How time flies. Feels like yesterday.